Category: Featured

  • Penn Agrees to Trump’s Demands, Will Strip Trans Athlete’s Awards

    Penn Agrees to Trump’s Demands, Will Strip Trans Athlete’s Awards

    The university plans to “apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Kyle Mazza/Anadolu/Getty Images | Rich von Biberstein/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

    The University of Pennsylvania will concede to the Trump administration’s demands that the university “restore” swimming awards—and send apology notes—to female competitors who lost to a trans athlete, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced Tuesday.

    The department previously found that Penn violated Title IX for allowing a trans woman to compete on a women’s sports team—presumably referring to Lia Thomas, who rose to national attention while competing on Penn’s women’s swim team three years ago.

    To end the investigation, the administration demanded in part that Penn apologize to cisgender women whose swimming awards and honors were “misappropriated” to trans women athletes. Multiple Title IX advocates lambasted the department’s demands, arguing the agency was misusing the landmark gender-equity law to punish trans students and their institutions.

    Penn is one of multiple higher education institutions and K–12 schools that the administration has targeted for allowing trans women to play on women’s sports teams, in accordance with NCAA policy at the time. But it appears to be the first institution of higher education to reach a resolution agreement over the issue since Trump took office.

    “Penn remains committed to fostering a community that is welcoming, inclusive, and open to all students, faculty, and staff,” Penn president J. Larry Jameson said in a statement Tuesday. “I share this commitment, just as I remain dedicated to preserving and advancing the University’s vital and enduring mission. We have now brought to a close an investigation that, if unresolved, could have had significant and lasting implications for the University of Pennsylvania.”

    Separate from the department’s investigation, the White House paused $175 million in funding to the university because Penn “infamously permitted a male to compete on its women’s swimming team,” an official said in March. It’s not clear if the funding will be restored or when.

    Jameson stressed in the statement that the university was in compliance with Title IX and all NCAA guidelines at the time that Thomas swam for Penn’s women’s team from 2021 to 2022. But, he said, “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules. We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

    Title IX advocates have emphasized that trans athletes are not, in fact, explicitly forbidden from playing on women’s sports teams under the current Title IX regulations, which were finalized under the previous Trump administration and are the same ones that were in effect when Thomas was competing.

    In addition to stripping Thomas’s awards, Penn agreed to ED’s demands to make a public statement that people assigned male at birth are not allowed in Penn’s women’s athletic programs or its bathrooms and locker rooms, according to the department’s news release. The institution must also promise to adopt “biology-based definitions for the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ pursuant to Title IX” and Trump’s February executive order banning trans athletes from playing on the team that aligns with their gender.

    That statement also went up Tuesday. In it, the university promised to follow Trump’s trans athlete ban, as well as the executive order he signed that withdraws federal recognition of transgender people, with regard to women’s athletics.

    In the department’s announcement, Paula Scanlan, one of Thomas’s former teammates who has since led the crusade against trans women athletes, said she was “deeply grateful to the Trump Administration for refusing to back down on protecting women and girls and restoring our rightful accolades. I am also pleased that my alma mater has finally agreed to take not only the lawful path, but the honorable one.”

    Shiwali Patel, senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, criticized the agreement in a statement Tuesday as a “devastating and shameful outcome.” She blamed Penn’s “utter failure” as well as the department’s “continued manipulation of Title IX.”

    “The Trump administration’s attacks on civil rights protections, including Title IX, and obsession with undermining bodily autonomy is the real harm to women and girls, unlike transgender athletes who want to compete in sports alongside their peers and pose no threat to women’s sports, contrary to Trump’s lies,” Patel said in the statement. “In fact, their inclusion benefits all women and girls. We will continue to support Lia Thomas and her peers and their right to compete.”

    Source link

  • To speak or not to speak: Universities face the Kalven question

    To speak or not to speak: Universities face the Kalven question

    In the wake of the Trump administration’s extralegal attack on Harvard University, which is essentially an attempted government takeover of a private school, the importance of academic freedom and institutional independence is clearer than ever. Had Harvard meekly complied with the demands in the hopes of maintaining its funding, it would’ve set a dangerous precedent for political interference in higher education. 

    Enter the Kalven Report: the north star for institutions striving to foster academic freedom. Crafted by the University of Chicago in response to Vietnam-era foment, the report warns that a university, though it may have the constitutional right to speak about unrelated political issues, should not take an official stance on these issues because of the chilling effect it has on the ability of university community members to discuss and debate amongst themselves.

    But it allows for two exceptions. First, when it comes to threats to the university’s very mission and values of free inquiry, the Kalven report explains, “it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.” Second, when university ownership of property, its receipt of funds, its awarding of honors, or its membership in other organizations is at issue, the university is likewise entitled to defend itself.

    Both exceptions apply to Harvard.

    There is no standard by which an “exceptional” threat to the university can be determined. Instead, that is up to the university’s administration to determine. Kalven stresses that “it must always be appropriate, therefore, for faculty or students or administration to question whether in light of these principles the University in particular circumstances is playing its proper role.” 

    But by issuing a statement at all, the university risks chilling the speech of those who wish to question it.

    The decision by many universities to sign a “Call for Constructive Engagement” statement, published in April as a response to government pressure, may likewise be deemed an appropriate response by virtue of the Kalven exceptions. Yet, the question remains: was it wise to do so?

    By issuing a statement at all, the situation risks chilling the speech of those who may disagree.

    Developed by college and university leadership in conjunction with the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the statement urges opposition to “undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses” and rejects “the coercive use of public research funding.” It is signed by over 650 institutional leaders and counting.

    And while the signatories explicitly affirm their “commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where . . . faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas . . . without fear of retribution,” they cannot escape the fact that their willingness to make an institutional statement risks undermining that commitment to open inquiry. After all, there are undoubtedly many people on those 650 campuses who agree, either in whole or in part, with the Trump administration’s efforts.

    The Kalven report issues a “heavy presumption” against making statements, “however appealing or compelling” the social or political value in question may be. This is partly because there is no escaping the question of who will decide which situations qualify as exceptional — there is no standard set by Kalven, simply the distinction of an “exceptional” circumstance. By issuing a statement at all, the situation risks chilling the speech of those who may disagree.

    There are other actions an institution can take to protect itself. Remaining neutral does not mean the university cannot advocate for itself against unconstitutional action. Nothing in the Kalven Report requires colleges to submit to unlawful action that merits a lawsuit. But when an institution adopts a statement on behalf of all its members, this stifles dissent and free inquiry because to question university statements then becomes tantamount to questioning the very values of that institution. This, in turn, negatively impacts students’ education. As J.S. Mill famously argued in On Liberty, “The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion.”

    Indeed, in many cases, schools that have signed the letter don’t always uphold the values of free speech internally.

    For example, Columbia University signed the Constructive Engagement letter — and ranks second-to-last on FIRE’s Free Speech Rankings. Its faculty have experienced pushback from university administrators in response to their scholarship for decades, from the 2001 case of George Fletcher to the 2024 case of Adbul Kayum Ahmed. Nearly half (48%) of Columbia faculty think academic freedom on their campus is “not at all” or “not very” secure. Signing an open letter does little to improve the situation.

    To preserve a culture of open debate and expression, colleges and universities must have the courage to defend their principles on campus and in court.

    Another signatory to the statement, University of Pennsylvania has recently illustrated why statements aren’t an all-purpose solution but are instead an invitation for side-taking. The university faced significant backlash after it began to offer statements deemed inadequate in the weeks following October 7, including those by President Liz Magill and by members of Penn’s Board of Trustees.

    In response to a displeased alumnus, administrators released a slew of institutional statements, putting even more daylight between themselves and anything resembling institutional neutrality. Concerns over antisemitism eventually led to Magill’s resignation and the Pennsylvania House of Representatives withholding $31 million in state funding from Penn’s veterinary school. Finally in September, then-interim President J. Larry Jamson declared Penn would no longer issue statements in response to social and political events.

    Penn’s policy shift was a good call, even if it took a lot to get there. Modeling Kalven, Penn made a carve-out by promising not to comment on any more issues “except for those which have direct and significant bearing on University functions.” The only problem is that that loophole was on full display weeks ago when Penn signed the Constructive Engagement letter. Penn is once again speaking with its institutional voice by way of signature, finding itself aligned with a stance that is by nature political.

    To preserve a culture of open debate and expression, colleges and universities must have the courage to defend their principles on campus and in court. It is therefore worth considering whether signing the AACU statement was a smart move or an instance of political posturing that may end up doing more harm than good.

    Dinah Megibow-Taylor is a FIRE intern and a rising second-year at the University of Chicago.

    Source link

  • What Is IT Governance and Why Is It So Important in Higher Ed?

    What Is IT Governance and Why Is It So Important in Higher Ed?

    Technology can be one of the most powerful tools an institution has to advance its mission. But without clear, strategic guidance, that same technology can quickly become a source of frustration, inefficiency, and risk. That’s where IT governance comes in.

    Today’s colleges and universities are navigating rising cybersecurity threats, tighter budgets, and an expanding ecosystem of platforms and tools. In this environment, IT governance isn’t just an operational necessity — it’s a strategic imperative.

    In this article, I’ll define what higher ed IT governance is, why it matters more than ever, and how institutions can build a framework that aligns technology investments with institutional priorities.

    What is IT governance in higher ed?

    Put simply, IT governance is the structure that ensures every technology investment and decision supports the institution’s goals and strategies. While IT management focuses on maintaining day-to-day systems — like patching servers or updating networks — IT governance answers a different set of questions, such as:

    • Which projects should we prioritize?
    • How do we allocate limited resources for the greatest impact?
    • Who needs to be involved in shaping these decisions?

    A thoughtful approach to IT governance isn’t just a collection of policies. It’s an intentional structure that fosters transparency, collaboration, and accountability across the entire institution.

    When done well, governance clarifies how decisions are made, who is responsible for making them, and what criteria determine success. This clarity reduces confusion, builds trust, and ensures that technology investments consistently support the institution’s mission and priorities.

    An effective governance framework typically includes:

    • Decision-making structures such as IT governance committees with representation across academic and administrative areas
    • Policy development that guides how technology projects are evaluated and approved
    • Risk management and compliance oversight to keep pace with evolving regulations and security requirements

    When institutions embrace governance as a shared responsibility, technology becomes a strategic asset rather than a departmental concern.

    Why higher ed IT governance matters more than ever

    The complexity of higher ed technology ecosystems has grown exponentially. Many institutions now rely on cloud platforms, ERP and student information systems, learning management systems, and emerging tools like AI.

    Without governance, it’s easy for tech investments to become siloed or redundant — especially when departments act independently. This fragmentation can lead to:

    • Financial waste due to functional redundancy
    • No clear system of record/unclear data access policies
    • Missed opportunities for collaboration and efficiency

    External pressures are also intensifying. Regulatory requirements such as FERPA and GLBA have expanded. Accrediting bodies increasingly expect transparent, documented technology processes. And stakeholders — from faculty to students — demand seamless, secure digital experiences.

    In an era of constrained budgets, institutions can’t afford to treat IT governance as an afterthought.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    The risks of poor or nonexistent IT governance

    When governance isn’t in place, institutions face serious consequences that extend far beyond the IT department. Gaps in oversight and alignment can ripple across every facet of the organization, undermining financial stability, operational efficiency, and stakeholder confidence. Over time, these issues can erode the very foundation of an institution’s mission and reputation.

    Some of the most common (and costly) problems include:

    • Financial inefficiency and wasted resources: With shrinking enrollments and limited funding, institutions can’t afford investments that fail to deliver measurable value or duplicate existing capabilities.
    • Missed opportunities to maximize impact: When IT resources are spread thin across too many projects, even high-priority initiatives can stall or underperform.
    • Increased security vulnerabilities: Technology risks are growing faster than most budgets. Without clear governance to prioritize spending on solutions that mitigate the most critical threats, institutions are more exposed to breaches and compliance failures.
    • Resistance to change: If end users feel excluded from decisions, adoption suffers—and so does return on investment.
    • Reputational damage: Failed implementations and security incidents can erode trust with students, staff, and stakeholders.
    • Inability to scale or innovate effectively: Disconnected systems and uncoordinated efforts make it harder to keep pace with evolving needs.

    We’ve seen this firsthand, where IT leadership at institutions make major platform decisions without involving departmental leaders. The result was widespread resistance and a perception that technology was imposed rather than collaborative. When people don’t have a seat at the table, they’re far less likely to champion change.

    “When people don’t have a seat at the table, they’re far less likely to champion change.”

    What effective higher ed IT governance looks like

    Good governance is intentional, inclusive, and transparent. It doesn’t happen by accident — it requires clear structures and a shared commitment to align technology decisions with institutional goals. When these elements come together, colleges and universities create an environment where technology can thrive as a strategic asset rather than a siloed expense.

    To build this kind of foundation, governance should include:

    • Cross-functional committees: Cabinet members typically designate representatives from key areas (e.g., academic affairs, enrollment, finance) to ensure diverse perspectives.
    • Clear processes: Policies that define how projects are proposed, prioritized, and evaluated.
    • Defined success metrics: Criteria for measuring whether investments deliver the intended impact.
    • Regular reviews: Governance frameworks should be revisited at least annually to keep pace with evolving needs and regulations.

    Moving forward: IT governance as a strategic imperative

    IT governance in higher ed isn’t just about compliance or risk avoidance. Done well, it empowers colleges and universities to:

    • Use technology as a force multiplier
    • Align financial and technology resource investments with strategic goals
    • Build a culture of collaboration and shared accountability

    As institutions navigate emerging priorities — from AI policies to hybrid learning environments — governance will only grow more critical. If you haven’t assessed your governance framework recently, now is the time.

    Ready to strengthen your IT governance?

    At Collegis, we help institutions develop and operationalize IT governance models that balance innovation with accountability. Our team brings decades of expertise with deep experience aligning technology strategy with institutional vision.

    If you’re ready to move beyond reactive technology decisions and build a governance model that drives lasting success, let’s connect!

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Songs for the Student Loan Struggle

    Songs for the Student Loan Struggle

    In the United States, where over 43 million people carry more than $1.7 trillion in student debt, it’s no wonder that the crisis has made its way into the bloodstream of American music. Across genres—hip-hop, punk, folk, pop, indie, and beyond—artists have given voice to the quiet desperation and loud frustration of a generation who bought the dream of higher education, only to find themselves overworked, underpaid, and perpetually in debt. 

    Student loans aren’t just a financial burden—they’re a cultural trauma. They delay marriages and children, block homeownership, exacerbate mental health struggles, and fuel cycles of economic precarity. For many, they are the symbol of a promise broken. Music has become one of the only honest mirrors left—naming what politicians won’t and exposing what marketing campaigns obscure.

    Few songs capture this generational malaise as directly as Twenty One Pilots’ “Stressed Out.” In one of its most pointed lines, Tyler Joseph sings:

    “Out of student loans and treehouse homes we all would take the latter.”



    The lyric, delivered like a casual aside, cuts to the heart of the matter. The dream of adulthood has been replaced by nostalgia for childhood. Treehouse homes—imaginary, fragile, idealized—are preferred to the very real pressure of loans that never seem to shrink. The song became an anthem not just because of its catchy hook, but because it gave voice to a shared longing to escape a system that feels rigged from the start.

    In folk and Americana, the tradition of protest lives on through artists like David Rovics, who sings candidly about capitalism, debt, and the false promise of meritocracy. Anaïs Mitchell’s “Why We Build the Wall,” from Hadestown, offers a parable of entrapment that mirrors the moral logic behind lifelong indebtedness—“we build the wall to keep us free,” the characters insist, as they cage themselves in the name of security.

    Hip-hop, born from systemic exclusion, has long offered some of the most unflinching commentary on education, class, and race. Dee-1’s “Sallie Mae Back” is a rare moment of triumph—his celebration of paying off his loans is joyful, but also revealing: the milestone is treated like beating a boss in a video game, an exceptional feat in a system designed to trap. Meanwhile, J. Cole, Kendrick Lamar, and Noname have all touched on the disillusionment that comes from pursuing education and still being locked out of wealth and opportunity.

    In the indie and emo scenes, debt doesn’t always appear as a headline—it’s in the background, a persistent hum of dread. Phoebe Bridgers’ ballads of suspended adulthood and unfulfilled expectations capture the emotional aftermath of investing in a future that hasn’t arrived. Bright Eyes’ early 2000s work resonated with disaffected students who already sensed that the system was cracking. Their songs are not about loans explicitly, but about what loans represent: being stuck, being lied to, being tired.

    Punk, true to form, skips subtlety. DIY bands across the country scream out titles like “Broke and Educated” and “Loan Shark Nation” to crowds of kids who know the words by heart. These songs aren’t just cathartic—they’re organizing tools, naming the shared betrayal of a generation taught that college was a way out. Instead, it became a life sentence.

    Country music has added its voice too, quietly but powerfully. Artists like Sturgill Simpson and Tyler Childers have used old-school storytelling to critique modern economic realities. Their characters are often trying to make ends meet in a world that seems designed to keep them down, and college debt is one of many invisible fences. Kacey Musgraves, in her ballads of broken dreams and gentle rebellion, speaks to the emotional toll of chasing a version of success that was never really for us.

    In pop and R&B, the mood shifts but the themes remain. Lizzo’s affirmations of self-worth have become survival anthems for those trying to thrive despite systemic sabotage. Billie Eilish, with her whispered melancholy, captures the numbness that often follows years of grinding toward a goal that keeps moving.

    Even instrumental genres reflect the weight of education debt. Jazz musicians and conservatory-trained artists emerge with six-figure loans and few stable jobs. Their music may not name the debt, but it carries its echoes—in the tension, the improvisation, the repetition of unresolved progressions.

    Taken together, these songs form a shadow archive of student debt in America. This is not a playlist of protest songs in the traditional sense, but a collective cultural record of what it feels like to be promised opportunity and handed obligation. To be sold a degree and saddled with interest. To be told to work hard, only to discover the rules were never fair.

    Twenty One Pilots’ “Stressed Out” may have sounded playful on first listen. But for many borrowers, that line about choosing treehouses over loans is all too real. It’s a cry for retreat—but also a quiet act of rebellion. It reminds us that the system has failed and that we are not alone in feeling crushed by its weight.

    Let the music play. Let it say what policymakers won’t. Let it remind us that while the loans may be individual, the struggle is collective—and the chorus of resistance is still growing louder.

    [Editor’s note: A 2019 version of this article is here.]

    Playlist: Songs for the Student Loan Struggle

    1. Stressed Out – Twenty One Pilots

    2. Sallie Mae Back – Dee-1

    3. Why We Build the Wall – Anaïs Mitchell

    4. Brackets – J. Cole

    5. Alright – Kendrick Lamar

    6. Broke and Educated – DIY punk band (Bandcamp)

    7. Kyoto – Phoebe Bridgers

    8. Landlocked Blues – Bright Eyes

    9. Call to Arms – Sturgill Simpson

    10. High Horse – Kacey Musgraves

    11. Truth Hurts – Lizzo

    12. everything i wanted – Billie Eilish

    13. Guillotine – Death Grips

    14. Everything Can Change – David Rovics

    15. Good as Hell – Lizzo

    16. We Are Nowhere and It’s Now – Bright Eyes

    Source link

  • AFSCME Municipal Workers Local 33 (Philadelphia) on Strike

    AFSCME Municipal Workers Local 33 (Philadelphia) on Strike

    After the latest marathon with the city, which ended without a deal, Philadelphia’s largest blue-collar union, AFSCME Local 33, is moving toward going on strike at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.



    Source link

  • A Multiday In-Class Essay for the ChatGPT Era (opinion)

    A Multiday In-Class Essay for the ChatGPT Era (opinion)

    A successful humanities course helps students cultivate critical, personally enriching and widely applicable skills, and it immerses them in the exploration of perspectives, ideas and modes of thought that can illuminate, challenge and inform their own outlooks.

    Historically, the out-of-class essay assignment has been among the best assessments for getting students in humanities courses to most fully exercise and develop the relevant critical thinking skills. Through the writing process, students can come to better understand a problem. Things that seem obvious or obviously false before spending multiple days thinking and writing suddenly become no longer obvious or obviously false. Students make up their minds on complex problems by grappling with those problems in a rigorous way through writing and editing over a sustained period (i.e., not just writing in a blue book in one class session).

    Unfortunately, since ChatGPT became widely available, out-of-class writing assignments keep becoming harder to justify as major assessments in introductory-level humanities courses. The intense personal engagement with perspectives and cultural artifacts central to the value of the humanities is more or less bypassed when a student heavily outsources to AI the generation and expression of ideas and analysis. As ChatGPT’s ability to write convincing papers goes up, so does the student temptation to rely on it (and so too does the difficulty for professors of reliably detecting AI).

    Having experimented very extensively with ChatGPT, I have found that, at least when it comes to introductory-level philosophy courses, the material that ChatGPT can produce with 10 minutes of uninformed prompting rivals much of what we can reasonably expect students to produce on their own, especially given that one can upload readings/course materials and ask ChatGPT to adjust its voice (the reader should try this).

    And students are relying on it a lot. Based on my time-consuming-and-quickly-becoming-obsolete detection techniques, about one in six of my students last fall were relying on ChatGPT in ways that were obvious. Given that it should take a student no more than 10 extra minutes on ChatGPT to make the case no longer obvious, I have to conclude that the real number of essays relying on ChatGPT in ways that conflict with academic integrity must be at least around 30 percent.

    It is unclear whether AI-detection software is sufficiently reliable to justify its use (I haven’t used it), and—at any rate—many universities prohibit reliance on it. Some instructors believe that making students submit their work as a Google Doc with track-changes history is an adequate deterrent and detection tool for AI. It is not. Students are aware of their track-changes history—they know they simply have to type ChatGPT content instead of copying and pasting it. Actually, students don’t even have to type the AI-generated content: There are readily available Google Chrome extensions that take text and “type” it at manipulable speeds (with pauses, etc.). Students can copy/paste a ChatGPT essay and have the extension “type” it into a Google Doc at a humanlike pace.

    Against this backdrop, I spent lots of time over the last winter break familiarizing myself with Lockdown Browser (a tool integrated with learning management software like Canvas that prevents access to and copying/pasting from programs outside of the LMS) and devising a new assignment model that I happily used this past semester.

    It is a multiday in-class writing assignment, where students have access through Lockdown Browser to (and only to): PDFs of the readings, a personal quotation bank they previously uploaded, an outlining document and the essay instructions (which students were given at least a week before so they had time to begin thinking through their topic).

    On Day 1 in class, students enter a Canvas essay-question quiz through Lockdown Browser with links to the resources mentioned above (each of which opens in a new tab that students can access while writing). They spend the class period outlining/writing and hit “submit” at the end of the session.

    Between the Day 1 and Day 2 writing sessions, students can read their writing on Canvas (so they can continue thinking about the topic) but are prevented from being able to edit it. If you’re worried about students relying on ChatGPT for ideas to try to memorize/regurgitate (I don’t know how worried we should be about students inevitably trying this), consider introducing small wrinkles to the essay instructions during the in-class sessions (e.g. “your essay must somewhere critically discuss this example”).

    On Day 2, students come to class and can pick back up right from where they left off.

    A Day 2 session looks like this:

    One can potentially repeat the process for a third session. I had my 75-minute classes take two days and my 50-minute classes take three days for a roughly 700-word essay.

    This format gives students access to everything we want them to have access to while working on their essays and nothing else. While it took lots of troubleshooting to develop the setup (links behave quite differently across operating systems!), this new assignment model offers an important direction worthy of serious exploration.

    I have found that this setup preserves much of what we care about most with out-of-class writing assignments: Students can think hard about the topic over an extended period of time, they can make up their minds on some topic through the process of sustained critical reflection and they experience the benefits and rewards of working on a project, stepping away from it and returning to it (while thinking hard about the topic in the background all the while).

    Indeed, I have talked with several students who noted that they ended up changing their minds on their topic between Day 1 and Day 2—they (for instance) set out to object to some view, and then they realized (after working hard through the objection on Day 1 and reflecting on it) that what they now wanted to do was defend the original view against the objection that they had developed. Perfect: This is exactly the kind of experience I have always wanted students to have when writing essays (and it’s an experience that students don’t get with a one-day blue-book essay exam).

    Because the setup documents each day’s work, it invites wonderful opportunities for students to reflect on their writing process (what are they seeing themselves prioritizing each session, and how/why might they change their approach?). The opportunities for peer review at different stages are also robust.

    For those interested, I have made a long (but time-stamped) video that illustrates and explains step by step how to build the assignment in Canvas (it also discusses troubleshooting steps for when a device isn’t getting into Lockdown Browser). The video assumes very minimal knowledge of Canvas and Lockdown Browser, and it describes the very specific ways to hyperlink everything so that students aren’t bumped out of the assignment or given access to external resources (in Canvas—I cannot currently speak to other LMS platforms). The basic technical setup for the assignment is this:

    • Create a Canvas quiz for Day 1, create an essay question, link to resources in the question (PDFs must be uploaded with the “Preview Inline” display option to work across devices), require a Lockdown Browser with a password to access it, then publish the quiz.
    • Post arbitrary, weightless grades for Day 1 after the first writing session so that students can read (but not edit) what they wrote before Day 2 (students cannot read their submitted work until you post some grade for it).
    • Create a Canvas quiz for Day 2 just like Day 1, but this time, in the essay question, link to the Day 1 Canvas quiz (select “external link” rather than “course link,” and copy/paste the Day 1 Canvas quiz link).

    As I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, a successful humanities course helps students cultivate critical, personally enriching and widely applicable skills, and it immerses them in the exploration of perspectives, ideas and modes of thought that can illuminate, challenge and inform their own outlooks. The research I have done over the past three years tells me I can no longer be confident that an intro-level course that nontrivially relies on out-of-class writing assignments can be a fully successful humanities course so understood. Yet a humanities course that fully abandons sustained essay assignments deprives students of the experience that best positions them to fully exercise and develop the skills most central to our disciplines. Something in the direction of this multiday in-class Lockdown Browser essay assignment is worthy of serious consideration.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    In the small world of higher education, Karina Kogan and I know many of the same people. An introduction from one of these colleagues got Karina and me talking, and out of those conversations came this Q&A. I asked if Karina would be willing to share some thoughts about her company, EducationDynamics; her role (VP of partnership development); and her career advice for other aspiring leaders in her industry.

    Q: How does EducationDynamics work with colleges and universities for online and other academic programs? Where does EducationDynamics fit into the ecosystem of companies that partner with universities?

    A: That’s a great question and one I love answering, because this space is full of players, but not all of them are moving higher education forward. At EducationDynamics, we focus on the institutions that are ready to take bold steps forward. Not just in marketing or enrollment, but in how they grow strategically, strengthen their brand and generate revenue in a way that’s built to last.

    We want to help institutions stop doing what they’ve always done. We need to serve modern learners, which takes a fundamentally different approach. These students are focused on cost, convenience and career outcomes. They’re not influenced by tradition alone and they don’t respond to disconnected efforts that don’t reflect who they are or where they’re headed.

    That’s why we start with research. We don’t push a standard playbook or a prebuilt product. We look at the market, the student behavior, the school’s position, and we use those insights to build strategy that aligns with their enrollment priorities while also reinforcing the institution’s brand and reputation. Because those things are not separate anymore. A school’s ability to grow its revenue is directly connected to how it is perceived in the market. If your brand lacks clarity or credibility, students move on.

    Over the past few years, we’ve seen how much student expectations have changed. They’re more in control of their academic path than ever and they defy outdated categories like traditional or nontraditional. At the same time, reputation has become a major factor in their decision-making. That’s why, in 2024, we brought the RW Jones Agency into the EDDY family. They’ve built a national reputation for helping institutions shape perception, elevate their voice and lead through complexity. Bringing that expertise into our ecosystem has allowed us to connect performance with purpose in a way that’s truly differentiated.

    And we don’t just build the plan. We execute. We run the campaigns, manage enrollment outreach and support student engagement. It’s a full life cycle approach from awareness to enrollment to retention with everything working together and accountable to outcomes. That’s what it takes to grow in today’s market. It’s not about lead volume alone. It’s about attracting the right students, setting the right expectations and making sure the institution delivers on its promise.

    As for where we fit in the ecosystem? Well … honestly, we don’t fit the mold and we’re not trying to and that’s intentional. Most institutions are still working with a handful of disconnected partners, each focused on one piece of the puzzle. That model no longer works. We bring brand, communications, marketing and enrollment strategy together, because when those areas are aligned, the institution grows in a way that’s both measurable and meaningful.

    I’ve been in higher ed for more than 20 years, and this moment feels different. There’s real urgency, but also real openness to change. Our new CEO, Brent Ramdin, has brought a clear and future-facing vision that’s aligned our team and elevated our work. He understands where this sector is headed and what it will take to succeed there.

    Q: Tell us about your role at EducationDynamics. What are your primary responsibilities and accountabilities? What career path brought you to your current leadership position within the company?

    A: I serve as vice president of partnerships at EducationDynamics, and in many ways, it’s the role I’ve spent my entire career building toward. My focus is on developing strong, strategic relationships with colleges and universities across the country where I work closely with institutional leaders and our internal teams to craft unique solutions that help schools not only meet but exceed their enrollment goals.

    It’s a highly collaborative role and one that demands both strategic insight and real operational follow-through. Every institution is different, so the work is never one-size-fits-all. I spend my time listening deeply, understanding the nuances of each partner’s challenges and helping shape the path forward, always with the modern learner in mind.

    My career in higher ed started more than 20 years ago at the University of Phoenix, where I held several leadership roles over the course of more than a decade while simultaneously expanding my leadership development through structured curriculum. That experience gave me a strong foundation in enrollment strategy, team leadership and cross-functional execution. From there, I served as chief partnerships officer at a division of Excelsior University, where I helped institutions launch and scale their first online programs.

    That’s what ultimately led me to EducationDynamics, and the transition from the institutional side to the partner side has been both natural and energizing. I understand what it feels like to be inside an institution navigating change, and that perspective helps me show up as a true partner to the schools we work with today.

    Q: What advice do you have for early and midcareer professionals interested in eventually moving into a leadership role in a for-profit company in the higher education and digital marketing spaces?

    A: I always tell people to be deliberately curious. So, one of the biggest pieces of advice I can offer is this: Develop a deep understanding of both the mission of higher ed and the mechanics of the business side of institutions. The sweet spot in this space, especially in leadership, is being able to translate institutional goals into scalable, market-responsive strategies. That takes more than just technical skill. It takes empathy, agility and a strong sense of purpose.

    If you’re coming from the university side, spend time learning how businesses that serve higher ed operate—how they measure success, how they use data, how decisions get made. And if you’re coming from the corporate side, take the time to understand the culture, values and pace of higher education. The people who lead effectively in this space are the ones who can bridge those two worlds with credibility and clarity.

    Also, be proactive about expanding your perspective. Step outside your job function. Learn the language of marketing, enrollment, analytics, finance, because in a leadership role, you’ll need to connect all those dots. What’s key for me is I don’t focus on being the expert in the room; I focus on being useful.

    I’ve also found that relationships are everything. Build your network early, nurture it often and don’t be afraid to show up for others before you need anything in return. Platforms like LinkedIn have made that easier than ever, but the real value is in the follow-up, the conversations and the genuine connections.

    And finally: Get close to the work. The best leaders I know are the ones who stay connected to the impact their work has on students, on institutions and on outcomes that actually matter. That connection is what makes the hard work worth it, and it’s what keeps your leadership grounded in purpose.

    So, if I had to sum it up: Keep learning, look for ways to be of service and stay connected. That mindset opens doors, builds trust and prepares you for leadership in any space, especially in one as dynamic as this one.

    Source link

  • Beyond Rankings: Redefining University Success in the AI-Era

    Beyond Rankings: Redefining University Success in the AI-Era

    • By Somayeh Aghnia, Co-Founder and Chair of the Board of Governors at the London School of Innovation.

    University rankings have long been a trusted, if controversial, proxy for quality. Students use them to decide where to study. Policymakers use them to shape funding. Universities use them to benchmark themselves against competitors. But in an AI-powered world, are these rankings still measuring what matters?

    If we’ve learned anything from the world of business over the last decade, it’s this: measuring the wrong things can lead even the most successful organisations astray. The tech industry, in particular, has seen numerous examples of companies optimising for vanity metrics (likes, downloads, growth at all costs) only to realise too late that these metrics didn’t align with real value creation.

    The metrics we choose to measure today will shape the universities we get tomorrow.

    The Problem with Today’s Rankings

    Current university ranking systems, whether national or global, tend to rely on a familiar set of indicators:

    • Research volume and citations
    • Academic and employer reputation surveys
    • Faculty-student ratios
    • International staff and student presence
    • Graduate salary data
    • Student satisfaction and completion rates

    While these factors offer a snapshot of institutional performance, they often fail to reflect the complex reality of the world. A university may rise in the rankings even as it fails to respond to student needs, workforce realities, or societal challenges.

    For example, graduate salary data may tell us something about economic outcomes, but very little about the long-term adaptability or purpose-driven success of those graduates or their impact on improving society. Research citations measure academic influence, but not whether the research is solving real-world problems. Reputation surveys tend to reward legacy and visibility, not innovation or inclusivity.

    In short, they anchor universities to a model optimised for the industrial era, not the intelligence era.

    Ready for the AI paradigm?

    Artificial Intelligence is a paradigm shift that is changing what we value in all aspects of life including education, especially higher education, how we define learning, what we want as an outcome, and how we measure success.

    In a world where knowledge is increasingly accessible, and where intelligent systems can generate information, summarise research, and tutor students, the role of a university shifts from delivering knowledge or developing skills to curating learning experiences focusing on developing humans’ adaptability, and preparing students, and society, for uncertainty.

    This means the university of the future must focus less on scale, tradition, and prestige, and more on relevance, adaptability, and ethical leadership. These are harder to measure, but far more important.
    This demands a new value system. And with that, a new approach to how we assess institutional success.

    What Should We Be Measuring?

    As we rethink what universities are for, we must also rethink how we assess their impact. Inspired by the “measure what matters” philosophy from business strategy, we need new metrics that reflect AI-era priorities. These could include:

    1. Adaptability: How quickly and responsibly does an institution respond to societal, technological, and labour market shifts? This could be measured by:

    • Curriculum renewal cycle: Time between major curriculum updates in response to new tech or societal trends.
    • New programme launches: Number and relevance of AI-, climate-, or digital economy-related courses introduced in the last 3 years.
    • Agility audits: Internal audits of response times to regulatory or industry change (e.g., how quickly AI ethics is integrated into professional courses).
    • Employer co-designed modules: % of programmes co-developed with industry or public sector partners.

    2. Student agency: Are students empowered to shape their own learning paths, engage with interdisciplinary challenges, and co-create knowledge?  This could be measured by:

    • Interdisciplinary enrolment: % of students engaged in flexible, cross-departmental study pathways.
    • Student-designed modules/projects: Number of modules that allow student-led curriculum or research projects.
    • Participation in governance: % of students involved in academic boards, curriculum design panels, or innovation hubs.
    • Satisfaction with personalisation: Student survey responses (e.g., NSS, internal pulse surveys) on flexibility and autonomy in learning.

    3. AI and digital literacy: To what extent are institutions preparing their staff and their graduates for a world where AI is embedded in every profession? This could be measured by:

    • Curriculum integration: % of degree programmes with AI/digital fluency embedded as a learning outcome.
    • Staff development: Hours or participation rates in AI-focused CPD for academic and support staff.
    • AI usage in teaching and assessment: Extent of AI-enabled platforms, feedback systems, or tutors in active use.
    • Graduate outcomes: Employer feedback or destination data reflecting readiness for digital-first/AI-ready roles.

    4. Contribution to local and global challenges: Are research efforts aligned with pressing societal needs amplified with advancements of AI such as social justice, or the AI divide? This could be measured by:

    • UN SDG alignment: % of research/publications mapped to UN Sustainable Development Goals.
    • AI-for-good projects: Number of AI projects tackling societal or environmental issues.
    • Community partnerships: Active partnerships with local authorities, civic groups, or NGOs on social challenges.
    • Policy influence: Instances where university research or expertise shapes public policy (e.g. citations in white papers or select committees).

    5. Wellbeing and belonging: How well are staff and students supported to thrive, not just perform, within the institution? This could be measured by:

    • Staff/student wellbeing index: Use of validated tools like the WEMWBS (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale) in internal surveys.
    • Use of support services: Uptake and satisfaction rates for mental health, EDI, and financial support services.
    • Sense of belonging scores: Survey data on inclusion, psychological safety, and campus climate.
    • Staff retention and engagement: Turnover data, satisfaction from staff pulse surveys, or exit interviews.

    These are not soft metrics. They are foundational indicators of whether a university is truly fit for purpose in a volatile and AI-transformed world. You could call this a “University Fitness for Future Index”, a system that doesn’t rank but reveals how well an institution is evolving, and as a result its academics, staff and students are adapting to a rapidly changing world.

    From Status to Substance

    Universities must now face the uncomfortable but necessary task of redefining their identity and purpose. Those who focus solely on preserving status will struggle. Those who embrace the opportunity to lead with substance – authenticity, impact, innovation – have a chance to thrive.

    AI will not wait for the sector to catch up. Students, staff, employers, and communities are already asking deeper questions: Does this university prepare me for an unpredictable future? Does it care about the society I will enter after graduation? Is it equipping us to lead with courage and ethics in an AI-powered world?

    These are the questions that matter. And increasingly, they should be the ones that will shape how institutions are evaluated, regardless of their position in the league tables.

    It’s time we evolve our frameworks to reflect what really counts, that increasingly will be defined by usefulness, purpose, and trust.

    A Call for Courage

    We are not simply in an era of change. We are in a change of era.

    If we are serious about preparing our learners, and our society, for a world defined by intelligent systems, we must also be serious about redesigning the system that educates them.

    That means shifting from prestige to purpose. From competition to contribution. From reputation to relevance.

    Because the institutions that will lead the future are not necessarily those that top today’s rankings.

    They are the ones willing to ask: what truly matters now and are we brave enough to measure it?

    Source link

  • For some, the heat is an access issue

    For some, the heat is an access issue

    When you think about the accessibility and inclusivity of our learning and working environments, does temperature come to mind?

    Discussions about temperature can be complicated because they are quickly confused with preference, meaning that by raising the issue someone risks being viewed as selfish or fussy.

    But let’s think of this another way for a moment. I love nuts – others might not like them. But still others are allergic to nuts and could be made seriously ill by them.

    The same principle is true about temperature – you might have a preference for warmer or cooler temperatures, but only at extreme levels would this preference become a health issue.

    But for colleagues and students with a wide range of health conditions, even small temperature changes are a health issue.

    Temperature as an EDI issue

    I am surprised how hard it is to find information that openly discusses temperature as an EDI issue. There is widespread information discussing employers’ legal responsibility to provide a safe working temperature – articles about the harmful effects of extreme temperature on health and the likelihood of this increasing due to climate change.

    However, discussions about how smaller workplace temperature changes can have a disabling effect now is generally hidden on pages relevant to specific groups or health conditions.

    By smaller temperature changes, I am referring to apparently inconsequential things like walking, moving between spaces (e.g. outside to inside or between rooms) or the crowded rooms.

    Many people would adapt to these situations automatically e.g. taking off a jumper. However, for others these small everyday increases or decreases in temperature require planning, and can cause anxiety and significant discomfort or health impact.

    Menopause awareness discussions are leading the way in voicing the impact of workplace temperature and employer responsibility. Research highlights the prevalence of heat-related issues linked to menopause and the importance of the ability to control local temperature to help manage symptoms in the work environment.

    Significantly, however, studies also voice the shame individuals encounter in living through this normal and widespread experience in the workplace:

    I spent most of my time when I used to work with my head in a fan and colleagues laughing at my hot flushes. It was too hot in the office for me and I felt hot sweaty and embarrassed all the time.

    However, menopause is far from the only reason a small temperature change might have a significant impact on health and wellbeing. Many health conditions are also affected.

    The correlation between temperature and exacerbation of symptoms is perhaps particularly unsurprising with multiple sclerosis – before MRI scanners, observing a patient’s functioning in a hot bath was a key part of the diagnostic process.

    Likewise, the MS Trust states that 60-80 per cent of people with MS find symptoms worsen with even small changes in temperature. As Jennifer Powell succinctly puts it:

    Heat is kryptonite to anyone with multiple sclerosis.

    What exactly does ‘worsening symptoms’ mean for someone with MS? It might include a deterioration in mobility, balance, vision, and brain functioning:

    “Heat makes my nervous system act a bit like a computer with a broken cooling fan. First it acts a bit strange, then programs start crashing and then you get the dreaded ‘blue screen of death’ when all you can do is switch off for a while then start all over again when things have cooled down.

    It may also trigger or exacerbate nerve pain ranging from itching or numbness to stabbing or electric shock sensations. This is a far cry from preference.

    But again, MS is not the only health condition affected by small changes in heat. When you start to scratch the surface, the range of conditions that may be affected is startling. They include circulatory, rheumatological (e.g. Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis), mental health, neurological (e.g. spinal damage) and neurodevelopmental (e.g. autism) conditions.

    Sometimes it is the treatment, rather than condition itself, that causes difficulties with temperature regulation.

    As well as the chemotherapy causing difficulties with temperature regulation, Rebekah Hughes describes how it triggered early menopause. She also raises the important point that hot flushes affect individuals differently – for some they might be barely noticeable, for others they severely impact daily life. We need to allow space for differences in individual experience.

    What is the cost of ignoring this issue?

    From the discussion so far, we can clearly see that temperature affects some staff and students’ experience of normal day-to-day work and study, and impacts their health, wellbeing and sense of belonging. It may also impact performance in high-stakes events.

    Typical academic high-stakes events include assessed presentations, interviews, conferences and exams. They often cause temporary stress, which may cause small increases in body temperature.

    Individuals usually have reduced personal control to make their own adaptations in these contexts. This raises important questions about the inclusivity of our assessment, recruitment and professional development opportunities. These activities are gatekeeping moments in an individual’s academic and professional journey. However, there is a strong case that the activities and the environments in which they take place may have an unrecognised, yet substantial and possibly disabling, impact on some due to hidden temperature factors.

    Next steps?

    We might be left thinking that this is an impossible situation – some people need warmer working conditions, others cooler. We might be afraid to start a conversation about temperature for fear of opening a can of worms. However, we do well to remember that some individuals are affected by multiple health conditions – some that make them susceptible to heat, others that make them susceptible to cold. They have to find a way to manage this complexity, and if we are committed to EDI, we must too.

    Moreover, the first step is not to try and jump to a quick-fix solution. Instead, we simply need to be aware that this hidden issue might be affecting a surprising number of our students and colleagues.

    We need to continue to develop a compassionate campus culture where colleagues and students feel safe to share the challenges they face and the strategies that help, and a space where they will be heard.

    Source link

  • Defunding level 7 apprenticeships in health and care may backfire on lower levels

    Defunding level 7 apprenticeships in health and care may backfire on lower levels

    Well, it finally happened. Level 7 apprenticeship funding will disappear for all but a very limited number of younger people from January 2026.

    The shift in focus from level 7 to funding more training for those aged 21 and under seems laudable – and of course we all want opportunities for young people – but will it solve or create more problems for the health and social care workforce?

    The introduction of foundation apprenticeships, aimed at bringing 16- to 21-year-olds into the workforce, includes health and social care. Offering employer incentives should be a good thing, right?

    Care is not merely a job

    Of course we need to widen opportunities for careers in health and social care, one of the guaranteed growth industries for the foreseeable future regardless of the current funding challenges. But the association of foundation apprenticeships with those not in education, employment or training (NEETs) gives the wrong impression of the importance of high-quality care for the most vulnerable sectors of our society.

    Delivering personal care, being an effective advocate, or dealing with challenging behaviours in high pressured environments requires a level of skill, professionalism and confidence that should not be incentivised as simply a route out of unemployment.

    Employers and education providers invest significant time and energy in crafting a workforce that can deliver values-based care, regardless of the care setting. Care is not merely a job: it’s a vocation that needs to be held in high esteem, otherwise we risk demeaning those that need our care and protection.

    There are already a successful suite of apprenticeships leading to careers in health and social care, which the NHS in particular makes good use of. Social care providers (generally smaller employers) report challenges in funding or managing apprenticeships, but there are excellent examples of where this is working well.

    So, do we need something at foundation level? How does that align with T level or level 2 apprenticeship experiences? If these pathways already exist and numbers are disappointing, why bring another product onto the market? And are we sending the correct message to the wider public about the value of careers in health and social care?

    Career moves

    The removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships serves as a threat to the existing career development framework – and it may yet backfire on foundation or level 2 apprenticeships. The opportunity to develop practitioners into enhanced or advanced roles in the NHS is not only critical to the delivery of health services in the future, but it also offers a career development and skills escalator mechanism.

    By removing this natural progression, the NHS will see role stagnation – which threatens workforce retention. We know that the opportunity to develop new skills or move into advanced roles is a significant motivator for employees.

    If senior practitioners are not able to move up, out or across into new roles, how will those entering at lower levels advance? Where are the career prospects that the NHS has spent years developing and honing? Although we are still awaiting the outcome of the consultation around the 10-year plan – due for publication this week with revisions to the long-term workforce plan to follow – I feel confident in predicting that we will need new roles or skill sets to successfully deliver care.

    So, if no development is happening through level 7 apprenticeships, where is the money going to come from? The NHS has been suggesting that there will be alternative funding streams for some level 7 qualifications, but this is unlikely to offer employers the flexibility or choice they had through the levy.

    Could level 6 be next?

    Degree apprenticeships at level 6 have also come in for some criticism about the demographics of those securing apprenticeship opportunities and how this has impacted opportunities for younger learners – an extrapolation of the arguments that were made against level 7 courses.

    Recent changes to the apprenticeship funding rules, requirements of off the job training and the anticipated changes to end-point assessment could lead to pre-registration apprenticeships in nursing and allied health being deemed no longer in line with the policy intent because of the regulatory requirements associated with them.

    The workforce plan of 2023 outlined the need for significant growth of the health and social care workforce, an ambition that probably is still true although how and when this will happen may change. Research conducted by the University of Derby and University Alliance demonstrated some of the significant successes associated with apprenticeship schemes in the NHS, but also highlighted some of the challenges. Even with changes to apprenticeship policy, these challenges will not disappear.

    Our research also highlighted challenges associated with the bureaucracy of apprenticeships, the need for stronger relationships between employers and providers, flexibility in how the levy is used to build capacity and how awareness of the apprenticeship “brand” needs to be promoted.

    A core feature of workforce development

    The security of our future health and social care workforce lies in careers being built from the ground up, regardless of whether career development is funded by individuals themselves or via apprenticeships. However, the transformative nature of apprenticeships, the associated social mobility, the organisational benefits and the drive to deliver high quality care in multiple settings means that we should not be quick to walk further away from the apprenticeship model.

    Offering apprenticeships at higher (and all) academic levels is critical to delivering high quality care and encouraging people to remain engaged in the sector.

    So, as Skills England start to roll out change, it is crucial that both the NHS and higher education remain close to policymakers, supporting and challenging decisions being made. While there are challenges, these can be overcome or worked through. The solutions arrived at may not always be easy, but they have to be evidence-based and fully focused on the need to deliver a health and social care workforce of which the UK can be proud.

    Source link