Category: Featured

  • The Impact of AI on Student Placement Applications

    The Impact of AI on Student Placement Applications

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

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

    ***Sign up now for Wednesday’s lunchtime webinar on the school curriculum and how it can prepare students for higher education: register at this link.***

    • Dave McCall is a Placement Tutor, De Montfort University (DMU), and Zoë Allman (@zoe_a) is Associate Dean (Academic) at DMU.   

    As higher education explores the impact of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), colleagues from De Montfort University examine the use of AI in student placement applications.

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

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

    Placement Searching

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

    Not Forgetting ChatGPT

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

    AI Applications

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

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

    Preparing for Interview

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

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

    Levelling the Playing Field?

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

    Working with Employer Partners

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

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

    As AI transforms placement applications, universities play a pivotal role in preparing students for this reality. By promoting AI literacy and reflective practices and addressing equity and ethics, universities can empower students to approach placement applications with confidence and integrity. AI should serve as an enhancement tool rather than a barrier. Supporting students in understanding and appropriately using AI tools best prepares them for achieving professional aspirations.

    Source link

  • Live Workshop on Promoting Your Book Online for Academics

    Live Workshop on Promoting Your Book Online for Academics

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

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

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

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

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

    You should sign up if you’re open to

    • Sharing your book (or your research project)
    • Opportunities for your book to be featured in media (but aren’t sure where to start)
    • Helping more people with the writing / research you already do
    • Aim to attract funding
    • Want to build partnerships or collaborations for your equity focused work

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

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

    Icon of a person at their desk with a cup of coffee. On their computer monitor, a Zoom meeting is in progress.
    Icon of a video replay on a computer monitor
    Icon of a calendar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Goal-setting for your digital success as an academic for where to focusing your time and energy
    • Sharing your book or research project in meaningful ways on social media (in ways that don’t feel icky)
    • Using media to boost research impact and funding (and how being in the media can help you build relationships)
    • Media opportunities for your book and research even if you’re just starting to explore this path (digital, print, TV, YouTube, podcasts)
    • Live profile and online presence reviews
    • Q&A

    Sign up for Promoting Your Book Online for Academics.

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

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

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

    Frequently asked questions you may be wondering about.

    Where is the workshop?

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

    What if I can’t make it live?

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

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

    How much is the workshop?

    This event is $300 USD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Email me at [email protected].
    Or, send me a message on LinkedIn.

    Source link

  • Senate vote finalizes Linda McMahon as education secretary

    Senate vote finalizes Linda McMahon as education secretary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Top Agenda Items

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • The four contemporary mindsets of leadership

    The four contemporary mindsets of leadership

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

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

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

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

    Framework for leadership

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

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

    The experience of leading in a university during a pandemic made me question whether the role of a leader has changed permanently. I adopted four contemporary leadership mindsets that I believe are essential for the modern-day leader.

    1. Power of doubt

    During Covid, the one certainty was uncertainty. This meant the ability to predict what was going to happen and, subsequently, knowing how and what to plan became very challenging. During this time leaders still had to make decisions, often with limited information, and under immense time pressures. In hindsight, some of these decisions were not always the right decisions, or only had value for a short time span. 

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

    2. Incomplete leader (complete team)

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

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

    3. Engagement

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

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

    4. Empowering

    Empowering people is the last leadership approach that is fundamental.

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

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

    Repositioning leadership

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

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

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

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

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

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Nassau Community College punishes students, but won’t tell them why

    Nassau Community College punishes students, but won’t tell them why

    Email Nassau Community College now and tell them due process is not optional

    If actions speak louder than words, then Nassau Community College has made its stance crystal clear: it is not a fan of the First Amendment. This New York institution has an astounding track record of disregarding the rights of students and faculty, but even FIRE was shocked by the brazen lawlessness of NCC’s recent actions against two student leaders.

    The students, NCC Board of Trustees student member Jordon Groom and Academic Senate student chair Grant Peterson, were punished for alleged discrimination and harassment. While these are serious charges, the college fatally undermined the credibility of its sanctions by violating the most basic tenets of due process in doling out its discipline. 

    Groom and Peterson both found themselves embroiled in NCC’s broken disciplinary system late last year. NCC administrators initially told them that other students filed complaints against them for “discrimination” and “harassment,” but did not provide any further information. Now both students are left with no recourse, as they wonder how their due process rights could have been so badly violated by their local community college. 

    Last November, Peterson received formal notification of two complaints against him from NCC. But “formal” doesn’t mean it gave him any idea of what he allegedly did wrong — NCC just told him that complaints existed.

    Peterson was left to use his imagination about the substance of the allegations until Dec. 2, when he met with an NCC administrator, who finally allowed him to see the complaints. The complaints cited a number of instances of Peterson using strong language — like telling another student, “You have no idea what you’re talking about, once again,” or calling an administrator an “idiot.” Doing so was alleged to have been discrimination and harassment.

    Importantly, however, the college forbade Peterson from obtaining a copy of the complaint. NCC expected him to review the complaint — one that cited numerous alleged instances and charged him with high-stakes policy violations — and provide a substantive response to those allegations in the same meeting. There was no opportunity to provide a written defense or conduct a substantial review of the complaint. This was the sum total of Peterson’s “hearing.”

    Due process protections, when properly followed, ensure fairness in proceedings and outcomes that can be trusted by all participants in the justice system. 

    Groom never received formal notification of any complaints. He got an inkling that something was amiss only when he was asked to leave a meeting of the Nassau Board of Trustees in December because of an active investigation—which was news to him.

    Days later, he met with the same administrator as Peterson. Only this time, the administrator told Groom the complaint against him had been found meritless and had been closed, without offering any specifics. Great news, right? Wrong.

    On Jan. 22, NCC informed both Peterson and Groom they had both been found responsible for discrimination and harassment. The college suspended Peterson from all club and organizational leadership roles for the remainder of the academic year — including from his role as student chair of the NCC Academic Senate. Whatever it was Groom did, he was required to complete a training module. There was no mention of an appeals process.

    Obvious and basic principles of due process include:

    • Timely and adequate written notice of charges
    • A hearing process that includes the right to present evidence in your defense
    • A right to appeal

    NCC’s failure to provide even these basic requirements doesn’t even pass the “laugh test.” Sitting Peterson down for the first time with a stack of allegations and demanding he defend himself, now, is manifestly unjust. Groom didn’t even get to see the allegations against him before being found guilty, and was given outright misleading information to boot.

    FIRE wrote NCC on Feb. 7, explaining how badly the college compromised its disciplinary process by neglecting the basic tenets of due process: 

    Simply put, NCC’s procedural abuses have now muddied the waters so severely that they have adversely affected everyone even peripherally involved in the case except NCC administrators. NCC subjected the complainants’ concerns to a broken process. It subjected Peterson and Groom to disciplinary measures without any chance to properly respond to the substance of the complaints — without any due process.

    Accusations of discrimination and harassment are supposed to be taken seriously. This kind of total neglect of basic standards screams that it’s not being taken seriously at NCC.

    The college responded to us two weeks later, effectively declining to substantively engage with our concerns. With no appeals process available, Peterson and Groom have no internal recourse for this discipline. 

    Due process protections, when properly followed, ensure fairness in proceedings and outcomes that can be trusted by all participants in the justice system. Someone needs to tell that to NCC. As we told the college in our letter, “NCC’s failure is comprehensive and total.” The damage this will do to the college and its students down the road still remains to be seen.

    Source link

  • Key takeaways from OCR’s Title VI FAQ clarification

    Key takeaways from OCR’s Title VI FAQ clarification

    Over the last two weeks, FIRE wrote twice about the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ recent “Dear Colleague” letter, asking for more clarity about how OCR plans to enforce Title VI. This weekend, OCR began to provide much-needed clarity through a “Frequently Asked Questions” document, and promised to update the FAQ as needed. 

    While the FAQ document answers key questions, including addressing some points FIRE raised, one more item still needs to be addressed: OCR should expressly incorporate the Supreme Court’s hostile environment harassment standard articulated in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education when evaluating whether institutional programming creates a hostile environment.  

    Key clarifications from the FAQ:

    • OCR echoed Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Feb. 5 memo, confirming that institutional cultural celebrations or historical observations such as Black History Month and International Holocaust Remembrance Day do not violate Title VI. 
      • FIRE analysis: We advised colleges not to “overcomply” and prematurely cancel university cultural celebrations. Those that have cancelled events, including Grand View University in Iowa, should restore them. 
    • The FAQ distinguishes between K-12 classrooms and higher education classrooms, acknowledging that college discussions and coursework on race-related issues are less likely than K-12 programs to create a racially hostile environment. 
      • FIRE analysis: This is a win for academic freedom and free expression in higher education. OCR correctly notes the difference between the environs of K-12 and college classrooms — the latter being precisely where difficult discussions should take place. President Trump’s Jan. 21 executive order on DEI also explicitly protected higher education classroom instruction, an exception FIRE has long sought when government actors have attempted to reform campus DEI bureaucracies.

    Other parts of the FAQ leave room for additional clarification, particularly regarding the standard for determining when race-related speech can violate Title VI. 

    While FIRE does not take a position on affirmative action or other race-conscious practices at institutions, OCR’s interpretation of Title VI and the Students for Fair Admissions cases prohibits institutions from maintaining policies or practices that treat students differently based on their race. As the Feb. 14 “Dear Colleague” letter states: 

    If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law. Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life. Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race.

    It’s one thing for OCR to address institutional conduct in its policies or programs — prohibiting the distribution of benefits or the imposition of burdens based on race — but quite another to regulate institutional speech in programs. The FAQ would benefit from additional clarity on how the Supreme Court’s Davis decision applies to institutional speech, including mandatory trainings and institutionally sponsored events or programming. 

    OCR should explicitly confirm that when evaluating whether an institution has created a hostile environment, it will only consider conduct that is “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit” as rising to that level. Expressly mentioning the hostile environment harassment standard as articulated in Davis in future FAQ updates would help institutions better understand the difference between unlawful conduct and protected expression. OCR’s clarifications thus far are useful, but it must make this distinction clear going forward. 

    Source link

  • Academics should forcefully reject the claim they are “promoting ideology”

    Academics should forcefully reject the claim they are “promoting ideology”

    To the editor:

    Jonathan Eburne calls the National Endowment for the Humanities’ posting of the executive orders regarding the promotion of gender, equity and environmental justice ideology an act of “capitulation” equivalent to “the ideological extension of a political party” (“An Open Letter to the NEH,” Feb. 28, 2025). I share his critical stance toward the executive orders and the spirit driving them. But his accusation against the NEH is unfair and normalizes a dangerous misreading of the scope of the orders that higher education must avoid.

    The NEH chair and staffers are federal employees, bound to obey government directives. To refuse compliance would invite immediate termination of the agency’s talented, experienced staff and call the future of the agency into question. With them would go vital funding and stewardship for the humanities that sustains faculty, students, state humanities councils and members of the public.

    To be clear, these orders apply across the federal government, and nothing in them is specific to the NEH. They do not apply to research and teaching; one (EO 14173) includes a carve-out for institutions of higher education.

    By treating NEH projects as falling under the scope of the orders, Eburne implicitly assents to the notion that research and teaching are equivalent to promoting ideology. This is indeed the guiding belief in Florida, and it is shared by the current administration.

    In fact, “promoting ideology” is not an accurate definition of scholarly or scientific inquiry, including the important work of teaching and doing research on gender, equity and the environment.

    It is crucial that we stand up against attempts to define academics as promoters of ideology and thus as untrustworthy stewards of knowledge, or, as the vice president has put it, dedicated to “deceit and lies, not to the truth.” It’s malicious abuse of language designed to undermine people’s confidence in academia and in expertise in general. The right strategy is not to accept a bad definition—it’s to call out the definition as wrong and reject the labeling while these orders are litigated in the courts.

    Joy Connolly is the president of the American Council of Learned Societies.

    Source link

  • The Changing Landscape of Internships in Higher Education

    The Changing Landscape of Internships in Higher Education

    Title: Internships Index 2025

    Source: Handshake

    The latest research from Handshake reveals a troubling reality in higher education: the internship landscape is becoming both more competitive and less accessible, particularly for students already facing systemic barriers. Based on a November 2024 survey of over 6,400 students and recent graduates, combined with job posting and application data from over 15 million students and 900,000 employers on Handshake, this report highlights key trends shaping the internship experience today.

    Internship listings have fallen by more than 15 percent from January 2023 to January 2025. At the same time, applications have dramatically increased, doubling the competition for each available position. The decline is even more severe in high-paying fields—technology postings dropped by 30 percent, and professional services postings dropped by 42 percent.

    There are persistent participation gaps:

    • First-generation college students (50 percent) lag behind their peers (66 percent) in internship participation.
    • Students at institutions classified as “inclusive” in the Carnegie Classifications (those with less selective admissions) have much lower internship participation rates (48 percent) compared to students at institutions classified as “selective” or “more selective” (70 percent).
    • Students at these inclusive institutions are twice as likely as those at selective schools to cite financial constraints as their main reason for not pursuing internships.

    These disparities are exacerbated by practical realities. More than 80 percent of first-generation students and those at inclusive institutions report struggling to balance internships with coursework or employment. The timing of internship recruitment adds another challenge, with larger employers typically concentrating on hiring in fall and winter while smaller employers tend to recruit later into the spring.

    Yet internships remain transformative experiences when students can access them. Among those who have completed internships, 56 percent report that the experience was essential in making progress toward their career goals and 79 percent say the experience had a moderate or significant impact on their interest in working for that employer. Of students who haven’t yet participated in internships but hope to do so, 59 percent believe internships will be essential to clarifying their career goals.

    Quality of experience matters as much as access to the opportunity itself. Students who felt fairly compensated were more likely to accept a job offer from that employer (82 percent) versus those who felt underpaid (63 percent), and over half (58 percent) report that mentorship had a major influence on their desire to work for their internship employer.

    Internships have long been a critical bridge from college to career, offering more than just a line on a resume. By investing in robust internship programs, we not only nurture individual potential but also cultivate a dynamic, forward-thinking workforce prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow’s workplace.

    To read the full report, click here.

    —Alex Zhao


    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    by CUPA-HR | March 3, 2025

    On March 1, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Frequently Asked Questions  document providing further guidance on OCR’s February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” letter.

    The February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    The “Dear Colleague” letter outlines OCR’s enforcement position with respect to the legal requirements “under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities,” in light of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA). The letter states SFFA “clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful, sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI.” OCR declares in the letter that, in accordance with SFFA, federal law “prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” The letter states that OCR will “take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date,” which was February 28. OCR also notes in the letter that institutions that fail to comply “face potential loss of federal funding.”

    CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and dozens of other higher education associations in a February 25, 2025, letter to OCR noting  that the language in the “Dear Colleague” letter is ambiguous and, as a result, campuses are confused about their compliance responsibilities. CUPA-HR, ACE and the other associations requested in the letter that the department rescind the “Dear Colleague” letter and “engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of their legal obligations in this area.”

    The FAQ

    The March 1, 2025, FAQ provides details on how to file a discrimination complaint, the department’s view on what type of activity is unlawful and the department’s approach to enforcement.

    Enforcement

    With respect to the department’s approach to enforcement, the FAQ states that if OCR “determines that a school failed to comply with the civil rights laws that it enforces, [it] will contact the school and will attempt to secure its willingness to negotiate a voluntary resolution agreement.” The FAQ then states that “if a school is unwilling to negotiate a resolution agreement, OCR will inform the school of the consequences, which may result in OCR initiating enforcement through administrative proceedings or referring the case to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.”

    Unlawful Activity

    OCR notes in the FAQ that OCR’s assessment of whether an institution’s policies and programs are lawful “depends on the facts and circumstances of each case,” but provides more details on specific activities that do or may violate the law. The FAQ notes that it regards the following activities as unlawful:

    • preferences and stereotypes as a factor in admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and other programs and activities;
    • any programming, graduation ceremonies, housing, or any other aspect of school life that allows one race but not another or otherwise separates students, faculty, or staff based on race; and
    • policies that appear neutral on their face but are made with racially discriminatory purpose.

    With respect to the last bullet, OCR states in determining “whether a school acted with a racially discriminatory purpose, [it] may analyze different types of circumstantial evidence that, taken together, raise an inference of discriminatory intent.” OCR provides the following “non-exhaustive list,” which may include:

    • whether members of a particular race were treated differently than similarly situated students of other races;
    • the historical background or administrative history of the policy or decision;
    • whether there was a departure from normal procedures in making the policy or decision;
    • whether there was a pattern regarding policies or decisions towards members of a particular race;
    • statistics demonstrating a pattern of the policy or decision having a greater impact on members of a particular race;
    • whether the school was aware of or could foresee the effect of the policy or decision on members of a particular race; and
    • the school’s history and stated policy of using racial classifications and race-based policies to further DEI objectives, “equity,” a racially oriented vision of social justice, or similar goals.

    The FAQ also describes activities that could be unlawful. Specifically, the FAQ notes that “extreme practices at a university — such as requiring students to participate in privilege walks, segregating them by race for presentations and discussions with guest speakers, pressuring them to participate in protests or take certain positions on racially charged issues, investigating or sanctioning them for dissenting on racially charged issues through DEI or similar university offices, mandating courses, orientation programs, or trainings that are designed to emphasize and focus on racial stereotypes, and assigning them coursework that requires them to identify by race and then complete tasks differentiated by race — are all forms of school-on-student harassment that could create a hostile environment under Title VI.”

    DEI?

    The FAQ notes, “whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” but rather whether it discriminates “based on race, color, or national origin.” The FAQ notes that institutions “may not operate policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races,” or programming that “discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races.”

    The FAQ also notes, however, that “programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race.” OCR also states that “educational, cultural, or historical observances — such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events — that celebrate or recognize historical events and contributions, and promote awareness,” are lawful “so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination.”

    Next Steps

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor and keep members apprised of any further developments.



    Source link

  • Policy Proposals Lack Clarity About How to Evaluate Graduates’ Additional Degrees

    Policy Proposals Lack Clarity About How to Evaluate Graduates’ Additional Degrees

    Title: Accounting for Additional Credentials in Postsecondary Earnings Data

    Authors: Jason Delisle, Jason Cohn, and Bryan Cook

    Source: The Urban Institute

    As policymakers across both parties consider how to evaluate postsecondary outcomes and earnings data, the authors of a new brief from the Urban Institute pose a major question: How should students who earn multiple credentials be included in data collection for the college that awarded their first degree?

    For example, should the earnings of a master’s degree recipient be included in the data for the institution where they earned their bachelor’s degree? Additionally, students who finish an associate degree at a community college are likely to earn higher wages when they complete a bachelor’s degree at another institution. Thus, multiple perspectives need to be considered to help both policymakers and institutions understand, interpret, and treat additional degrees earned.

    Additional key findings include:

    Earnings Data and Accountability Policies

    Many legislative proposals would expand the use of earnings data to provide further accountability and federal aid restrictions. For example, the House Republicans’ College Cost Reduction Act, proposed in 2024, would put institutions at risk of losing funding if they have low student loan repayment rates. The brief’s authors state that the bill does not indicate if students who earn additional credentials should be included in the cohort of students where they completed their first credential.

    The recently implemented gainful employment rule from the Biden administration is explicit in its inclusion of those who earn additional credentials. Under the rule, students who earn an additional degree are included in both calculations for their recent degree and the program that awarded their first credential.

    How Much Do Additional Credential Affect Earnings Data?

    Determining how much additional credentials affect wages and earnings for different programs is difficult. The first earnings measurement—the first year after students leave school—is usually too early to include additional income information from a second credential.

    Although the entire data picture is lacking, a contrast between first- and fifth-year earnings suggests that the number of students earning additional degrees may be very high for some programs. As an example, students who earn associate degrees in liberal arts and general studies often have some of their quickest increases in earnings during these first five years. A potential explanation is because students are then completing a bachelor’s degree program at a four-year institution.

    Policy Implications: How Should Earnings Data Approach Subsequent Credentials?

    In general, it seems that many policymakers have not focused on this complicated question of students who earn additional degrees. However, policy and data professionals may benefit from excluding students who earn additional credentials to more closely measure programs’ return on investment. This can be especially helpful when examining the costs of bachelor’s programs and their subsequent earnings benchmarks, by excluding additional earnings premiums generated from master’s programs.

    Additionally, excluding students who earn additional credentials may be particularly valuable to students in making consumer and financial aid decisions if the payoff from a degree is extremely different depending on whether students pursue an additional credential.

    However, some programs are intended to prepare students for an additional degree, and excluding data for students who earn another degree would mean excluding most graduates and paint a misleading picture.

    To read the full report from the Urban Institute, click here.

    —Austin Freeman


    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link