Author: admin

  • What nations have the strongest democracies?

    What nations have the strongest democracies?

    In my capacity as a globetrotting Asianist, I frequently encounter people from the United States who want to brag about democracy. They are often surprised to discover how healthy it is in many Asian countries.

    The United States as the world’s longest standing democracy stands in contrast with its great geopolitical rival, China, one of the world’s most authoritarian political regimes. The U.S. Constitution came into effect in 1789, and famously begins with “We the people…” affirming that a government must serve its citizens.

    What’s more, U.S. law declares the promotion and protection of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms to be “principal” and “fundamental” goals of U.S. foreign policy. 

    But over the years, politics has evolved across both sides of the Pacific Ocean. By the measure of democracy set by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) the United States now falls short.

    The EIU considers it a “flawed democracy” and ranks it 29th out of the 167 jurisdictions surveyed. The demotion from “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy” came in 2016, the year Donald Trump was elected to his first term as president.

    The EIU assesses democracy worldwide based on five criteria: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture and civil liberties. In other words, there is a lot more to democracy than simply having elections.  

    Measuring democracy by world standards

    In this context, the United States scores poorly for its political culture. “The U.S. score is weighed down by intense political and cultural polarisation,” its report noted. “Social cohesion and consensus have collapsed in recent years as disagreements over an expanding list of issues have fuelled the country’s ‘culture wars’.” 

    Fault lines have deepened in particular over LGBTQ+ rights, climate policy and reproductive health. 

    Polarisation has long compromised the functioning of government in the United States and the country’s score for this category is also particularly low.  

    “Pluralism and competing alternatives are essential for a functioning democracy, but differences of opinion in the U.S. have hardened into political sectarianism and almost permanent institutional gridlock,” the EIU reported.

    Freedom House, a think tank which analyses freedom across the world, has also observed that democratic institutions in the United States have eroded. It cites: “Rising political polarisation and extremism, partisan pressure on the electoral process, mistreatment and dysfunction in the criminal justice and immigration systems and growing disparities in wealth, economic opportunity and political influence.”

    Democracy in Asia and the Pacific

    Across the Pacific, we find five “full democracies”: Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Taiwan, although the EIU’s report preceded the current political turmoil in South Korea. The region also has 10 “flawed democracies,” including Malaysia, India, The Philippines and Indonesia.

    Singapore, a country which is often criticised for its soft authoritarian political system, is also assessed to be a flawed democracy. But there can be little doubt about the government’s effectiveness in delivering services to its citizens. Singapore’s technocratic and managerial style governance have generated one of the world’s most prosperous and efficient economies. 

    Its GDP per capita, which is a way of measuring the economic wellbeing of a country, is $148,000 — among the very highest in the world, and ahead of the United States, Germany or Japan.  

    When it comes to economic freedom, Singapore leads the world according to the Heritage Foundation, while the United States ranks a mere 25th out of the 176 jurisdictions surveyed. Other Asia-Pacific economies which rank well are Taiwan (4th) New Zealand (6th), Australia (13th) and South Korea (14th). 

    Human capital has long been a key ingredient in Singapore’s economic success story. Singapore’s students topped the OECD’s 2022 Programme for Student Assessment which assessed the capabilities for 15-year-old students from 81 countries and economies for reading, science and maths. Indeed, Japan and South Korea are also ranked in the top 10 countries. The United States was ranked 34th with a similar score to Vietnam.

    Education is key to democracy.

    When it comes to universities, the United States is still the world leader, with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Princeton University, Stanford University, the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, Berkeley and Yale University all being ranked in the top 10 by Times Higher Education.  

    But Asian universities are now climbing the ladder, with China’s Tsinghua University now number 12, Peking University 13th, National University of Singapore 17th, the University of Tokyo 28th and Nanyang Technological University Singapore 30th.

    Asian citizens also enjoy much higher life expectancies than U.S. citizens or those of most other developed countries. Hong Kong tops the list of the world’s highest life expectancy at 86 years, with Japan, South Korea, Australia and Singapore all being in the top 10.  

    In comparison, the United States ranks just 48th in the world; Americans live on average some six years less than Hong Kongers. 

    And while Singapore and many other Asian countries are notorious for restrictions on personal freedoms, the trade-off is a safe society and an efficient economy. For example, Singapore is estimated by research group Numbeo to have a much better crime index and safety scale than the United States or France.  

    No monopoly on democratic values

    My American friends seem insistent that their open and free-wheeling society represents a unique source of creativity and innovation.  

    There is no doubt some truth in this perception — U.S. companies dominate Forbes list of the world’s most innovative companies. At the same time, companies from India, South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, China and Japan are now climbing up the Forbes list.  

    And while Switzerland, Sweden and the United States might top the Global Innovation Index, Singapore, South Korea, China and Japan are not far behind.

    Comparing the quality of democracy and governance is a complex exercise, something that a short article like this cannot sufficiently tackle.  

    But it is clear, based on a number of factors, that many Asian countries are doing quite well in developing systems of democracy and governance. The United States faces many deep challenges in contrast and could draw lessons from its Asian friends across the ocean.

     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. What is one common measure of democracy?
    2. In what way does the United States fall short on measures of democratic strength?
    3. What do you think is the most important characteristic of a democracy?

     

    Source link

  • First-year student enrollment spiked 5.5% in fall 2024

    First-year student enrollment spiked 5.5% in fall 2024

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • Enrollment of first-year students grew 5.5% in fall 2024 compared to the year before, representing an increase of about 130,000 students, according to a final tally from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. 
    • The figure is a striking reversal from the clearinghouse’s preliminary findings in October, which erroneously reported a decline in first-year students. Earlier this month, the clearinghouse said the early data contained a research error and suspended its preliminary enrollment reports, which use different methodologies to determine first-year student counts than the research center’s reports on final enrollment figures. 
    • College enrollment overall grew 4.5% in fall 2024 compared to the year before, according to the final data, rebounding to levels seen before the coronavirus pandemic caused widespread declines. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The new data is promising for higher education institutions, many of which have weathered steep enrollment declines in the wake of the pandemic. 

    “It is encouraging to see the total number of postsecondary students rising above the pre-pandemic level for the first time this fall,” Doug Shapiro, the research center’s executive director, said in a Wednesday statement. 

    Undergraduate enrollment surged 4.7% this fall, representing an increase of about 716,000 students. Graduate enrollment likewise spiked 3.3%, representing an uptick of about 100,000 students. 

    All sectors enjoyed enrollment increases. For-profit, four-year institutions had the largest enrollment growth, with headcounts rising 7.5% in fall 2024 compared to the year before. Public two-year institutions and public primarily associate-degree granting baccalaureate institutions, or PABs, saw similar levels of growth — 5.8% and 6.3%, respectively. 

    Enrollment also increased at four-year nonprofits. Overall headcounts grew 3.8% at private colleges and 3.1% at public institutions. 

    Older students largely drove the growth in first-year students. Enrollment of first-year students from ages 21 to 24 surged 16.7% in fall 2024, while headcounts of students 25 and older spiked by a whopping 19.7%. 

    Enrollment of younger first-year students also increased, though the growth was more muted. 

    Headcounts of 18-year-old students grew 3.4%. However, this group of first-year students has still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels, Shapiro said in a statement.

    Similarly, enrollment of first-year students ages 19 to 20 increased 4.5%. 

    Two-year public colleges and public PABs enjoyed strong increases in their first-year student population, with 6.8% and 8.4% growth, respectively. However, for-profit, four-year colleges saw the largest increase, 26.1%, according to the new data. 

    Headcounts of first-year students also spiked at four-year nonprofits, rising 3.3% at public institutions and 2.8% at private colleges. 

    Shapiro addressed the research center’s methodological error during a call Wednesday with reporters. The erroneous preliminary report found that first-year enrollment had declined by 5% — over 10 percentage points lower than what the final data showed. 

    “I think our sensitivity to abnormally large changes was somewhat reduced because we had a host of kind of ready explanations for why we might be seeing these declines,” Shapiro said, citing issues with the federal student aid form, growing concerns with student debt and changes in the labor market.

    The research center staff has been investigating its other publications to see if the issue crept into them. 

    So far, they discovered that the flawed methodology also impacted a February 2024 report on transfer students. The clearinghouse will correct that data when it issues its next transfer report in February. 

    The research center previously announced that the error affected other reports in its “Stay Informed” series, which shares preliminary enrollment data. It has halted those reports — which launched at the height of the pandemic — until it vets a new methodology.

    Source link

  • Trump signs executive order targeting DEI policies at colleges

    Trump signs executive order targeting DEI policies at colleges

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday targeting diversity, equity and inclusion programs at colleges and other “influential institutions of American society,” escalating the Republican-led crusade against DEI. 
    • The executive order declares that DEI policies and programs adopted by colleges and others can violate federal civil rights laws and directs federal agencies to “combat illegal private sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, and activities.”
    • Trump’s order also directs each federal agency to identify up to nine corporations or associations, large foundations, or colleges with endowments over $1 billion as potential targets for “civil compliance investigations.”

    Dive Insight: 

    Republicans have railed against diversity and inclusion programming on college campuses for years, with state lawmakers enacting 14 pieces of legislation that restrict or bar DEI since 2023, according to a tally from The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

    Federal lawmakers have likewise targeted DEI programs at colleges in hearings and proposed bills. With Trump’s flurry of recent executive orders, however, the newly sworn-in president has made clear that his administration will ramp up the fight against DEI at the federal level. 

    “Institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’” the order states. 

    Jeremy Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, a free expression organization, voiced concerns about the executive order. 

    “It launches a series of investigations into universities for merely having a DEI office or promoting DEI, diversity work on their campus,” Young said. “That, to us, is a pretty straightforward violation of the intellectual freedom of a university to promote ideas of all kinds on its campus.”

    At minimum, government investigations could amount to a nuisance, but at maximum, they could lead to lawsuits and actions against colleges, Young added. 

    Young also said the order is designed to sow division in the higher education sector by targeting colleges with endowments worth $1 billion or more. 

    “My hope is that higher education institutions will see this attack on a subset of their members as an attack on everyone,” Young said. 

    Trump’s new order also lacks a clear definition of what it deems as DEI programs or policies, Young said, raising concerns about unconstitutionally vague language. 

    State bills banning DEI similarly don’t have clear definitions, Young said. 

    “They become effectively a license to censor,” Young said. “Any government agency looking at them can claim that something is DEI because there is no actual definition in the order.”

    Trump’s order directs the nation’s attorney general, in consultation with federal agencies, to propose potential litigation against the private sector to enforce civil rights laws. It also orders agencies to identify “potential regulatory action and sub-regulatory guidance.”

    Trump also directed the U.S. education secretary to work with the nation’s attorney general to issue guidance to federally funded colleges within the next 120 days regarding how they can comply with the landmark 2023 Supreme Court decision that struck down race-conscious admissions. Trump’s nominee for education secretary, former World Wrestling Entertainment president and CEO Linda McMahon, is awaiting Senate confirmation hearings for the post.

    Tuesday’s executive order comes after he signed several other directives on the first day of his presidency meant to dismantle DEI efforts within the federal workforce. 

    Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Education and Workforce, lauded the executive actions against DEI. 

    “DEI has bloated education budgets while telling students what to think instead of how to think,” Walberg said in a Wednesday statement. “I commend the Trump administration for dismantling DEI.” 

    Tuesday’s executive order clarifies that instructors at colleges that get federal aid are not prohibited from “advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order” in their academic courses. 

    But Young said he hasn’t seen any legislation or executive order claiming to restrict DEI that doesn’t also restrict faculty instruction or roles in some way. “We have come to the conclusion that it may be impossible to do that,” Young said. 

    Trump’s order also says it does not prevent colleges from engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. 

    Young, however, said language like this amounts to a meaningless statement, as the First Amendment supersedes an executive order.  

    “The problem is that the language plainly does violate the First Amendment, and therefore it’s going to be years before the courts adjudicate it and, meanwhile, people have to live under these executive orders,” Young said.

    Source link

  • Liberty University in the Trump Era

    Liberty University in the Trump Era

    Responding to changing demographics, beliefs, and norms, US religious colleges must reflect what’s popular and profitable: Christian evangelism, prosperity theology, contemporary technology, and international outreach. Like other areas of higher education, Christian higher education must focus on the realities of revenues, expenses, and politics, as well as religious dogma.  

    While a number of Christian colleges and seminaries close each year, and many more face lower enrollment and financial woes, one conservative Christian university stands out for robust enrollment, stellar finances, and political pull: Liberty University. There are other older schools, particularly Catholic schools with more wealth and prestige, but that’s changing. And it could be argued that those schools are religious in a historical sense rather than a contemporary sense.    

    Two Liberties

    Liberty University is an educational behemoth, and has the advantage of being a nonprofit school that uses proprietary marketing strategies. The brick-and-mortar school, with an enrollment of less than 20,000 students, is predominantly straight, white, and middle-class. The school also has a strict honor code called the Liberty Way, which prohibits activity that may be counter to conservative Christian beliefs.

    The growing campus includes a successful law school that serves as a pipeline to Christian businesses and conservative government. The Jesse Helms School of Government and the ban of a Young Democrats club reflect its conservative principles. Liberty also houses the Center for Creation Studies and Creation Hall, with a museum to promote a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, to include the stories of God and the beginning of time, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, and Moses and the Ten Commandments. 

    Liberty University Online (LUO), an international Christian robocollege with about 100,000 students, is more diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, nationality, and social class. Despite a lower than average graduation rate, the online school is thriving financially, and excess funds from the operation help fund the university’s growing infrastructure, amenities, and institutional wealth. Liberty spends millions on marketing and advertising online, using its campus as a backdrop. And those efforts result in manifold profits.  

    Liberty History

    Liberty University was founded in 1971 by Jerry Falwell Sr., a visionary in Christian marketing and promotion, who used technology the technology of the time–television–to gain adherents and funders. Fawell’s vision was not to create a new seminary, but to educate evangelical Christians to be part of the fabric of professional society, as lawyers, doctors, teachers, and engineers.

    Responding to the political and cultural winds, Falwell Sr. moved away from his segregationist roots as he built his church Liberty University. It was not easy going for Liberty in the early years, which had to rely on controversial supporters. The minister also used the abortion question, the homosexual question, and conservative Christian evangelism in Latin America and Africa to energize his flock and to create important political alliances during the Ronald Reagan era. Information about those years are available at the Jerry Falwell Library Archives.

    During the Reagan era and beyond, Falwell’s idea of a Moral Majority proposed that Church and State should not be divided, and those thoughts of a strong Christian theocracy have spread for more than four decades. 

    In March 2016, Jerry Falwell Jr. referred to presidential candidate Donald Trump as America’s King David. And under the first Trump Administration, the school gained favor from the President. 

    Under Donald Trump’s second term, Liberty University should be expecting to get closer to that goal of a Christian theocracy. For the moment, LU has the political power and the economic power that few other schools have to enjoy.

    Related links:

    Jerry Falwell Library Digital Archives 

    Dozens of Religious Schools Under Department of Education Heightened Cash Monitoring 

    Liberty University fined record $14 million for violating campus safety law (Washington Post) 

    How Liberty University Built a Billion Dollar Empire Online (NY Times) 

    Source link

  • Building common ground in higher education

    Building common ground in higher education

    Welcome to year four of the “Beyond Transfer” blog on Inside Higher Ed. We’re humbled by and thankful for the lively and passionate community this has become. We continue to be impressed with the levels of readership, the exemplary work that various authors describe, the connections that are made as people respond to one another’s work and the dedication to students that jumps off the page. We begin 2025 feeling truly grateful to all those working hard every day to ensure fair treatment of students and their learning. Thank you for all you do.

    Each year, we kick off the “Beyond Transfer” blog with some reflections on what we’ve learned from you and all our partners on the ground and what that means for the year ahead. We are excited to welcome Sova’s new partner Marty Alvarado to this endeavor. Marty has a long history of leading impactful transfer and learning mobility work, and while she’s new to Sova, her insights have long guided our work.

    In 2024, Sova’s transfer and learning mobility team was far-flung and working deeply in many contexts. As a result, we begin 2025 midstride on a variety of fronts:

    • In states: The Sova team is embedded in truly consequential transfer and learning mobility work in several states. This hard, on-the-ground work includes facilitating state-level, cross-sector leadership tables, providing technical assistance for institutional collaborations, supporting implementation of legislatively mandated reforms and serving as a thought partner to state agencies and system offices in diverse political and governance contexts.

    The new year is a time when people reflect on the year that passed and make commitments for the year ahead. This year, we thought we’d play on that theme by sharing some reflections on the past year and what that means for our team’s commitments in the year ahead.

    You may have heard that Merriam-Webster’s 2024 Word of the Year was “polarization,” which Merriam-Webster defined as “division into two sharply distinct opposites; especially, a state in which the opinions, beliefs or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes.” For anyone who lived through the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the selection of this word of the year probably comes as no surprise.

    This led us to reflect on a hard lesson we have learned through our transfer and learning mobility work, which is that this, too, is a space that can quickly lead to polarization. So often, we hear blame placed on receiving institutions for not taking enough credits or on sending institutions for not preparing students well enough. We see examples of administration pitted against faculty for control over decision-making related to transfer credits. We even see the needs of transfer students held up against the needs of students who started and stayed at an institution. Sound familiar?

    So our first commitment for 2025 is to practice the art of depolarization. What do we mean by that? In many ways, this feels like a recommitment to values we already hold, but (being human) sometimes don’t fully live up to. We will welcome hard conversations. We will actively listen, with the goal of building understanding and empathy. We will begin hard conversations with a reminder to honor the perspectives and expertise of all present. We will focus on the human dimensions of change, which includes recognizing that people bring the beauty of their identities and experiences to the work alongside fear of loss, discomfort with conflict and differing styles. We will actively find ways to include all participants. We will transparently document differing perspectives. We will avoid overgeneralizations and stereotypes. We will remember that we work with educators who care about students and welcome being invited into collaborative problem-solving. And when we fall short of these recommitments, we will be open to others holding us accountable.

    Another commitment we have for 2025 is the work of finding and expanding the common ground. This too flows from an interest in depolarization and our shared conviction that common ground exists but can be easily drowned out amid the din of partisan hostility.

    We know that transfer touches many learners—in fact, likely more learners than we previously thought. New data from a survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans, conducted in a partnership between Public Agenda and Sova for “Beyond Transfer,” found that four in 10 respondents tried to transfer some type of credit toward earning an associate degree, bachelor’s degree or certificate. Moreover, those respondents shared that their credit transfer journeys took many forms, including seeking credit transfer for military experience, work-based learning and dual-credit courses in high school. Despite their different journeys, many shared the common experience of credit loss, with 58 percent of respondents indicating they had lost some number of credits when transferring. These data points demonstrate there is a large and diverse population of mobile learners that we should bring into the conversation to build awareness of the high incidence of transfer and generate support for policy action.

    While there are many contentious issues in higher education—including how to improve affordability and how to address ballooning student loan debt—transfer is an area with bipartisan support that, if we can improve, can generate downstream improvements in other areas, such as completion and affordability.

    In the same Public Agenda survey, respondents of all political backgrounds expressed strong support for a variety of policy ideas intended to improve credit transfer. Credit mobility and transfer might well be an issue around which Republicans, Democrats and Independents prove they are capable of agreement and joint action. Improving transfer stands to offer a triple bottom line for learners, institutions and taxpayers:

    • For learners: Recognizing more of their hard-earned credit is the fair thing to do, and research makes clear it will also advance their success by increasing retention and shortening time and cost to completion.
    • For institutions: Public appetite for transparency and accountability clearly cuts across political identities, and institutions would be well served by paying attention to this growing appetite and its relationship to the ongoing decline of public confidence in the value of higher education.
    • For taxpayers: Maximizing the credits earned for students will ensure taxpayer dollars are used to best effect.

    As we dive into 2025, we’ll keep working to dial down the finger-pointing and blaming, cut across silos and divides of our own making, and expand the common ground that already exists on transfer. We hope you’ll join us in finding ways to come together across multiple fronts—within institutions and systems, with government and policymakers at all levels, with accreditors and associations—to serve our students. They deserve it.

    Want to share your commitments for 2025? Please send your thoughts to [email protected] by Feb. 15. We will synthesize your thoughts and reflect them in an upcoming post.

    Source link

  • Trump administration allows immigration arrests at colleges

    Trump administration allows immigration arrests at colleges

    The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday rescinded guidance that prevented immigration arrests at schools, churches and colleges.

    Since 1993, federal policy has barred immigration enforcement actions near or at these so-called sensitive areas. The decision to end the policy comes as the Trump administration is moving to crack down on illegal immigration and stoking fears of mass deportations. 

    “This action empowers the brave men and women in [Customs and Border Protection] and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country,” acting DHS secretary Benjamine Huffman said in a statement. “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

    Advocates for undocumented people have warned that such a policy change was possible, and some college leaders have said they won’t voluntarily assist in any effort to deport students or faculty solely because of their citizenship status, although they said they would comply with the law. On Wednesday, the Justice Department said it would investigate state and local officials who don’t enforce Trump’s immigration policies.

    Source link

  • A troubling moment for public higher ed (opinion)

    A troubling moment for public higher ed (opinion)

    David Kozlowski/Moment Mobile/Getty Images

    Earlier this month, my institution, Southern Methodist University, made headlines by hiring President Jay Hartzell away from the University of Texas at Austin, one of the country’s largest and most prestigious public universities. The move surprised many on both campuses and sent shock waves through higher education.

    While I can’t presume to know all the motivations behind President Hartzell’s decision and I don’t speak for SMU, as a faculty member who studies higher education, I believe this moment demands our attention. Many public universities are under serious threat, and private universities need to realize that their future is closely tied to the success of their public counterparts.

    For more than a decade, SMU has been my academic home. The campus boasts smart and curious students, dedicated faculty who care about teaching and research, and strong leadership from the administration and Board of Trustees. We’re in the middle of a successful capital campaign and enjoying both athletic success after our move to the Atlantic Coast Conference and a growing research profile.

    Yet, even as I anticipate the leadership that President Hartzell will bring to SMU, I can’t ignore the broader context that has made such a move more common and deeply troubling.

    Hartzell isn’t the only example of a major public university president leaving for the relative safety of private higher education. His predecessor at UT Austin Greg Fenves left for Emory University. Carol Folt resigned from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before getting the University of Southern California presidency. Back in 2011, Biddy Martin famously left the University of Wisconsin at Madison for Amherst College in one of the early examples of this trend. So, what is going on and why are major public university presidencies less attractive than they once were?

    The Struggles of Public Universities

    Being a public university president in a red state is the toughest job in higher education today.

    Public universities in these politically charged environments are under siege. They face relentless ideological attacks from state legislators and are constantly forced to navigate resource challenges from years of underfunding.

    Politicians attacking public higher education are not simply questioning the budgets or management—they are attempting to dismantle these institutions. Efforts to reduce tenure protections, anti-DEI legislation and restrictions on what can be taught are all part of a broader effort to strip public universities of their autonomy.

    The goal of these attacks is clear: to reduce the influence and authority of public universities and their leaders and undermine the critical role they play in shaping a well-informed and educated workforce and citizenry.

    At the same time, some institutions are adopting policies of institutional neutrality, reducing the ability of presidents to speak out on these issues.

    The cumulative effect of these efforts is to make public universities and their leaders less effective in advocating for their missions, students and faculty.

    The Short-Term Advantages for Private Higher Ed

    In the short term, these challenges facing public universities have opened opportunities for private institutions. With public universities bogged down in political and financial crises, private universities can poach top faculty and administrators, offering them better resources and less political interference.

    I don’t fault private universities for capitalizing on these opportunities—they are acting in their own self-interest and in the interests of their own missions, students and faculty.

    But I fear that this approach is shortsighted and ultimately damaging to the broader higher education community. At a time when trust in higher education is declining, when the value of a college degree is being questioned and when the public is increasingly disillusioned with the academy, it is vital that we don’t allow attacks on public institutions to further erode public faith in all of higher education.

    Why Private Universities Must Stand Up for Public Higher Ed

    Private universities are uniquely positioned to advocate for the broader value of higher education and the critical role public institutions play.

    First, private universities can use their platforms to champion the ideals of higher education. With public universities under attack from state legislatures and special interest groups, private institutions can and should speak out against the politicization of higher education. Whether through research, advocacy or public statements, private universities can be powerful allies in the fight to protect the autonomy of public institutions.

    Second, private universities can advocate for increased public investments in higher education. They can use their influence to urge policymakers to restore funding for public universities and reject anti–higher education policies. At a time of declining public support, private universities can push for policies that ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to high-quality postsecondary education to develop the skills to succeed in today’s economy.

    Third, private universities can help bridge the divide between public and private higher education by forming partnerships with public two- and four-year institutions. These partnerships could include joint research initiatives, transfer and reciprocal enrollment programs, or shared resources to expand access and opportunity.

    The Time for Action Is Now

    In this critical moment for higher education, private universities need to demonstrate leadership—not just for their own interest, but for the interests of the entire industry. If we want to safeguard the unique contributions of both public and private higher education, we need to work together to ensure both sectors thrive.

    Now is the time for all those who believe in the transformational power of higher education to stand up and take action. The future of higher education depends on it.

    Michael S. Harris is a professor of higher education in the Simmons School of Education and Human Development at Southern Methodist University.

    Source link

  • Probabilities of generative AI pale next to individual ideas

    Probabilities of generative AI pale next to individual ideas

    While I was working on the manuscript for More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, I did a significant amount of experimenting with large language models, spending the most time with ChatGPT (and its various successors) and Claude (in its different flavors).

    I anticipated that over time this experimenting would reveal some genuinely useful application of this technology to my work as a writer.

    In truth, it’s been the opposite, and I think it’s interesting to explore why.

    One factor is that I have become more concerned about what I see as a largely uncritical embrace of generative AI in educational contexts. I am not merely talking about egregiously wrongheaded moves like introducing an AI-powered Anne Frank emulator that has only gracious thoughts toward Nazis, but other examples of instructors and institutions assuming that because the technology is something of a wonder, it must have a positive effect on teaching and learning.

    This has pushed me closer to a resistance mindset, if for no other reason than to provide a counterbalance to those who see AI as an inevitability without considering what’s on the other side. In truth, however, rather than being a full-on resister I’m more in line with Marc Watkins, who believes that we should be seeing AI as “unavoidable” but not “inevitable.” While I think throwing a bear hug around generative AI is beyond foolish, I also do not dismiss the technology’s potential utility in helping students learn.

    (Though, a big open question is what and how we want them to learn these things.)

    Another factor has been that the more I worked with the LLMs, the less I trusted them. Part of this was because I was trying to deploy their capabilities to support me on writing in areas where I have significant background knowledge and I found them consistently steering me wrong in subtle yet meaningful ways. This in turn made me fearful of using them in areas where I do not have the necessary knowledge to police their hallucinations.

    Mostly, though, just about every time I tried to use them in the interests of giving myself a shortcut to a faster outcome, I realized by taking the shortcut I’d missed some important experience along the way.

    As one example, in a section where I argue for the importance of cultivating one’s own taste and sense of aesthetic quality, I intended to use some material from New Yorker staff writer Kyle Chayka’s book Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture. I’d read and even reviewed the book several months before, so I thought I had a good handle on it, but still, I needed a refresher on what Chayka calls “algorithmic anxiety” and prompted ChatGPT to remind me what Chayka meant by this.

    The summary delivered by ChatGPT was perfectly fine, accurate and nonhallucinatory, but I couldn’t manage to go from the notion I had in my head about Chayka’s idea to something useful on the page via that summary of Chayka’s idea. In the end, I had to go back and reread the material in the book surrounding the concept to kick my brain into gear in a way that allowed me to articulate a thought of my own.

    Something similar happened several other times, and I began to wonder exactly what was up. It’s possible that my writing process is idiosyncratic, but I discovered that to continue to work the problem of saying (hopefully) interesting and insightful things in the book was not a summary of the ideas of others, but the original expression of others as fuel for my thoughts.

    This phenomenon might be related to the nature of how I view writing, which is that writing is a continual process of discovery where I have initial thoughts that bring me to the page, but the act of bringing the idea to the page alters those initial thoughts.

    I tend to think all writing, or all good writing, anyway, operates this way because it is how you will know that you are getting the output of a unique intelligence on the page. The goal is to uncover something I didn’t know for myself, operating under the theory that this will also deliver something fresh for the audience. If the writer hasn’t discovered something for themselves in the process, what’s the point of the whole exercise?

    When I turned to an LLM for a summary and could find no use for it, I came to recognize that I was interacting not with an intelligence, but a probability. Without an interesting human feature to latch onto, I couldn’t find a way to engage my own humanity.

    I accept that others are having different experiences in working alongside large language models, that they find them truly generative (pardon the pun). Still, I wonder what it means to find a spark in generalized probabilities, rather than the singular intelligence.

    I believe I say a lot of interesting and insightful things in More Than Words. I’m also confident I may have some things wrong and, over time, my beliefs will be changed by exposing myself to the responses of others. This is the process of communication and conversation, processes that are not a capacity of large language models given they have no intention working underneath the hood of their algorithm.

    Believing otherwise is to indulge in a delusion. Maybe it’s a helpful delusion, but a delusion nonetheless.

    The capacities of this technology are amazing and increasing all the time, but to me, for my work, they don’t offer all that much of meaning.

    Source link

  • Dual leadership controversies plague Seton Hall

    Dual leadership controversies plague Seton Hall

    Seton Hall University president Monsignor Joseph Reilly is facing mounting pressure from public officials and demands for transparency following a report alleging that he looked the other way on sexual abuse cases.

    At the same time, the university is contending with a lawsuit filed last year by former president Joseph Nyre, which alleges retaliation, breach of contract and various other misdeeds by the Board of Regents.

    The regents have remained silent on the Reilly situation and said little about Nyre’s lawsuit, beyond a report issued in July. Now lawmakers are ratcheting up pressure on the private institution to take action, raising questions about how the board is navigating the dual controversies behind closed doors with little public oversight.

    A Bombshell Report

    Reilly, who was hired as president in April, has a long history with Seton Hall.

    The new president earned a psychology degree from the university in 1987; in 2002, he became rector of the College Seminary at St. Andrew’s Hall, the undergraduate seminary of the Archdiocese of Newark, which is part of Seton Hall. A decade later Reilly became rector and dean of the university’s graduate seminary, a position he held until 2022. Then he took a yearlong sabbatical before returning as vice provost of academics and Catholic identity.

    Reilly also served on Seton Hall’s Board of Trustees—one of two governing bodies—during his time as an administrator.

    It was during his time at the graduate School of Theology that Reilly is accused of knowing about sexual abuse allegations that he did not report, according to documents reviewed by Politico. The case is linked to sprawling sexual abuse allegations involving disgraced cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the news outlet reported, who “created a culture of fear and intimidation” and “used his position of power as then–Archbishop of Newark”—which sponsors Seton Hall—“to sexually harass seminarians” for decades, according to a university report released in 2019.

    McCarrick, who sat on both of Seton Hall’s boards, was defrocked by the Vatican after he was found guilty of sexual misconduct in a canonical trial. A criminal case against McCarrick was suspended last year due to his inability to stand trial because of a dementia diagnosis.

    While Seton Hall never released to the public its full report on the abuse McCarrick allegedly committed, Politico’s review of the findings revealed that Reilly knew about the allegations against the cardinal and failed to report to university officials a student complaint about sexual assault by a seminarian. Politico also reported that Reilly dismissed another seminarian in 2012 who had allegedly been sexually abused and that he did not investigate the incident. In another instance, Reilly was allegedly made aware of a 2014 sexual harassment charge and did not report it.

    Politico also reported that Reilly did not fully cooperate with a 2019 investigation into McCarrick’s alleged abuse. A task force set up in 2020 to mete out discipline after the McCarrick scandal reportedly recommended removing Reilly from board and leadership roles.

    As the controversy has unfolded, Seton Hall has said little publicly.

    “As part of the search for the university’s 22nd president, the Board of Regents reviewed several candidates and overwhelmingly selected Monsignor Joseph Reilly to lead Seton Hall in recognition of his decades of effective service and leadership,” a Seton Hall spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “The Board of Regents remains unequivocal in its support of Monsignor Reilly and firmly believes in his ability and vision to enhance Seton Hall’s standing as one of the nation’s foremost Catholic universities.”

    The university did not provide a requested interview with regents, but the spokesperson added that following a 2019 review by a law firm, “the board determined that Monsignor Reilly should remain in his role and eligible for future roles at the University.” Seton Hall declined to provide a copy of the report.

    Demanding Answers

    Seton Hall’s silence has not gone unnoticed by Democratic state senator Andrew Zwecker, who chairs the Senate Oversight Committee and is vice chair of the higher education committee.

    “I’m appalled at the fact that they’ve just doubled down at this point without any transparency, just generic statements about values and doing a good job, et cetera,” he told Inside Higher Ed.

    Though Seton Hall is private, Zwecker noted that it receives about $2.5 million in state funding for certain programs. He added that the state could cut those funds—an option he might pursue if the university doesn’t respond transparently to concerns that Reilly ignored sexual abuse.

    “That is a lever that we must absolutely consider to keep the pressure on,” Zwecker said.

    He’s also weighing a public hearing. But Zwecker said he would rather see Seton Hall address the issue and answer questions about what Reilly knew about sexual abuse and whether the Board of Regents ignored those findings when it voted to hire him.

    If regents knew and “voted to install this president anyway, they should resign immediately,” Zwecker said.

    Democratic governor Phil Murphy also weighed in last week.

    “The Governor is deeply concerned by the allegations and believes that Seton Hall University must release the full report,” press secretary Natalie Hamilton told Inside Higher Ed by email.

    The Star-Ledger editorial board has challenged the university on its opacity, publishing an opinion piece on Monday under the headline “Why is Seton Hall hiding this sex abuse report?”

    Faculty members at Seton Hall are also pressing for transparency.

    Nathaniel Knight, chair of Seton Hall’s Faculty Senate, noted “considerable concern” among the professoriate and said he wants to see a “greater degree of transparency” from the university.

    Knight said he supported Reilly’s hiring when he was named president, noting he “had the institutional memory” given his years of service and seemed to “embody the spirit of Seton Hall.” But now Knight wants the university to fully explain the concerns around the new president.

    “I support Monsignor Reilly. I supported his hiring. I think he’s a good man, a man of integrity and religious faith, and is someone who brought a promise of bringing the university, the community, together around its core values as a Catholic institution of higher education. Whatever is out there, I’d like to be able to weigh that against the positives that I see with Monsignor Reilly,” Knight said.

    An Explosive Lawsuit

    For Seton Hall, the Reilly controversy comes on the heels of Nyre’s unexpected exit in 2023, which shocked many in the community.

    “It was a surprise. I think we were bewildered. He had been brought in with great fanfare not long before,” Knight said. “He saw the university through the COVID years with a steady hand and was in the process of implementing this strategic plan that he had crafted. We saw no indication that there were any problems in the works. It was out of the blue and had us all scratching our heads.”

    Nyre sued Seton Hall last February, alleging breach of contract and retaliation by the board.

    In the lawsuit, Nyre alleges he was pushed out by the Board of Regents following a clash with then-chair Kevin Marino, whom he accused of micromanagement, improperly inserting himself into an embezzlement investigation at the law school and sexually harassing his wife, Kelli Nyre, among other charges. Marino, who is no longer on the board, was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit despite being at the center of many of the allegations.

    “Our litigation centers on the alleged systemic failures of the Board of Regents and their unwillingness to comply with federal laws, including Title IX, Title VII, and Title IV, as well as university bylaws and policies,” Matthew Luber, an attorney representing Nyre, said in a statement. “As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendants prioritized self-preservation, suppressing dissent and retaliating against individuals like Dr. Nyre who reported misconduct and advocated for meaningful change. As further alleged in the Complaint, the Board of Regents not only neglected their fiduciary responsibilities, but exposed the University and its personnel to significant risk. No matter the outcome, change is urgently needed at Seton Hall.”

    The university has pushed back in court. Officials filed a motion to dismiss last March, alleging that Nyre failed to state a claim and that the terms of his exit agreement barred him from filing a lawsuit against Seton Hall and/or its Board of Regents. Lawyers for Seton Hall wrote in a brief that Nyre’s lawsuit “can best be described as gamesmanship, and at worst sheer dishonesty.”

    University officials did not address the Nyre lawsuit in a statement to Inside Higher Ed, but last July they released a report from an outside law firm rejecting the claims against Marino. Attorneys for the firm, Perry Law, wrote that they “found no evidence to substantiate Mrs. Nyre’s allegations regarding Mr. Marino, despite the purported harassment allegedly occurring in public places in close proximity to numerous other individuals.”

    The Perry Law report was issued July 2, one day after Reilly assumed office. The report did not include interviews with the Nyres, who the authors noted did not participate in the investigation. Witnesses present for the alleged incidents told investigators that they did not see Marino engage in the behavior he is accused of, and the former board chair has denied the claims and blasted the lawsuit as “desperate and pathetic.” And, in a statement to Inside Higher Ed last year, Seton Hall said the claims were without merit.

    As controversies around Seton Hall’s current and former leaders play out, more details are likely to emerge in the Nyre case, barring a dismissal or settlement. But the Reilly review may remain shrouded in mystery as Seton Hall hunkers down, ignoring widespread calls for transparency.

    Source link

  • New models of international partnership

    New models of international partnership

    Universities face a double jeopardy: a changing geopolitical world order and looming financial sustainability issues borne out of an over-reliance on international student fees.

    In some cases, it is estimated that up to 70 per cent of a university’s income is based on international fees. The dependence on international income is accentuated by loss of European markets following Brexit.

    The cumulative impact of fees, geopolitics, global competition, and domestic tensions around immigration have all added to a complicated picture that requires skilful navigation and innovative ways of working.

    There is cause for optimism, though. The Labour government has put universities at the heart of its international relations by making a commitment in their manifesto for universities to lead soft power and influence. The focus from Labour on putting universities at the heart of their mission for economic growth is welcome and recognises the critical role that universities play in developing partnerships internationally.

    To rise to this challenge, we need to rethink the way we do things – instead of imperialistic we need to be realistic. We must adopt new models of international collaboration, cognisant of the changing global order, to survive and thrive.

    Inspiration from India

    According to the latest Census data, Leicester has the largest population of people with Indian ethnicity outside of London. The links between our city and India run deeply through our culture, history, society and economy. What happens in India is relevant to us in Leicester and we can learn from one another.

    With this in mind, we have developed a partnership with one of India’s largest healthcare providers, Apollo Healthcare. It is a wide-ranging collaboration that will include the launch of a new joint Centre for Digital Health and Precision Medicine, bilateral higher education courses, and professional pathways that will address skills gaps in the NHS and India.

    This model combines shared research strengths for mutually beneficial outcomes that are applicable in both India and Leicester. Making the most of complementary areas of expertise, identifying shared aims, and finding areas of commonality are the key to this more reciprocal international model.

    Centre for Digital Health and Precision Medicine

    The Centre will harness the research strengths of the partners and the extensive longitudinal patient database of the Apollo Hospitals Group. This will help to deliver improved population health with a global perspective through better disease prediction and prevention, improved and earlier detection, diagnosis and management of multiple acute and long-term conditions in hospital and community settings. It will make a tangible difference to improving the health of communities in India and the UK, including local communities with Indian heritage in Leicester.

    In a globalised world, we must recognise that we can’t be the experts in every area of research. Truly two-way partnerships can help us to learn from leading experts overseas, combining our shared research expertise for mutual benefit.

    Working across continents with access to large population data also transforms the breadth, depth and quality of outcomes for our research. High volumes of diverse data allow researchers to answer more intricate questions and with greater speed – ensuring that outcomes can be translated into clinical practice sooner.

    Data-led and industry backed approach

    The importance of data in modern healthcare cannot be underestimated. Researchers at the University of Leicester were the first to identify the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on ethnic minority communities because of ethnically diverse data available to us in Leicester. We hope this partnership with Apollo will produce equally significant findings, supporting the partners’ shared commitment to inclusive and equitable healthcare.

    Another aspect of the partnership which marks it out as distinctive is that it is not just with another university – rather the University is working with an industry partner and the NHS. Apollo will have input into the curriculum – providing relevance in a globalised world – and in partnership with the University Hospitals of Leicester it will help address the shortfall in health professional skills and nurses and doctors. It is unusual for a university to work in partnership in this way with industry and public services – but it speaks to the need for universities to develop new approaches to partnership working that seek genuine change and are not driven by a narrow self-interest in student recruitment.

    Genuine partnership

    Our partnership is grounded in shared values where the benefits for both institutions as well as their local communities and countries are clearly defined. It represents a new type of international engagement that is mutually beneficial (recognising that many overseas partners have knowledge that is better than ours) – not a colonial attitude. It is grounded in the needs of industry – ensuring that despite changes in politics the skills and research requirements – partnerships will continue to be informed by industry and evolve quickly. It is also, most importantly, based on long term commitments between universities and communities in places that go beyond individual student preference and geopolitical factors. We hope that put together these factors and this new model will be better placed to stand the test of time.

    It is vital that universities in the UK adopt similar approaches to further demonstrate our importance and value to the UK – responding to the priorities set out by the Secretary of State for Education for universities to support economic growth at the same time as developing international links and contributing to the prosperity of our local communities.

    Delivering new and equitable models of partnership does not come without policy challenges and it is important that we consider them as a sector. We can no longer engage with the rest of the world with a ‘what is in it for me attitude’ or expect that partners will always deal with us on our terms. There are legitimate questions around which legal and governance frameworks are utilised, how research funders can work across multiple countries effectively and equitable funding and commercial arrangements that all require a shift in mindset and policy in the UK.

    None of these challenges are insurmountable, though, and they can all be addressed with the right approach. With new models of partnerships that are grounded in shared values and mutually beneficial, we can make a huge difference in the UK and globally.

    The new Centre for Digital Health and Precision Medicine will be led by Professor Sir Nilesh Samani from the University of Leicester, also the former Medical Director of the British Heart Foundation, and Dr Sujoy Kar, Chief Medical Information Officer & Vice President at the Apollo Hospitals Group. Its vision is to advance healthcare and its delivery through the development and deployment of digital health and precision medicine solutions using advanced analytics.

    Source link