A few weeks ago, I went to my daughter’s open house at her high school and had a chance to meet her teachers. One teacher stood out to me from what he said about “wanting to be genuine” with his students as much as possible because that would create a more effective learning environment for them. At first, it seemed like such a strange thing to say. How could he not be genuine with them? Wasn’t he always himself? And if he wasn’t being genuine, then what was he doing?
As I started to think about it, though, I had to appreciate the honesty of his comment and admit the odd disconnect between who we are as teachers in the classroom and who we are outside of it. As much as we’d like to think that those two things, those two people, those two selves, are largely the same, it might not be the case. As with many professions, we craft or adopt a voice or a persona to meet the demands of our positions. While we are responsible for shaping our voice and embodying our role in a given situation, is our teaching persona who we “genuinely” are? Is a lawyer being genuine when they speak to a jury in a courtroom? Is a doctor being genuine when they talk to their patients in a hospital? Are they being “real” in those situations?
I want to believe, in the words of Popeye, that “I yam what I yam” and that I “yam” still me, whether I’m in the classroom or not. Who I am in that space is simply one version of me—just as I’m a different version of myself at a family gathering, my daughter’s high school open house, or even waiting in line at the DMV. The roles may shift, but the core of who I am remains constant across all those situations.
By the same token, the voice that just announced a quiz on Thursday or that told the students how to navigate our course management system doesn’t sound at all like the one that talked about basketball with my dad or commiserated with a neighbor about the increase in our taxes. In the service of my job responsibilities and course learning outcomes, do I really become someone else? In the classroom, to put it as The Fixx did in 1984, “Are we ourselves?”
In The Art of Teaching, Jay Parini is quick to dismiss these questions, since “authenticity” itself is, he argues, yet another “construction” and “[t]he notion of the ‘true’ self is […] utterly false” (2005, 59). (Don’t look now, but a philosophical rabbit hole about the nature of the self is about to open on your browser.) Be that as it may, we usually have a sense, just as my daughter’s teacher did, of when we stray too far from that “construction” that feels “right” for us and that we would, rightly or wrongly, refer to as who we are.
Probably like so many of you, I still think about my first semester of teaching and all the anxiety that went along with it. I spent weeks getting ready, thinking about what I was going to do, writing out lectures, and planning assignments. But, when I finally made my way to the classroom, everything seemed off, wrong, and unfamiliar. I had no frame of reference for who I was in that space. The nervous voice that spoke was clearly mine, but it was also one I didn’t exactly recognize. I burned through what should have been a one-hour lecture in thirty minutes, and I struggled to fill the remaining time with questions for the class. When the students didn’t answer right away, I started to answer them myself. Walking back to my car that day, I wondered why anyone would do this job or how anyone did. And I was horrified by the thought that I would have to go back and stand there—again and again and again. What had I gotten myself into?
In the weeks and months that followed, I thought about the teacher that I was supposed to be (or that I thought I was supposed to be), as compared to the teacher that I was. More than twenty years later, I still think about that. I saw other professors who knew or seemed to know exactly who they were, what they were doing, and why they were doing it. Sometimes, I talked to them about how they taught a lesson or designed a class. I also drew on the memory of past instructors and tried, at times, to work on variations of teaching techniques that I had seen them use so well.
As much as I admired how some other professors managed a class discussion or set up a group activity, my attempt to recreate their class or draw on their lesson plan always felt unnatural and forced, like a strained karaoke version of another singer’s hit. I found that I was usually more comfortable being myself, as opposed to doing a bad impression of someone else. And what I continue to work on is what makes sense for me in my class, as opposed to thinking about how someone else might handle it or what would be an effective lesson for a different professor. How do I want to present the material, and what do I want students to get out of it?
This discussion has become especially relevant in the post-pandemic years, as authenticity has emerged as a key component of the solution for many overwhelmed educators, alongside a growing focus on trauma-informed teaching practices. In a Faculty Focus piece on inclusive teaching, Jackson Christopher Bartlett recommends “threading[ing] authenticity through our courses with genuine attempts to connect with our students” (my italics, 2023). In a recent Harvard Business Publishing essay, Lan Nguyen Chaplin similarly believes that “students thrive in classrooms where their professors show vulnerability” (2024). And, as Inside Higher Ed’s Ashley Mowreader reported this past summer, SUNY Oneonta is piloting a “Pedagogy of Real Talk” program, drawn from the work of Paul Hernandez, where faculty members “share their own stories with students” as a way of building relationships and, ultimately, “increas[ing] their academic success” (2024).
If these authors are right, students aren’t just looking to be “educated by instructors,” if they ever were; they want to be taught by people. In being real, in being vulnerable, in being honest with our students about why we love our discipline, about why we got into teaching, about what we struggled with along the way, we “[show] ourselves,” in Hernandez’s words, “that we are [people] before we are teachers” (2022, 24).
As I continue to think about what that teacher said that night, especially in light of this call for authenticity, the “genuine” challenge for many, maybe all teachers in the classroom in terms of their personas and their voices is just this, to get back to who they really are. In this regard, our careers in the classroom, like our lives themselves, are about this journey of figuring ourselves out—at the front, at the back, or even in the middle of the room. And now, it’s exactly what we need to do, as both we and our students find ourselves in that room after all those experiences away from it.
Douglas L. Howard, PhD is academic chair of the English department on the Ammerman Campus at Suffolk County Community College. He is the editor of Dexter: Investigating Cutting Edge Television and co-editor of The Essential Sopranos Reader, The Gothic Other, and with David Bianculli, Television Finales.
I’m not sure where to begin on this one, so let’s veer off topic a bit.
I’ve decided I’ll likely be phasing out Higher Ed Data Stories in the near future as I go into retirement and start my new venture, which is soft launched but not officially open for business. When I do, I’ll be posting regularly on my blog over there, but won’t be putting everything out on the web for free, as I’ve been doing on this site. I do appreciate the contributions people made on the Buy Me Coffee site, but the hosting, software, and labor costs never balanced with the revenue, and while there was a lot of good will that came from my work, I was still in a deficit situation (especially on the time part) and I’ll need to dedicate that to the business side of things. Medicare Parts B and D ain’t free, you know.
But this is some unfinished business, and it might be a good place to end. You know I’ve been personally opposed to the very idea of the SAT and ACT for some time, while being professionally neutral: If colleges find value in it, I don’t care if they use one, the other, or both.
But I do care about the truth. On that note, two issues: The headlines suggesting that lots of colleges are returning to standardized tests for first-year admissions are just not true, of course, and everyone in the business knows this. The testing agencies are curiously silent on the misinterpretation of this information, of course.
The larger issue of “truth” is the justification put forth by the universities that are returning to the SAT or ACT. They are all suggesting that they need the tests to find qualified students of color, or low-income students. Is that true? If it is, does it mean they denied admission to other, more highly qualified students of color with test scores? You can look at the data below, and while it’s not absolutely definitive, it is interesting.
Before diving in, however, some caveats:
IPEDS reporting recognizes “two or more” as an ethnic category, but does not allow breakouts. So many colleges will report some percentage of students in every category they check, and of course, there is good reason to do so. There is no reason, however, to increase the numerator and not the denominator in the equation, as some of them do. So you may notice that the numbers here don’t line up with what colleges have published.
IPEDS data on income or financial need is far less clear, as it only breaks out by Pell/Non-Pell. Perhaps the researchers who have access to the unit record data can dive in more deeply.
We don’t have a lot data (at least not published as supporting evidence for the claim) that says there is a problem with performance among the students admitted without tests. If that comes to light later, it might change your perception of this data, as it should. What I have seen shows only minor differences, and given COVID and its disproportionate effects on students, I’m not sure the SAT would survive other testing.
Some of these charts show Simpson’s diversity, which is a different way of thinking about diversity. It’s not the percentage of minority students; it is essentially the chance that two randomly selected members of a group will be different. If your population was 100 and all 100 in the group were different, you’d have perfect diversity (a value of 1). If all 100 were the same, you’d have a value of 0. Higher numbers indicate greater diversity.
OK. Got it?
There are four views in the visualization. The first shows just Hispanic and Black/African-American enrollment in the first-year classes at the “Ivy Plus” institutions (The Ivy League institutions plus Duke, MIT, Stanford, and the University of Chicago.) You can see the trend (in both numbers and percentage of the class) over time. The denominator is the entire class. The blue bars show data up until 2020, and the purple bars show test optional years.
The second shows the entire ethnic composition of the domestic students in the class. Look at them collectively to start, then look at individual institutions using the control at right.
The last two views show the Simpson’s Index of Diversity for each institution over time. The first is for domestic students, and the second is for everyone, including international students counted as an ethnicity. Use the highlight control to focus on one institution.
So, what do you think? Do highly rejectives need the SAT to find students of color? Let me know.
College planning has become far more complex than filling out forms and writing essays. RNL’s research reveals a striking truth: Today’s students are overwhelmed, skeptical, and craving personalized guidance more than ever before.
The modern student’s dilemma
Picture this: Seven out of ten high school students find navigating the college application process challenging. They’re not just intimidated by the paperwork—they’re questioning the entire value proposition of higher education. Half believe they can build a successful career without a college degree, while 60 percent wrestle with whether college is worth their time and money.
These aren’t just statistics. They represent real students sitting at kitchen tables across the country, staring at their laptops, trying to make one of the most significant decisions of their lives.
The financial reality check
Money talks, and it’s speaking louder than ever in college planning. The numbers tell a sobering story: over 90 percent of high school juniors and seniors find financing their education somewhere between “somewhat difficult” and “very difficult.” Even more telling, 60 percent of juniors and 65 percent of seniors will immediately cross a college off their list based on the sticker price alone.
But here’s where it gets interesting: Financial aid and scholarships have become the primary hook for attracting students, with 81 percent of juniors and 78 percent of seniors ranking them as crucial factors in college choice. This isn’t just about affordability—it’s about perceived value and accessibility.
The shifting sands of student priority
What catches a student’s attention these days? The research shows a clear hierarchy:
Financial aid and scholarships (63%)
Athletic programs (47%) if they are interested in playing sports at the college level
Academic programs (43%)
Career placement (38%)
But getting students interested is only half the battle. Our study reveals a fascinating pattern of why initial interest fades. Cost remains the primary deal-breaker, with 57 percent of students citing it as why they lose interest in a school. However, other factors like program availability (37%) and admission concerns (24%) play significant roles, too.
The power of late-stage decisions
The most surprising finding is this: 66 percent of students discover and become interested in new colleges during their senior year, and 89 percent apply to these late-discovered schools. This challenges the conventional wisdom about early outreach being the only path to enrollment success.
The personalization imperative
Today’s students aren’t just looking for information—they’re looking for recognition. They expect colleges to:
Provide program-specific details tailored to their interests
Deliver accurate, personalized responses to their questions
Acknowledge their unique situations and backgrounds
Communicate in culturally relevant ways
Use their names (yes, it matters)
Recognize and respect their diverse identities
Making it personal: The path forward
For colleges and universities, the message is clear: Generic, one-size-fits-all recruitment approaches no longer cut it. The future lies in personalized admissions counseling, tailored communication campaigns, and customized campus experiences. But most importantly, institutions need to address students’ financial concerns head-on with transparent, customized information about costs, aid, and scholarships.
The bottom line
The college planning landscape has evolved beyond recognition. Today’s students are savvier, more skeptical, and more demanding than ever. They’re not just looking for a college—they’re looking for one that understands them, values them, and can demonstrate why their investment will pay off.
The opportunity is enormous for institutions willing to embrace this new reality and invest in personalization. After all, in a world where 72 percent of students find applying to college difficult, being the institution that makes it easier, more precise, and more personal isn’t just good service—it’s a competitive advantage.
The future of college recruitment isn’t about reaching more students; it’s about reaching each student in the way that matters most to them.
Learn more about what research says about personalization
Increasing numbers of undergraduate students are either neurodivergent or living with a mental health condition, and in some cases both – but their voices aren’t being heard.
Departments know that these students face particular challenges in their academic studies, but struggle with how to best support them, especially given pressures to do more with fewer resources. University lecturers are also growing more familiar with these conditions, either because of their own personal experience, or because of greater cultural awareness and openness around neurodivergence and mental illness. All of us in the MINOTAUR team have lived experience ourselves or loved ones living with neurodivergence and mental illness, which has informed our approach to this work.
One way universities have tried to adapt to this change in their student populations has been by issuing support agreements through their disability services team, but these are often very general and don’t always address the actual challenges individual students are facing. We know that this lack of support is having a negative impact on student experiences and academic outcomes.
Student voice
The MINOTAUR project (Mental Illness and NeurOdiversiTy Academic sUppoRt), run out of the classics department at Royal Holloway, University of London, grew out of an EDI survey which identified a significant population of students in the department who were neurodivergent and/or living with mental illness. We then ran a series of student focus groups in summer 2023 to identify issues facing these students and solutions the department could implement in order to improve their experience as learners.
As far as we know, it is the first time that focus groups have been used to ask this diverse community of students about their experiences during their degrees – within Royal Holloway, within our discipline, and quite possibly within HE. Certainly there are no easily visible parallel initiatives in the sector. The recommendations we made following these discussions have been simple and easy to implement, and we know they’ve made a great deal of difference to our student cohort.
So, in an age where the student voice has become a critical part of university life, why do these students often go unheard?
A literature review carried out this summer with the support of the RHUL School of Humanities Scholarship and Innovation Fund confirmed our suspicion that interventions for students with neurodivergence and mental illness are typically being done to students rather than shaped by them. This review sampled a wide range of work and resources aimed at supporting university and school students with ADHD, autism, other forms of neurodivergence and mental illness. These studies largely took the form of designing an intervention, implementing it, and considering its effectiveness. There seemed to be few attempts at co-creation, co-design, or co-production.
However, our experience with the first stage of MINOTAUR suggests that not asking students to identify the challenges they are facing and how these might be addressed means we are missing some simple, low-effort, high-effect interventions that can offer immediate support. In the longer term, it also means that those who design interventions address the problems that they can see, not the problems that students are experiencing.
Simplicity is a virtue
Studies indicate that increasing self-knowledge and self-advocacy skills among neurodivergent students can contribute to positive academic outcomes. Through applying principles of co-design, we can empower students to take ownership of their learning while ensuring that any interventions address their real needs. This may be particularly impactful for students without a formal diagnosis, who may not be eligible for support within existing university systems. Co-design can also increase community buy-in to projects and interventions, which is essential as part of supporting a cohort of students who are more likely to become disengaged and isolated when facing challenges.
One great example of this for MINOTAUR has been an intervention so simple that we wouldn’t have thought of it without talking to our students. As a department, we have a reputation for being supportive and understanding for students living with neurodivergence and mental illness, but as staff we had taken it as a given that our new students would automatically realise this. Last year, we introduced a simple slide titled “Neurodiversity in Classics”, to be shown at the start of each new module.
It emphasises that we want students to be able to learn, and uses three bullet points designed to lower the barriers to our students’ learning. “Better late than absent” reduces the anxiety of being five or ten minutes late to a class session, which can throw off attendance for a whole term. “Tell us about the room” gives students permission to tell us about sensory disruptors; having to concentrate on processing an overwhelming physical stimulus, like a flickering light, that can distract focus from teaching. “We understand about stimming,” referring to repetitive physical actions often made by people with autism, makes it explicit that students can fidget and move in ways which help them concentrate rather than struggling to repress those habits for an hour.
We simply hadn’t realised how much work our students were putting in to trying to meet expectations we didn’t have of them. Without consultation, we wouldn’t have known how effective this simple intervention could be – and it has made a huge difference to our students, especially first years joining the department.
It’s all about participation
Low-impact adjustments designed for neurodivergent students and students living with mental health issues can often be valuable in supporting the learning of neurotypical students too. Following the focus groups’ recommendations, many of us more systematically introduced a break in lectures to avoid students’ cognitive overload, and to allow them to refresh their minds around halfway through the lecture. Even if the evidence is only anecdotal at this stage, this small change seems to have positive effects on the entire cohort, fostering a more collaborative and open teaching environment, and reinforcing the class as a space of collective learning and teaching.
Recognising that neurodivergent students, disabled students, and those with mental health conditions are experts because of their experience is critical to work against assumptions which, however unintentionally, disempower these groups. In line with trends around developing ethical practice as part of community-based participatory research, recent movements within disability studies seek to redress the imbalance within scholarship which has cast disabled people as subjects of research, rather than active participants with agency to engage in discussion and innovation: no research about us without us.
Through proactively working with students, MINOTAUR recognises that higher education cannot meet the needs of this cohort without working with them collaboratively to produce interventions that are grounded in their student experience.
This week on the podcast the government is to press on with implementing parts of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 while seeking to repeal others – we discuss what will (and should) happen next.
Plus there’s a report on more resilient and sustainable higher education finances, and NEON has been looking at regional inequality in university admissions.
With Richard Sykes, Partner at Mills & Reeve, Paul Greatrix, HE expert and until recently Registrar at the University of Nottingham, Debbie McVitty, Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.
It is 1848, and a spectre is haunting Europe. If you’re Karl Marx, that spectre is communism. But if you’re a member of the god-fearing gentry in west Wales, that spectre is the lack of education!
Here’s the South Wales and Monmouthshire Training College, later Trinity College, Carmarthen, later still part of University of Wales Trinity Saint David. It was opened in 1848, following the efforts of the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church in England and Wales (they loved a snappy title in the nineteenth century). The National Society, as it was better known, had been established in 1811 to promote a religious education, mostly via Sunday schools. And there was a counterpart – the British and Foreign School Society for the Education of the Labouring and Manufacturing Classes of Society of Every Religious Persuasion – established in 1808 and 1814, which did the same but with less religion.
I’ve written before about how education policy in England and Wales developed slowly, and that compulsory, free education for children was a long time coming. The efforts of the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society had a big impact. And they included not only the operation of schools, but of training colleges for teachers.
Let’s take in the report from the magnificently named Monmouthshire Merlin of Saturday 4 November 1848 to get a flavour of the excitement in Carmarthen:
OPENING of the TRAINING COLLEGE CARMARTHEN.
This interesting event, which was anxiously looked forward to by the clergy and members of the Church Establishment in the Principality, took place on Tuesday week. The weather was very unpropitious; heavy showers descending the whole of the morning, which greatly marred the appearance of the imposing spectacle, and no doubt hindered many distant clergymen and gentlemen, as well as a great number of the respectable inhabitants of the town, from joining in the procession. At eleven o’clock the procession moved from the Town-Hall in the following order:
Police Constables of the Borough.
The Mayor and Corporation.
The Magistrates.
The Welsh Education Committee.
The Principal, Vice-Principal, and Master of the Training College.
The Clergy, in their gowns.
The Gentry and Inhabitants of the Neighbourhood. &c., &c.
After the procession reached St. Peter’s Church, divine service was performed, and the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of St Da vid’s preached an excellent sermon, with his usual eloquence and ability, from the 12th chapter of the Romans, and the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The collection at the close of his lordship s eloquent appeal amounted to £ 67. 14s. 4d., a much larger sum than had ever been previously collected at St. Peters Church on any occasion. After the conclusion of the service, the procession was not re-formed; the parties departed, and proceeded towards the Training College, to partake of the cold collation which had been provided at that place. No ceremony was performed at the college, in connection with its opening, any farther than the throwing open of the doors to admit the visitors and others interested in the proceedings. The place is now ready for the reception of pupils, as the masters are in residence, and the arrangements are all complete. From the celebrity of the principal. and the salubrious situation of the college, we have no doubt that many will avail themselves of the opportunities now offered to them at this Training Institution. The building of the college is finished in the best style of workmanship, is replete with every convenience required by the pupils, and it reflects great credit on the architect and others concerned. The Model Schools are also in a state of great forwardness; and as the workmen have now been transferred from the Training College to them, it is expected they will be ready for opening in a very short time.
Romans chapter 12 verses 6, 7 and 8, by the way, read as follows:
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
The college did well. In 1967 there was an entrance examination for places, with tuition fees waived, and travelling expenses for successful students, as noted by the Carmarthen Journal of 26 July 1867. Note that the better students were given more money for travelling expenses; and that “all persons of good health and character” did not include women: the college first admitted women in 1957.
The college formally changed its name to Trinity College Carmarthen in 1931, although it seems likely that the name was used informally before then. I have seen, for example, a newspaper article of 1894 referring to its as Trinity College Carmarthen; and the postcard itself is certainly earlier than the 1930s.
Like most colleges, over time it grew, added new subjects and generally thrived. The college building expanded from that shown on the card, with other facilities and residences. In 1990 it became affiliated to the University of Wales, and became a full member college in 2004. By this time, of course, the University of Wales was in a degree of turmoil, with exits as well as entrances. Trinity gained degree awarding powers in 2008, became Trinity University College in 2009, and in 2010 merged with St David’s College – or University of Wales Lampeter – to form University of Wales Trinity Saint David.
Its most famous alumnus is arguably Barry John, one of the great fly halves of the legendary 1970s Welsh rugby team, and the punchline to Max Boyce’s Hymns and Arias.
The card was posted, but sadly the stamp has been removed, so the postmark is missing. It was sent to Mr Williams in the Cottage Hospital, Caernarfon. The original message in Cymraeg is below. As best as I can tell, the first part reads something like:
The weather for pilgrims far away is very good. We will be coming home next weekend.
(This probably isn’t entirely right.)
And then I can’t make out the words in the second half, so no chance of a translation, however bad. Can any reader do this?
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Colleges could lose access to federal financial aid or face penalties if their external service providers mislead their students, the U.S. Department of Education said Tuesday.
That includes companies that help colleges launch and run online programs.Employees of online program managers, or OPMs, cannot represent themselves as working directly for colleges, including by having email addresses or signatures implying they’re employed by those institutions, according to the guidance.
OPM employees are also not allowed to represent a virtual program as equivalent to a college’s campus-based version if they have dissimilar admissions criteria, completion rates, faculty qualifications or other substantive differences.And workers in recruiting or sales roles can’t call themselves an “academic counselor” or use a similar title if it doesn’t accurately describe their position.
The guidance — issued in the waning days of the Biden administration — aims to add more oversight to colleges’ relationships with OPMs.Student advocacy groups have long called for stricter rules for these companies, which often help colleges launch online programs in exchange for a significant cut of their tuition revenue.
Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, praised the letter Wednesday.
“Today’s move by the Department of Education is a step in the right direction, affirming what we already know: OPMs commonly mislead students about the quality of their online programs and that is illegal,” Fast said in a statement. “This action will deter misconduct by OPMs and their college partners and will help protect online college students from the risks posed by predatory OPMs.”
What led to the guidance?
The guidance comes after the Biden administration’s other plans to add oversight to the OPM industry faltered.
In early 2023, the administration said it would review guidance that allows colleges to enter tuition-sharing deals with OPMs that provide recruiting help — so long as it is part of a larger bundle of services.Despite asking for public comment on the matter, the Education Department has not updated or rescinded the 2011 guidance.
At the same time it announced the review, the administration issued separate guidance that would designate OPMs and other organizations as third-party servicers.The change would have subjected them to regulations that would give the department insight into their contracts with colleges.
However, the Education Department quickly delayed the guidance — and eventually rescinded it altogether — amid widespread criticism that it would create burdensome requirements for the higher education sector.
“We finally have clarity, in the last days of the administration, what they’re actually going to do with the guidance around [third-party servicers]” and OPMs, said Phil Hill, an ed tech consultant. “It’s just been this soap opera for 2 1/2 years now.”
However, Hill described Tuesday’s guidance as “petulant rulemaking” from the Biden administration.
“This Dear Colleague letter is attempting to go down to the level of telling colleges and universities and vendors what words are allowable and what aren’t,” Hill said. “And this went through zero process, zero attempt to get input from schools.”
That includes whether the guidance will hamstring colleges from running online programs or whether the policies address the issues they’re trying to solve, Hill said.
Stephanie Hall, senior director for higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, took a different stance.
The Education Departmentreceived a “treasure trove of comments” when it sought public input in 2023 on policies that would have impacted the OPM sector, Hall argued.
“A lot was given over the past couple of years, and I see this guidance letter as just an extension or a conclusion of that process and not something new that didn’t take any input,” Hall said.
Whether the Trump administration will enforce the new guidance is another matter. But Hall said the guidance is likely to create changes either way.
“Schools are put on notice,” Hall said. “It’s something they take very seriously.”
The incoming Trump administration could also rescind the guidance altogether, though it’s unclear if OPM oversight is a priority issue to incoming officials.
“Are they aware of the impact this could have on online education, and is this going to be on their radars to take action and just immediately get rid of it?” Hill said.
The guidance could also draw legal challenges. The Biden administration’s now-rescinded 2023 guidance sparked a lawsuit from 2U, a prominent OPM.
“This is just waiting for a rescission or a lawsuit,” he said.
What’s in the guidance?
In Tuesday’s guidance, the Education Department listed several examples of statements that OPM employees could make that would likely qualify as misrepresentations. That includes OPM employees using email addresses or signatures that suggest they are directly employed by their college clients.
At least one prominent OPM has caught flak for using college email addresses — 2U. In 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that the company used the “.edu” email addresses of its college clients in order to recruit prospective students into their online programs.
Hall noted that this is a widespread practice in the OPM industry.
“It’s wonderful that they’re addressing that and making it clear that that could be a substantial misrepresentation, and that schools would be held responsible for that,” she said.
A 2U spokesperson said that the company’s marketing and recruitment teams use university email addresses to reach out to prospective students and include transparent disclosures about their affiliation with the company.
2U is reviewing the Education Department’s letter to ensure the company remains aligned “with evolving regulatory guidance and best practices,” it said in a Thursday statement.
“Transparency has always been at the heart of our mission, and we remain steadfast in upholding this principle as we partner with universities to deliver transformative outcomes through high-quality online education,” 2U said.
Under the department’s new guidance, it could also be misleading for OPM recruiters or sales representatives to present themselves to students as academic counselors or other similar positions.
“Such practices create a high risk of misrepresentation since rewarding an individual based on sales indicates that individual’s role is not focused on impartially counseling prospective or enrolled students, but rather on securing a financial transaction,” the Education Department said.
The overall guidance focuses on disclosures to students, Hall said.
“The biggest change is really just disclosures, disclosures that are going to be coming from the contractor and overseen by the institution,” she said. “I don’t see this mocking the core of the actual online program itself, or its operations or its business model.”
The agency also warned against OPMs casting online programs as equivalent to their campus-based counterparts if they provide “distinct and substantively different” resources to students, including instructors, curricula and advisers.
In a footnote, the guidance cites a class-action lawsuit against the University of Southern California, which alleged that the institution presented its online master’s degree in social work as the same as a campus-based one, even though it outsourced “substantial aspects” of the virtual version to 2U.
2U was not named as a defendant in the case.
The company’s college partners retain full control over core functions of their degree programs, including tuition rates, faculty hiring, and admissions standards and decisions, a 2U spokesperson said. 2U’s clients also review and approve marketing materials for their programs, the spokesperson said.
However, USC and 2U announced in late 2023 plans to wind down their partnership on most of their online programs, including the social work master’s degree.2U continues to support a USC physical therapy program.
Project on Predatory Student Lending is helping represent the students in the lawsuit against the University of Southern California. In a statement Thursday, PPSL President and Executive Director Eileen Connor said she hoped the Trump administration would take the letter’s concerns seriously.
“This letter calls out just how dangerous the OPM industry is to our higher education system,” Connor said.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The University of the Arts Tuesday sold one of its prized properties, the Arts Alliance building in Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square neighborhood, in a bankruptcy liquidation auction run by its Chapter 7 trustee.
The Philadelphia-based nonprofit Curtis Institute of Music offered $7.6 million for the building at auction, topping the previous high bid from real estate developer Allan Domb. The bankruptcy judge overseeing UArts’ case approved the sale Wednesday.
UArts’ Arts Bank building also sold in a separate auction for $2.7 million to the firm Quadro Bay, which beat out a bid from the nonprofit Lantern Theater Co. The sale still needs court approval.
Dive Insight:
The fate of a failed college’s property often draws interest from the surrounding community. In UArts’ case, the university — which shocked Philadelphia with its sudden closure last summer — occupied several historic buildings in the city’s downtown.
The case’s trustee, Alfred Giuliano, said previously in court papers that efforts to sell the properties involved 27,000 emails to prospective buyers and more than 150 confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements signed with prospects.
A one-time hotel, Terra Hall served as UArts’ primary academic building. In a statement last week, Temple leadership described the possible acquisition as an “exciting prospect as it allows us to establish a prominent Temple presence in an iconic Philadelphia building.”
The public university added that buying Terra Hall would create “an opportunity for the university to be part of the continued revitalization of the Avenue of the Arts — an important cultural corridor — while opening the door for additional academic opportunities for our students.”
Temple also offered $6.2 million for the Arts Alliance building, which UArts acquired through a 2018 merger.The university was narrowly beaten out by Domb’s bid. However, Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry objected to the developer’s bid Monday, arguing that Temple should be given priority because of restrictions on the sale of charitable assets in state law and the building’s deed covenants. After the auction, the trustee deemed Temple the backup bidder should the sale to the Curtis Institute fail to close.
“What attracted me to it was the potential of the building, how beautiful it is, the ability to use it for mostly arts, culture and possibly music,” the developer told WHYY, Philadelphia’s NPR affiliate. But he added of the winning bidder, “Curtis is a gem and I’m really pleased they got it.”
Until Wednesday, the Lantern Theater Co. led the bidding for UArts’ Arts Bank building on South Broad Street with an offer of nearly $1.8 million.Giuliano namedthe nonprofit as the backup buyer if the deal with auction winner Quadro Bay falls through.
As with the Arts Alliance building, the attorney general during a Wednesday hearing raised concerns selling Arts Bank to a for-profit company, WHYY reported. However, the building does not carry the same restrictive deed covenants as Arts Alliance.
UArts has several other buildings in its portfolio left to be sold, including the columned Dorrance Hamilton Hall and other facilities on its main campus. When it filed for bankruptcy in September, the university listed nine properties that it owned, valuing them collectively at $87.1 million. Terra Hall came in highest at $48.4 million.
Financial aid optimization transforms financial resource allocation into a strategic enrollment tool, aligning affordability for students with institutional goals.
By leveraging real-time data and tools like Liaison Othot, institutions can craft tailored financial aid strategies that address individual student needs and enrollment strategies.
Optimization enables proactive adjustments to financial aid strategies, ensuring accessibility while supporting student retention and institutional sustainability.
Strategic financial aid leveraging balances affordability for students with long-term enrollment and revenue objectives.
The rising costs of higher education and fear of long-term debt have left many prospective students and their families questioning whether they can afford to pursue their academic dreams. For institutions, this presents a dual challenge: attracting diverse students and ensuring enrollment goals align with their mission. An effective and aligned financial aid optimization strategy offers a powerful tool to meet a campus’s enrollment goals. By combining institutional funds with federal and state resources effectively, colleges and universities can increase access and affordability in higher education while achieving broader enrollment objectives.
From offering enough aid to make tuition manageable to continuously refining financial aid strategies based on real-time information, optimizing plays a pivotal role in strategic enrollment management (SEM). It transforms financial aid awarding from a static process into a dynamic tool that not only attracts and enrolls students but also supports their retention by effectively meeting their financial needs.
What Is Financial Aid Optimization?
Financial aid optimization transforms the allocation of financial resources into a critical enrollment tool. By aligning the overall enrollment leveraging strategy—regularly and in real-time at the individual level—optimization allows campuses to address student affordability needs in a unique and tailored way.
At its core, optimization is a dynamic, data-informed process. Institutions develop annual plans for allocating financial aid (leveraging), basing decisions on previous cycles’ successes and challenges. Unlike traditional static leveraging models, modern optimization approaches incorporate continuous adjustments informed by real-time data. This lets colleges and universities respond proactively to shifting enrollment trends and keeps their financial aid strategies effective throughout the year.
How to Make Higher Education More Affordable and Accessible
More accessible higher education starts with understanding the financial challenges students face. For many undergraduates, the cost of tuition, housing, books, and other expenses can make college seem out of reach, even with federal and state aid. For example, a student from a low-income household may find that even the maximum Pell Grant award leaves a significant financial gap. Similarly, a middle-income family might struggle to cover tuition despite not qualifying for significant need-based aid.
Financial aid leveraging allows institutions to tackle these challenges head-on by creating tailored aid packages that remove financial barriers for students. This approach relies on a mix of need-based and merit-based strategies, often informed by tools like FAFSA data and predictive analytics.
One of the key advantages of financial aid optimization is its flexibility. Institutions can use data to fine-tune aid offerings based on unique student needs and behaviors. For instance, Liaison’s Othot platform, a cloud-based predictive and prescriptive analytics tool designed specifically for higher ed, can analyze factors such as a student’s location, academic profile, and campus engagement to build aid packages thatneeds. This granularity ensures that the financial aid awarding strategy not only meets the affordability threshold for students also aligns with the overall enrollment strategy being employed on the campus. An aligned optimization approach ensures that the affordability component is integrated into the strategy for specifically targeted cohorts or students, maximizing the likelihood of their enrollment.
Optimization also lets institutions adapt aid policies for entire cohorts or demographic groups. For example, schools can address rising inflation in high school GPAs by recalibrating merit-based awards to prioritize equity and maintain fairness in their financial aid distribution. This adaptability keeps aid plans relevant as the dynamics of higher education continue to shift. By relying on data and continuously streamlining their financial aid models, institutions can make higher education more attainable for all students while maximizing their impact.
The Strategic Impact of Financial Aid Optimization
Financial aid optimization goes beyond simply helping students cover tuition—it’s about achieving a delicate balance between affordability for students and sustainability for institutions. By carefully crafting aid packages that meet the financial needs of students without overextending institutional resources, colleges and universities can enhance their enrollment efforts while maintaining financial health.
For example, reallocating funds for strategic distribution among students could result in higher net tuition revenue (NTR) without sacrificing enrollment numbers. This demonstrates how strategic adjustments can yield significant results when financial aid decisions are guided by data, tailored to meet institutional priorities, and aligned to overall enrollment strategies.
Retention and persistence are critical factors to consider when determining how to optimize financial aid. An effective leveraging model doesn’t stop at enrollment and the conclusion of a successful first year—it considers the long-term success of students. By analyzing which cohorts are more likely to persist and graduate, institutions can refine their aid offerings to improve outcomes for all students. This approach ensures that financial aid strategies not only attract students but also support their success throughout their academic journey.
Aligning Financial Aid With Student Success and Institutional Goals
Financial aid optimization is a powerful way to make higher education more accessible while helping institutions achieve their objectives. By combining institutional, federal, and state resources with data-driven optimization tools, colleges and universities can craft aid strategies that address affordability, bolster student retention, and maximize their impact.
Institutions looking to enhance their financial aid and enrollment can benefit from Liaison’s suite of solutions, including Othot. Whether your team is just beginning to explore financial aid leveraging or has years of experience, Liaison’s tools provide the flexibility and insights needed to meet your unique goals. From devising an initial plan to optimizing existing processes, our solutions are designed to assist schools at every stage of their journey. Contact us today to learn more.
“I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” — Donald J. Trump
That is the kind of mindset that lies in wait to ambush First Amendment values. Its aim: punitive. Its logic: force those who disagree with you to pay — literally! Its motivation: intimidation. Its endgame: muzzling critics.
That kind of mindset is a form of cancel culture, insofar as once such practices are allowed to stand, the net effect is to chill critics into numbing silence.
“Donald Trump is abusing the legal system to punish speech he dislikes. If you have to pay lawyers and spend time in court to defend your free speech, then you don’t have free speech.” — FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh
As presented, that assertion helps to explain Trump v. Selzer — and a similar suit filed by The Center for American Rights, who are suing The Des Moines Register, its parent company Gannett, and Selzer. The case arises out of a flawed election poll conducted by the noted pollster J. Ann Selzer. As published in The Des Moines Register, she had Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by three percentage points in Iowa. She was off — way off! Trump won the state by 13 points and then went on to a sizable victory nationwide. Hence, the Center for American Rights’ allegation that Selzer’s poll and the Register’s publication of it were “intentionally deceptive” or done with reckless disregard of the truth — a high bar to meet.
Though Trump prevailed in the presidential election, and roundly so, he thereafter sought damages for the poll prediction that had him behind. Even after his victory, the very idea of that poll offended him.
Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer
The injury to Selzer’s reputation over the mistaken prediction was not enough. Selzer and the Register found themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit first filed by Alan R. Ostergren on behalf of the former president and now president-elect. Here are two key parts of what was alleged as a cause of action:
This action, which arises under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, Iowa Code Chapter 714H, including § 714H.3(1) and related provisions, seeks accountability for brazen election interference committed by the Defendants in favor of now-defeated former Democrat candidate Kamala Harris (“Harris”) through use of a leaked and manipulated Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll conducted by Selzer and S&C, and published by DMR and Gannett in the Des Moines Register on November 2, 2024 (the “Harris Poll”) (boldness added)
However, “[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson (1989).
FIRE’s defense of pollster J. Ann Selzer against Donald Trump’s lawsuit is First Amendment 101
News
A polling miss isn’t ‘consumer fraud’ or ‘election interference’ — it’s just a prediction and is protected by the First Amendment.
As FIRE’s Adam Steinbaugh and Conor Fitzpatrick have observed:
The lawsuit is the very definition of a “SLAPP” suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment. And it’s part of a worrying trend of activists and officials using consumer fraud lawsuits to target political speech they don’t like.
Steinbaugh and Fitzpatrick offer a compelling critique of this lawsuit, why it is statutorily and constitutionally flawed, and why it is more punitive in nature than persuasive in law. Their critique points to the need for a national Anti-SLAPP law similar to the ones that currently exist in some 34 states (Iowa is not one of them).
FIRE, with Robert Corn-Revere as the lead counsel, is representing Selzer. Revere tagged the Trump lawsuit as “absurd” and “a direct assault on the First Amendment.”
One need not be called to the witness stand in defense of George Stephanopoulos’ journalism to concede that the former president could well have a basis to seek legal relief against those who actually defame or otherwise cause him cognizable injury (see FAN 451) — or, consistent with Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967), that he might be able to demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truth.
But Trump v. Selzer is a difficult case to fit into that legal peg.
Five Suspect Arguments
1. The Tale of Two Predictions Argument: In both 2016 and 2020, Ann Selzer predicted Trump’s Iowa victories. In 2024, the Registercommissioned her to do another poll and she predicted a Harris victory by a small margin — using the same methodology. Despite this, she and her publisher were slapped with two lawsuits. Can this really be the basis (albeit unstated) for a call to legal action?
2. The Fraudulent Consumer Fraud Argument: The Iowa consumer fraud law pertains to deceit in the context of the advertisement or sale of “commercial merchandise.” Does polling information check that conceptual box? Is it a commercial “service” in the same way that fraudulently providing home insurance would be? Is the product that a newspaper produces “merchandise” as that word is commonly used? As a matter of statutory construction (duly mindful of overbreadth concerns), should courts conflate laws made to regulate commerce with political speech? Is the legal supervision of the marketplace of goods to be the same as in the marketplace of ideas? To quote Eugene Volokh:
“I’m far from sure that, as a statutory matter, the Iowa consumer fraud law should be interpreted as applying to allegedly deceptive informational content of a newspaper, untethered to attempts to sell some other product.”
3. The No-Guidelines False Political Speech Argument: Once the government has elected to punish political speech by civil or criminal laws, what are the exact guidelines for determining falsity? And how great does such falsity have to be? Are such calls to be made by lawmakers or judges? Of all political figures, Donald Trump should be quite apprehensive of such arguments — given all the false speech he has been accused of disseminating.
4. The Demand to Punish Newspapers for False Political Speech Argument: If the Press Clause of the First Amendment is to have any functional meaning, and if the era of sedition laws has taught us anything, it is that when it comes publishing political speech a news story is not, generally speaking, to be judged as being the same as the speech of a shyster used-car salesperson. Absent strong safeguards, allowing punitive or treble damages for political speech takes on a dangerous meaning when it comes to the Press. To again draw on Volokh:
“[T]he First Amendment generally bars states from imposing liability for misleading or even outright false political speech, including in commercially distributed newspapers — and especially for predictive and evaluative judgments of the sort inherent in estimating public sentiment about a candidate.”
“[T]he suit alleges that a story within the newspaper was misleading, therefore making the sale or advertisement of the newspaper misleading. In other words, they are attacking the content of the newspaper, not the sale or advertisement of the newspaper itself. The content of a media source, other than an advertisement for merchandise it might contain, is subject to strong First Amendment protection.”
Moreover, such lawsuits create “an environment,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, “where journalists can’t help but look over their shoulders knowing the incoming administration is on the lookout for any pretext or excuse to come after them.”
5. The Need to Deter “Radical” Pollsters Argument: The complaint seeks the relief it does (injunctive and otherwise) in order “to deter Defendants and their fellow radicals” from continuing to skew “election results.” And if alleged consumer falsity is the norm in the political speech realm (with the requisite intent, of course), will that not have an enormous chilling effect on all election pollsters? And what newspapers or other media outlets would be willing to publish election poll predictions if the liability Sword of Damocles hovered over their heads? And what of those campaigning for political office?
Related
Full Disclosure
Robert Corn-Revere, FIRE’s chief counsel, represented me pro bono in a 2003 petition to the governor of New York to posthumously pardon Lenny Bruce. While FIRE hosts FAN, the content of this newsletter is determined free of any and all influence by FIRE.
The TikTok case
The Supreme Court on Friday seemed likely to uphold a law that would ban TikTok in the United States beginning Jan. 19 unless the popular social media program is sold by its China-based parent company.
Hearing arguments in a momentous clash of free speech and national security concerns, the justices seemed persuaded by arguments that the national security threat posed by the company’s connections to China override concerns about restricting the speech either of TikTok or its 170 million users in the United States.
Early in arguments that lasted more than two and a half hours, Chief Justice John Roberts identified his main concern: TikTok’s ownership by China-based ByteDance and the parent company’s requirement to cooperate with the Chinese government’s intelligence operations.
If left in place, the law passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed by President Joe Biden in April will require TikTok to “go dark” on Jan. 19, lawyer Noel Francisco told the justices on behalf of TikTok.
Forthcoming book on ‘campaign to protect the powerful’
The #1 bestselling author of Dark Towers, Enrich produces his most consequential and far-reaching investigation yet: an in-depth exposé of the broad campaign — orchestrated by elite Americans — to overturn 60 years of Supreme Court precedent, weaponize our speech laws, and silence dissent.
It was a quiet way to announce a revolution. In an obscure 2019 case that the Supreme Court refused to even hear, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the prospect of overturning the legendary New York Timesv. Sullivan decision. Though hardly a household name, Sullivan is one of the most consequential free speech decisions, ever. Fundamental to the creation of the modern media as we know it, it has enabled journalists and writers all over the country — from top national publications and revered local newspapers to independent bloggers — to pursue the truth aggressively and hold the wealthy, powerful, and corrupt to account.
Thomas’s words were a warning — the public awakening of an idea that had been fomenting on the conservative fringe for years. Now it was going mainstream. From the Florida statehouse to small town New Hampshire to Trump himself, this movement today consists of some of the world’s richest and most powerful people and companies, who believe they should be above scrutiny and want to silence or delegitimize voices that challenge their supremacy. Indeed, many of the same businessmen, politicians, lawyers, and activists are already weaponizing the legal system to intimidate and punish journalists and others who dare criticize them.
In this masterwork of investigative reporting, David Enrich, New York Times Business Investigations Editor, traces the roots and reach of this new threat to our modern democracy. Laying bare the stakes of losing our most sacrosanct rights, Murder the Truth is a story about power — the way it’s used by those who have it, and the lengths they will go to avoid it being questioned.
Douek and Lakier vs Volokh on private power and free speech
New scholarly article on revenge porn and more
Since our nation’s founding, the private sex lives of politicians have been a consistent topic of public concern. Sex scandals, such as those involving Alexander Hamilton, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump, have consumed the focus of the public. With the advent of the internet and social media, a new dimension has been added to that conversation: now, details of a politician’s sex life often come accompanied by photo or video evidence. Outside of the election context, when someone shares an individual’s private explicit material without their consent, they have committed the crime of “revenge porn.”
Recent high-profile incidents have raised the question of whether the crime of revenge porn can still be prosecuted when the disclosure of private explicit materials involves a political candidate. In the election context, unique First Amendment concerns about chilling political speech result in heightened speech protections. Before prosecuting a case, prosecutors must grapple with the question: Does the First Amendment protect revenge porn when it is used to influence an election? This essay argues that the special First Amendment concerns about elections are diminished in the revenge porn context: the statutes are already tailored to address those concerns, and the state’s independent interest in enforcing revenge porn laws is still compelling. As such, it concludes that the First Amendment should not have extra force in a revenge porn case just because the disclosure occurred in the context of an election.
New Book on ‘rethinking free speech’
Clashes over free speech rights and wrongs haunt public debates about the state of democracy, freedom and the future. While freedom of speech is recognized as foundational to democratic society, its meaning is persistently misunderstood and distorted. Prominent commentators have built massive platforms around claims that their right to free speech is being undermined. Critics of free speech correctly see these claims as a veil for misogyny, white-supremacy, colonialism and transphobia, concluding it is a political weapon to conserve entrenched power arrangements. But is this all there is to say?
Rethinking Free Speech will change the way you think about the politics of speech and its relationship to the future of freedom and democracy in the age of social media. Political theorist Peter Ives offers a new way of thinking about the essential and increasingly contentious debates around the politics of speech. Drawing on political philosophy, including the classic arguments of JS Mill, and everyday examples, Ives takes the reader on a journey through the hotspots of today’s raging speech wars.
In its bold and careful insights on the combative politics of language, Rethinking Free Speech provides a map for critically grasping these battles as they erupt in university classrooms, debates around the meaning of antisemitism, the “cancelling” of racist comedians and the proliferation of hate speech on social media. This is an original and essential guide to the perils and possibilities of communication for democracy and justice.
‘So to Speak’ podcast interview with author of ‘Rethinking Free Speech’
Is the free speech conversation too simplistic?
Peter Ives thinks so. He is the author of “Rethinking Free Speech,” a new book that seeks to provide a more nuanced analysis of the free speech debate within various domains, from government to campus to social media.
Ives is a professor of political science at the University of Winnipeg. He researches and writes on the politics of “global English,” bridging the disciplines of language policy, political theory, and the influential ideas of Antonio Gramsci.
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases
Cases decided
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald KL Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
