Category: policy & research

  • Building Infrastructure for Non-Degree Credentials

    Building Infrastructure for Non-Degree Credentials

    Title: A Global Review of Non-degree Credential Quality Frameworks: Matching Aspirations to Available Data

    Authors: Kyle Albert and Thomas Weko

    Source: George Washington University (GWU) Program on Skills, Credentials & Workforce Policy (PSCWP)

    With the continued increase of alternative, non-degree credentials, education and professional stakeholders have developed quality frameworks meant to guide these credentials.

    The authors of a new report from PSCWP examine and evaluate criteria and data used in current credential quality frameworks. The brief highlights the growing need for institutions to consider and build out data sources for these non-degree frameworks. Whereas foundations, nonprofits, and policy organizations shape frameworks in the United States, government ministries do so outside of the U.S. The U.S. does not recognize non-degree credentials in the Higher Education Act, meaning that such credentials are not required to be reported to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and other government databases.

    A 2024 GWU/UPCEA survey showed that for non-degree, credit-based credentials, quality standards and procedures are primarily established at the institutional level and are modified forms of standards for degree programs. For non-degree, non-credit credentials, however, there is a “far greater decentralization of responsibility” (p.15). Standards for these programs are often established at the faculty or departmental level, and only about 10 percent of respondents reported that their institution could link learner data from these programs to external data systems.

    Given the variation among commonly used datasets as well as processes within institutions, private actors hold substantial power in refining quality frameworks. The authors suggest the following ways to improve data standardization when it comes to quality frameworks:

    • Use consistent language: Using consistent language across non-degree credentials can support organizations not only in how they describe and distinguish between programs but also in how they measure outcomes.
    • Make data accessible: Membership and research-based organizations can empower the field to be more transparent and develop legal and technical guidelines for data sharing beyond the confines of the organization.

    To see the full report, click here.

    —Kara Seidel


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

    Source link

  • The Changing Landscape of Internships in Higher Education

    The Changing Landscape of Internships in Higher Education

    Title: Internships Index 2025

    Source: Handshake

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

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

    There are persistent participation gaps:

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

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

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

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

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

    To read the full report, click here.

    —Alex Zhao


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

    Source link

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

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

    Title: Accounting for Additional Credentials in Postsecondary Earnings Data

    Authors: Jason Delisle, Jason Cohn, and Bryan Cook

    Source: The Urban Institute

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

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

    Additional key findings include:

    Earnings Data and Accountability Policies

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

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

    How Much Do Additional Credential Affect Earnings Data?

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

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

    Policy Implications: How Should Earnings Data Approach Subsequent Credentials?

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

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

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

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

    —Austin Freeman


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

    Source link

  • Enrollment Trending Upward After COVID-19

    Enrollment Trending Upward After COVID-19

    Title: Current Term Enrollment Estimates: Fall 2024

    Source: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center

    Total fall 2024 enrollment rose across multiple factors—including sector, selectivity, and urban-rural classification—bringing it closer to pre-pandemic levels, according to a new report from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Service. Compared to fall 2019, overall enrollment increased by 0.4 percent, and compared to fall 2023, it grew by 4.5 percent.

    Enrollment gains were particularly strong in associate programs (up 6.3 percent), bachelor’s programs (up 2.9 percent), master’s programs (up 3.3 percent), and doctoral programs (up 2.0 percent). Private for-profit four-year institutions saw the most significant increase in first-year enrollment, surging by 26.1 percent with more than 11,000 additional students. Public institutions also experienced notable growth, with primarily associate degree-granting baccalaureate institutions up 8.4 percent and public two-year institutions increasing by 6.8 percent.

    First-year enrollment overall grew by 5.5 percent, with the most significant gains among students from the lowest-income neighborhoods (up 9.4 percent). Enrollment increases were generally aligned with neighborhood income levels, with students from the highest-income areas seeing the smallest rise (3.6 percent).

    At Historically Black Colleges and Universities, enrollment increased at both the graduate (6.5 percent) and undergraduate (3.4 percent) levels. Meanwhile, public four-year institutions in rural areas experienced the largest enrollment growth (5.6 percent), while public two-year institutions saw the biggest increases in towns (7.9 percent). Urban areas continued to enroll the most students at public two-year institutions, surpassing 2.3 million.

    Patterns of growth varied across selectivity and sector. Less selective private nonprofit four-year institutions saw the most substantial gains (5.7 percent), with similar increases at less selective public four-year institutions (5.0 percent). Enrollment at highly selective institutions followed a different trend, rising at public four-year institutions (2.9 percent) but declining at private nonprofit institutions (-2.5 percent).

    Regionally, enrollment increased at similar rates in the Northeast, South, and West (4.7 percent each) and rose by 3.1 percent in the Midwest. Utah led the nation in enrollment growth (12.1 percent), while the District of Columbia (-1.9 percent), Vermont (-0.6 percent), and Nebraska (-0.4 percent) saw declines. Graduate enrollment patterns diverged in some areas, with notable decreases in Mississippi (-4.3 percent), Delaware (-3.9 percent), and Missouri (-3.4 percent).

    Fields of study also showed shifts, with undergraduate enrollment in health professions rising 8.3 percent—effectively reversing pandemic-related declines. Among the top 20 major fields, only two saw decreases: Liberal Arts and Sciences, General Studies, and Humanities (-3.1 percent) and English Language and Literature/Letters (-1.5 percent).

    This data provides an encouraging outlook for higher education. Understanding who is enrolling and where is essential for institutional planning and for ensuring equitable access to higher education.

    To explore the data, click here. For the methodology, click here.

    —Erica Swirsky


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

    Source link

  • The Growing Gender Divide in STEM Education

    The Growing Gender Divide in STEM Education

    Title: The Hidden STEM Gender Gap: Why Progress at Top Universities Masks a Growing Crisis

    Source: Brookings Institution

    Authors: Joseph R. Cimpian and Jo R. King

    A recent Brookings Institution article, “The Hidden STEM Gender Gap: Why Progress at Top Universities Masks a Growing Crisis,” paints a complex picture of the state of gender equity in STEM higher education. While top universities have made notable progress in narrowing the gender gap in physics, engineering, and computer science (PECS) majors, institutions serving students with lower math achievement are falling further behind.

    Over the past two decades, the male-to-female ratio in PECS majors decreased from 2.2:1 to 1.5:1 at universities with the highest average math SAT scores. However, at institutions with the lowest average scores, the gender gap has dramatically widened from 3.5:1 to 7.1:1. This disparity persists even when accounting for differences in math ability, confidence, interests, and academic preparation. The findings point to institutional barriers that disproportionately impact women at less selective schools.

    The institutions struggling most with gender equity serve the majority of American students, particularly students of color and those from lower-income families. PECS degrees offer a path to high-paying careers, and research suggests women may see an even greater earnings premium from these majors at less selective institutions compared to their more selective counterparts. By failing to recruit and retain women in PECS programs, we are denying millions the opportunity to benefit from these rewarding fields.

    The authors propose several strategies to shrink this gap:

    • Allocate resources strategically, directing support to the institutions facing the greatest challenges rather than those already making progress.
    • Adapt proven practices like undergraduate research and peer mentoring to the unique needs and constraints of less-resourced institutions, forging creative partnerships to ensure successful implementation at scale.
    • Mobilize external partners, from nonprofit organizations to industry groups, to strategically focus their outreach and pathway-building efforts on the schools and communities with the most severe gender imbalances.

    Achieving gender equity in STEM will require acknowledging where we are falling short and building the collective determination to change. The success of top universities shows that progress is possible, but it will take targeted interventions and a sustained commitment to extending opportunities to all students. Until then, our celebrations of narrowing gaps will ring hollow for the women left behind.

    To read the full Brookings Institution article, click here. The complete research is also available in the journal Science here.

    Alex Zhao


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

    Source link

  • Building and Sustaining an AI-informed Institution

    Building and Sustaining an AI-informed Institution

    Title: Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Postsecondary Education: Building Capacity for the Road Ahead

    Source: Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education

    As a response to the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, the Department of Education’s new brief, Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Postsecondary Education, provides recommendations for leaders at higher education institutions. The brief is divided into two main parts: one with policy recommendations and one reviewing literature and research.

    The report outlines five recommendations:

    Develop clear policies for the use of AI in postsecondary settings. The use of AI can be vast, from admissions to enrollment to other decision-making processes. It is important, though, to ensure that AI is not reifying bias. Stakeholders should consider the potential utility of an AI Bill of Rights or the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI Risk Management Framework in shaping policies for their campuses. They should also consider affirmative consent and disclosure policies as they relate to AI, as well as inscribing characteristics that make AI trustworthy.

    Generate infrastructure that supports the use of AI in pedagogy, student support, and data tracking. Incentivizing cross-department collaboration and faculty involvement in the development of AI tools is key. It is also important to integrate social and behavioral science research into evaluation of AI.

    Continually assess AI tools. This includes testing equity and accounting for any bias. AI should continuously go through a feedback loop. Institutions need to strategize in ensuring a balance of human supervision. Additionally, evaluations should be comprehensive and from diverse stakeholders.

    Collaborate with partners for the development and testing of AI across different educational uses. Leaders are tasked with finding and building relationships with partners. These partnerships should aim to ensure best practices and promote equitable AI.

    Programs should grow and develop alongside the job market’s increased demand for AI. Leaders must consider how to keep up with the evolving demand for AI, as well as how to integrate across all disciplines.

    Click here for the full report.

    —Kara Seidel


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

    Source link

  • New Might Not Always Mean Improved: The Benefits and Drawbacks of the New FAFSA

    New Might Not Always Mean Improved: The Benefits and Drawbacks of the New FAFSA

    Title: Chutes and Ladders: Falling Behind and Getting Ahead with the Simplified FAFSA

    Authors: Jonathan S. Lewis and Alyssa Stefanese Yates

    Source: uAspire

    Prior to the 2024-25 academic year, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) underwent significant changes, mandated by Congress through the FAFSA Simplification Act. A recent uAspire survey of 274 students, parents, counselors, and financial aid administrators found the changes to the FAFSA entailed a number of “chutes,” or drawbacks, and several “ladders” that allowed for a more streamlined financial aid filing process.

    Key survey findings regarding the simplified FAFSA’s benefits and challenges include:

    Benefits:

    • Students appreciated the reduced number of questions within the new FAFSA form.
    • The office of Federal Student Aid improved help text and resources, which aided those accessing the form in answering common questions.
    • Some populations had easier experiences with FAFSA, such as those with relatively straightforward finances, and individuals without overwhelming extenuating circumstances.
    • Those with previous FAFSA experience noted a generally easier experience with the changes.
    • Students with access to high school or college counselors often found greater success with the changes, demonstrating the importance of accessibility to help during the process.

    Challenges:

    • More than half of those surveyed reported experiencing technical problems.
    • The delayed FAFSA timeline heightened stress among students and counselors.
    • Insufficient communication and customer service left approximately 4 million calls to the Department of Education’s call center between Jan. 1 and May 31 unanswered.
    • The issues above often compounded, forming intersecting challenges for students and counselors.
    • Individuals without a Social Security number and English language learners felt the challenges with FAFSA more severely, struggling in particular with technical problems and communication barriers, demonstrating that some populations had more difficult experiences than others.

    The authors conclude by recommending several additional changes to the FAFSA. To minimize the compounding negative effects of the chutes, financial aid processing should be completed faster; technical glitches should be fixed; and communication, wording, and form accessibility should be improved. The authors also recommend fortifying the ladders by finding additional opportunities to reduce the time spent and frustration felt by those filing.

    Overall, the survey highlights how the FAFSA changes produced diverse and polarizing effects. Many students found the process to be simple, securing their financial aid with just a few clicks; other students felt extreme stress caused by technical roadblocks and delays, which left them uncertain about how to pay for school.

    To read the full report from uAspire, click here. For additional information and to read about the Jan. 16 webinar with the authors of the report, click here.

    —Julia Napier


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

    Source link

  • Dear President-elect Trump: Higher Education Builds America

    Dear President-elect Trump: Higher Education Builds America

    As you prepare to take office for a second time, we know you have ambitious plans to address the nation’s challenges and build a more secure and prosperous America. Achieving those goals will require contributions from many areas of society, and we urge you to see the value in partnering with our nation’s colleges and universities.

    Campuses across the country are deeply embedded in local communities and work every day to build their communities while meeting national needs. Let me share just three of many examples:

    Many, including you, have criticized higher education in recent years. We know that we always have room to innovate and improve. But we also know a basic truth: higher education builds America. This has been understood by American presidents since the nation’s founding. That conviction inspired landmark legislation such as the land-grant acts of the 19th century and the GI Bills of the 20th and 21st centuries—measures that contributed to unprecedented economic and technological growth.

    Study after study has documented the benefits colleges and universities provide to the workforce and the economy. For example, Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce found that less than a decade from now 72 percent of jobs in the American economy will require some level of postsecondary education or workforce training. Simply put, every pathway to expanding our economy and filling employers’ needs runs through colleges and universities.

    The American Council on Education (ACE), which I lead, is the major coordinating body for the nation’s colleges and universities. Our members include community colleges, liberal arts colleges, regional universities, and research universities. They are public and private, large and small, urban and rural. Many have religious affiliations.

    We have common-sense recommendations to help your administration and the new Congress deliver on the goals of all Americans: a safe and secure country, a prosperous economy with good jobs, and uncontested global leadership in developing new technologies. You can do that by extending Pell Grant eligibility to those who enroll in high-quality, short-term programs. You can do that by helping military service members and veterans further their careers through higher education. And you can do that by advancing research that saves lives and bolsters national security.

    Our colleges and universities work on behalf of all Americans, from every walk of life and every political perspective. While you may not always agree with us on every issue, ACE and our members are committed to fighting for the policies, principles, and values that ensure our students, their families, and our nation will flourish. So while we may differ in some areas, we also know there is much common ground.

    We are deeply concerned about the impact of proposed immigration changes on students, staff, and families, and appreciate your concern for those known as “Dreamers,” who came to the United States as children. As you stressed in a recent interview, these outstanding young people have made numerous contributions to America, and we must safeguard their futures in the only country they have ever known as home. Likewise, we fully agree that America benefits immensely by continuing to attract the brightest and most talented students from around the world to study, work, and innovate here.

    We pledge to be accountable to your administration, Congress, and the public. If you, Secretary of Education-designate Linda McMahon, and others in your administration see areas where we can do better, we are eager to sit down and discuss them. We hope, in turn, to have the opportunity to demonstrate how the know-how and creativity that runs deep through our campuses can help you accomplish your most important objectives.

    Our overriding goal is to provide more opportunity for all Americans. Like you, we are ready to get to work to deliver results. Together, we can build a better America.


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

    Source link

  • Recommendations for States to Address Postsecondary Affordability

    Recommendations for States to Address Postsecondary Affordability

    Authors: Lauren Asher, Nate Johnson, Marissa Molina, and Kristin D. Hultquist

    Source: HCM Strategists

    An October 2024 report, Beyond Sticker Prices: How States Can Make Postsecondary Education More Affordable, reviews data to evaluate affordability of postsecondary education across nine states, including Alabama, California, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

    The authors emphasize the importance of considering net price, or the full cost of attendance less total aid. Depending on the state, low-income students pay 16-27 percent of their total family income to attend community college.

    At public four-year colleges with high net prices, students with family income of $30,000-48,000 py more than half of their income (51-53 percent) for school in two of the nine states. Four-year colleges with low net prices show cost variability based on whether a student is the lowest income, earning $0-30,000, or has $30,000-48,000 in income. Students in the former group pay 21-27 percent of their family income toward education, while students in the latter group pay 40-41 percent of their income.

    The brief recommends that policymakers take the following issues into account:

    • The way states fund public institutions is critical for low-income students. Consider increasing funding for community colleges as well as evaluating how student income factors into allocation of state funds.
    • Tuition policy is integral to making decisions about postsecondary education. Public perception of college affordability is influenced by tuition costs. States have the power to set limits on how much institutions can raise or change costs, but states also must be careful not to limit institutions from charging what they require to adequately support students’ needs.
    • Transparency and consistency among financial aid programs increase their reach. States should consider making financial aid programs more readily understandable. State financial aid policies should also increase flexibility to adjust for transferring, length of time to graduate, and financial aid from other sources.
    • How states support basic needs affects students’ ability to afford attending college. Policies at the state level can offer students more options for paying for food, housing, caregiving, and more.

    To read the full report, click here.

    Kara Seidel


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

    Source link

  • From Pause to Progress: Predictors of Success and Hurdles for Returning Students

    From Pause to Progress: Predictors of Success and Hurdles for Returning Students

    Title: Some College, No Credential Learners: Measuring Enrollment Readiness

    Source: Straighterline, UPCEA

    UPCEA and StraighterLine carried out a survey to examine the driving factors, obstacles, preparedness, and viewpoints of individuals who started but did not finish a degree, certificate, technical, or vocational program. This population, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, has grown to 36.8 million, a 2.9 percent increase from the year prior. A total of 1,018 participants completed the survey.

    Key findings related to respondents’ readiness to re-enroll include:

    • Predictive factors: Mental resilience, routine readiness, a positive appraisal of institutional communication, and belief in the value of a degree strongly predict re-enrollment intentions.
    • Academic preparedness: A majority of respondents (88 percent) feel proficient in core academic skills (e.g., reading, writing, math, critical thinking), and 86 percent feel competent using technology for learning tasks.
    • Financial readiness: More than half (58 percent) believe they cannot afford tuition and related expenses, while only 22 percent feel financially prepared.
    • Career and personal motivations: The top motivators for re-enrolling include improving salary (53 percent), personal goals (44 percent), and pursuing a career change (38 percent).
    • Beliefs in higher education: Trust in higher education declines after stopping out. While 84 percent of those who had been enrolled in a degree program initially believed a degree was essential for their career goals, only 34 percent still hold that belief. Additionally, just 42 percent agree that colleges are trustworthy.
    • Grit readiness: Four in five respondents feel adaptable and persistent through challenges, and 71 percent say they can handle stress effectively.
    • Flexibility and adaptability: Three-fourths of respondents are open to changing routines and adjusting to new environments.
    • Learning environment: Half of respondents report having access to a study-friendly environment, but 11 percent report not having such access.
    • Time management: Nearly two-thirds are prepared to dedicate the necessary time and effort to complete their education.
    • Support systems: About three in every five respondents receive family support for continuing education, but only 31 percent feel supported by their employers.

    Key findings related to enrollment funnel experiences include:

    • Preferred communication channels: When inquiring about a program, 86 percent of respondents like engaging via email, 42 percent through phone calls, and 39 percent via text messages, while only 6 percent want to use a chatbot.
    • Timeliness and quality of communication: A majority (83 percent) agree or strongly agree that the communication they received when reaching out to a college or university about a program was timely, and 80 percent found it informative.
    • Enrollment experience: Among those who re-enrolled, 88 percent found that the enrollment process was efficient, 84 percent felt adequately supported by their institution, and 78 percent found the process easy.
    • Challenges from inquiry to enrollment: Nearly one-third (31 percent) encountered difficulties with financial aid support, 29 percent experienced delays in getting their questions answered, and 21 percent reported poor communication from the institution.

    Click to read the full white paper.

    —Nguyen DH Nguyen


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

    Source link