Category: Featured

  • For Learning, Focus on the Essence and the Experiences

    For Learning, Focus on the Essence and the Experiences

    When I was teaching, I always thought of this time on the calendar as the “postexhale” period.

    The end of the semester is a headlong sprint to the finish, which, unlike a race where you get to break the tape and coast to a stop, is more like hitting a wall and collapsing on the spot. At least that’s how it always felt to me, at least until I started ending the semester at week 13 (of 15) and using the last two weeks for wind-down and reflection on what we’d all learned.

    In the immediate aftermath of the semester, particularly spring semester, I couldn’t be bothered with any thinking or planning for the next semester. The next scheduled activity, usually something I started around the first week of August, would be the specific planning for the forthcoming semester, but there is also this postexhale period where no work needs to be done, conditions that are fertile for thinking and dreaming before the planning.

    The postexhale period is the spot where you’re likely to gestate your best ideas, because at least for the next month or so, you don’t have to do anything with them.

    I want to plant a seed of thought for anyone who is confronting having to or wanting to make changes to their course in order to accommodate the reality of generative AI technology being in the world.

    Here it is: Next semester, do less that means more.

    As I’ve been traveling around talking to people about how we can (and should) adjust how we think about teaching writing, one of the persistent worries is that introducing some AI-related content or experiences around ethics or safe use or whatever requires layering something new on what’s already happening. For many instructors, it’s an uninvited and therefore unwelcome burden.

    I get it. We can never cover everything to begin with. Here’s one more thing to cover.

    But what if we can use this as an opportunity to rethink what learning looks like? As we move through this period where we can reflect and reconsider, we can think about how to boil the experiences in the classroom down to an essence that can be reflected in learning experiences.

    Consider the learning that has proved most enduring from the full trajectory of your education and I think you’ll find that it clusters around essential, deep lessons. What has mattered are the moments where we have learned how to learn and think and act inside a particular domain. It is this learning that allows us to go forth and continue to learn eagerly, ceaselessly.

    Even as a decidedly and well-documented overall mediocre student, there are numerous learning experiences (in and out of class) that I can point to as inflection points that made a significant difference in the overall trajectory of my life because they provided something essential to my journey forward.

    One moment I invoke frequently is when my third-grade teacher asked us to write instructions for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and then had us try to make the sandwiches following the instructions to the letter. Because I forgot to say that you should use a knife to spread the peanut butter on the bread, I ended up sticking my hand in the jar of peanut butter to fulfill my own directive. I have a picture memorializing the occasion.

    That moment introduced me to the rhetorical situation and the fact that writing has a purpose and an audience—and careless writing has consequences. I’m sure I learned all kinds of other things in third grade and maybe some of them were important, but only one moment was indelible, and that’s all I needed.

    In high school, excited about the subject matter for my junior-year English term paper (the New Journalism of Tom Wolfe), while being not enthused about the parameters of what I was supposed to do with that subject matter, I decided to write my term paper in the style of Tom Wolfe, earning a not-so-great grade from my teacher, but a meaningful lesson in how to keep myself interested with a task. (I wrote in more detail about this previously.)

    Some reflection unearths other moments. A college nonfiction writing class had us pretending we were writing for specific publications and producing columns that could fit under the editorial banner. I chose Esquire, imagining myself a sophisticated male, I guess. We were required to understand how to write for very specific audiences with very specific aims, excellent practice for all kinds of different futures. At the end of the semester, we had a competition where we voted for the “best” columns across a number of different categories. I was a finalist in several but won zero, losing out to one specific classmate’s work every time.

    In a conference with the instructor, I must’ve expressed some kind of disappointment, and he said something that stuck with me: “X’s stuff sounds like themselves writing for a publication. You sound like someone doing an imitation of someone writing for a publication.” I walked away believing that authenticity was ultimately the differentiator in connecting with readers.

    I could name more moments. My first semester of grad school, my professor, Robert Olen Butler, had us do an in-class writing exercise based in sense memory (which can be found in his book From Where You Dream), and I experienced what it was like to tap into my artistic subconscious for an extended, focused period. Bob was not the most engaged of mentors, but I’m not sure I’d still be writing if I hadn’t had that experience.

    When I started teaching, the indelible lessons delivered by my students came even more often, possibly because I recognized my responsibility over the work in ways I hadn’t achieved as a student.

    All these moments are rooted in very specific and specifically designed experiences. These kinds of experiences are not threatened by the existence of large language models, because it was clear to me that the point of the exercise is to have the experience.

    Of course, generative AI tools could be present as part of an important learning experience, but when generative AI is used by students as a substitute for the experience, the learning is obviously deformed. Injecting LLMs into our courses simply because it seems like something we have to be doing is not a great recipe for learning.

    There are some, perhaps many, places where it is not and should not be welcome because it is not conducive to the experience of learning we’re trying to instantiate.

    As I think about these experiences, what I learned was really contained in a crystallizing moment made possible by the earlier experience of that class, or even before that class. This is not necessarily predicated on the amount of material covered or the volume of what students are exposed to.

    As you enjoy this exhale period, maybe spend some time thinking how little you could do in your course and still have students walk away with something that will be meaningful years down the road. That may be the core of your course when you come back and start thinking about it for real in a month.

    Source link

  • Gaza Encampments “Made University Leaders Lose Their Minds”

    Gaza Encampments “Made University Leaders Lose Their Minds”

    The war in Gaza and the adverse reaction of U.S. colleges to the pro-Palestinian movement have completely changed students’ relationship to higher education, according to the maker of a new film about last year’s protests.

    A new documentary, The Encampments, follows the movement from Columbia University, where the first tents were erected in April 2024, as protests spread to hundreds of campuses worldwide, including the University of Tokyo and Copenhagen University.

    Not just isolated to Ivy League institutions in the U.S., the movement spread to many traditionally Republican-dominated states as well, Michael Workman, co-director of the film, told Times Higher Education.

    “These are not just places where the coastal elite are,” he said. “This movement touched and reached into the middle of America. In places like [Idaho], there were protests every day in solidarity and support.”

    He hopes that the film, which he sees as a “counternarrative” to the media’s negative portrayal of the encampments, will “haunt” higher education leaders for being on the wrong side of history.

    Although the conflict in Gaza continues, the student movement has had a much smaller impact this year, with many students facing severe repercussions from both their universities and the White House.

    “For some reason camping out on the lawn demanding an end to a genocide made all these administrators around the world, and especially in the U.S., lose their minds,” said Workman.

    He said the encampments arrived at a time of “heightened” organization and engagement among the student body. These movements are not sustainable but always “ebb and flow,” he added.

    Along with demanding that universities lend their voices to Gaza, students have called on institutions to divest from companies that they believe are funding a genocide.

    Workman said the “twin demands” of many of the students were to support Palestinians and to take universities, which they were paying lots of money, back to being educational institutions.

    “Students have seen their educations get turned into moneymaking machines, [instead of institutions] that are primarily there to teach students,” he said.

    “This has completely changed this generation’s relationship to higher education, and I think their relationship to the U.S. and U.S. foreign policy.”

    He said the war in Gaza has “woken up this generation,” which is why colleges reacted with such force.

    “It’s why they responded in the way that they did, because they felt they couldn’t do anything else. The cat was out of the bag,” he said.

    “These students are not going to go back to thinking what Israel is doing in Gaza was justified … and they’re going to continue to grow their movement to raise awareness around what’s happening and to fight against it.”

    Workman, who also teaches documentary film production at the University of San Francisco, said the response by faculty in the U.S. is “not a monolith” but that it is becoming increasingly supportive of the students.

    This has been particularly evident since the detention of activist and green card–holder Mahmoud Khalil, who features in the documentary, he said. Khalil, an international student who moved to the U.S. in 2022, was arrested in March following a crackdown on student protesters by President Donald Trump’s administration.

    “The more they repress the movement, in a lot of ways, the stronger it gets, because people aren’t backing down,” Workman said.

    “That doesn’t mean that we have this huge moment like the encampment moment, but we’re building a sustained foundation that is continuing to grow with really committed organizers.”

    Source link

  • What’s With the Em Dash/AI Anxieties? (opinion)

    What’s With the Em Dash/AI Anxieties? (opinion)

    In recent months, a curious fixation has emerged in corners of academia: the em dash. More specifically, the apparent moral panic around how it is spaced. A dash with no spaces on either side? That must be AI-generated writing. Case closed.

    What might seem like a minor point of style has, in some cases, become a litmus test for authenticity. But authenticity in what sense—and to whom? Because here is the thing: There is no definitive rule about how em dashes should be spaced. Merriam-Webster, for instance, notes that many newspapers and magazines insert a space before and after the em dash, while most books and academic journals don’t. Yet, a certain kind of scholar will see a tightly spaced dash and declare: “AI.”

    This tells us less about punctuation and more about the moment we are in. It reflects a deeper discomfort within academic knowledge production—about writing, authority and who gets to speak in the language of the academy.

    Academic writing has long been a space of exclusion. Mastering its conventions—its structures, tones and unwritten rules—is often as important as the content itself. Those conventions are not neutral. They privilege those fluent in a particular kind of English, in a particular kind of intellectual performance. And while these conventions have sometimes served a purpose—precision, nuance, care—they have also functioned to gatekeep, obscure and signal belonging to a small circle of insiders.

    In that context, generative AI represents a real shift. Not because it replaces thinking—clearly, it does not—but because it lowers the barriers to expressing ideas in the right register. It makes writing less labor-intensive for those who are brilliant thinkers but not naturally fluent in academic prose. It opens possibilities for scholars writing in their second or third languages, for early-career researchers who have not yet mastered the unwritten codes and for anyone who simply wants to get to the point more efficiently. This is not a minor intervention—it is a step toward democratizing academic expression.

    And in that lies both the opportunity and the anxiety.

    I have read academic work recently that likely used AI writing tools—either to help organize thoughts, smooth expression or clarify argument. Some of it has been genuinely excellent: clear, incisive and original. The ideas are coherent and well articulated. The writing does not perform difficulty; it performs clarity. And in doing so, it invites more people in.

    By contrast, a fair portion of traditionally polished academic writing still feels burdened by its own formality—long sentences, theoretical throat-clearing prose that loops and doubles back on itself. It is not that complexity should be avoided, but rather that complexity should not be confused with value. The best writing does not show off; it shows through. It makes ideas visible.

    Needless to say, I am not about to cite examples—whether of the work I suspect was AI-assisted or the work that could have done with a bit of help.

    So why, then, do so many in academic circles focus their attention on supposed telltale signs of AI use—like em dashes—rather than on the substance of the ideas themselves?

    Part of the answer lies in the ethics discourse that continues to swirl around AI. There are real concerns here: about transparency, authorship, citation and the role of human oversight. Guidance from organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, and emerging policies from journals and universities, reflect the need for thoughtful governance. These debates matter. But they should not collapse into suspicion for suspicion’s sake. That’s because the academic world has never been a perfectly level field. Those with access to time, mentorship, editorial support and elite institutions have long benefited from invisible scaffolding.

    AI tools, in some ways, make that scaffolding more widely available.

    Of course, there are risks. Overreliance on AI can lead to formulaic writing or the flattening of style. But these are not new issues—they predate AI and are often baked into the structures of journal publishing itself. The greater risk now is a kind of reactionary gatekeeping: dismissing writing not because of its content, but because of how it looks, mistaking typography for intellectual integrity.

    What is needed, instead, is a mature, open conversation about how AI fits into the evolving ecosystem of scholarly work. We need clear, consistent guidelines that recognize both the benefits and limitations of these tools. Recent statements from major institutions have begun to address this, but more are needed. We need transparency around how AI is used—without attaching shame to its use. And we need to refocus on what matters most: the quality of the thinking, the strength of the contribution and the clarity with which ideas are communicated.

    The em dash is not the problem. Nor is AI. The problem is a scholarly culture still too often wedded to performance over substance—one where form is used to mask or elevate, rather than to express.

    If we are serious about making knowledge more inclusive, more global and more just, then we should embrace tools that help more people take part in its production. Not uncritically, but openly. Not secretly, but responsibly.

    What we should be asking is not “Was this written with AI?” but rather, “Is this work rigorous? Is it generous? Does it help us think differently?”

    That is the kind of scholarship worth paying attention to—em dash or not.

    Joseph Mellors is a research associate for FUTOURWORK at Westminster Business School at the University of Westminster, in the U.K.

    Source link

  • Universities Sue, Judge Blocks DOD’s Indirect Costs Cap

    Universities Sue, Judge Blocks DOD’s Indirect Costs Cap

    Johns Hopkins, Arizona State and Cornell Universities are among a coalition of 12 higher education institutions and three trade groups that filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense on Monday over the agency’s plan to cap universities’ indirect research cost rates at 15 percent. 

    While DOD secretary Pete Hegseth said in a memo last month that the policy is aimed at “accountability” and rooting out “waste,” the lawsuit argues that slashing indirect costs rates “will stop critical research in its tracks, lead to layoffs and cutbacks at universities across the country, badly undermine scientific research at United States universities, and erode our nation’s enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation.”

    On Tuesday, a federal judge in Boston issued a temporary restraining order, prohibiting the DOD from enacting the cap. A hearing in the case is set for July 2. 

    The litigation filed this week is the latest legal challenge universities and their advocates have mounted against the federal government’s attempts to cap the amount of money it gives universities for the indirect costs of conducting federally funded research. The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy have all attempted to unilaterally enact similar caps, and federal judges have blocked those efforts for now. 

    For decades, universities have periodically negotiated with the federal government to calculate bespoke indirect cost reimbursement rates to pay for research costs that support multiple grant-funded projects, such as facilities maintenance, specialized equipment and administrative personnel. Universities factor those rates into their institutional budgets.

    For example, Johns Hopkins and the DOD currently have in place a negotiated indirect cost rate of 55 percent. In 2024 JHU received $32 million from the DOD to cover indirect costs, according to the lawsuit. If the DOD’s plan moves forward, however, the university would lose $22 million. 

    Source link

  • After Texas, DOJ Targets Kentucky’s In-State Tuition Policy

    After Texas, DOJ Targets Kentucky’s In-State Tuition Policy

    Undocumented students and immigrant advocacy organizations are still reeling after Texas, earlier this month, swiftly sided with a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit against its policy of permitting in-state tuition for undocumented students. The two-decade-old law, which Republican state lawmakers had recently tried and failed to quash, was dismantled within a matter of hours in a move some critics called collusive.

    Now the DOJ is employing the same strategy all over again—this time in Kentucky. The department filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on Tuesday challenging the in-state tuition policy for undocumented students. The lawsuit, which names Democratic governor Andy Beshear, Commissioner of Education Robbie Fletcher and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, takes issue with a policy that allows graduates of Kentucky high schools who live in the state, regardless of citizenship, to access in-state tuition benefits.

    “No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. attorney general Pamela Bondi said in a statement. “The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to fighting in Kentucky to protect the rights of American citizens.”

    Beshear is trying to distance himself from the legal battle. Crystal Staley, communications director for the governor’s office, said in a statement that the office hasn’t been served with a lawsuit, nor did it receive advance notice or hold prior conversations with the department about the regulation. She emphasized that the in-state tuition policy was established by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education more than a decade ago.

    “Under Kentucky law, CPE is independent, has sole authority to determine student residency requirements for the purposes of in-state tuition, and controls its own regulations,” Staley wrote. “The Governor has no authority to alter CPE’s regulations and should not be a party to the lawsuit.”

    The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education also only became aware of the lawsuit Wednesday morning and reported that afternoon that it had not yet been served legal documents.

    “Our staff General Counsel is reviewing pertinent federal laws and state regulations at this time to determine next steps,” Melissa Young, the council’s communications senior fellow, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    As of Wednesday evening, no new developments in the case had taken place, but Kentucky attorney general Russell Coleman, a Republican, indicated in a statement to Inside Higher Ed that his office planned to support the lawsuit.

    “Preserving in-state tuition for our citizens at the commonwealth’s premier public universities is important to fostering Kentuckians’ potential and encouraging a vibrant state economy,” Coleman said in the statement. “Our Office will support the Trump Administration’s efforts to uphold federal law in Kentucky.”

    As in Texas, a group of Republican lawmakers proposed legislation earlier this year to prevent noncitizens in Kentucky from qualifying as residents and accessing in-state tuition benefits. But the bill didn’t proceed further.

    The new lawsuit heightens fears among undocumented students’ advocates that the Trump administration could target in-state tuition policies across the country, which help undocumented students in 23 states and D.C. pay for college when they can’t access federal financial aid. Advocates also worry the Trump administration could continue to sue red states to secure policy wins desired by both Republican state lawmakers and the federal government. (In Kentucky, Republicans control the attorney general’s office and the State Legislature.)

    Monica Andrade, director of state policy and legal strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education, predicted after the Texas lawsuit, “This might only be the beginning, and there might be future actions that extend beyond Texas.”

    Now she worries she’s been proven right.

    Pushback in Texas

    The move in Kentucky comes as undocumented students and civil rights organizations are fighting back in Texas.

    The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a Latino civil rights organization, filed a motion on behalf of undocumented students in Texas to intervene in the DOJ lawsuit. The motion argues that the speed at which Texas and the DOJ came to an agreement and the judge closed the case provided no opportunity for a hearing or for the public to weigh in.

    “Our federal courts are public agencies,” said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel at MALDEF. “They’re supposed to undertake their work in the public eye. The two parties and the court did all of this behind closed doors in one afternoon, without setting a public hearing … That is a complete abuse of the judicial system.”

    “To come up with a consent judgment like that, they had to have been planning this for weeks,” he said. “Every Texan should be offended if something their legislators passed and then never repealed was so easily killed by the attorney general acting in collusion with the Department of Justice.”

    MALDEF is representing unnamed affected students, including three DACA recipients: a third-year biomedical science student at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley who is planning to pursue medical school, a student earning a master’s in higher education at University of Houston who was planning to apply to Ph.D. programs and a master’s student in clinical mental health counseling at the University of North Texas.

    “She cannot afford to pay out-of-state tuition and will likely be forced to drop out of her program,” the motion says of one student.

    The goal is for the student group to become a party in the lawsuit so that it can appeal the decision. Texas and the federal government have until early July to oppose MALDEF’s motion to intervene, but if the judge denies an intervention, MALDEF could appeal that decision as well.

    Andrade said that what MALDEF is doing could possibly be replicated in other states if the DOJ challenges more in-state tuition laws, though some states might face different challenges that require different approaches. For example, Republican lawmakers in Arizona included a provision in their House budget, approved June 12 by the House Appropriations Committee, that colleges can’t use public money to reduce tuition for noncitizens, The Arizona Capitol Times reported. Some cited the Texas lawsuit.

    The Presidents’ Alliance is in “close coordination with legal, with advocacy and institutional partners to explore—whether it’s immediate or longer-term—actions that we can take” to prepare for different kinds of attacks, Andrade said. “Folks in the states where we’re having conversations, their laws comport with federal law. But given everything that’s been going on, that doesn’t mean that folks should not be preparing for any type of challenge.”

    The organization is also trying to advise Texas undocumented students who are “scrambling,” in the absence of any state guidance to higher ed institutions as to when the tuition rate change goes into effect and to whom the shift applies. It’s unclear, for example, whether students with DACA or Temporary Protected Status are included.

    “We’re telling students to continue to take their classes and do not make any drastic changes based on this,” Andrade said.

    TheDream.US, a scholarship provider for undocumented students, is also gearing up to help Texas students find more affordable programs if they can’t pay their colleges’ out-of-state tuition prices. MALDEF predicted some students’ costs would increase up to 800 percent—in some cases, from $50 to $450 per credit hour.

    Gaby Pacheco, president and CEO of TheDream.US, said the organization is prioritizing helping students connect with online programs, because many live in Texas border towns, where commuting to a more distant college could require having to cross immigration control checkpoints.

    In the meantime, Texas institutions and students are embroiled in “confusion and uncertainty and chaos” as they await more information, she said.

    Daniel I. Morales, an associate professor of law and Dwight Olds Chair at University of Houston Law Center, said what happened in Texas is the latest example of a national trend: the “absolute erasure” of state and local issues in favor of the administration’s priorities.

    Morales said two decades ago, Texas’s in-state tuition policy was born out of Republican governor Rick Perry’s recognition of “the reality locally in Texas, that we have an enormous undocumented population that is enormously productive if given the opportunity to go to college,” which benefits the state economy. But now, state lawmakers fear risking their career trajectories if they don’t prioritize partisan national interests, he said.

    He doesn’t know what’s going to happen in Kentucky. But if it goes the way of Texas and the attorney general files a joint motion with the DOJ, civil rights organizations such as MALDEF would have to be the ones to fight it, with students as the plaintiffs, he said.

    “Students, if they don’t have the resources to pay out-of-state tuition, they don’t have the resources to litigate, either,” at least not on their own, he said. “There’s very little recourse.”

    Source link

  • Data Shows Uptake of Statewide Digital Mental Health Support

    Data Shows Uptake of Statewide Digital Mental Health Support

    In 2023, New Jersey’s Office of the Secretary of Higher Education signed a first-of-its-kind agreement with a digital mental health provider, Uwill, to provide free access to virtual mental health services to college students across the state.

    Over the past two years, 18,000-plus students across 45 participating colleges and universities have registered with the service, representing about 6 percent of the eligible postsecondary population. The state considers the partnership a success and hopes to codify the offering to ensure its sustainability beyond the current governor’s term.

    The details: New Jersey’s partnership with Uwill was spurred by a 2021 survey of 15,500 undergraduate and graduate students from 60 institutions in the state, which found that 70 percent of respondents rated their stress and anxiety as higher in fall 2021 than in fall 2020. Forty percent indicated they were concerned about their mental health in light of the pandemic.

    Under the agreement, students can use Uwill’s teletherapy, crisis connection and wellness programming at any time. Like others in the teletherapy space, Uwill offers an array of diverse licensed mental health providers, giving students access to therapists who share their backgrounds or language, or who reside in their state. Over half (55 percent) of the counselors Uwill hires in New Jersey are Black, Indigenous or people of color; among them, they speak 11 languages.

    What makes Uwill distinct from its competitors is that therapy services are on-demand, meaning students are matched with a counselor within minutes of logging on to the platform. Students can request to see the same counselor in the future, but the nearly immediate access ensures they are not caught in long wait or intake times, especially compared to in-person counseling services.

    Under New Jersey’s agreement, colleges and students do not pay for Uwill services, but colleges must receive state aid to be eligible.

    The research: The need for additional counseling capacity on college campuses has grown over the past decade, as an increasing number of students enter higher education with pre-existing mental health conditions. The most recent survey of counseling center staff by the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD) found that while demand for services is on the decline compared to recent years, a larger number of students have more serious conditions.

    Over half of four-year institutions and about one-third of community colleges nationwide provide teletherapy to students via third-party vendors, according to AUCCCD data. The average number of students who engaged with services in 2024 was 453, across institution size.

    Online therapy providers tout the benefits of having a service that supplements on-campus, in-person therapists’ services to provide more comprehensive care, including racially and ethnically diverse staff, after-hours support and on-demand resources for students.

    Eric Wood, director of counseling and mental health at Texas Christian University, told Inside Higher Ed that an ideal teletherapy vendor is one that increases capacity for on-campus services, expanding availability for on-campus staff and ensuring that students do not fall through the cracks.

    A 2024 analysis of digital mental health tools from the Hope Center at Temple University—which did not include Uwill—found they can improve student mental health, but there is little direct evidence regarding marginalized student populations’ use of or benefits from them. Instead, the greatest benefit appears to be for students who would not otherwise engage in traditional counseling or who simply seek preventative resources.

    One study featured in the Hope Center’s report noted the average student only used their campus’s wellness app or teletherapy service once; the report calls for more transparency around usage data prior to institutional investment.

    The data: Uwill reported that from April 2023 to May 2025, 18,207 New Jersey students engaged in their services at the 45 participating institutions, which include Princeton, Rutgers, Montclair State and Seton Hall Universities, as well as the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Stevens Institute of Technology. Engaged students were defined as any students who logged in to the app and created an account.

    New Jersey’s total college enrollment in 2022 was 378,819, according to state data. An Inside Higher Ed analysis of publicly available data found total enrollment (including undergraduate and graduate students) among the 45 participating colleges to be 327,353. Uwill participants in New Jersey, therefore, totaled around 4 percent of the state’s postsecondary students or 6 percent of eligible students.

    The state paid $4 million for the first year of the Uwill contract, as reported by Higher Ed Dive, pulling dollars from a $10 million federal grant to support pandemic relief and a $16 million budget allocation for higher education partnerships. That totals about $89,000 per institution for the first year alone, or $12 per eligible student, according to an Inside Higher Ed estimate.

    In a 2020 interview with Inside Higher Ed, Uwill CEO Michael London said the minimum cost to a college for one year of services is about $25,000, or $10 to $20 per student per year.

    New Jersey students met with counselors in more than 78,000 therapy sessions, or about six sessions per student between 2023 and 2025, according to Uwill data. Students also engaged in 548 chat sessions with therapists, sent 6,593 messages and requested 1,216 crisis connections during the first two years of service.

    User engagement has slowly ticked up since the partnership launched. In January 2024, the state said more than 7,600 students registered on the platform, scheduling nearly 20,000 sessions. By September 2024, Uwill reported more than 13,000 registered students on the platform, scheduling more than 49,000 sessions. The most recent data, published June 6, identified 18,000 students engaging in 78,000 sessions.

    Over 1,200 of Montclair State’s 22,000 students have registered with Uwill since June 2023, Jaclyn Friedman-Lombardo, Montclair State’s director of counseling and psychological services, said at a press conference, or approximately 6 percent of the total campus population.

    The state does not require institutions to track student usage data to compare usage to campus counseling center services, but some institutions choose to, according to a spokesperson for both the office of the secretary and Uwill. The secretary’s office can view de-identified campus-level data and institutions can engage with more detailed data, as well.

    Creating access: One of the goals of implementing digital mental health interventions is to expand access beyond traditional counseling centers, such as after hours, on weekends or over academic breaks.

    Roughly 30 percent of participants in the Uwill partnership completed a session between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. on a weeknight or on the weekends. Over the 2024–25 winter break, students engaged in 3,073 therapy sessions. More than 90 of those took place outside New Jersey. Students also used Uwill services over summer vacation this past year (9,235 sessions from May 20 to Aug. 26, of which 10 percent took place outside New Jersey).

    A majority of users were traditional-aged college students (17 to 24 years old), and 32 percent were white, 25 percent Hispanic and 17 percent Black. The report did not compare participating students’ race to those using on-campus services or general campus populations.

    About 85 percent of New Jersey users were looking for a BIPOC therapist, and 9 percent requested therapists who speak languages other than English, including Hindi and Mandarin.

    Postsession assessment completed by students who do schedule an appointment has returned positive responses, with a feedback score of 9.5 out of 10 in New Jersey, compared to Uwill’s 9.2 rating nationally.

    Unanswered questions: Wood indicated the data leaves some questions left unanswered, such as whether students were also clients at the on-campus counseling center, or if the service had improved students’ mental health over time from a clinical perspective.

    “Just because a student had four sessions with a telehealth provider, if they came right back to the counseling center, did it really make an impact on the center’s capacity to see students?” Wood said.

    The high cost of the service should also give counseling center directors pause, Wood said, because those dollars could be used for a variety of other interventions to create capacity.

    The data indicated some benefits to counseling center capacity, including diverse staff and after-hours support. But to create a true return on investment, counseling centers should calculate how much capacity the tele–mental health service created and its direct impact on student wellness, not just participation in services.

    “It would be ideal to compare the number of students receiving services (not just creating an account) through the platform to the number of students who would likely benefit from receiving treatment, as identified by clinically validated mental health screens on population surveys,” said Sara Abelson, assistant professor at the Hope Center and the report’s lead author.

    What’s next: New Jersey renewed its contract with Uwill first in January 2024 and then again in May, extending through spring 2026. State leaders said the ongoing services are still supported by pandemic relief funds.

    On May 2, New Jersey assemblywoman Andrea Katz from the Eighth District introduced a bill, the Mental Health Early Access on Campus Act, which would require colleges to implement mental health first aid training among campus stakeholders, peer support programs, mental health orientation education and teletherapy services to ensure counseling ratios are one to every 1,250 students per campus. The International Accreditation of Counseling Services recommends universities maintain a ratio of at least one full-time equivalency for every 1,000 to 1,500 students.

    “We know that mental health services that our kids need are not going to end when we change governors,” Katz said at a press conference. “We need to make sure that all of this is codified into law.”

    Source link

  • How to address harassment and sexual misconduct experienced by PGRs

    How to address harassment and sexual misconduct experienced by PGRs

    The experiences of postgraduate researchers (PGRs) have not received the same level of attention as undergraduate students in relation to tackling harassment and sexual misconduct.

    PGRs have very different conditions of study than undergraduate or taught postgraduate students, and they may be at a different stage in life with significant professional experience.

    It would be a mistake, however, to assume that PGRs’ maturity and longer tenure within higher education institutions means that they are less likely to experience these issues.

    PGRs face significant risks – particularly in relation to abuses of power from staff both within and outside their institution – that can have deleterious impacts on their lives, careers, and health, requiring a different approach to provisions for students at other levels.

    As a result, implementation of the Office for Students’ (OfS) regulatory requirements, coming into force on 1 August 2025, needs to ensure that it takes into account the specific situations and needs of PGRs.

    At The 1752 Group, to support HEIs to do this, in partnership with the UK Council for Graduate Education we have published a toolkit to guide work in this area. It draws on our own, as well as international research in this area, to give a snapshot of current good practice.

    It also addresses the obligations outlined in the Worker Protection Act – in force since October 2024 – which requires employers to take reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment of employees.

    While the OfS regulations apply to England only, the toolkit can also be used outside England to guide institutional work on addressing harassment and sexual misconduct experienced by PGRs.

    Prevalence

    Perhaps the most problematic misconception in the sector about harassment and sexual misconduct is that it is rare. A 2023 survey conducted on behalf of OfS (n=5090) found that 6 per cent of PGRs had experienced unwanted behaviours of a sexual nature in the previous year.

    The findings also show there is work to be done on confidence in reporting – 32 per cent of PGRs were not confident in knowing where to seek university support, while 35 per cent were not confident in knowing how to report sexual misconduct.

    However, the OfS survey only had a small number of PGR respondents. Larger-scale studies from Australia (n=31,000) and the US (n=181,752) indicate that as many as 15 per cent of postgraduate students experience sexual harassment in a university setting each year, with 58 per cent being targeted by another student and 10 per cent being targeted by a tutor or lecturer from their university (the data is not disaggregated for PGRs specifically).

    Of course, sexual harassment intersects with harassment on the basis of other protected characteristics – non-binary and trans people are subjected to higher rates of sexual harassment at university than women (45 per cent and 32 per cent respectively), and lesbian, bisexual, gay and queer students, as well as women, also experience significantly higher rates of sexual harassment than heterosexual, cis-gendered men.

    On top of sexual harassment, LBGTQ+ doctoral students may also be experiencing homophobic and/or transphobic behaviour or feel that they have to conceal their sexual orientation/expression and/or gender identity/expression. There is also a risk that, following the Supreme Court’s recent judgement on the legal definition of sex, trans and non-binary students and staff (as well as those perceived to be trans, non-binary or gender nonconforming) face an even higher risk of harassment.

    OfS regulatory requirements around E6 cover all forms of harassment on the basis of protected characteristics. Data on experiences among PGRs is often unavailable. However, in a 2020 survey of 828 students across all levels of study in the UK, 24 per cent of respondents from an ethnic minority background had experienced racial harassment since becoming a student.

    That figure rose to 45 per cent of Black respondents, with the most common form of harassment being racist name calling, insults or “jokes”. Research specifically focusing on the experiences of racially minoritised PGRs in the UK shows that they face “multiple challenges, which are often triggered and amplified by circumstances specific to their ethnicity and result in their disempowerment within HEIs”, with women and international racially minoritised PGRs being especially marginalised.

    Similarly, Muslim doctoral students, who may also be racially minoritised, face Islamophobia, overt and covert racism, and marginalisation.

    What, then, do higher education institutions need to do to address this issue? A first step is to make sure that appropriate institutional governance and oversight is in place. Beyond that, institutional provision can be divided into three stages (based in public health models of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention):

    • Preventing harassment before it occurs
    • Short-term responses that should be in place when gender-based violence or harassment occurs, including to prevent it from recurring
    • Longer-term actions to deal with the lasting consequences of gender-based violence

    Preventing harassment

    The first stage, preventing harassment before it occurs, should be where the most substantial amount of work occurs. One area is in preventing abuses of power. OfS requires institutions to take one or more steps which could (individually or in combination) make a significant and credible difference in protecting students from any actual or potential conflict of interest and/or abuse of power.

    This is a significant challenge in relation to PGRs, given deeply hierarchical nature of academia. Ways in which HEIs can prevent abuses of power include clarifying professional boundaries, introducing a staff-student relationships policy, minimising power imbalances in admissions processes and supervision arrangements, and safer staff recruitment.

    For example, discussions of professional boundaries with supervisors and PGRs within departments and schools can feed into an institution-wide policy in this area. Institutional requirements in terms of professional boundaries could then be added to existing staff training and PGR professional development programmes, as well as induction procedures.

    More generally, training is required not only for PGRs themselves, but most urgently for staff, not least because any staff member could potentially receive a disclosure of harassment or sexual misconduct. Staff involved in making decisions or providing ongoing support will need further training on the required knowledge and skills.

    The OfS guidance does not discuss addressing inequalities as part of prevention work. Nevertheless, this is an essential part of preventing harassment and sexual misconduct. For example, racialised inequalities can support a culture where harassment on the basis of race is normalised and accepted, or a predominance of male students or staff can enable a culture where sexualised humour or derogatory comments about women or gender minorities are seen as normal.

    These inequalities can shape the culture in different disciplines or departments; some disciplines – medicine, engineering, and law – have been found in the US to have higher rates of sexual harassment by staff and/or postgraduate students, which may relate to gender inequality in some of these disciplines.

    As such, it is important to link up work to gather data and address inequalities in higher education with initiatives to prevent harassment and sexual misconduct. These could include programmes on increasing diversity in recruitment and admissions to PGR programmes, “People, Culture and Environment” statements for the Research Excellence Framework, and where relevant to PGRs, Athena Swan, Race Equality Charter, and Access and Participation Plans.

    Data collected for these programmes of work can reveal areas of the institution where gender and other inequalities exist, and therefore where there is a heightened risk of harassment and sexual misconduct occurring.

    One area where many if not most institutions have a long way to go is in gathering and using data to assess risk, as required by the Worker Protection Act. Data to assess risk relating to harassment and sexual misconduct can be obtained from online reporting systems, formal reporting, informal disclosures, or institutional surveys. In the toolkit, we highlight a good practice example from the University of Bath. They use quantitative data from their online reporting system as well as qualitative data from independent advisers to understand PGRs’ experiences and to report to the university’s Governing Body. This data then feeds into the content of mandatory in-person training for doctoral supervisors.

    Short-term responses when harassment occurs

    Often PGRs do not wish to make a formal, named report about their experiences. Wherever possible, choice and control as to next steps should be left with the person who has been targeted. As well as supporting the person/people targeted, an HEI should consider informal/precautionary actions and a risk assessment, and/or a proactive investigation instigated by the institution.

    For formal reports, E6 requires HEIs to have an effective reporting mechanism and an investigatory approach that is fair, credible, and in line with natural justice, and to include in their central information hub details on how students, staff and others can report harassment and/or sexual misconduct and how the information received in connection to harassment and/or sexual misconduct will be “handled sensitively and used fairly.”

    This is of course a complex area that we have previously written about for Wonkhe, and in the toolkit we highlight some areas of good practice, for example, completing an investigation even where the responding staff member leaves the institution in the middle of it.

    Longer-term response after harassment has occurred

    Finally, while not addressed in the OfS guidance, to minimise the impacts harassment and sexual misconduct have on gender and other inequalities, longer-term responses are required.

    These could include remedies at the end of a reporting process, addressing wider cultural issues that may have been revealed by reports or investigations, or taking steps to enhance transparency and openness in institutional responses to harassment and sexual misconduct.

    For example, UCL’s relevant policy states that the reporting party will be informed if someone is dismissed or expelled from the institution as a result of their complaint. This might seem like a very minor step, but many HEIs do not even share this much information with complainants, even though the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance clearly states that it is possible to do so.

    HEIs should also consider how PGRs with relevant lived experience (whether they disclose this or not) can be consulted on policy and practice in accessible, trauma-informed and non-exploitative ways.

    Working across the sector

    Addressing harassment and sexual misconduct require a cross-sector approach and cannot be addressed solely on the level of individual institutions. This is especially applicable to PGRs, who on top of their doctoral studies may also be employed in (often precarious) roles within other institutions or may have supervision arrangements or affiliations outside their primary institution.

    The risk of harassment from third parties outside the institution extends to conferences, online, on field trips, or in relationships with external mentors. These issues draw our attention to the importance of sector-wide work in this area – for example through initiatives such as the Misconduct Disclosure Scheme, which supports safer staff recruitment practices – as well as the role of disciplinary communities in addressing harassment and sexual misconduct.

    PGRs may be equally or more aligned to their disciplinary community than their institution, and as such, HEIs need to work in partnership with professional societies on addressing harassment and sexual misconduct. Another example of cross-institutional work comes from research funding organisations (RFOs).

    In recognition of their role in setting out and upholding expectations in relation to unacceptable behaviours in research, many RFOs require notification of upheld findings (and sometimes open investigations) relating to any personnel working on research they have funded. RFOs often require funded organisations to have relevant policies and reporting mechanisms.

    Moving forward

    Throughout the toolkit we have featured PGRs’ own voices about their experiences of harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education. One PGR, Polly, described how:

    “The harassment I received is one of the reasons why I don’t want to go into academia. And I did. I passionately did. And I was a good student. I had an exemplary record, I still have an exemplary academic record. And I just thought, I can’t bear the secrecy and the hypocrisy.

    Polly’s words remind us what is at stake if this work is not done, and why we continue to press for change. The amount of work that is required may seem daunting, but the toolkit offers an opportunity for institutional leaders to co-create with colleagues and PGRs a bespoke package of work which addresses the local context. As the examples highlighted in the toolkit demonstrate, some HEIs are already making good progress, and continue to review and develop their prevention efforts.

    Overall, our hope is that in five years’ time this toolkit will be outdated as good practice will have moved on significantly. As such, work in this area can be seen as part of an ongoing – and, we hope, rapidly changing – movement for preventing and responding to harassment and sexual misconduct in higher education.

    Download the toolkit

    We would like to thank the Enhancing Research Culture fund from Research England via the University of York for supporting the development of this toolkit and the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) for partnering with us to consult on the development of the toolkit and to disseminate it.

    Source link

  • Using Technology to Restore Trust in Testing

    Using Technology to Restore Trust in Testing

    • Francesca Woodward is Group Managing Director for English at Cambridge University Press & Assessment.

    Anyone who has ever taken English language tests to advance in their studies or work knows how important it is to have confidence in their accuracy, fairness and transparency. 

    Trust is fundamental to English proficiency tests. But at a time of digital disruption, with remote testing on the rise and AI tools evolving rapidly, the integrity of English language testing is under pressure.

    Applied proportionally and ethically, technology can boost our trust in the exam process –adapting flexibly to test-takers’ skill levels, for instance, or allowing quicker marking and delivery of results. The indiscriminate use of technology, however, is likely to have unintended and undesirable consequences.

    Technology is not the problem. Overreliance on technology can be. A case in point is the shift to remote language testing that removes substantial human supervision from the process.

    During the pandemic, many educational institutions and test providers were forced to move to online-only delivery. Universities and employers adapted to the exceptional circumstances by recognising results from some of those newer and untried providers.

    The consequences of rushed digital adoption are becoming clear. Students arriving at UK universities after passing newer at-home tests have been found to be poorly equipped, relative to their peers – and more prone to academic misconduct. Students were simply not being set up to succeed.

    Some new at-home tests have since been de-recognised by universities amid reports that they have enabled fraud in the UK. Elsewhere, students have been paying proxies to sit online exams remotely. Online, videos explaining how to cheat on some of the newer tests have become ubiquitous.

    So how can universities mitigate against these risks, while ensuring that genuine test-takers thrive academically?

    When it comes to teaching and learning a language – as well as assessing a learner’s proficiency – human expertise cannot be replaced. This is clear to experts – including researchers at Cambridge, which has been delivering innovation in language learning and testing for more than a century. 

    Cambridge is one of the forces behind IELTS, the world’s most trusted English test. We also deliver Cambridge English Qualifications, Linguaskill and other major assessments. Our experience tells us that people must play a critical role at every step of teaching, assessment and qualification.

    While some may be excited by the prospect of an “AI-first” model of testing, we should pursue the best of both worlds – human oversight prioritised and empowered by AI. This means, for instance, human-proctored tests delivered in test centres that use tried and proven tech tools.

    In language testing – particularly high-stakes language testing, such as for university or immigration purposes – one size does not fit all. While an online test taken at home may be suitable and even secure for some situations for some learners, others prefer or need to be assessed in test centres, where help is on hand and the technology can be consistently relied upon. For test-takers and universities, choice and flexibility are crucial.

    Cambridge has been using and experimenting with AI for decades. We know in some circumstances that AI can be transformative in improving users’ experience. For the highest stakes assessments, innovation alone is no alternative to real human teaching, learning and understanding. And the higher the stakes, the more important human oversight becomes.

    The sector must reaffirm its commitment to quality, rigour and fairness in English language testing. This means resisting shortcuts and challenging providers that are all too ready to compromise on standards. It means investing in human expertise. It means using technology to enhance, not undermine, trust.

    This is not the time to “move fast and break things”. Every test provider, every university and every policymaker must play their part.

    Source link

  • Teaching at a Small Private College? Take our Advice – Faculty Focus

    Teaching at a Small Private College? Take our Advice – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Taking a systematic approach to inclusivity through uncovering the hidden curriculum

    Taking a systematic approach to inclusivity through uncovering the hidden curriculum

    Every culture and society have distinct nuances and unspoken, unwritten values, norms and beliefs that influence behaviour, expectations, and life experiences. These evolving dynamics can also influence learning experiences.

    Often referred to as the hidden curriculum, these aspects not only affect the way students experience their learning journey but the lasting impact their university experience has on their lives. It is vital, therefore, that anyone working in the sector is aware of these factors as they may impact both the curriculum, and the unintended values and perspectives communicated through the way the staff interact with students.

    Educators should not only be aware of the dominant institutional culture but should actively encourage an inclusive learning community that values and embraces the diverse backgrounds and experiences of students and faculty. Drawing students’ attention to these often-overlooked factors can empower them to navigate academic and professional spaces more effectively, helping them reach their full potential.

    The hidden curriculum has been shown to play a significant role in fostering moral values, professionalism and humanism in fields like medicine, management and the arts. But we also know that when it’s not implemented carefully, the hidden curriculum can reflect the interests of dominant groups; reinforcing privilege while disadvantaging others, such as those from working-class and marginalised communities. Therefore, we also need to openly analyse and critique the hidden curriculum, by identifying any political implications of specific pedagogic approaches.

    When people are not aware of these unspoken values and expectations, they may feel excluded or marginalised, negatively impacting their sense of belonging and therefore their willingness to engage or ability to succeed. We therefore have an obligation to not only teach the hidden, cultural norms themselves, but also foster a critical awareness of them. Encouraging students to adapt while remaining true to their own identities, resulting in an authentic experience for all students, including those with different learning needs – such as neurodivergent individuals – as well as people from different backgrounds or cultures.

    We know that a truly internationalised campus requires both institutional initiatives and individual efforts to foster intercultural understanding and collaboration, empowering students and staff to drive change together. But putting this into practice can be tough. As a result, efforts to widen participation have often led to social and academic exclusion, as systems struggle to adapt.

    Systematically overcoming the hidden curriculum

    Equitable assessments play a key role in overcoming the hidden curriculum. Clear guidance and opportunities to develop assessment literacy helps students to perform to their full potential. For example, if students are to submit a narrated presentation for their assessment, have they had opportunities to learn the required skills and to submit a formative presentation for feedback? Scaffolding the skills they are required to demonstrate, including writing skills, is imperative to student confidence and therefore submission and overall success.

    Work placements should also accommodate students’ diverse backgrounds, ensuring inclusivity in workplace culture and expectations. This may include, for example, transport needs or special equipment; where this is the case, both the university and the employer have a responsibility to meet these needs so the student is able to attend their placement and complete their duties in an equitable way, allowing them to feel part of the team.

    There should also be clear guidance on what success means. Staff should be aware of the implicit ways they are communicating the institutions and their own expectations. By emphasising grade attainment, they are potentially sending a message that high grades are valued and that those not achieving these grades are less important and/or valuable than those who are. Students who want to impress their lecturers may feel pressure to perform and feel marginalised when they do not achieve the grades they think are expected. To avoid this, staff should be explicit about how overall educational gain is measured and how students can develop their own map for navigating university life and measuring their own development.

    On top of this, bringing hidden knowledge, such as vernacular, or higher education jargon, to the surface through tools like shared, and preferably co-created glossaries will help all students, particularly those new to a field, or who speak English as an additional language, feel more included and engaged.

    Curriculum and learning design should also follow an intentional approach to foster belonging and encourage discussions about social inequalities – including why they exist and how to overcome them – making students more aware of the world that exists and their role and influence within it.

    Fighting against pressures

    Despite many institutions working towards overcoming the constraints of the hidden curriculum, there’s still an incessant problem at play. Universities are increasingly expected to embed numerous agendas into their teaching and learning frameworks: equality, sustainability, employability, decolonisation, accessibility and mental well-being – to name a few.

    These competing demands can be overwhelming, particularly when trying to implement all these elements into individual modules. This can – and has – led to inefficiencies, confusion and a disconnect between academic content and broader institutional goals. Essentially, we end up stuck in the same position, or even more behind, as staff grapple with balancing traditional academic teaching with the growing list of institutional and societal changes.

    It’s no secret that universities need to rethink how to integrate and prioritise all these different elements when teaching. We know inclusion matters to students, yet universities are having to draw back from a lot of their outreach work due to financial pressures, while at the same time fighting against a world that’s seemingly becoming more hostile toward equality, diversity and inclusion efforts. Universities need to relearn how to be inclusive with these constraints – effectively “doing more with less.”

    Some have thought to distribute the elements across modules or offer co-curricular opportunities. Some have tried to enforce better levels of transparency in workload expectations for both staff and students, including better time management. And yet the struggle remains.

    The steps to crack inclusivity

    Trying to finally crack the code to inclusivity requires both top-down institutional strategies and bottom-up approaches that focus on academic and cultural drivers.

    There are a few steps which have been found to help, such as investing in ongoing training and awareness programmes, as they provide sustained, comprehensive training on accessibility and inclusion for all staff. Increased awareness may lead to more critical assessments of institutional practices, but it will not diminish personal commitment. It is in these interpersonal interactions in learning, teaching and academic support that the tacit exclusions of the hidden curriculum can be interrogated and challenged.

    But institutional staff need back up in the form of a holistic and inclusive institutional culture that values and prioritises inclusivity at all levels. This can be done by promoting accessibility as a core value, which can help the institution remain resilient during times of change or external challenges, and by emphasising inclusivity as a shared responsibility across all departments and roles.

    Universities should also strengthen institutional support structures by ensuring staff know who to contact for accessibility issues and can trust institutional processes to provide timely and effective support. It’s important to clarify roles, responsibilities and procedures and develop clear documentation and accessible guidance related to accessibility to reduce confusion and improve responsiveness. It’s also important to avoid narrowly targeted interventions that might neglect or disadvantage certain academics. Sufficient budget and resources should also be allocated to sustain inclusivity initiatives.

    As Knight and de Wit argue: “Economic and political rationales are increasingly the key drivers for national policies related to the internationalisation of higher education, while academic and social/cultural motivations are not increasing in importance at the same rate.”

    Assessing and adapting inclusive practices in light of the changing external environment is key. Tools like cross-sectional surveys can track staff perceptions of accessibility and inclusion over time. This will help universities to monitor changes in staff confidence, attitudes and knowledge, and address areas of concern through targeted interventions. Universities should always engage with diverse voices, to inform and improve practices, while recognising and addressing external factors, such as legislative changes or global events, which may impact staff confidence and inclusivity efforts.

    Source link