Category: Featured

  • College English classrooms should be slow (opinion)

    College English classrooms should be slow (opinion)

    In a minorly famous letter to the duchess of Sutherland, Henry James advises that The Ambassadors should be read “very easily and gently,” specifying that his correspondent should ideally “read five pages a day.” At this pace, the duchess would have taken almost exactly 13 weeks to finish the book if she read every day of the week. One imagines that the novel would be tucked into otherwise inaccessibly glamorous, luxurious days for the duchess, days filled with, among other comforts, corresponding with James about how to read his latest novel.

    Five pages a day is very slow reading, but most of us would love to approach our reading at a more leisurely pace, if not a pace determined so prescriptively. On the other side of the spectrum of reading experiences, one finds the average student in college English classes—both undergraduate and graduate. To use my experience as an example, I was at the nadir of my reading life as an undergraduate English major; as someone who naturally reads quite slowly, I spent many nights of my undergraduate career standing at my dresser so I wouldn’t fall asleep while reading. (I couldn’t afford, and doubt I had ever heard of, a standing desk at that point in my life, and my dresser was the tallest piece of furniture in my room.)

    While doing this, I often took notes blindly in a notebook with my right hand while I held whatever book I was reading in my left. I would reread my notes the next morning to help me remember what I had read the night before. I loved the books I was reading, and I wanted to succeed in the classes I took, but I was also, by trying to read upward of 500 pages a week, making myself miserable.

    I don’t blame the professors who assigned the reading—all of them were gifted pedagogues, and not all of them assigned too much reading. They, too, inhabited a culture in which they were expected to work quickly and fulfill numerous demanding institutional roles (years later, I still remember one of my undergraduate professors saying she worked around 70 hours a week).

    Now that I’m on the other side of the academic experience, however, I’ve come to realize that each of us is responsible for resisting a culture that is, by all accounts, making students anxious, depressed and—dare I say it—unproductive at unprecedented rates. Students in undergraduate classes are primed to work quickly. Almost every part of their life—their experience on social media, their online shopping, their use of ChatGPT to complete assignments and their selection of a route on Apple Maps—is designed to help them reach tangible and intangible destinations as quickly as possible. Most students, meanwhile, are terrible at working slowly.

    As academicians, we’re constricted, of course, by all the reasonable and unreasonable demands placed on us by work, family and the other important parts of life, and when we read—especially when we read for professional, critical purposes—we read and work as quickly as possible, that “possible” being an ever-nebulous boundary toward which we strain and suffer while still trying to produce quality work. As professors, if we read books like The Ambassadors, we’re likely to read them in bursts and chunks—butcherly words that sound as unappealing as the process of reading a dense, beautiful novel in such a manner actually is.

    While we cannot, in the immediate future, totally alter the institutional structures of postsecondary liberal arts education, there are still things that English professors can do to resist the pressure for speed. Chief among them is to design a classroom that encourages our students to go slow.

    In their 2016 book, The Slow Professor, Maggie Berg and Barbara K. Seeber challenged the culture of speed in academia by advising faculty to work more slowly, a laudable goal, but one that critics pointed out was a luxury that untenured faculty simply couldn’t enjoy. The problem, of course, is that the people who design a job decide how much work ought to be accomplished in a given time frame, and untenured faculty have little control over the amount of work they are expected to produce to attain job security. However, what almost all professors, regardless of contract status, do have control over is how much work we require within a given time frame from the students we teach. In other words, we should design classes that treat our students in a way that we’d like our institutions to treat us.

    As English professors, our job is not to encourage quick thinking but to foster thorough, imaginative and critical thinking. To do this, we must design our courses to foster and prompt slow work that breaks students out of the habits of expediency they have developed throughout their time in school. Designing classes that foster intentional slowness takes effort, but it also means that we can craft the kinds of spaces that make literature enjoyable and show students the value and beauty of literary texts when they are encountered in an environment suitable for literary consumption.

    A slow classroom can take several forms. In the slow classes I’ve taught, it means requiring students to purchase paper copies of the texts we read and to keep a real, physical journal in which they respond to prompts weekly outside of class. I also do something in these classes that I wish someone had done for me when I was a student: I make it clear that they should spend a certain amount of time on work for my class outside the classroom but that they should also give themselves a cutoff time, especially when it comes to reading for class. I tell them that I take around two or three minutes to read a page of a novel well, sometimes more if the prose is dense, and that they should plan for each page of reading to take three to four minutes. I also tell them that if they make time to read and don’t finish, they shouldn’t panic; they should move on with their day and enjoy the nonacademic parts of their life.

    Most importantly, I assign less reading. Of course, I’d love to live in a world where my students have thoroughly read the English literary canon (whatever that means), but more than anything, I want them to have read something and to have read it well. To this end, I try to assign between 20 and 30 pages of reading per class meeting, which amounts to around 10 to 15 pages per day, not too far from James’s edict. Rather than just assigning this reading and hoping for the best, I explain to my students about why I assign this number of pages, talk to them about creating and choosing a time and space to read in their daily lives, and describe the process of reading in my class as one they should understand as a reprieve from the time-pressured demands of other courses.

    In class, I designate much of our time together as technology-free in order to make space for the rich and meaningful conversations that occur most fruitfully when we aren’t distracted by notifications from our phones and laptops. Students engage in small group and classwide discussions, and I challenge them with daily questions that push them out of their comfort zones. I task them with coming up with steel man arguments in support of cultural and fictional villains, I ask them to articulate what makes a good life by finding evidence for and theories of good lives in their reading, and I frequently make them dwell with a given scene until we’ve extracted every last bit of sense (and often a bit of senselessness) from it.

    We tackle around one question a day, if we’re lucky. But the answers and questions we walk away with are finer and fuller than the formulaic answers that students give when they’re in a hurry. In return for designing my class in a way that allows students to work slowly, I expect around the same amount of essayistic output in terms of page numbers, but I design essays to be completed slowly, too, by scaffolding the work and requiring creative responses to prompts to encourage the slow, critical thinking and writing that English professors long to read and rarely encounter. I’ve received work that was thoughtful and occasionally even beautiful, work that couldn’t have been written by AI.

    In many ways, my experience of earnestly trying to read around 500 pages of fiction a week as an undergraduate might seem anachronistic. Professors across disciplines have noted the apparent inability of students to engage with any extended reading, whether this means they’re not reading at all or that they just ask ChatGPT to do the “reading” for them. The irony of worrying—as many academics seem to be doing these days—that students will use artificial intelligence to read or write for them is that many undergraduate classes require students to work like machines, to read and write at a breakneck pace, a demand that prompts the ridiculous phenomenon of classes on speed reading, which many universities advertise and which are also available online (the one I’ve linked here is accompanied by the terrifying motto “Reading at the Speed of Thought™”).

    In a discipline for which the core method is close reading, the idea of students reading a novel as quickly as possible ought to make English professors shudder, and while it’s not necessary to dedicate an entire semester to a single novel, we ought to see course design as part of the solution to students rushing through their work. In an age that privileges fast work, near-constant availability and answers on demand, the slow English classroom is a reprieve, a space where deep, creative and inspired thought is given the time it needs to blossom.

    While our students will likely never occupy the rarefied spaces that the duchess of Sutherland enjoyed when James wrote to her in 1903, with our guidance and course design, they can experience the joy, power and, yes, the luxury of reading and writing slowly. We just have to give them the time.

    Luke Vines is a sixth-year Ph.D. candidate in the Department of English at Vanderbilt University. He recently began serving as the assistant director for academic support at Berry College.

    Source link

  • STEM accreditor drops DEIA from its standards

    STEM accreditor drops DEIA from its standards

    The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology has dropped diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility from its accreditation criteria and supporting documents, a move made in response to federal pushback on DEIA, according to an email obtained by Inside Higher Ed.

    “Recognizing the heightened scrutiny of higher education and accreditation—including recent directives and legislation in the United States—the ABET Board of Directors recently approved the removal of all references to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) from our accreditation criteria and supporting documents,” officials wrote in the email.

    ABET did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The move comes as President Donald Trump has turned campaign trail rhetoric against DEI into policy, issuing an executive order early in his term that took aim at what the administration called “illegal” DEI initiatives without specifying what would violate federal civil rights laws.

    “These changes were made in response to the significant challenges many institutions, academic programs, and industry partners face in implementing and sustaining DEIA initiatives,” ABET officials wrote in the email announcing changes to their accreditation criteria.

    The accrediting body also appeared to delete the DEIA page on its website that was active until at least last week, according to an archived copy that is accessible via the Wayback Machine.

    ABET currently accredits programs at 930 colleges, according to its website.

    Source link

  • More calls for Michigan colleges to end Chinese partnerships

    More calls for Michigan colleges to end Chinese partnerships

    More Republican politicians are calling for colleges to end their partnerships with Chinese universities.

    U.S. representatives John Moolenar and Tim Walberg wrote letters to the presidents of Eastern Michigan University, Oakland University and the University of Detroit Mercy demanding that they cancel their partnerships with institutions in China, expressing concerns that sensitive research could help the Chinese military advance its technological capabilities.  

    “The university’s [People’s Republic of China] collaborations jeopardize the integrity of U.S. research, risk the exploitation of sensitive technologies, and undermine taxpayer investments intended to strengthen America’s technological and defense capabilities,” Moolenar and Walberg wrote in all three letters. “You must immediately terminate these collaborations.”

    Pressure is mounting on U.S. higher ed institutions to cut ties with Chinese partners, whether in research collaborations, exchange programs or branch campus initiatives.

    Moolenar and Walberg’s letters come a few weeks after the University of Michigan ended a 20-year partnership with Shanghai Jiao Tong University. In September, Moolenar wrote a similar letter to Michigan president Santa Ono demanding an end to that collaboration after five Chinese international students were caught taking photos of training exercises at nearby Camp Grayling, where the state National Guard trains.

    EMU has partnerships with Beibu Gulf University and Guangxi University; Oakland partners with Changchun University of Science and Technology, Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, and Beijing Information Science and Technology University; and Detroit Mercy offers dual-degree programs with Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Yancheng Institute of Technology and Anhui Polytechnic University.

    Source link

  • Federally run tribal colleges reel from staff cuts

    Federally run tribal colleges reel from staff cuts

    Native American education advocacy groups are calling on the Trump administration to spare Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute from employee cuts, after the Office of Personnel Management ordered federal agencies to lay off most probationary employees.

    The two tribal colleges are the only ones operated by the Bureau of Indian Education rather than tribal nations, making them vulnerable to the administration’s federal workforce reductions.

    At Haskell Indian Nations University, about 40 people have already lost their jobs across campus departments, out of about 160 employees, according to a Monday letter from the Haskell Board of Regents to the U.S. Department of the Interior. The board urged in the letter that the university be exempt from the staff cuts. The Lawrence Times reported that the institution has had to postpone or cancel some campus events. Meanwhile, roughly 20 employees were laid off at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, out of a staff of about 100, according to Indian Country News.

    Pearl Yellowman, the former vice president of operations at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, who was recently laid off, told the Native American news outlet that one department has only a single employee left.

    “Our students are going to say, ‘Where’s my instructor?’ ‘What happened to my class?’ ‘What’s going on?’ ‘Is my future of being a student OK here?’ ‘Where’s my tutor?’ ‘What happened to this person?’ ‘Are my scholarships in jeopardy?’ ‘Is my financial aid in jeopardy?’” Yellowman told Indian Country News.

    Ahniwake Rose, president and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, said in a news release that “there are legitimate concerns that workforce reduction at these institutions will eliminate vital services and much-needed educational programs the students need to complete their degree programs.”

    Jason Dropik, executive director of the National Indian Education Association, emphasized in the release that the Bureau of Indian Education has a “federal trust obligation to educate Native youth.”

    “Significant workforce reductions will negatively impact students and have long-term educational consequences for our Tribal Nations,” he said.

    For Haskell, this isn’t the first time the university’s status as a federally run tribal college has been a source of tension. Kansas lawmakers have recently debated about whether Haskell should be under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Education at all.

    U.S. senator Jerry Moran and Representative Tracey Mann of Kansas announced plans late last year to propose legislation to remove federal control of Haskell, arguing the institution would be better run by a new university Board of Regents. The plan, backed by the then-president of the Haskell board, came after a tense congressional hearing regarding student and employee complaints about the university, which were revealed in a report by the bureau.

    After the recent staff cuts, Dalton Henry, president of the Haskell Board of Regents, recognized these policymakers and the Bureau of Indian Education for “working to reduce the impact of these changes.”

    “We are grateful for their attention to this issue,” Henry said in a news release.

    Source link

  • Richard Bland wins total autonomy from William & Mary

    Richard Bland wins total autonomy from William & Mary

    Richard Bland College is one step closer to total autonomy, the Progress-Index reported.

    The public two-year college in Virginia, established in 1960 as an extension campus of William & Mary, has always been governed by its parent institution’s Board of Visitors. Now both houses of the State Legislature have passed a bill that establishes an independent, nine-member Board of Visitors for Richard Bland—a longtime goal of the college’s administrators.

    The legislation now awaits Governor Glenn Youngkin’s signature.

    “Governor Youngkin has demonstrated his commitment to growth and prosperity in Petersburg, and his support of RBC’s independence will add to that legacy,” said Richard Bland president Debbie Sydow.

    While the college has always operated independently of William & Mary, efforts to set up its own board have been ongoing for over a decade.

    Sydow called the new legislation “momentous, especially as RBC is poised to deepen and expand its strategic partnerships.” 

    Source link

  • College presidents stay mostly silent on Trump

    College presidents stay mostly silent on Trump

    In his first month, President Donald Trump has upended federal research funding and taken aim at race-conscious programs amid a flurry of executive orders and other actions.

    While some higher ed associations and universities have responded with lawsuits, college presidents, for the most part, have watched in relative silence. Some have released statements on changes to their institutions’ federal funding or diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, but those announcements have mostly been vague, with little mention of the political forces driving the changes. Few college leaders have publicly criticized the president’s efforts to overhaul the sector to match his vision.

    The muted or mostly nonexistent response comes as campuses have increasingly grappled with how to navigate political events since last spring’s pro-Palestinian protests, when students demanded their leaders speak up about the war between Israel and Hamas. That seems to have quelled interest in taking institutional positions. Any pushback college leaders voiced during Trump’s first term has been largely replaced by silence.

    The Presidents Speaking Up

    Still, there have been some notable exceptions to the trend.

    Michael Roth at Wesleyan University and Patricia McGuire at Trinity Washington University—two notoriously outspoken presidents—are among those who have voiced alarm about Trump’s attacks on the sector.

    Roth has written op-eds calling on his fellow college presidents to “weigh in when they see the missions of their institutions” and the health of their campus communities “compromised.” He also shared his thoughts on speaking up at the American Council on Education conference last week, noting that he tries “not to speak about the president directly” but rather the need to stand up for institutional values when they are threatened by external forces, such as Trump.

    McGuire remains an outspoken presence on social media and in interviews.

    Other leaders have spoken forcefully to their constituents about Trump’s interference.

    Following a recent and widely panned Dear Colleague letter that declared race-conscious programming, resources and financial aid illegal, Case Western Reserve University president Eric Kaler wrote in a message to campus that “this expansion to include all aspects of campus life appears to be a gross overreach of the Supreme Court decision and may be challenged in the legal system.” He added that the university “will remain firmly committed to our core values.”

    Some presidents at minority-serving institutions have added their voices to the mix.

    David Thomas, president of Morehouse College, a historically Black institution, told CNBC last month that Trump’s attempted freeze on federal funding represents an “existential threat.” He also called out an executive order targeting diversity, equity and inclusion, telling MSNBC that “we must be a point of resistance to that effort to essentially teach untruths.”

    Thomas, who is retiring in June, suggested a second Jim Crow era was coming, which he called “a reaction to the progress of people of color and others who have been disenfranchised.”

    Presidential Silence

    But as most presidents have remained silent, some critics have blamed institutional neutrality, the concept that universities should refrain from making statements on social or political issues. The movement seemed to boom last year as pro-Palestinian protests spread nationally and students often called on presidents to make public statements.

    Roth, speaking at ACE, cast institutional neutrality as “a vehicle for staying out of trouble.”

    The American Association of University Professors has also taken a critical view of institutional neutrality, writing in a lengthy statement earlier this month that it “conceals more than it reveals.”

    Joan Scott, professor emerita at the Institute for Advanced Study who was part of the AAUP group that crafted the statement on institutional neutrality, is also critical of presidential silence in the face of what she described as an attack by the Trump administration on higher education.

    “I think there is no question that the target is the university mission as we’ve known it, and that very few people are speaking up,” Scott said. “And in fact, I would say that institutional neutrality is being used as a kind of protective stance for those administrators who are not speaking up.”

    A frequent refrain from campus leaders who have adopted institutional neutrality is that they would speak up when the core institutional mission is threatened, which experts argue is happening. However, most presidents are not speaking up despite perceived threats to the core mission.

    Inside Higher Ed contacted 10 universities with institutional neutrality policies, all among the wealthiest in the nation, with multibillion-dollar endowments. Only Yale University provided a statement, though some others shared prior messages from their presidents to the campus communities regarding the federal funding freeze and Trump attacks on DEI. Of those messages, none directly connected their concerns to the Trump administration or said what was driving federal actions.

    “The university is working to understand the scope and implications of the recent [Dear Colleague] letter and remains committed to the mission, to the principles of free expression and academic excellence, and to supporting the community,” Yale spokesperson Karen Peart wrote by email. “President [Maurie] McInnis and Provost [Scott] Strobel sent a message to the Yale community that addresses recent developments from the federal government. President McInnis has also shared a message to the community about the university’s commitment to the research mission.”

    Yale did not answer specific questions sent by Inside Higher Ed.

    Scott believes presidents are conducting a balancing act—one she views as cowardly. She argues that many are more concerned about “short-term risks,” such as an increase to the endowment tax or the loss of federal funding, than “the long-term risk” that “higher education as we’ve known it disappears or is put on hold” through the remainder of Trump’s four-year term.

    “What we’re watching is a struggle on the part of university administrators to balance some commitment to the mission—the attacked mission of the university—and some anxiety about the funding that keeps the mission going, even as the mission is being undermined,” Scott said.

    Jeremy Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, a free expression group, takes a more charitable view of college presidents remaining mum on Trump’s actions.

    Speaking up is fraught with risks, Young argues, ranging from punitive actions by the Trump administration to pushback from trustees. Instead, he thinks leaders should organize a unified sector response.

    “If you’re looking to individual presidents to face off against the power of the U.S. government, you’re looking in the wrong place,” Young said.

    He believes associations are leading the fight and urges them to collaborate more, arguing that organizations need to stick together to flex collective strength. That’s the only way “higher ed will be strong enough to be able to respond effectively,” he said.

    But just because presidents aren’t speaking up doesn’t mean they have to cower, he said.

    “I think the one thing that’s easy is that presidents shouldn’t overinterpret the law,” Young emphasized. “They shouldn’t comply in advance. You look at the Dear Colleague letter—it’s very clear in the letter that it does not have the force of law. There is an attempt here to scare presidents, and they should avoid being scared into doing things that aren’t required.”

    He stressed the importance of maintaining normalcy and core values on campus. One area where college presidents could improve is on their internal messaging, he said. As political pressures mount on higher ed, it’s vital that administrators communicate with constituents “to reassure them that they have their backs.”

    Source link

  • I Am Captcha: ‘Ghost’ Students and the AI Machine

    I Am Captcha: ‘Ghost’ Students and the AI Machine

    I Am Captcha: ‘Ghost’ Students and the AI Machine

    justin.morriso…

    Fri, 02/21/2025 – 03:00 AM

    Adam Bessie and Jason Novak capture the higher educator’s dilemma in the age of generative AI.

    Source link

  • NIH faces pivotal hearing amid layoffs, grant freeze

    NIH faces pivotal hearing amid layoffs, grant freeze

    As mass layoffs and suspended grant reviews at National Institutes of Health sow more chaos for the nation’s once-cherished scientific enterprise, a federal judge is set to hear arguments Friday morning on whether to extend a temporary block on the NIH’s attempt to unilaterally cut more than $4 billion for the indirect costs of conducting federally funded research at universities, such as hazardous waste disposal, laboratory space and patient safety.

    If the cuts move forward, they will “destroy budgets nationwide,” higher education associations and Democratic attorneys general, along with medical colleges and universities, argued in court filings this week. “But the consequences—imminent, certain, and irreparable—extend far beyond money, including lost human capital, shuttering of research projects and entire facilities, stalling or ending clinical trials, and forgoing advances in medical research, all while ending the Nation’s science leadership.”

    The NIH refuted that claim in court filings, arguing that the plaintiffs “do not establish that any irreparable impacts would occur before this case can proceed to the merits.”

    Friday’s hearing comes two weeks after the NIH’s Feb. 7 announcement that it will cap indirect research cost rates at 15 percent, which is down from an average rate of 28 percent, though some colleges have negotiated reimbursement rates as high as 69 percent.

    The National Institutes of Health is one of the largest sources of funding for research at the universities and colleges and has supported breakthroughs in medical technology and treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s. In fiscal year 2024, the agency sent about $26 billion to more than 500 grant recipients connected to colleges. About $7 billion of that went to the indirect expenses—a source of funding that universities argue is crucial but still doesn’t cover the full cost of conducting research.

    Federal data shows that in fiscal year 2022, universities contributed approximately $25 billion of their own institutional funds to support research, including more than $6.2 billion for the federal government’s share of indirect costs that it did not reimburse.

    Nonetheless, Elon Musk, the unelected billionaire bureaucrat President Donald Trump has charged with heading the nascent Department of Government Efficiency, characterized NIH reimbursements for universities for indirect research costs as “a rip-off.” Meanwhile, the academic research community warned that such drastic cuts—which Trump failed to get congressional approval for during his first term—would hamper university budgets, local economies and medical breakthroughs.

    Within days of NIH’s directive, a federal judge put the rate cut on hold after 22 state attorneys general sued the agency, joined by numerous higher education research advocacy organizations, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the American Council on Education. Across three separate lawsuits, they argued NIH doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the cap and that its guidance was “arbitrary and capricious,” among other points.

    Although the nationwide injunction gave colleges a brief reprieve from the cuts, which briefly took effect Feb. 10, university administrators have spent the last two weeks sounding the alarm about the estimated losses and other impacts. Some Republicans in Congress have also opposed the plan, saying it violates language in federal legislation that bars NIH from modifying indirect costs.

    ‘Irreparable Injury’?

    In its motion for the dismissal of the injunction filed on Feb. 14—a day before the NIH fired some 1,000 workers—lawyers for the agency argued that the federal district court “lacks jurisdiction” over the case and only federal claims court should hear the case, because the plaintiffs “are effectively seeking damages for breach of contract—the regulations incorporated into their grant agreements.” They also claimed that the NIH “ran afoul of no statute” and that the plaintiffs “have failed to show that they would suffer an irreparable injury” without a temporary restraining order.

    “Where declarants assert that reducing funds is likely to harm research or clinical trials,” the motion said, “they generally do not assert that those harms are imminent as opposed to eventual reductions in their capacity that would occur from sustained diminished funding after a ruling on the merits.”

    The motion went on to claim that the NIH’s capping of indirect cost rates seeks to “further its mission of advancing public health in a manner reflecting wise stewardship of the public money entrusted to it,” claiming that indirect costs are “difficult” for NIH to oversee. “To be clear, the Supplemental Guidance will not change NIH’s total grant spending; rather, it simply reallocates that grant spending away from indirect costs and toward the direct funding of research.”

    But that’s not how the NIH publicly framed the indirect cost cap in a post on the social media site Musk owns that said the policy change will “save more than $4B a year effective immediately.”

    And in a response filed earlier this week, the plaintiffs argued that the NIH’s policy change “bears no rational connection to NIH’s stated goal” in its court filings, because nothing in the NIH’s notice to cap indirect costs “directs more money to direct expenses.” The response also argues that the NIH has not provided adequate evidence to support its assertions that indirect costs are “difficult to oversee” and implored the court to reject the NIH’s attempt to “deprive Congress of its power of the purse.”

    Mass Layoffs, Grant Reviews Still Suspended

    While the temporary injunction has halted the rate cap for about two weeks, it hasn’t stopped Trump and Musk from destabilizing federal science agencies in other ways. Over the past week, thousands of mostly probationary employees—ranging from top-ranking agency officials to grant administrators who help grantees ensure their projects are compliant with federal regulations—across numerous science agencies, including the NIH, the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, lost their jobs.

    “The majority of what people who work for those agencies do is get the grant money out the door,” said Carrie Wolinetz, a science and health policy consultant who worked for the NIH between 2015 and 2023. “Because the layoffs took place across job categories, any of those critical positions could be affected. It’s hard to imagine that’s not going to have some impact on the ability of those agencies to fulfill its mission of getting those grants out the door.”

    And even before the layoffs and indirect cost cap directive, the NIH had already derailed its operations by temporarily pausing communication and grant reviews last month. Although the courts put those orders on hold, Nature reported Thursday that nearly all NIH grant-review meetings remain suspended.

    When the reviews finally do resume, the process will likely face even more challenges with fewer agency employees.

    “The fewer people, the greater the bottleneck,” Wolinetz said. “Uncertainty itself causes delays. When people are confused, afraid and worried after watching their colleagues being dismissed, all of that just causes a slowing down of the entire system.”

    On Wednesday, hundreds of scientists, federal workers and their supporters rallied outside of Department of Health and Human Services headquarters in Washington, D.C., wielding signs with phrases such as “Leash That DOGE,” “Fight for Science” and “America Needs NIH Scientists” and speaking out against cuts to science funding. (The rally was part of a national day of action to oppose the research funding cuts and layoffs.)

    Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of HHS headquarters Wednesday.

    “It is important that we understand exactly what is at stake right now,” Kailyn Price, a neuroscience doctoral student at George Washington University, told the crowd. “Cutting indirect costs is like telling a football team to do their work with only the players and the coach—no lights for the field, no physical therapist for the players, no water for the showers.”

    She said casting indirect costs as an unchecked and unnecessary burden on taxpayers is all part of the government’s plan to turn the American public against scientists and their work.

    “They want you to be angry and misinformed, incensed and ignorant,“ Price said. “Trump and his unelected billionaire backers want you to look at the people like us—making $20, $30, $40,000 a year, working late nights through the weekends because we believe that much in the work that we do—as the enemy.”

    And the federal workers who remain at the agencies that support university research may not be there for long, either.

    “Messaging from the agency is changing on a daily basis. Everyone is internally freaking out,” one still-employed NIH scientist told Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity. “I’m applying for other jobs, and most people are hedging their bets and sending out other applications, assuming they could get let go.”

    The chaos at the NIH, including the firings and the potential for billions in funding cuts, means “there just won’t be the same number of scientists coming out of American universities,” the NIH researcher said. “On the bright side, though, there is the rest of the world.”

    The cuts “are also adversely affecting important agency functions, such as support for research security at universities,” Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the AAU, said in an email.

    “Cutting key research security offices at the NSF and NIH will make it more difficult for universities and our science agencies to implement new congressionally mandated research security requirements aimed at protecting sensitive information and data from competitors at a crucial time when we are trying to stay at the forefront of global scientific leadership.”

    Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Solving the continuation challenge with engagement analytics

    Solving the continuation challenge with engagement analytics

    • By Rachel Maxwell, Principal Advisor at Kortext.

    Since the adjustments to the Office for Students’ (OfS) Condition B3: Student outcomes, published continuation rates have dropped from 91.1% in 2022 to 89.5% in 2024 for full-time students on their first degree.

    This drop is most evident for students in four key areas: (1) foundation year courses; (2) sub-contracted and franchised courses; (3) those with lower or unknown qualifications on entry; and (4) those studying particular subjects including Business and Management, and Computing.

    Universities utilising student engagement analytics are bucking this downward trend. Yet, surprisingly, engagement analytics are not mentioned in either the evaluation report or the accompanying Theory of Change document.

    Ignoring the impact of analytics is a mistake: universities with real-time actionable information on student engagement can effectively target those areas where risks to continuation are evident – whether at the programme or cohort level, or defined by protected characteristics or risks to equality of opportunity.

    The [engagement analytics] data you see today is next year’s continuation data.

    Dr Caroline Reid, former Associate Dean at the University of Bedfordshire

    A more complete view of student learning

    The digital footprints generated by students offer deep insights into their learning behaviours, enabling early interventions that maximise the opportunity for students to access the right support before any issues escalate. While data can never explain why a student is disengaging from their learning, it provides the starting point for a supportive outreach conversation. What happens thereafter would depend on what the conversation revealed – what kind of intervention would be most appropriate for the student? Examples include academic skills development, health and wellbeing support or financial help. The precise nature of the intervention would depend on the ecosystem of (typically) the professional services success and support expertise available within each institution.

    Analysing engagement activity at the cohort level, alongside the consequent demand on student services teams, further enables universities to design cohort or institution-wide interventions to target increasingly stretched resources where and when they are needed most.

    [With engagement analytics we have] a holistic view of student engagement … We have moved away from attendance at teaching as the sole measure of engagement and now take a broader view to enable us to target support and interventions.

    Richard Stock, Academic Registrar, University of Essex

    In 2018–19, 88% of students at the University of Essex identified as having low engagement at week six went on to withdraw by the end of the academic year. By 2021–22, this had reduced to approximately 20%. Staff reported more streamlined referral processes and effective targeted support thanks to engagement data.

    Bucking the trend at Keele

    The OfS continuation dashboard shows that the Integrated Foundation Year at Keele University sits 8% above the 80% threshold. Director of the Keele Foundation Year, Simon Rimmington, puts this down to how they are using student engagement data to support student success through early identification of risk.

    The enhanced data analysis undertaken by Simon and colleagues demonstrates the importance of working with students to build the right kind of academically purposeful behaviours in those first few weeks at university.

    • Withdrawal rates decreased from 21% to 9% for new students in 2023–24.
    • The success rate of students repeating a year has improved by nearly 10%.
    • Empowering staff and students with better engagement insights has fostered a more supportive and proactive learning environment.

    Moreover, by identifying students at risk of non-continuation, Keele has protected over £100K in fee income in their foundation year alone, which has been reinvested in student support services.

    Teesside University, Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and the University of the West of England (UWE) all referred explicitly to engagement analytics in their successful provider statements for TEF 2023.

    The Panel Statements for all three institutions identified the ‘very high rates of continuation’ as a ‘very high quality’ feature of their submissions.

    • Teesside’s learning environment was rated ‘outstanding’, based on their use of ‘a learner analytics system to make informed improvements’.
    • NTU cited learning analytics as the enabler for providing targeted support to students, with reduced withdrawals due to the resulting interventions.
    • UWE included ‘taking actions … to improve continuation and completion rates by proactively using learning analytics’ to evidence their approach.

    The OfS continuation dashboard backs up these claims. Table 1 highlights data for areas of concern identified by the OfS. Other areas flagged as key drivers for HEIs are also included. There is no data on entry qualifications. All figures where data is available, apart from one[1], are significantly above the 80% threshold.

    Table 1: Selected continuation figures (%) for OfS-identified areas of concern (taught, full-time first degree 2018–19 to 2021–22 entrants)

    The Tees Valley is the second most deprived of 38 English Local Enterprise Partnership areas, with a high proportion of localities among the 10% most deprived nationally. The need to support student success within this context has strongly informed Teesside University’s Access and Participation Plan.

    Engagement analytics, central to their data-led approach, ‘increases the visibility of students who need additional support with key staff members and facilitates seamless referrals and monitoring of individual student cases.’ Engagement data insights are integral to supporting students ‘on the cusp of academic failure or those with additional barriers to learning’.

    The NTU student caller team reaches out to students identified by its engagement dashboard as being at risk. They acknowledge that the intervention isn’t a panacea, but the check-in calls are appreciated by most students.

    Despite everything happening in the world, I wasn’t forgotten about or abandoned by the University.
    NTU student

    By starting with the highest risk categories, NTU has been able to focus on those most likely to benefit from additional support. And even false positives are no bad thing – better to have contact and not need it, than need it and not have it.

    What can we learn from these examples?

    Continuation rates are under threat across the sector resulting from a combination of missed or disrupted learning through Covid, followed by a cost-of-living crisis necessitating the prioritisation of work over study.

    In this messy world, data helps universities – equally challenged by rising costs and a fall in fee income – build good practice around student success activity that supports retention and continuation. These universities can take targeted action, whether individually, at cohort level or in terms of resource allocation, because they know what their real-time engagement data is showing.

    All universities cited in this blog are users of the StREAM student engagement analytics platform available from Kortext. Find out more about how your university can use StREAM to support improvements in continuation.


    [1] The Teesside University Integrated Foundation Year performs above the OfS-defined institutional benchmark value of 78.9%.

    Source link

  • How to Be Proactive in an Evolving Higher Education Landscape

    How to Be Proactive in an Evolving Higher Education Landscape

    How can you make the future of your campus more clear and sustainable?

    As colleges and universities continue to rise above the challenges brought on by the pandemic five years ago, it has become clear that the new normal for higher education demands more than resilience—it requires strategic foresight and proactive leadership. Institutions today must navigate shifting policies, demographic changes, public sentiment, natural disasters, economic pressures, compliance mandates, safety concerns, talent turnover, operational efficiency demands, and increasing pressure for measurable results.

    Is your institution prepared to proactively face these challenges, knowing that disruption is not just possible but highly probable?

    • Will your strategic plan ensure financial sustainability if events on the scale of the pandemic disrupt your revenue streams?
    • Does your current enrollment strategy include innovative approaches to capture new market share despite declining numbers of prospective students?
    • Is your institution leveraging artificial intelligence to drive innovation and efficiency?
    • Does your academic master plan align with program demand, employer talent needs, and student success outcomes?
    • Can your organization prioritize limited resources effectively and use data to inform critical budget decisions?
    • Do your stakeholders understand that your institution’s reputation and competitive standing depend on academic innovation, excellence, community engagement, and student success—achieved through accountability, continuous improvement, campus engagement, agility, and clear prioritization?

    If your answer isn’t a confident “YES!”, it’s time to act. Consider investing two days at RNL’s Strategic Planning Executive Forum (April 1–2, Chicago).

    Building a foundation for strategic planning in two days

    RNL quite literally wrote the book—three of them, in fact—on Strategic Enrollment Planning. For decades, RNL has guided institutions in transforming their approach and achieving their missions through a proven, data-informed strategic planning framework.

    Today, institutions discover that this framework goes beyond enrollment—it is adaptable to address every facet of university and college operations, including institutional culture, financial health, academic excellence, technology integration, student success, community engagement, branding, and institutional value. This approach aligns your institution’s goals with the realities of the evolving higher education landscape, ensuring long-term enrollment success and financial sustainability.

    While many institutions simply set goals and outline steps, true strategic planning thrives at the intersection of creativity, critical thinking, data analysis, and action. The RNL Strategic Planning Forum is designed to elevate your institution’s capacity by focusing on essential, foundational steps:

    • Analyzing your institution’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT)
    • Identifying key performance indicators (KPIs)
    • Fostering a data-informed decision-making culture
    • Developing actionable strategy plans with clear accountability and measurable ROI
    • Establishing prioritization protocols by assessing risk, resistance, and required effort
    • Implementing, managing, and refreshing dynamic strategic plans through effective dashboards and processes

    What to expect at the forum

    The forum offers practical case studies and shared experiences from transformation leaders. Sessions will highlight best practices in areas such as:

    • Strategic enrollment planning
    • Institutional strategic planning
    • Academic program revitalization

    Breakout sessions will cater to specific institutional needs—whether from two-year colleges, four-year public universities, or private institutions—offering space to share best practices and tackle unique challenges.

    Institutional assessment with expert guidance

    Your leadership team will have the opportunity to complete a strategy assessment and receive live feedback from RNL experts with decades of higher education experience in:

    • Marketing and market research
    • Recruitment and financial aid strategy
    • Student success initiatives
    • Academic program planning
    • Online learning and delivery models
    • Advancement and venture philanthropy
    • Artificial intelligence applications in higher education

    Discussion and collaboration are at the heart of this event. You’ll dive into critical areas of strategic planning while engaging with industry experts, higher education leaders, and peers from other campuses. This will spark meaningful conversations within your own team, setting the stage for momentum and change.

    RNL Strategic Planning ExecutiveForum: A history of driving enrollment and revenue success

    Many institutions that have participated in this event have seen transformative results, including:

    • Record-breaking enrollment growth
    • Enhanced student outcomes
    • Millions in additional revenue generation
    • Stronger community engagement
    • Streamlined operations and improved efficiency

    Equip your institution for future-focused success

    Empower your institution with actionable insights, dynamic strategies, and the tools necessary for growth, resilience, and meaningful impact in today’s higher education environment.

    See the agenda and register for the Forum today. Bring your leadership team and ignite the discussions that will drive action and measurable results for your institution’s future. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more impactful event to propel your institution forward.

    Source link