Category: Short Takes

  • Republican Voters Value Higher Education. Here Are Their Priorities.

    Republican Voters Value Higher Education. Here Are Their Priorities.

    Title: What do Republican Voters Want on Higher Education?

    Author: Ben Cecil

    Source: Third Way

    During the budgetary process that recently concluded, Congress considered substantial funding cuts to numerous areas, including higher education. Republican voters, however, may not view heavy cuts to higher education favorably. A recent survey of 500 Republican voters nationwide conducted by Third Way and the Republican polling firm GS Strategy Group found that Republicans value and support higher education, are in favor of less invasive reforms, and largely support policies directed at college affordability and accountability.

    The survey responses make clear that Republican voters haven’t abandoned the concept of higher education, with over 60 percent of respondents reporting that a four-year degree is valuable in today’s economy. Beyond traditional four-year programs, Republican voters demonstrated substantial support for trade schools and community colleges, with favorability for the institutions at 91 and 87 percent, respectively. While Republican perspectives regarding the value of education remain positive, nearly 90 percent of voters polled said that more accountability is required for higher education.

    Republican voters also rated many current higher education policies very favorably. Eighty-one percent of respondents said they support Pell Grants, while 79 percent supported Public Service Loan Forgiveness and income-driven repayment for student loans. The support for these programs aligns with one of respondents’ primary policy concerns; just under half of Republican voters said that affordability is the most significant problem that needs to be addressed within higher education.

    To address college affordability concerns, Republicans aren’t in favor of relying on private industry; of the 12 policy reforms Third Way tested, privatization of student loan programs was ranked number 11, with just over half of respondents viewing it as a viable option. With affordability as a chief concern, Republican voters recognize and support the role the federal government plays in offering financial support for students.

    The perspectives of Republican voters on higher education demonstrate clear policy aims and a hesitation to substantially change funding structures and government involvement. When asked if they prefer sweeping cuts to graduate lending or more accountability from institutions to improve their return on investment, only 20 percent of voters chose funding cuts. The message is clear: Republicans support increases to institutional accountability and college affordability but aren’t looking for broad cuts to higher education.

    For further information, click here to read the full article from the Third Way.


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

    Source link

  • For Parenting Students, Campus Support Bolsters Outcomes

    For Parenting Students, Campus Support Bolsters Outcomes

    Title: Pillars of Support: Results from an Evaluation of the Parenting Students Project at Austin Community College

    Authors: May Helena Plumb and Paige-Erin Wheeler

    Source: Trellis Strategies

    A new report from Trellis Strategies evaluates the impact of the Parenting Students Project (PSP) at Austin Community College (ACC), highlighting the challenges student parents face and the program’s efforts to support them. Data show that students who are parents have high rates of financial and basic needs insecurity. In addition to the demands of being a student with parental responsibilities, these students are more likely to be working.

    As part of the United Way for Greater Austin’s PSP initiative, parenting students met monthly with each other, attended seminars about financial wellness and mental health, and received a $500 monthly stipend. Additionally, PSP participants received services in coordination with ACC, such as case managers and childcare scholarships.

    The report highlights the positive impact on participants’ academic progress, including a 95 percent term-to-term retention rate and an increased likelihood of taking nine credit hours per semester. A second area of impact was financial wellness, as increased financial stability lowered borrowing and alleviated transportation insecurity through a more flexible schedule. Third, PSP empowered parenting students to be better parents, as well as provided them with scholarships for childcare. Finally, PSP bolstered mental health through an increased sense of community and belonging.

    The report also identifies areas for growth and offers the following recommendations:

    1. Refine program requirements so that they best support student success. While credit requirements are helpful in moving students forward, parenting students still need some flexibility in enrollment intensity. A participant suggested scaling the number of credits taken to correspond to the stipend so that PSP support is not all or nothing. Participants also expressed a desire to choose some of the seminar topics.
    2. Consider areas of need. PSP participants indicated a desire for more flexible childcare options. Some also discussed other forms of support, such as housing resources, cooking classes, and diapers and toys for children. The needs will vary based on the group, so it is important to evaluate what students need.
    3. Address different needs for fathers. There was a large disparity between the share of fathers who participated in PSP and the percentage of student parents at ACC who are fathers. While student fathers are more likely to be married and have access to childcare, they are also more likely to have specific mental health challenges and to stop out of college.

    Click here for the full report.

    —Kara Seidel


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

    Source link

  • 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

  • Case Study: Florida Policy Opening Enrollment for At-Risk Students

    Case Study: Florida Policy Opening Enrollment for At-Risk Students

    Title: The Role of State Policy in Supporting Students Experiencing Homelessness and Former Foster Youth in Higher Education

    Authors: Carrie E. Henderson and Katie Grissom

    Source: The Urban Institute

    Paying for a college degree is already a difficult, complex process for many students involving a variety of sources of financial aid and payment. For students with a history of foster care or housing instability, this task becomes even more challenging given the lack of financial and social support they experience growing up.

    To properly support these students, policymakers and higher education administrators need to create educational environments that go beyond teaching and learning to prioritize access to essential resources and socioeconomic conditions that can provide stability in students’ lives. State policy can provide critical opportunities to open pathways for students and address the personal, emotional, and logistical challenges that students face. A new report from the Urban Institute explores how the Florida state legislature took steps to enhance access to postsecondary education for homeless students and former foster youth and how it affected higher education attainment.

    Key findings include:

    New state policies expanded tuition and fee exemptions: In 2022, the Florida legislature created policies that expanded the eligibility for tuition and fee exemptions to match the federal definition of homeless children and youth and include students who had been involved in shelter, dependency, or termination of parental rights proceedings.

    Increase in tuition and fee exemptions rose since implementation: The data Florida collected showed an upward trend in the use of the homelessness fee exemption in both the Florida College System (FCS) and the State University System (SUS) between 2021-22 and 2023-24. In the FCS in 2023-24, the number of exemptions increased by 103 percent since 2021-22, from 689 to 1,396. SUS institutions experienced more incremental growth, as homelessness exemptions increased from 344 in 2021-22 to 432 in 2023–24, a 26 percent increase.

    Tuition and fee exemptions can reduce the financial burden of postsecondary education, making it more affordable and attainable for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, policymakers considering exemptions and subsidies should include dedicated funding to help institutions of higher education implement these services effectively. Without additional funding, colleges and universities lack the supplemental resources to implement policies feasibly. Furthermore, policymakers should listen to and work with administrators to fund holistic wraparound services that impact students’ ability to enroll, persist, and succeed in higher education.

    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