Analysis from The Australia Institute said 10 universities together spent more than $390m on travel in 2023 and 27 institutions spent $410m on consultants amid executive pay and wage underpayment scandals.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The American higher education system, long admired as a global bastion of innovation, faces an existential threat. Since early 2025, sweeping federal funding cuts and politically motivated restrictions have destabilised universities, echoing the mid-twentieth century flight of European scientists to the USA – but with the roles reversed.
This time, the UK has a chance to emerge as a refuge for displaced talent. To do so, it must act decisively, blending strategic policy with moral clarity.
Federal grants have historically fuelled breakthroughs in US universities, from cancer therapies to artificial intelligence. However, recent policies have transformed funding into a tool of ideological control. Take Columbia University, which lost $400 million in federal contracts after refusing to dismantle its diversity initiatives. Or Dr Naomi Lee, a public health researcher in Arizona, whose decade-long NIH-funded programme linking indigenous students to STEM careers was abruptly defunded. “They told us our work ‘promoted division,’” she says. “But our data showed it was bridging gaps.”
The consequences ripple beyond individual projects. At Johns Hopkins, layoffs have gutted labs studying pediatric vaccines. Graduate students at Southern Illinois University, already grappling with shrinking state support, now face indefinite pauses on dissertations reliant on federal grants. “I’ve seen colleagues pack up microscopes and hard drives,” says Dr Raj Patel, a materials scientist at SIU. “They’re not just leaving institutions – they’re leaving the country.”
This climate of fear mirrors Europe’s 1930s, when scholars fled fascism for American shores. Albert Einstein, denied a professorship in Nazi Germany, reshaped US physics. Enrico Fermi’s reactor experiments at the University of Chicago laid groundwork for the atomic age. Today, the US risks squandering this legacy – and the UK can learn from history.
Post-war America’s scientific dominance wasn’t accidental. Programmes like the Rockefeller Foundation’s refugee fellowships lured talent with visas, funding, and academic freedom. Similarly, the UK’s response must be proactive. Canada’s “Tech Talent Strategy,” which fast-tracked visas for 3,000 displaced US researchers in 2025, offers a blueprint. But Britain’s advantages – language, elite universities, and shared research traditions – could yield even greater rewards.
Simplify pathways for displaced scholars: the UK’s Global Talent Visa, while robust, remains underutilised. Streamlining applications for researchers in contested fields – climate science, EDI, public health – would signal openness. Pair this with grants to offset relocation costs, as Germany’s Alexander von Humboldt Foundation does.
Forge strategic institutional partnerships: UK higher education institutions should leverage ties with US peers under duress. Imagine Cambridge and Columbia co-funding a “satellite lab” in Cambridge for researchers fleeing US restrictions. During the Cold War, the CERN particle accelerator thrived through multinational collaboration.
Target gaps in the US research landscape: The Trump administration’s aversion to “politicised” fields has left vacuums. The NIH’s 2025 freeze on gender-affirming care research stalled dozens of clinical trials. By prioritising such areas, UK funders could attract top talent while addressing unmet needs.
Mobilise private and philanthropic support: A modern “research sanctuary fund” could operate on this principle – pooling resources from philanthropic organisations, ethical investors, and forward-thinking corporations to create a safety net for displaced researchers. Unlike traditional grants tied to narrow deliverables, this fund might prioritise intellectual freedom, offering multi-year support for teams whose work has been deemed “controversial” or politically inconvenient elsewhere.
The power of such a fund lies in its ability to align diverse interests. Corporate partners, for instance, could gain early access to breakthroughs in exchange for underwriting lab costs, while higher education institutions might leverage these partnerships to expand their global research networks. To attract talent, the fund could experiment with hybrid models – pairing academic stipends with industry fellowships, or offering “innovation visas” that fast-track relocation for researchers whose expertise fills critical gaps in national priorities like AI ethics or climate resilience.
Speed would be essential. When a government abruptly withdraws funding, researchers don’t have years to navigate bureaucracy. A streamlined application process – perhaps involving peer endorsements rather than exhaustive proposal requirements – could allow decisions within weeks, not months. The goal? To position the UK as the default destination for thinkers seeking stability, not just survival.
Critics might argue this approach risks politicising philanthropy. But that’s precisely the point. In an era where knowledge itself is increasingly weaponised, protecting open inquiry becomes a radical act. By framing the fund as a defence of academic sovereignty, backers could transcend traditional charity narratives, appealing to those who view intellectual migration not as a crisis to manage but a talent pipeline to cultivate.
Any ambitions for the UK to become a global hub for displaced academic talent face undeniable obstacles. Lingering funding shortfalls following Brexit, coupled with persistent political resistance to immigration, threaten to undermine even the most well-intentioned initiatives. The bureaucratic realities – such as visa processing times stretching to six months – create additional friction at precisely the moment when speed and flexibility are most critical.
Yet these challenges only underscore the urgency of action. The competition for top-tier researchers has never been more intense. Countries like Canada and Germany have already streamlined their immigration systems to capitalize on the shifting academic landscape, offering faster visa approvals and more generous relocation packages. Every day of delay risks ceding ground to these rivals, eroding the UK’s long-term position as a leader in research and innovation.
The choice is stark: adapt quickly or accept a diminished role in shaping the future of global scholarship. Addressing these hurdles will require more than piecemeal solutions – it demands a fundamental rethinking of how the UK attracts and retains intellectual talent. This means not only expediting visa processes but also confronting deeper questions about funding priorities and public narratives around immigration. The alternative – watching as the world’s best minds bypass Britain for more welcoming shores – would represent a historic missed opportunity.
This isn’t merely about poaching talent. It’s about safeguarding the ethos of academia – curiosity, collaboration, dissent – at a time when the US is retreating from these principles. When the University of Frankfurt dismissed Einstein in 1933, he didn’t just bring equations to Princeton; he brought a belief that science should transcend borders and ideologies.
The UK now faces a similar crossroads. By opening its doors, it can honour the spirit of figures like Rosalind Franklin, whose X-ray work in London (though overlooked in her lifetime) underpinned DNA discovery. It can also modernise its economy: a 2024 Royal Society study found that every pound invested in migrant researchers yields four pounds in patents and spin-offs.
History rarely offers second chances. The UK has an extraordinary, fleeting opportunity to redefine itself as a global hub for free inquiry – one that could echo America’s post-war ascent. This requires more than visas and funding; it demands a public commitment to academia as a force for progress, not a political pawn.
We know that past learning experiences directly correlate to progress and preparedness for higher education study. But are we to accept that the adverse relationship with outcomes for different students’ entry routes is driven by academic performance at university?
There is evidence that students who enter with vocational qualifications are more likely to drop out or get a lower degree classification because of poorer academic performance. This lack of progression is alarming, and initiatives steered to increase progression opportunities that support better overall performance remain both a challenge and a strategic priority for the university sector. HESA statistics for the 2021–22 academic year show the “dropout rate” for first year students with vocational qualifications continues to increase by one percentage point across the sector year on year.
Furthermore, there remains a consistent four percentage point awarding gap between those with vocational and those with traditional qualifications. Despite their higher dropout and non-progression rates, students progressing from vocational qualifications represent a significant growing pathway into HE and many who progress, go on to graduate with at least a 2.1.
A 2022 Nuffield report on the relationship between 16-19 subject, higher education choices and graduate outcomes found “…a weakening of the relationship between entry qualifications and outcomes once comparing individuals with similar module scores.” This implies that educators have a significant part to play in ensuring approaches to setting, measuring and enhancing performance are fair and equitable. Specifically, inclusive assessment design should be central to the educational experience, ensuring all students can fulfil their potential irrespective of their route to HE.
Ongoing work on student engagement such as this 2023 framework for inclusive and effective student engagement from QAA, has demonstrated clear benefits from creating communities that build identity and belonging though adopting inclusive approaches, enhancing student engagement, motivation and progression. Applying these principles means recognising that students entering HE from vocational routes like BTECs possess unique skills.
Through their studies they have developed hands-on learning and real-world application, giving them practical skills directly relevant to their chosen field. Additionally, they engage in self-directed projects and coursework, fostering independence and time management skills essential for managing university workloads. Many vocational courses offer work placements, providing valuable career insights that foster a professional mind-set from day one. Unlike traditional A levels, BTECs are assessed through coursework and practical assessments, helping students develop strong research, critical writing, and project management skills.
All of the above combines with a wealth of lived experience – BTEC students often come from diverse educational backgrounds – which enhances these students’ adaptability and resilience. Furthermore, the emphasis on practical achievements and continuous assessment fosters a positive mindset and a sense of belonging and community. These skills provide vocational students with a solid foundation for success in HE. So what are we not getting right?
Like many other universities, we recognise each cohort is unique and a one size fits all approach may not have sustained impact. Learning, teaching, and assessment design should provide an equitable experience for all students regardless of prior learning experiences and route into HE. We have streamlined our approaches, drawing on evidence of what is “working” to enable us to embed efficient and effective approaches to being intentionally inclusive within assessment design.
It’s early days, but we are already seeing improvements in the number of students that are passing all modules first time from a variety of entry routes and through approaches that celebrate and embrace the unique skillsets of all students. Through five interconnected themes we are making steady and sustained progress through exploring inclusive assessment practices and reviewing the narrative of learning.
Supporting student confidence is foundational to academic success. We have found that developing shared assessment literacies can help students recognise their capabilities and potential. This can directly speak to the unique skillset that students bring from a range of diverse routes: for example, creating Hidden Curriculum Guides that unpack unfamiliar language and concepts, drawing from past experiences to socialises the unknown so that students can feel confident in their understanding and learning journey.
Embedding effective pedagogical approaches employs a blend of student-centred and humanistic methods to create dynamic and responsive learning environments. These approaches are tailored to meet the specific needs of students. Evidence-based approaches include empowering students to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application for life-wide learning and preparedness for the journey ahead. These examples not only integrate effective pedagogical approaches but support a range of skillsets, positioning the educational experience through empathy and compassion in developing supportive transition and orientation interventions and deepening the shared understanding of lived experiences.
Assessment diversity and timely feedback are crucial. Our commitment to inclusive assessment practices creates space where all students can demonstrate their knowledge and skills effectively. Through co-created integrated approach to inclusive assessment, we have produced a set of inclusive assessment and feedback principles: clear, understood, authentic, robust and personalised.
Creating a sense of belonging is vital for student engagement and retention. Inclusive classroom environments that celebrate diversity and foster community connections help students feel valued and supported. Harnessing the practice elements will bring a newfound confidence to the forefront of the learning experience. Flipping the classroom, so students have a more meaningful experience creates a sticky campus, and a strong sense of togetherness which particularly suit students that have entered HE via a vocational route. Initiatives such as peer mentoring and collaborative projects have been successful in creating a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere.
Recognising and valuing the diverse entry backgrounds of students not only enhances learning but also promotes equity and inclusion by drawing on the value of their individual learning experiences to enhance their learning journey. We identified the need for targeted support mechanisms that bolster student confidence during the transition to and through HE. Our emphasis on the importance of diverse pedagogical approaches, inclusive assessment practices, and feedback mechanisms provided solid foundations.
Learning from programme teams about what works to maximise real-world learning from current practice is essential to building trust. Our five-phase approach provides a scaffolding based on our unique learning journey. The challenge remains for us as a sector to address and share knowledge holistically, which draws from evidence-based practice with the aim of enhancing student outcomes. Working collegiately with the student body, this is both an urgent and important issue to address with the growing number of students joining universities from vocational routes. There is a government push to increase capacity for vocational routes in HE and so if universities are to stay relevant in this space, there is an urgency to find solutions, learning from programme leaders who are passionate and best placed to know students. Together and collaboratively, we can drive forward real intervention with sustained impact, it matters for student success.
For more about the authors’ work to create inclusive learning environments see the special editions of Innovative practice in higher education and Pedagogy collating evidence shared at our learning and teaching festivals in 2023 and 2024.
Harvard University is introducing changes to its admissions, curriculum and orientation and other aspects of campus life as recommended by two internal task force reports on discrimination and harassment released Tuesday. The goal is to support civil discourse and address concerns raised by the two task forces, which were convened more than a year ago to review antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias at the university.
The university also plans to initiate a research project on antisemitism and provide support for a “comprehensive historical analysis of Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians at Harvard,” officials announced Tuesday. Harvard will also invest in Jewish studies and organize events featuring experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Deans will work with faculty to ensure students are treated fairly regardless of political and religious beliefs and prevent professors from taking political positions in class that create feelings of exclusion, according to the task force reports.
A review of disciplinary policies and procedures is also planned.
The announcement comes as the nation’s wealthiest university is locked in a standoff with the Trump administration over how officials handled pro-Palestinian campus protests last spring, which has prompted the federal government to freeze billions in research funding for Harvard and led the university to fire back with a lawsuit. Now, amid withering federal scrutiny and an ongoing Title VI investigation, Harvard has released more than 500 pages detailing the recent concerns of Jewish, Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students along with recommended improvements.
Of the two task forces, one focused on combating antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias while the other took on anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias. Those task forces, launched in January 2024, were asked to examine Harvard’s recent history, identify root causes of bias, evaluate evidence on the frequency of such behaviors and recommend steps to combat bias.
That work is now done. And the end result finds Harvard lacking—but aiming for improvement.
Harvard president Alan Garber noted that the report “revealed aspects of a charged period in our recent history” that required addressing. While the university has already made various changes since he became president last January, he noted the work is far from finished.
He also expressed concerns about the findings.
“Especially disturbing is the reported willingness of some students to treat each other with disdain rather than sympathy, eager to criticize and ostracize, particularly when afforded the anonymity and distance that social media provides. Some students reported being pushed by their peers to the periphery of campus life because of who they are or what they believe, eroding our shared sense of community in the process,” Garber wrote in a Tuesday statement.
The dual task force reports show a campus sharply divided in the aftermath of the deadly Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which prompted a brutal counteroffensive in Gaza and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, children among them. The antisemitism task force report makes clear that tensions had been building on campus since the mid-2010s as the Israel-Palestine conflict became more divisive. The report found that after Oct. 7, “our Harvard community fell apart.”
Authors of that report noted that since the 2010s, pro-Israeli events and guests were targeted, and some Jewish students with pro-Israel views found themselves excluded socially. They also found that Jewish students and others on campus faced instances of bullying, intimidation and harassment and were shunned for expressing pro-Israel or moderate views. Students also alleged that university programming skewed in favor of Palestinian views. But then after Oct. 7, some Jewish students noticed a shift in the campus climate.
“My experience has been different before and after October 7th,” one student wrote to the task forces. “Before October 7th, being Jewish was largely irrelevant. It was not a barrier. I was proud to be Jewish. When it came up, it was positive. After October 7th, I experienced the following in this order: first there was pressure, then there was chaos, then hostility, and in certain spaces, the normalization of subtle discrimination like, ‘We’ll welcome you in this space if you align in a certain way. If not, you can’t come here.’ This has to do with the enforcement of rules.”
Jewish students also expressed concerns about speaking up.
“I do not feel mentally safe on campus. Though I am not Israeli, I have openly expressed sympathy for October 7th survivors and attended events for Holocaust survivors. I have faced many social consequences for not thinking in ways my classmates would deem progressive, which I find unreasonable,” one student wrote in response to a survey by the two task forces.
The task force exploring anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias yielded similar findings, with students and employees alike reporting threats and concerns related to their identities.
“The feeling over and over again for Palestinians is that their lives don’t matter as much,” one student said. “Sometimes it’s explicit. It’s really hard when it’s your family that matters less.”
Others expressed free speech concerns.
“It would be close to impossible to express views at Harvard sympathizing with Palestinians,” one Harvard faculty member said, as quoted in the report. “The idea of ‘antisemitism’ has been expanded so much that anything that even remotely expresses concern about the calamity that’s facing Palestinians is prohibited at Harvard. I’m not Arab/Muslim and have no ethnic or religious affiliations with Palestinians other than having a connection as a fellow human being.”
Both reports also expressed safety concerns regarding doxxing trucks and related online campaigns as well as about the role those outside the Harvard community had in amplifying campus divisions.
Respondents to task force surveys also saw Harvard as complicit in failing to address concerns.
“I’ve had positive interactions with the administration. They just don’t know what to do,” one graduate student wrote in a response. “They didn’t expect this level of anti-Zionism. [My school] didn’t expect having to draw a line between free speech and harassment. Anti-Zionism is considered an intellectual exercise and not as discrimination by some in the administration.”
In his statement, Garber noted the university has already “made necessary changes and essential progress on many fronts” including campus protest rules and various other areas.
But more changes are coming as a result of the task force’s recommendations. On admissions, Harvard has committed to reviewing its processes to emphasize candidates who “engage constructively with different perspectives, show empathy, and participate in civil discourse.”
The university will also offer additional training for Office for Community Conduct staff on antisemitism and hire a staffer to oversee all antisemitism and shared-ancestry complaints. Mental health professionals at Harvard have already received cultural competency training on anti-Muslim bias and antisemitism to give them a better understanding of student needs.
Harvard has also committed to partnering with an Israeli university.
Additionally, deans will work with faculty “to define shared expectations for teaching excellence,” a process intended to ensure “appropriate focus on course subject matter” and to ensure “that students are treated fairly regardless of their identity or political/religious beliefs.” That effort also aims to promote “intellectual openness and respectful dialogue among students” and urges faculty members to refrain “from endorsing or advocating political positions in a manner that may cause students to feel pressure to demonstrate allegiance.” The stated aim of a related curriculum review is to uphold “standards of academic excellence and intellectual rigor.”
The university will also host a series of events on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Harvard is further investing in Jewish studies, including hiring additional personnel. The university will make similar investments in Arabic language and cultures and Islamic and Palestinian studies.
Harvard is also “exploring the creation of a major initiative to promote viewpoint diversity.”
FIRE has filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of Rümeysa Öztürk in her lawsuit against the Trump administration. FIRE argues that the U.S. government is unlawfully detaining Öztürk for protected speech and reviving the authoritarian spirit of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the process. The brief’s summary of argument follows.
It is unthinkable that a person in a free society could be snatched from the street, imprisoned, and threatened with deportation for expressing an opinion the government dislikes. Certainly not in the country envisioned by our nation’s framers. America’s founding principle, core to who and what we are as a nation, is that liberty comes not from the benevolent hand of a king, but is an inherent right of every man, woman, and child. That includes “the opportunity for free political discussion” as “a basic tenet of our constitutional democracy.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 552 (1965). And “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). For these reasons, along with all citizens, “freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945).
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, is arresting and detaining a PhD student, Rümeysa Öztürk, not because the government claims she committed a crime or other deportable offense, but for the seemingly sole reason that her expression — an op-ed in a student newspaper — stirred the Trump administration to anger. ICE made a discretionary decision to detain Ms. Öztürk under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). See Order, ECF No. 104, at 38. This Court explained that “her detention did not flow naturally as a consequence of her removal proceedings.” Id. The Secretary argues his discretionary power over lawfully present international students includes the authority to order their arrest, detention, and deportation for even protected speech. It does not.
The First Amendment’s protection for free speech trumps a federal statute. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 268 n.20 (1967). Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Foreign students would (with good reason) fear criticizing the current American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media, lest they risk arrest, detention, and eventually deportation. That result is utterly incompatible with the longstanding recognition that “[t]he essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident,” and that “students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957).
Secretary Rubio claims (as do all censors) that this time is different, that university students’ pro-Palestine (and, as administration officials allege, anti-Israel) views cannot be tolerated. But “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (holding the First Amendment protects burning the American flag in protest); see also Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 454 (2011) (holding the First Amendment protects displaying “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” posters outside a military funeral).
The government’s actions against Ms. Öztürk harken back to the infamous Alien Friends Act of 1798, which allowed President John Adams to deport any alien deemed a danger to “public safety.” An Act Concerning Aliens § 2, 1 Stat. 571 (1798). It was “one of the most notorious laws in our country’s history,” “widely condemned as unconstitutional,” and “may have cost the Federalist Party its existence.” Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148, 185 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Yet today, Secretary Rubio allows a stain of history to repeat itself. This Court must act.
The “First Amendment does not speak equivocally. It prohibits any law ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow.” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941) (invalidating criminal convictions, including of a non-citizen, based on protected speech). Our “liberty-loving society” does not permit arrest, detention, and deportation as a punishment solely based on an opinion voiced in a newspaper. The Court should grant Ms. Öztürk’s petition.
“Knowing which pieces you want exchanged is a great help in finding the right moves.” – Graham Burgess, chess master and author
In a game of checkers, players often make tactical, reactive moves based on the immediate situation with game pieces that generally move in standard ways. In a game of chess, on the other hand, each type of game piece has a distinct movement potential. Players must leverage strategy and careful planning several steps in advance. Each move impacts future possibilities, so players try to analyze the current state and potential future scenarios to inform their decisions.
Make no mistake, in higher education today, you’re playing chess with your academic program portfolio and market strategy. To assist you in this process, we discuss Archer Education’s critical tool of Program Viability Assessment — the art and science of knowing how your programs best move across the market “game board” toward portfolio-level success.
A Program Viability Assessment analyzes a higher ed program’s potential for demand and growth, net revenue, operational sustainability, and alignment with organizational goals. Through the assessment process, an institution can identify its risks and opportunities, allowing it to make informed decisions about its resource and investment allocations and strategic direction.
A Program Viability Assessment can be used for both current and potential new programs. For this discussion, we focus on current programs within an existing portfolio, asking: Are the current programs viable, and, if so, are they expected to continue to be? In an upcoming article, we will tackle new program opportunity assessment: Does the new program idea have a product-market fit?
Let’s discuss the process for conducting a Program Viability Assessment of your current programs.
Our Program Viability Assessment process uses a model that captures a program’s recent historical performance, determines its five-year growth potential, and then marries this view with its cost inputs and any institutional constraints (e.g., hurdle rates, margin mandates, and internal revenue share agreements).
Our typical process steps are as follows:
Applying the Program Viability Assessment to each program results in an investment road map for the program portfolio — akin to a multistep chess strategy. Basically, how do you think of each program (game piece) and its ability to move in the right direction in current and future market conditions? For example:
It is important to be transparent about the program viability process and the criteria for investment decisions at the institutional level to anticipate and avoid leadership bias concerns. It can also be useful to consider incentives (not necessarily monetary) for recognizing how and when to grow a successful program (i.e., the fun part) as well as incentives for recognizing how and when to sunset a program that has served its purpose (i.e., the challenging part).
By openly acknowledging the “product life cycle” of academic programs across the institution — i.e., a natural beginning, middle, and end to a program’s contribution to the portfolio — you can remove unnecessary reputational wear and tear on academic units working to meet evolving market demands.
At its heart, a Program Viability Assessment is a conversation among faculty and subject matter experts, enrollment management leadership, and institutional executives to steer the university’s market strategy, program resourcing, and strategic objectives. This is a robust, data-driven process that provides input opportunities for a variety of critical stakeholders.
Here’s why program viability matters.
Understanding the viability of a program helps the institution allocate resources (time, money, personnel) as effectively as possible. E.g., it prevents continued investment in programs that are unlikely to succeed.
Evaluating program viability allows an institution to identify the potential for upcoming risks and uncertainty, enabling leaders to develop strategies to mitigate those risks.
Programs that align with an institution’s overall strategy are more likely to succeed. Assessing a program’s viability ensures that the program contributes to the institution’s current and future-oriented mission and objectives. This includes programs that have leadership support and those that intentionally test new topics or market areas.
A program’s long-term success is contingent upon its ability to sustain itself financially and operationally. Program viability analysis looks at factors such as ongoing demand, market competition, and resource requirements.
Conducting a Program Viability Assessment is a rigorous process that develops a common standard for defining success, enabling an institution to measure progress and adapt as necessary to improve its portfolio-level outcomes. It provides a framework for decision-making that can enhance overall institutional effectiveness.
Finally, let’s take a look at a few brief examples of how powerful this kind of assessment can be.
Here are a few recent examples of Archer analyses that illustrate why taking the time to complete program viability analysis is important.
A state university had built a regional center decades prior and wanted to understand why, after years of success, the center was barely breaking even instead of growing as it had in the past. The regional center offered several bachelor’s degree programs that enabled students in the area to come to a campus for in-person instruction, versus having to commute a significant distance to the main campus or commit to a fully online program.
The growth potential for these programs’ topic areas was generally sound. However, upon review of recent census data, Archer discovered that, in this particular region, there was very little difference in wages between those with a high school diploma and those with a bachelor’s degree, calling into question the value proposition of the center offering primarily degree programs.
The shift in regional income levels occurred due to some impactful employers leaving the area in recent years. This finding was enough to start an executive-level conversation about how best to deploy the center’s resources to support the community beyond the current degree program approach and to start a study to determine the economic impact of closing the center as a last resort.
A small, private regional institution was concerned about the small enrollment numbers for its Bachelor of Science (BS) in Criminal Justice program, which had been in the market for more than five years. Despite the original market research showing demand for criminal justice skills in the area, the program did not reach viability (e.g., sufficient class sizes to reach break-even revenue). Costs to support the program were modest.
Upon deeper review of the local context, Archer learned that the police academies in the region had updated their training programs such that there was now significant overlap between the skills taught in the academy and those taught by higher education institutions in the region. The finding was the catalyst for a revamp of the program curriculum and enhanced coordination with local law enforcement academies.
A private institution with strong business programming showed a steady decline in enrollments in its undergraduate accounting degree program for the past five years. A broad market analysis revealed that the industry was suffering from a malaise — in short, the certification requirements were too onerous; the salaries lagged those of related content areas, such as finance and business technology; and there was not enough innovation in the topic area to appeal to current student populations.
Rather than close the program in defeat, the institution decided to test a new value proposition for the program by embedding data analytics and artificial intelligence (AI) content in the curriculum to provide enhanced skills acquisition. They also offered additional certified public accountant (CPA) exam preparation support at a modest cost. Marketing messaging immediately showcased these enhancements.
Program Viability Assessments can support institution-level strategic conversations, foster inclusive decision-making, and spark creative problem-solving. This ultimately drives the ambitious impact institutions seek, within the institution and in the broader market.
Contact our strategy and development team today to learn more about how Archer Education can help you assess the sustainability of your programs and achieve growth.
GERMANTOWN, Tenn., April 29, 2025 — After a federal lawsuit, the town of Germantown, Tennessee, has sent to the graveyard an ordinance that was used to fine a resident for using giant skeletons in a Christmas lawn display.
Alexis Luttrell received a citation and court summons from the Memphis suburb in January for keeping up decorative skeletons after Halloween and repurposing them for Election Day and Christmas. In February, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the citation thrown out and Germantown’s unconstitutional holiday ordinance overturned on First Amendment grounds. FIRE also committed to defending Alexis against the charges in municipal court.
Germantown voluntarily dismissed the municipal charges against Alexis a month later, but FIRE’s federal lawsuit against the ordinance remained pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. But last night, the Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted to repeal the ordinance entirely, and Germantown agreed to a $24,999 settlement in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit.
“Not only am I no longer at risk of being fined for my skeletons, the unconstitutional ordinance is now dead and buried,” Alexis said. “Today is a victory for anyone who has ever been censored by a government official and chose to fight back.”
The ghastly affair began in October 2024, when Alexis purchased a large decorative skeleton and skeleton dog for Halloween. She later kept the skeletons up and dressed them with Election Day signs in November and then Santa-themed attire in December.
COURTESY PHOTOS OF ALEXIS AND HER SKELETON DISPLAYS
Perplexingly, this was illegal under Germantown Ordinance 11-33, which required that holiday decorations “shall be removed within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 30 days.” In Germantown officials’ view, Alexis’s skeletons weren’t “really” Christmas decorations, but an unsanctioned Halloween display. In December, the town sent Alexis a warning that she violated the ordinance, and followed up with a citation and summons when the skeletons were still up in January.
Germantown’s ordinance wasn’t just an exercise in misguided micromanagement, it violated the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, Americans are free to put up holiday decorations on their property whenever they like, not just in a government-approved period of time. And by demanding the Santa-themed skeletons come down — even if one has a dark sense of humor, or happens to like Tim Burton movies — the city engaged in viewpoint discrimination about what constitutes an “acceptable” Christmas display.
“Germantown’s leaders deserve a lot of credit for quickly repealing its holiday ordinance after FIRE’s lawsuit,” FIRE Attorney Colin McDonell said. “Instead of digging in and wasting time and taxpayer dollars defending an unconstitutional ordinance, they boned up on the First Amendment and did the right thing.”
Alexis’ skeletons have remained in her yard and she’s continued to dress them up with different outfits and decorations for new holidays. Since February, they’ve been dressed in Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day, and Easter garb, and Pride Month and Juneteenth are coming up soon.
“Alexis and all the residents of Germantown can now celebrate the holidays of their choice on their own property without worrying their creativity will get them fined,” said McDonell. “And that’s how it should be in a free country.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
Artificial intelligence will change higher education till 2025, presenting opportunities and challenges. Polls show 84% of higher education workers use AI daily.
ChatGPT lecturers use AI, and 92% of UK students embrace it.
Universities must negotiate AI’s complexities as it enhances teaching and overcomes natural limitations.
For AI to reach its potential, institutions must understand and overcome its major benefits and quick adoption challenges. Let’s discover all this in this post.
The Problem with Manual Grading & Feedback
Often labor-intensive and erratic, traditional grading systems are For a good chunk of their workweek, professors grade and offer comments. Teachers grade and provide comments for a median of five hours a week, according to a poll by Education Week.
In contexts of online learning, the time commitment could be much more important. According to a research written for the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, teachers dedicate roughly 12.69 hours a week to each online course—about 40% of which are used for grading and comments.
This large time commitment in grading can take away from other important duties such lesson planning and direct student involvement.
AI Tools for Grading and Student Feedback
AI-powered intelligent grading systems have become clear answers to improve consistency and efficiency in tests. By processing tests and assignments faster than hand grading, these AI systems help to lighten faculty workload and release their time for more critical chores.
Automating typical grading chores lets professors to concentrate more on educational tactics and individualized student interactions.
How to Automate Grading with AI in Higher Education
Using AI-driven tests calls for multiple steps of implementation, including:
Designed by the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, “All Day TA,” an artificial intelligence assistant, answered 12,000 student queries annually. This suggests that real-world uses of artificial intelligence in education abound.
Benefits of AI-Based Feedback Systems for Teachers
AI-powered feedback systems give students individualized, real-time information that makes learning more fun. These tools can look at how students answered, figure out what they did well and what they could do better, and give them feedback that helps them get better.
Artificial intelligence (AI) makes grading easier, which gives teachers more time for teaching and helping students, which leads to better educational results.
AI is a key part of personalized education because it lets faculty make learning paths that fit the needs of each student. AI-powered adaptive learning platforms can look at student performance data to change how material is delivered. This way, each student gets instruction that fits their learning style and speed through it.
AI-driven insights can also help find students who are at risk early on, so that they can get help when they need it to help them succeed and stay until they graduate.
AI is simplifying college administrative tasks and research. Using AI to streamline admissions, course scheduling, and staff responsibilities saves time and money.
Universities can use their resources more efficiently and focus on long-term learning programs by automating mundane administrative tasks.
Universities must address data security, faculty adoption, and the delicate balance between automation and human control to employ AI ethically and effectively.
1. Data Privacy & Ethical Concerns
Personalization and grading are automated by AI-powered systems that process massive student data.
2. Resistance from faculty and a lack of training
In spite of its benefits, AI is not easily utilized in higher education for the following reasons: The idea of limiting students’ freedom is still scary to many faculty . They don’t know how AI can be used to grade and leave notes.
3. Balancing AI with Human Oversight
Though it speeds grading, artificial intelligence shouldn’t replace human judgment—especially for challenging tasks like essays and creative projects! Universities must have measures in place to prevent AI comments from being accepted at face value and maintain equity. The best way is: a clever combination of human supervision with artificial intelligence efficiency to maintain accurate, balanced, and correctness.
Offering game-changing efficiencies and new challenges, artificial intelligence is revolutionizing higher education. The secret for colleges is to strike the proper balance—using artificial intelligence for automation without sacrificing the human element in learning. Early adopters of artificial intelligence will not only improve student performance but also keep ahead in a landscape getting more competitive.
All set to use artificial intelligence for better, more effective administration of education? Get in touch with Creatrix Campus and investigate AI-driven solutions catered for universities.
Higher education is not only changing; it is racing ahead and as professors we must either catch up or fall behind! AI-powered grading is here, revolutionizing our assessment of students and offers insightful comments rather than some far-off fantasy. This is not only a need by 2025; it is also a must. Using AI-driven technologies, professors may at last escape tiresome grading and concentrate on what really counts—guiding students toward success. Let’s get into the details in this article!
Artificial intelligence (AI) is taking over rather than only invading education. You should be aware, AI is transforming classrooms all around from administrative automation to tailored learning paths.
The figures don’t lie: with a predicted 31.2% CAGR through 2030, the $5.88 billion worldwide AI in the education industry is rising. This fast expansion emphasizes one thing: higher education is heavily dependent on AI-powered solutions to improve feedback, simplify tests, and raise learning results.
Grading isn’t a never-ending cycle of late evenings and red pens! AI-powered grading is rewriting the rules and transforming a once time-consuming task into an instant, intelligent workflow. AI-driven systems automate grading across tests, essays, and even difficult responses in a quarter of the typical time, therefore eliminating the need for burying oneself in homework.
And the resultant influence? Professors save up to 70% of grading time—time better used for real-world instruction, mentorship, and innovation rather than caught in an assessment cycle. AI is freeing professors to concentrate on what really counts—student success—not only saving time.
Grades are just numbers without context. Many times, traditional grading leaves students with unclear remarks or, worse, none at all. By giving rich, data-driven insights customized to every student, AI-powered grading transforms the game!
These clever technologies not only point out errors but also dissect replies, highlighting areas of strength and weakness with laser precision. The outcome of tailored, practical comments that enable students to advance more quickly than before. Customized feedback has been shown in studies to increase student performance by up to 40%; so, it is clear that intelligent grading results in intelligent learning.
Trust us, this is about changing our assessment and enhancement of student learning, not only about efficiency. See the image below that sums up how AI elevates student learning and engagement!
Artificial intelligence is taking over at full speed; it is not invading higher education. According to a recent EDUCAUSE poll, 52% of institutions use AI to automate administrative tasks while 54% of them currently use it to influence curriculum design.
Moreover, not only professors—43% of students actively use AI-powered products to improve their educational process.
These figures clearly show that intelligent evaluation tools and AI-powered grading are not only becoming the new benchmark but also not new. AI is showing to be the future of tests as institutions hurry to improve efficiency, feedback, and learning results.
Rising Artificial Intelligence-powered grading raises serious issues including algorithmic bias, data privacy, and a fear of losing human control. Is human touch ever replaceable by Artificial Intelligence grading? Should it? Institutions have to act early to guarantee ethical implementation: clear AI rules will help academics and students to know how AI evaluations operate.
Frequent audits of Artificial Intelligence models help to reduce bias and guarantee equitable grading.
Grading should improve learning, not hinder it. Creatrix Campus transforms AI-powered grading into faster, smarter, and more informative evaluations. Our solution lets instructors focus on teaching and mentoring by automating tiresome chores and providing real-time, individualized feedback.
Why Educators Trust Creatrix Campus:
Smarter grading. Improved learning. Build the future of assessments together!
AI-powered grading is not only a development but also a revolution in how we evaluate, analyze, and improve student learning as we head farther toward 2025. AI is altering the professor’s job from cutting grading time to providing individualized feedback at scale, freeing more attention on teaching and mentoring than on administrative overburden.
The next biggest question for higher ed leaders and assessment committees is not whether or not AI-powered grading should be embraced—rather, how quickly can we do it? Institutions may access smarter assessments, better learning outcomes, and a more agile academic ecosystem by adopting intelligent grading systems with a balanced approach—leveraging automation while keeping human oversight—by means of which they can maintain human control.
Grade’s future is already here. All set to discover how artificial intelligence might change your university? Get in touch with Team Creatrix to see how we are enabling institutions to advance with AI-powered solutions!
.
