Blog

  • AI Can Help With Viewpoint Diversity Challenges (opinion)

    AI Can Help With Viewpoint Diversity Challenges (opinion)

    Viewpoint diversity and artificial intelligence are two of the most widely discussed challenges facing higher education today. What if we could address these two simultaneously, employing AI to create productive intellectual friction across different political and philosophical positions?

    Consider taking this approach: Whom do you ardently disagree with, philosophically or morally, but view as smart and rigorous in their analysis and arguments? I can think of one of my high school heroes, Ayn Rand, whose The Fountainhead I initially regarded as a powerful affirmation of creativity and innovation without knowing much about her deeper political ideology. This summer, I decided to read her collection of essays on capitalism, which I suspected I would disagree with at a fundamental level. Then I looked to AI. Could I engage Ayn Rand’s ideas through a large language model that would “disagree” with me, allowing me to experience intellectual friction with less at stake personally?

    I began my conversation with the chatbot Claude 3.5, asking it to play the role of Ayn Rand, by addressing her core argument: Capitalism is the only moral system because it honors the rights and liberty of every person to reap the benefits of their own creativity and effort without being coerced to give up some of what they have produced to “benefit” society. Here is how it went.

    Me: In your version of capitalism, how do humans/societies decide to produce something bigger than anyone could do alone? What if sending someone to the moon could never be coordinated through independent, voluntary contracts and instead requires some larger entity, like a government, to coordinate and incentivize? If democratic citizens vote to have the government organize a mission to the moon, why is that coercive?

    *Adjusting her glasses with a stern expression* (Stage cues provided by the bot)

    Rand bot: Your question reveals the very philosophical premises I reject. You speak of “democratic citizens” voting to achieve something “greater together”—but greater for whom? By what right do these citizens vote to expropriate the wealth of others for their collective fantasy?

    The fact that some men dream of reaching the moon does not give them the moral right to force others to fund their dream. If reaching the moon is truly valuable, let those who see that value risk their own capital, form their own companies and make voluntary contracts. Look at what private enterprises like SpaceX have achieved through voluntary cooperation and the profit motive!

    You present a false dichotomy between individual rights and large-scale achievement. The greatest achievements in human history—from the transcontinental railroad to the electric light—came from private individuals working through voluntary contracts, not government force. Even when multiple parties were involved, they chose to cooperate for mutual benefit.

    The moment you accept that it’s acceptable to violate individual rights for some “greater good,” you’ve accepted the premise of every dictator and looter in history. There is no such thing as a “right” to violate rights. A group’s desire, no matter how noble-sounding, does not trump an individual’s right to the product of their own effort.

    *Takes drag from cigarette* (more stage cues …)

    Would you care to explain why you believe some men have the right to enslave others for their collective goals?

    I was fully engaged at this point, and I wanted to expose her rigid thinking, so I raised the stakes.

    Me: Would you agree that public health might require a “collective response”? Let’s say that individuals acting independently have no incentive to invest in clean water, vaccines or databases that collect public health data. Is it better to allow millions of people to die from the spread of disease in the name of maximum individual freedom, or to have the government coordinate action to provide public health benefits to everyone?

    Rand bot: *Tapping cigarette ash with visible irritation*

    Your premise rests on the most dangerous of all moral fallacies— that the mere existence of a problem justifies the use of force to solve it. You speak of “public health” as if it were some mystical collective entity that supersedes individual rights. There is no such thing as “public health”—there are only individual human beings, each with the right to make their own decisions about their health and well-being.

    This back-and-forth went on for more than an hour, covering topics like innovation, market failures and unequal access to basic resources. I was worn out, so I closed the conversation.

    Me: I am arguing that humans can create mixed economic and political systems and that those systems can muddle along—imperfectly—and people may live with those compromises because they still have freedom while affording greater opportunity to their fellow citizens. You believe in an inevitable slide toward destruction and loss of freedom. I don’t see that slide happening in much of the democratic world. So compromise is possible. So I think we can work with this hybrid system—improve, find the right balance, and continue to advance a more perfect union.

    And then, “Ayn Rand” made her final summation:

    Rand bot: You want me to acknowledge that reality has not matched my darkest predictions. That humans have found ways to maintain significant freedom and progress despite what I see as moral compromise. And you argue that evidence matters—that decades of relative prosperity and innovation under mixed systems deserve consideration.

    I cannot and will not concede the fundamental moral principle: that force is force, whether applied by a dictator or a democratic majority. Your “muddling along” is built on a fundamental contradiction that I believe must eventually resolve itself—either toward freedom or toward force …

    I was impressed that the bot could articulate Rand’s core arguments, impersonate her direct writing and speaking style, question my own logic, provide specific examples, “reason” beyond the time and place of her original writing, and offer creative analogies (when pressed to explain the economic success of today’s welfare capitalism, she responded, “You are celebrating reaching the 2nd floor while I am pointing out that we could have built a skyscraper”). This was one of the most intellectually engaging 90 minutes I have spent in a long time.

    I wanted to check my reactions against the wisdom and judgment of one of our philosophy professors at Hamilton College, so I sent the entire exchange to him. He noted that the AI bot argued like a robot and relied too heavily on rhetoric rather than sound argumentation. Ultimately, the problem, as he sees it, is that “an AI Bot will never be able to genuinely distinguish between debating with the intent of ‘winning’ an argument and debating with the intent of arriving at a deeper understanding of the subject matter at hand.” It is also worth pointing out that debating across a screen, with AI or with friends and strangers, is partly why we are having so much trouble talking to each other in the first place.

    AI is not a substitute for what we learn in our philosophy classes. But there is something powerful about practicing our ideas with people across time and place—debating race with James Baldwin, asking Leonardo da Vinci to think about how we reconcile innovation with destruction.

    One of our faculty members worked with our technology team to create an AI agent based on thousands of documents and writings from our nation’s founders. At the end of this class on the founding of America, the students debated with “Alexander Hamilton” about the role of the central government, inherited wealth and his views on war. Perhaps the answers were a bit robotic, but they were based on Hamilton’s documented thoughts, and as our language models get better, the richness of the discussion and debate will grow exponentially.

    The best classes and teachers maximize learning by bringing opposing ideas into conversation. But we know that college students, faculty and many others in America find it very difficult to engage opposing views, especially those we find fundamentally objectionable. Ultimately, this must happen on a human-to-human level with skilled educators and facilitators. But can we also use AI to help us practice how we engage with difference, better formulate our arguments and ask deeper and more complex questions?

    AI can be part of the solution to our challenge of engaging with ideas we disagree with. If you disagree, try your argument with an AI bot first, and then let’s talk.

    Steven Tepper is president of Hamilton College.

    Source link

  • Defining quality is a thorny problem, but we shouldn’t shy away from the Government’s intention to make sure every student gets the best deal

    Defining quality is a thorny problem, but we shouldn’t shy away from the Government’s intention to make sure every student gets the best deal

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog is kindly authored by Meg Haskins, Policy Manager at the Russell Group.

    You can read HEPI’s other blog on the current OfS consultation here and here.

    Quality is one of the most frequently used, yet least clearly defined, concepts in higher education. For decades, debates have rumbled on about how best to measure it, and yet the term continues to be used liberally and often vaguely. From university marketing promising a “high-quality student experience” to political critiques of so-called “Mickey Mouse courses,” the term is everywhere – but its precise meaning remains elusive.

    Quality matters: to students making significant financial and personal investments; to staff who take pride in their teaching and research; to funders and policymakers; and to the UK’s global reputation. If we’re asking students to take out significant loans and trust that higher education will act as a springboard into their futures, we must not only deliver quality but also demonstrate it clearly, transparently and in ways that support ongoing improvement.

    The OfS consultation is the sector’s golden opportunity to define how this is done.

    The Russell Group supports a more integrated and streamlined quality assessment system – one that reduces duplication, improves clarity and actively supports efforts to enhance quality further. But integration must not come at the expense of flexibility within the model. The system needs to make space for narrative contextualisation rather than reductive judgements.

    Heavy reliance on benchmarking is particularly concerning. It risks disadvantaging institutions with a historically strong absolute performance and limiting meaningful differentiation. To ensure fairness, absolute values must carry greater weight, and there should be transparency on benchmark thresholds and definitions of “material” deviation, especially outcomes which will have regulatory and funding consequences.

    So far, ministers have been light on detail about what change they’re actually expecting to see on quality assurance. Ideas of linking quality measures to recruitment numbers or fee levels have caused concern, which is understandable given that the system for measuring quality is untested. But we shouldn’t fear greater scrutiny. Students, taxpayers and the public deserve clarity about what quality looks like in real terms – and reassurance that it is being delivered at a high level and consistently.

    Demonstrating quality is something Russell Group universities have always taken seriously, and is now under increasing public scrutiny in the face of rhetoric from certain political quarters about “rip-off degrees”. As such, our universities have taken steps to measure and robustly evidence the quality of our provision. Beyond regulatory metrics, graduate outcomes surveys, the TEF and professional body accreditations, our universities embed quality assurance through multiple levels of governance, including academic boards and senates, independent audits, annual and periodic module and programme reviews, and student feedback mechanisms. This has led to continuous improvement and enhancement of quality at our universities, reflected in the strength of their outcomes.

    Crucially, high quality is not about selectivity or league tables. The Secretary of State is rightly clear in her ambition for all young people to have a wide range of excellent options across different institutions, levels and qualification types. But this choice needs to go hand-in-hand with quality, which is why we need baseline expectations across all institutions and swift regulatory action where these standards aren’t met.

    If the sector embraces greater scrutiny in this way, then metrics must be robust, transparent and fair. Streamlining and clarifying processes should reduce duplication and burden, while maintaining a strong focus on enhancement.

    The regulator has both carrots and sticks at its disposal. While it is positive to see an intention to reward high-quality provision, benchmarking that obscures excellence could inadvertently punish those delivering the strongest outcomes – surely not the government’s intention.

    Particularly worrying is the idea that the OfS could start deriving overall ratings from a lower individual aspect rating. This compresses results and risks obscuring examples of high-quality provision, adding little value for students. Even more concerning is the proposal to reclassify the Bronze ratings as a trigger for regulatory intervention. This could redefine the baseline for compliance as a form of failure in quality, and blur the line between judgements of excellence and regulatory compliance – a muddled message for providers and confusing for students.

    Ultimately, the goal must be a more outward-facing quality model – one that strengthens public and ministerial trust, reinforces the UK’s global credibility, and upholds the reputation for excellence that underpins our higher education sector.

    By positioning higher tuition fees as one side of a “deal,” the Government is challenging the sector to demonstrate, clearly and confidently, that students are receiving both a high-quality experience and high-quality outcomes in return. That deal will only be credible if quality is defined fairly, measured transparently, and assessed in ways that support enhancement as well as accountability.

    Source link

  • a parking lot where students can sleep safely in their cars 

    a parking lot where students can sleep safely in their cars 

    by Gail Cornwall, The Hechinger Report
    December 9, 2025

    LONG BEACH, Calif. — When Edgar Rosales Jr. uses the word “home,” the second-year college student with a linebacker’s build isn’t referring to the house he plans to buy after becoming a nurse or getting a job in public health. Rather, the Long Beach City College student is talking about the parking lot he slept in every night for more than a year. With Oprah-esque enthusiasm, Rosales calls the other students who use LBCC’s Safe Parking Program his “roommates” or “neighbors.” 

    Between 8 and 10:30 p.m., those neighbors drive onto the lot, where staff park during the day. Nearby showers open at 6 a.m. Sleeping in a car may not sound like a step up, but for Rosales — who dropped out of a Compton high school more than 20 years ago to become a truck driver — being handed a key fob to a bathroom stocked with toilet paper and hand soap was life-altering. He kept the plastic tab on his key ring, even though he was supposed to place it in a drop box each morning, because the sight of it brought comfort; the sense of it between his fingers, hard and slick, felt like peace.

    When Rosales and his son’s mother called it off again in the fall of 2024, just after he’d finished a GED program and enrolled at LBCC, he stayed with his brother for a week or so. But he didn’t want to be a burden. So one day after work at the trucking company — he’d gone part-time since enrolling, though he’d still regularly clock 40 hours a week — he circled the block in his beat-up sedan and parked on the side of the road, near some RVs and an encampment. The scariest part of sleeping in his car was the noises, Rosales said: “I heard a dog barking or I heard somebody running around or you see cop lights going down the street. You see people looking in your car.” He couldn’t sleep, let alone focus. Without the ability to bathe regularly, he began to avoid people to spare them the smell. The car became his sanctuary, but also, a prison. As he put it, “It starts messing with your mental health.”

    First, Rosales dropped a class. A few weeks later, he told his LBCC peer navigator he couldn’t do it anymore and needed her help to withdraw. Instead, she got Rosales signed up for the college’s Safe Parking Program, and everything flipped on its head. With the LBCC lot’s outlets and WiFi, the back seat of his car morphed into a study carrel. Campus security was there to watch over him, not threaten him like the police had, telling him to move along or issuing a citation that cost him a day’s pay. For the first time in a month, Rosales said, “I could just sleep with my eyes closed the whole night.”

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    Forty-eight percent of college students experience housing insecurity, meaning “challenges that prevent them from having a safe, affordable, and consistent place to live,” suggests the most recent Student Basic Needs Survey Report from the Hope Center at Temple University. That number rises to 60 percent for Black students, 67 percent for students who are parenting and 72 percent for former foster youth. The problem also tends to be worse for veterans and those who identify as LGBTQ+ or have been labeled undocumented, said Sara Abelson, an assistant professor and the Hope Center’s senior director of education and training. Fourteen percent of the nearly 75,000 students surveyed experienced homelessness, the most severe form of housing insecurity. Other analyses produce similar estimates.

    Of course, rates differ by institution. The Hope Center found that housing insecurity at two-year schools, like LBCC, was about 10 points higher than at their four-year counterparts. A similar gap divided institutions that serve high proportions of students classified as racial and ethnic minorities from those that don’t. Geography also matters: It’s much easier to find a rental unit in Wilmington, North Carolina, for example, than in Portland, Oregon. And yet, the problem is a national one, said Jillian Sitjar, director of higher education for the nonprofit SchoolHouse Connection, affecting both rural and urban areas and “not just a California thing.” That’s partly because of a national housing supply shortage and the fact that eligibility rules for affordable housing programs often exclude students; and it’s partly because the cost of college has risen nationwide as both government investment in higher education and the purchasing power of financial aid have fallen over the decades. The second Trump administration’s threatened and actual changes to Pell Grants, the largest federal student aid program, haven’t helped, nor have its cuts to the social safety net generally and erosion of laws meant to ensure equitable access to housing. 

    For years, colleges have primarily referred homeless students to shelters, nonprofits and other external organizations, but “there’s kind of a shift that’s happening,” Sitjar said: “Institutions are starting to look internally, being like, ‘OK, we need to do more.’” LBCC’s Safe Parking Program is one of the most visible of a new crop of programs addressing student housing insecurity by giving students unorthodox places to sleep: cars, hotels, napping pods, homes of alumni and even an assisted living facility. What sets these stopgap efforts apart from longer-term strategies — such as initiatives to reduce rents, build housing (including out of shipping containers), rapidly rehouse students, cover housing gaps (like summer and holidays) and provide students with more financial aid — is that they’re designed to be flawed. College administrators know full well that Band-Aid programs are insufficient, that they’re catching blood rather than addressing the source of the bleeding. And yet, while long-term projects are underway, what’s woefully inadequate can be quite a bit better than nothing.

    An oversize sink sure was for Mike Muñoz. Decades before earning his doctorate and becoming the president of LBCC, Muñoz was a community college student who worked in a mall as the assistant manager of a portrait studio. After coming out as gay, he couldn’t go home, and then the family lost their house to foreclosure so “there wasn’t a home to go back to,” he said. Many nights, he’d crash on friends’ couches, but in the week leading up to payday, he couldn’t afford the gas to get there from work. Feeling hopeless, Muñoz would find a parking spot near the mall and spend the night in his car, dealing with the exact same stressors Rosales would endure years later. In the morning, he’d take a sponge bath in the oversize sink that the studio used to develop film. His No. 1 concern, after survival, he says, was keeping anyone from finding out about his homelessness, especially on campus.

    President Muñoz — who is warm like Rosales yet more self-contained, often listening so intently as to become motionless — said the Safe Parking Program is about more than providing physical safety for students who sleep in their vehicles. Muñoz wants these students to feel safe bringing their full selves to college, in a way he didn’t until transferring to a four-year school and moving into student housing. “The mental load that I was carrying, I was able to set that down,” he said, “and I was able to then really focus that energy” — on classes, on who he wanted to be. That’s Muñoz’s answer to those who say emergency housing is a distraction, ancillary to the mission of a college.

    Indeed, research suggests that asking a student to thrive in college without a reliable place to sleep is no more reasonable than asking them to ace a test without access to books or lectures. Multiple studies find that housing insecurity is associated with significantly lower grades and well-being. Lacking a stable housing arrangement has also been shown to negatively affect class attendance, full-time enrollment and the odds of getting a degree. What’s more, a 2024 survey found that housing-insecure students rely more on risky credit services like payday loans and auto-title loans. This Gordian knot of need and peril, which often also includes child care obligations and food insecurity, makes it hard to prove that emergency housing alone will improve students’ lives. But Rashida Crutchfield, a professor of social work and executive director of the Center for Equitable Higher Education at California State University, Long Beach, said, “It’s one of those ‘obviously’ moments that if you house students, they do better.” 

    Related: Housing insecurity derails foster kids’ college dreams

    When a pandemic-era survey revealed at least 70 LBCC students living in their cars, Muñoz asked the college’s board to support him in implementing a safe parking program. They agreed something had to be done, but issues like legal liability concerned some LBCC staff. Additional worries included the cost and that it would mean less money for longer-term solutions, the risk of sending a message that it’s OK for students to have to sleep in their cars, and “the sky is falling kind of stuff” — visions of drugs, sex, trash, urine. But Muñoz pressed, and in 2021 the school piloted a program with 13 students and a startup budget of $200,000 from pandemic relief funds. That money covered private overnight security and paid for the nonprofit Safe Parking LA to train LBCC staff and help develop an application, liability waiver and more. The school’s facilities team installed security cameras, scheduled more cleaning and figured out how best to handle the extra opening and closing of the lot’s gates.

    Similar efforts sprang up during the pandemic but later shuttered. For example, a collaboration in Oakland between Laney College and West Side Missionary Baptist Church wound down as did the safe lot program near the University of Washington’s Seattle campus. “The funding isn’t there anymore,” explained Marguerita Lightfoot, a professor at OHSU-PSU School of Public Health. Yet still to this day, she said of sleeping in cars, “There are students who are doing that at every institution.” 

    Knowing that, LBCC was determined to keep the Safe Parking Program running even after the federal tap ran dry. The school moved the program from its original location to the lot Rosales would call home, which has a clear line of sight from the campus security office. One extra campus security position replaced the private company, cutting LBCC’s overall spend in half. In other words, Muñoz made it work.

    Other schools have swung different hammers at the same nail. Some colleges and universities with dorms maintain “in-and-out rooms,” beds set aside for short-term, emergency use, the way Roosevelt University in Chicago and Fort Lewis College in Colorado do. But Sitjar says a lot of red tape and considerable expense make in-and-out rooms uncommon. For specific student populations, some schools offer year-round housing, like West Chester University’s Promise Program for former foster youth and qualifying homeless students and a similar program at San Diego State University. But “during the summer, it’s really, really, really hard for institutions to try to keep those rooms set aside,” Sitjar said, since they otherwise generate revenue via summer camps, reunions and more, and during the academic year mean room-and-board money.

    And community colleges — which educate the majority of American college students — mostly don’t have dorms that allow for this option. A few have teamed up with four-year institutions to house students at a discounted rate. In New Jersey, Rider University hosts students from Mercer County Community College. Through a pilot program launched in 2019, Massachusetts reimburses four-year campuses for the cost of keeping dorm beds available for community college students experiencing homelessness. A review of the program, through which eight colleges and universities have hosted students, found that 72 percent of participants showed academic improvement and even more experienced improved mental health.

    Other types of partnerships also put roofs over students’ heads in short order. Cape Cod Community College works with a local health center to get students into hotel rooms on days the temperature falls below 32 degrees. And Norco College in Southern California is just one of dozens that contracts directly with a hotel. Religious organizations help too, such as Depaul USA in Philadelphia, which houses homeless college students in a converted convent. Around 400 miles south, in Wake County, North Carolina, HOST is a nonprofit that began with members of the NC State University community inviting students to move into their homes. And New York City’s LaGuardia Community College partners with Airbnb to house students short term, with the company reimbursing hosts.

    Related: From Pony Soldier Inn to student housing: How an old hotel shows one solution to community college housing problems

    A particularly unusual partnership resulted when Winona Health, a health care system in Minnesota, acquired a nursing home that had a mansion sitting on the same parcel of land. The century-old building, Watkins Manor, wasn’t ideal for assisted living, so in 2021 Winona invited students from nearby colleges to move in for a very low monthly rent plus volunteer hours. Students help senior citizens do things like troubleshoot tech, go shopping and participate in therapeutic recreation programs. “The residents love it, the students love it,” said Linda Atkinson, the administrator who oversees the program. While students don’t need to experience housing insecurity to apply, the program has provided emergency housing for those who have been kicked out of a parent’s home, experienced domestic violence and more.

    Some schools combine these solutions, inching toward more comprehensive support. At California State University, Sacramento, the CARES program maintains four beds in on-campus dorms for immediate use. It also partners with the Hampton Inn and offers rent subsidies, eviction-avoidance grants (a utility bill here, a late fee there) and move-in support grants (think security deposits), among others. Additionally, the program has helped connect students with members of local churches willing to open their homes. Understanding that some students don’t have cars, LBCC too offers much more than the Safe Parking Program. As Crutchfield put it, “Different people have lots of different needs, and we have to have a buffet of options.”

    At Howard Community College in Maryland, one smörgåsbord item is a place to nap. President Daria Willis doesn’t have anywhere to put a shelter for housing-insecure students, as Harvard, UCLA and the University of Southern California have done. “We are pretty much landlocked,” she explained, “I’ve got a hospital on my left side, and I’ve got neighborhoods on the right, back, and front side of the campus.” But she wanted to do something to help the exhausted students she walked by on the way to her office morning after morning. Students who worked night shifts, parented young kids or didn’t have a place to sleep at night were curled into chairs and draped over benches. In a pilot program, the school bought five chairs, known as sleeping pods, designed for rest. After Willis posted a picture on social media of herself relaxing in one, “it exploded,” she said: “Students were in them every single moment of the day,” often needing to be asked to leave when buildings closed at 11:30 p.m. So the school bought more sleeping pods. And more again. 

    No one, though, believes napping facilities and parking lots are really the answer.

    Rosales has leg issues and a bad back. “I’m a big guy,” he said as he folded himself into the back seat of his car in an origami-like series of steps in early September. The WiFi on the lot is spotty, one bathroom for more than a dozen people often means a line, there’s no fridge to store leftovers or microwave to reheat them, and Safe Parking Program users aren’t able to sleep in or get to bed early. Last semester, when he took a class that didn’t get out until 10 p.m., Rosales had to move as fast as his busted knees would carry him to make the cutoff at 10:30. And he was still homeless. He’d go to a restaurant, spending dollars he couldn’t spare and eating too much just “to feel like a normal person,” Rosales said. He’d say hello to everybody and strike up a conversation with his server, to try to “be normal for a minute.”

    Yet despite its limitations, the Safe Parking Program let Rosales “breathe, relax, continue on,” he said. And the lot offered a chance to build community. He began encouraging new arrivals to connect: “Trust me, we’ll help you,” Rosales would say. And they do often require help like that. Even when campus resources exist, two-thirds of students in need lack awareness about available supports, the Hope Center researchers concluded. Stigma is part of the problem. As Rosales put it, “We’re scared that we’re going to get judged or someone’s going to give us pity or give us a look … like, ‘Oh, there goes the homeless one.’” He didn’t even tell his family about his homelessness. In fact, Rosales’ peer navigator was the first to know — and he only had one of those to turn to because of LBCC’s surveys and targeted outreach.

    Recently, Rosales organized a free breakfast to connect his “roommates and neighbors” with campus resources and each other. He felt terrible that he still couldn’t do much for the son he’d barely seen since moving out, especially after being laid off by the trucking company on Christmas Eve. But gathering participants in the Safe Parking Program, helping them — now he could add value to someone. And he felt valued by LBCC, having been given comprehensive support and case management meant to find an on-ramp to stable housing, as well as money for car repairs. (Each year, between $23,000 and $115,000 from the LBCC Foundation — which swelled after a $30 million gift from MacKenzie Scott, the philanthropist formerly married to Jeff Bezos — goes to students for vehicle registration, insurance, repairs and daytime parking permits.) Rosales felt like he mattered at LBCC, even after bringing his whole self to campus, just as Muñoz had hoped.

    Related: Overdue tuition and fees — as little as $41 — derail hundreds of thousands of California community college students 

    At some point in the nation’s history, homelessness on college campuses was nonexistent, a rounding error when it did occur, because students had to have wealth behind them to access higher education. As efforts to democratize admissions and attendance (like the GI Bill) have borne fruit, “more of those who are facing these issues are getting to institutions,” said Abelson, the Hope Center’s senior director of education and training, combining with housing and funding shortages to create need that “has largely gone under the radar and unrecognized.” Efforts to equalize opportunity have been insufficient, and yet, they’ve made it possible for someone like Muñoz to graduate and then rise through the ranks. They’ve made it possible for his days of rationing gas and sink-bathing to open an institution’s eyes to the need for a net to catch students who are slipping off its ivory tower, and for Muñoz to push to create one, even if it must be stitched together from imperfect materials.

    But the reality is that the majority of schools have massive holes in their nets, or to return to Crutchfield’s metaphor, they don’t offer any of these emergency housing dishes, let alone the whole spread. For the most part, colleges and universities still just create a list of resources and refer students out, suggesting they try their luck with local shelters and Craigslist. It’s inadequate. “Our shelter systems are overtaxed,” Crutchfield said, “there’s just not enough capacity.” And even when there is, “students don’t see shelter systems as for them,” she said. In some ways, they’re right: Shelter rules, including the need to queue up and turn lights off when there’s homework still to be done, often clash with students’ needs. 

    “If I fall down and I’m bleeding, definitely get me medical attention, get me a Band-Aid,” Crutchfield said. “But if the road is broken, and that’s why people keep falling down, you have to deal with the road.” So yes to safe parking, she said, but also, “What are we going to do next?” 

    In addition to building housing, participating in rapid rehousing models and advocating for financial aid that covers the true cost of college, some schools have hired homeless liaisons, staff members dedicated to assisting students experiencing homelessness. According to SchoolHouse Connection, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland and Tennessee require schools to establish these roles. Maine encourages doing so, and California, Minnesota and Washington even set aside funds that can be used to pay for them. The impact appears to be significant. In Washington, 22 out of 25 community colleges surveyed said they provide some sort of emergency housing. Sitjar said, “For institutions and states that have these individuals, that have these roles, we’re then seeing those colleges make the really unique solutions of addressing housing.”

    She pointed to bipartisan federal legislation, two bills that are expected to be reintroduced this session, that would require homeless liaisons as well as force colleges to develop plans for housing during academic breaks, do a better job of identifying students struggling with homelessness and more. One of the bills would update the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program to allow full-time students to live in LIHTC housing if they’ve experienced homelessness within the last seven years. Abelson said the Hope Center and others support this reform as well as similar efforts aimed at “reducing the many barriers that students face to accessing [government] benefits.” 

    These days, Rosales still eats his feelings sometimes, he said, but “it’s slowly getting better because I see a therapist every two weeks through the school.” When LBCC told him in September that he’d been offered housing through a rapid rehousing program called Jovenes — a two-bedroom, two-bath to be shared with three roommates — Rosales began to cry, from relief but also from fear. “I never thought I was going to get out of here,” he said of the Safe Parking Program. “This is my home, this is where I live, this is where I’ve been — holidays, weekends, a birthday.” He finds comfort in knowing that the lot is always an option, as it is for the dozens of LBCC students living on the brink who have signed up for the program just in case. But he doesn’t sleep there anymore. “I’m not going back,” Rosales said, and for the first time, he believes in his ability to make that happen. He can feel in his truck-weary bones that he’ll graduate, that he’ll get that house he’s been dreaming about: “I’m moving ahead.”

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected]. 

    This story about emergency housing was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/a-new-solution-to-student-homelessness-a-parking-lot-where-students-can-sleep-safely-in-their-cars/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113649&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/a-new-solution-to-student-homelessness-a-parking-lot-where-students-can-sleep-safely-in-their-cars/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>



    Source link

  • What We Learned About College Students in 2025

    What We Learned About College Students in 2025

    Every year, I have the opportunity to stand at the intersection of student voices, fresh research, and campus decision-making. It is this vantage point I never take for granted. I get to listen, really listen, as students and their families try to make sense of one of the biggest choices they will ever face. And honestly? The data always surprises me. It knocks me off balance, in the best way, and keeps me rethinking how this work should be done. But this year felt different, and not just in the numbers.

    We conducted eight studies and heard from tens of thousands of students. Thousands of families shared their experiences with us. We also surveyed campus professionals at hundreds of institutions.

    When I step back and look at it all, one message just echoes above the rest: Students want to succeed. They are not asking for a handout. They are just asking us to meet them where they are. No matter the dataset, the demographic, or the question, it was there, a kind of quiet message threading through every open-ended response: “I’m trying. Please help me in a way that works for me.”

    Here is what I learned from all the students, families, and schools that trusted us with their stories this year. I have also listed the reports for each finding, which you can download and explore.

    1. Students start earlier, search differently, and expect more from digital experiences.

    Every year, I meet a new wave of students. Many are Gen Z, and the youngest are now part of Gen Alpha. These students do not just move nimbly through the internet. They approach it with a clear set of expectations.

    They want websites to be easy to use and up-to-date. They want virtual tours to feel real, not packaged or staged. When they watch a video, they hope it speaks to them, not over their heads. They want answers quickly, but they also want to feel a sense of care and connection.

    There is so much coming at them all at once. The choices are overwhelming. But even before they reach out to a human being, many are already wondering: “Can I picture myself at this college?”

    Their search is emotional before it is analytical. And they need us to show up fully, with clarity, transparency, and responsiveness.

    2. Institutions are truly trying, but capacity gaps get in the way.

    A pattern that stood out this year: the divide between what students hope for and what most colleges feel they can provide. Colleges care deeply and want to meet the needs and expectations of students, but their systems and staffing simply lag behind students’ wants and needs. Here are just three examples:

    • Students love personalized videos; however, many colleges continue to struggle with creating them.
    • Students want information that is tailored for where they are in 10th, 11th, or 12th grade, but most schools find it tough to do this consistently.
    • Students respond well to SMS reminders and instant guidance, yet some colleges hold back, worried about being intrusive.

    This is not a willingness issue. It is a resourcing issue. It forces us to rethink what “meeting students where they are” looks like, not just emotionally, but operationally.

    3. Families remain the quiet (and sometimes not-so-quiet) force behind every decision.

    Families have been clear about what they need from us. Communicate, early and honestly. Talk about cost in real terms. Help us understand what comes next, and what this investment might mean for our children.

    Families are not trying to control the process. They want to feel assured that their sons and daughters will be okay. It matters that families feel the investment is worth it, that their students will be supported, and that there is a clear path forward. At the same time, many families still struggle to obtain answers to even the most basic questions about costs, aid, or outcomes.

    We cannot truly support students while ignoring the people quietly cheering (and sometimes worrying) behind them. Equity means working in partnership with families, especially those walking into higher education for the first time.

    4. First-year students are deeply motivated and deeply worried.

    This report broke my heart, I have to be honest!

    Almost every first-year student says they want to finish their degree. They want to learn. They want to belong. They want to shape a future they can be proud of.

    Yet more than a quarter are already doubting whether college will be worth it, sometimes even before their first class.

    Their requests are not grand or out of reach. They want to make friends. They want to find the right major. They want to understand how careers really work. They want to know how to study well. They want advice on scholarships. These are not demands; they are invitations. Show them they belong. Prove that their presence matters here.

    Belonging is not a catchphrase. It is the foundation for everything else. These are not demands. They are invitations: “Show me I matter here.”

    5. Many students feel that institutions do not provide adequate financial aid.

    Cost is a driver for enrollment and the biggest barrier for families. Knowing how much financial aid they are eligible for can go a long way toward alleviating the stress of financing an education.

    However, across the board, about half of all students are not satisfied with the availability of financial aid. When looking at students at four-year private institutions, four-year public institutions, and community colleges, more than 80% said that adequate financial aid was important. Yet only half said they were satisfied that adequate financial aid was available. Adult students expressed similar levels of satisfaction.

    Given the enormous investment students and families make in a college education, we have to design processes that educate them early on the aid that is available, explain their actual cost of attendance is, and share outcomes to illustrate how their college education can lead to a better life.

    6. Retention is not a mystery. We know what works; the challenge is scaling it.

    There were no huge surprises about what helps students stay and succeed. Academic support. Mental health services. Early alerts. Success coaches. We know these things work.

    What is striking is how many places struggle to get support from every student who needs them. AI-powered tools are helpful, but not every campus utilizes them. Early assessments can significantly impact a student’s trajectory, but they are not universally applicable. Cross-campus plans work best, but not every college has enough hands-on deck to pull it off.

    Retention is not something one office “owns.” It is a campuswide philosophy grounded in clarity, coordination, and community.

    7. Gen Z are becoming the largest population of graduate students, and they expect more personalization

    It’s hard to believe that Gen Z is already moving on to graduate school, but that shift is well underway. The National Center for Education Statistics showed that, by fall 2023, 26% of graduate students were under 25 and 30% under 29.

    That means that the majority of graduate students are digital natives who have grown up online and are used to those online experiences being personalized and curated for them. When we conducted this year’s graduate student survey, 53% of our respondents said that personal contact was essential or very important to them in choosing a program.

    More than ever, graduate student recruitment needs to feel like it speaks to students and addresses their goals, their interests, and their needs.

    8. AI is not replacing people; students want us to help them use it safely and ethically.

    This one surprised me the most. Whether students are wary of AI or jumping in, nearly all say the same thing:

    • They want guidance.
    • They want an advisor to help them use these tools wisely.

    AI itself is not the enemy. Pretending students are not already experimenting with it would be the real mistake.

    Students are not asking us to choose between AI and human connection. They are asking us to integrate both thoughtfully and responsibly.

    What all eight reports taught me

    Students are trying incredibly hard in a system that was not always built for them.

    Our job is to build the bridge, not ask them to leap. Meeting students and families where they are is not a tagline. It is a responsibility. It looks like:

    • Clear digital pathways for exploration
    • Transparent communication for families
    • Personalization so students feel you are speaking to them
    • Support that begins early and never stops
    • Belonging as a core institutional value
    • Career clarity embedded throughout the journey
    • Financial transparency without fine print
    • AI literacy paired with human connection

    And above all: Designing every process with equity at the center, not at the margins.

    Because students are ready. Families are ready. They are doing everything they can.The real question is whether we are ready to meet them with the honesty, empathy, and support they deserve.

    You can find all of these reports in our Resource Library. And if you want to talk about how you can turn these insights into strategies that will help you engage, enroll, and retain more of your students, reach out to us. We can schedule a time to talk about meeting more students where they are and meeting your enrollment goals.

    Talk with our experts about enrollment and student success

    Let’s talk about how you can find the optimal strategies for engaging the students who are the best fit, optimizing yield, and maximizing student success.

    Schedule a time to talk

    Source link

  • Changes to TEF risk institutions choosing between continuous improvement or compliance

    Changes to TEF risk institutions choosing between continuous improvement or compliance

    With the deadline for the Office for Students’ consultation on quality and standards fast approaching, the sector is staring down the barrel of a high-stakes new reality.

    In this proposed world, a Bronze award is no longer just a rating; it is a compliance warning. While Gold providers may enjoy a five-year cycle, the underlying machinery proposes something far more demanding: the replacement of the fixed cycle with continuous data monitoring, where a dip in indicators can trigger immediate regulatory intervention.

    To understand the implications of this shift, we need to adopt the lens of Janus – the god of transitions. By looking back at the lessons of the 2023 exercise, we can better evaluate the structural risks of the regulatory cycle looming ahead.

    The evidence from the three major sector evaluations of the 2023 exercise – Office for Students’ commissioned IFF research, QAA and Advance HE – suggests that we are at a tipping point. The question is whether the new framework will drive continuous improvement or simply enforce continuous compliance.

    The paradox of context

    TEF 2023 was defined by a fundamental structural tension: the clash between the regulator’s need for sector-wide consistency and the provider’s need to articulate institutional nuance.

    The lesson from 2023 was clear. Success didn’t come from generic excellence; it came from proving that practices were “embedded” in a way that served a specific student demographic. In fact, QAA analysis shows the word ‘embedded’ appeared over 500 times in panel statements. High-performing institutions proved that their support wasn’t optional but structurally woven into the curriculum because their student intake required it.

    But this nuance comes at a heavy price. If you demand a highly individualised narrative to justify your metrics, you dramatically increase the administrative labour required to produce it. This reliance on narrative also creates a profound equity issue. The framework risks favouring institutions with the resources to craft polished, professionalised narratives over those taking actual risks on widening participation.

    Furthermore, for smaller and specialist providers, the ‘paradox of context’ is statistical, not just narrative. We must recognise the extreme volatility of data for small cohorts, where a single student’s outcome can drastically skew statistics. If the regulator relies heavily on data integration, we risk a system that mistakes statistical noise for institutional failure.

    The compliance trap

    The IFF Research evaluation confirmed that the single biggest obstacle for providers in TEF 2023 was staff capacity and time. This burden didn’t just burn out staff; it may have distorted the student voice it was meant to amplify. While the student submission is intended to add texture to the metrics, the sheer scale of the task drove standardisation. The IFF report highlights that providers struggled to ensure student engagement was adequate due to time constraints. The unintended consequence is clear: instead of messy, authentic co-creation, the burden risks creating a system where providers rely on aggregating generic survey data just to “manage” the student voice efficiently.

    The stakes are raised further by the proposed mechanism for calculating overall ratings. The consultation proposes a rule-based approach where the Overall Rating is automatically determined by the lowest of the two aspect ratings. This removes necessary judgement from the process, but the consequences are more than just reputational. With proposals to limit student number growth for Bronze providers and potential links to fee limits, the sector fears a ‘downward spiral.’ If a provider meets the baseline quality standards (Condition B3) but is branded Bronze, stripping them of the resources (through fee or growth limits) needed to invest in improvement creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of decline.

    From “project” to “department”

    This brings us to the most urgent risk of the proposed rolling cycle. If a single, periodic TEF submission required that level of resource to prove “embedding” what happens when the oversight becomes continuous?

    The structural shift here is profound. We are moving from TEF as a periodic “project” – something universities can surge resources for every four years – to TEF as a permanent “department”. This continuous oversight demands permanent, dedicated institutional infrastructure for quality evidencing. It translates the high cost of a periodic audit into the risk of an endless, resource-intensive audit. The danger is that we are not moving toward continuous improvement but toward continuous compliance.

    Furthermore, the proposed timeline creates a specific trap for those rated Bronze. The proposal suggests these providers be reassessed every three years. However, given the lag in HESA and Graduate Outcomes data, a provider could implement a strategic fix immediately, yet still be judged on ‘old’ data by the time the next three-year cycle arrives.

    Furthermore, three years is often insufficient for strategic changes to manifest in lagged data. This risks locking institutions into a cycle where they are constantly being assessed – and potentially penalised – without the necessary time to generate new data that reflects their improvements.

    Innovation lag

    Furthermore, this permanent bureaucracy is being built on a framework that is already struggling to keep pace with reality. There is a speed mismatch between regulation and innovation.

    Regulation moves at the pace of government; Artificial Intelligence moves at the pace of Moore’s Law. The QAA analysis noted that TEF 2023 submissions contained minimal reference to AI, simply because the submission process was too slow to capture the sector’s rapid pivot.

    If we lock ourselves into a rigid framework that rewards historical ‘embeddedness’, we risk punishing institutions that are pivoting quickly. Worse, the pressure for consistency may drive ‘curriculum conservatism’ – where universities centralise design to ensure safety, reducing the autonomy of academics to experiment.

    The path forward?

    So, how do providers survive the rolling cycle? The only viable response is strategy alignment.

    Universities must stop treating TEF as a separate exercise. Data collection can no longer be an audit panic; it must be integrated into business-as-usual strategic planning. Evidence gathering must become the byproduct of the strategic work we are already funded to do.

    But the regulator must move too. We need a system that acknowledges the ‘paradox of context’ – you cannot have perfect nuance and perfect statistical comparison simultaneously.

    As we submit our responses to the consultation, we must advocate for a regulatory philosophy that shifts from assurance (preventing failure) to enabling (fostering responsible experimentation). If the cost of the new cycle is the erosion of the resources needed for actual teaching, then the framework will have failed the very test of excellence it seeks to measure.

    Source link

  • Before we automate REF there are three issues we need to talk about

    Before we automate REF there are three issues we need to talk about

    The long-awaited REF-AI report prompts the sector to imagine an increasingly automated REF, but also leaves several important questions unanswered about what such a future might mean for the people and practices that underpin research assessment. Before we embed AI more deeply into REF2029, we need to pause and reflect on three issues that deserve much greater attention, starting with the long-term risks to disciplinary expertise.

    Long-term impacts: Efficiency gains and the risk of skills erosion

    Recommendation 15 in the report proposes that: “REF assessments should include a human verification step… confirming that final judgements rest on human academic expertise.”

    This feels sensible on the surface. But the longer-term implications warrant more attention. Across many sectors, evidence shows that when automation takes on tasks requiring expert judgement, human expertise can slowly erode as roles shift from analysis to oversight. The report itself recognises this trend when discussing labour substitution and task reallocation.

    REF processes already rely heavily on signals, heuristics and proxies, particularly under time pressure. Introducing AI may further reduce opportunities for deep disciplinary reading in panel work. If this happens, then by the 2030s or 2040s, the experts needed to meaningfully verify AI-generated assessments may become harder to sustain.

    This is not an argument against using AI, but rather a suggestion that we need to consider the long-term stewardship of disciplinary expertise, and ensure that any AI integration strengthens, rather than displaces, human judgement. We don’t yet have expertise in how to collaborate effectively with AI systems and their outputs. This needs to be developed as a conscious endeavour to ensure that AI supports research assessment responsibly.

    Learning from Responsible Research Assessment (RRA)

    Over more than a decade, frameworks such as DORA, CoARA, the Hong Kong Principles and the Leiden Manifesto have laid out clear principles for responsible use of quantitative indicators, transparency, equity, and disciplinary diversity. The REF-AI report notes that in the interviews conducted: “Seldom was mention made of responsible research assessment initiatives such as DORA and CoARA… There is no clear view that the deployment of GenAI tools in the REF is antithetical to the ambitions of such initiatives.” But the absence of discussion in the focus groups does not necessarily mean a positive alignment, it may simply indicate that RRA principles were not a prominent reference point in the design or facilitation of the project.

    A fuller analysis could explore how AI intersects with core RRA questions, including: i) How do we assess what we value, not just what is machine-readable? ii) How do we prevent AI from amplifying systemic inequities? iii) How do we ensure transparency in systems underpinned by proprietary models? and iv) How do we avoid metrics-by-stealth re-entering the REF through automated tools? These considerations are essential, not peripheral, to thinking about AI in research assessment.

    Representation: A report on bias that overlooks some of its own challenges

    Finally, representation. As the authors have acknowledged themselves, it is hard to ignore that the authorship team comprises four men, three of which are senior and white. This matters, not as a criticism of the individuals involved, but because who examines AI uptake shapes how issues of bias, fairness and inclusion are framed. Generative AI systems are widely acknowledged as being trained on text that contains gendered, racialised and geographical biases; the report also notes that: “Concerns of bias and inaccuracy related to GenAI tools are widely acknowledged…” What is less evident, however, is a deeper engagement with how these biases might play out within a national research assessment exercise that already shows uneven outcomes for different groups.

    A similar issue arises in the dataset. Half of the interviewees were from Russell Group institutions, despite the Russell Group representing around 15 per cent of REF-submitting HEIs. The report itself notes that experimentation with AI is concentrated in well-resourced institutions: “Variation in experimentation with GenAI tools is mainly influenced… by institutional resource capacity.”

    Given this, the weighting of the sample will skew the perspectives represented. This does not necessarily invalidate the findings, but it does raise questions about whether further, broader consultation would strengthen confidence in the conclusions drawn.

    Doing it better?

    The report does an excellent job of surfacing current institutional anxieties. Larger, well-resourced universities appear more open to integrating AI into REF processes; others are more cautious. Survey findings suggest notable scepticism among academics, particularly in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. Despite this, the report signals a direction of travel in which REF “inevitably” becomes AI-enabled and eventually “fully automated.” Whether this future is desirable, or indeed equitable, remains an open question.

    The REF-AI report is therefore best read as an important starting point. For the next phase, it will be vital that Research England broadens the conversation to include a wider diversity of voices, including experts in equality and inclusion, disciplinary communities concerned about long-term skills, those with deep experience in RRA, smaller institutions, and early career researchers who will inherit whatever system emerges.

    This more diverse team must be given licence to make bold decisions about not just what’s inevitable but what’s desirable for the research ecosystem the REF ultimately seeks to monitor and shape. We cannot simply pay lip service to principles of responsible research assessment, equity, diversity and inclusion, and ignore the resulting outcomes of the decision-making processes shaped by those principles.

    AI will undoubtedly shape aspects of future research governance and assessments. The challenge, now, is to ensure that its integration reflects sector values, not just technological possibility.

    Source link

  • Why Your Study Systems Don’t Work Anymore

    Why Your Study Systems Don’t Work Anymore

    By Katie Azevedo, M.Ed.

    You spent all of sophomore year perfecting your study system. Organized, color-coded flashcard, easy to review: it worked beautifully. Then junior year hit, and suddenly those same study methods feel completely useless when you’re preparing for exams.

    What happened? Well, here’s what didn’t happen: You didn’t suddenly forget how to study. And you didn’t suddenly get ignorant.

    What did happen is that something leveled up, but your system didn’t level up with it.

    As a study skills expert with 20 years of teaching experience, I see this all the time. Students come to me frustrated because a method that used to work has stopped working. They assume they’re doing something wrong, or that they just need to “try harder.” 

    But the reality is usually much simpler: their system stopped working for a very specific, identifiable reason.

    An important note before we go further: This post assumes you’re starting with a legitimate study system, meaning you’re already using active recall and spaced repetition as your foundation.

    If you’re re-reading notes, highlighting textbooks, or cramming the night before, those aren’t study systems that “stopped working”: they’re passive methods that never worked in the first place. Active recall (testing yourself) and spaced repetition (spreading study sessions over time) are non-negotiables at every level. This post is about what happens when you’re using those evidence-based methods correctly, but they still feel less effective than they used to be.

    In this post, I’m breaking down the five main reasons legitimate study systems fail, and what each signal means. Understanding why your system stopped working is the first step to figuring out what to do next.

    Why Your Study Systems Don’t Work Anymore

    Below are the five primary reasons why your “good” study systems stopped working. You may find that one, two, or all apply to your situation.

    1. Developmental Transitions: You’ve Leveled Up, But Your System Hasn’t

    Academic demands don’t just get “harder” as you progress through school: they fundamentally change. What worked in high school might be perfectly executed active recall, but if you’re still using high school-level active recall in college, you’re bringing the right tool at the wrong intensity.

    As you move to harder courses or higher levels (from high school to college, for example), the following three changes happen:

    1. The cognitive demand increases.

    High school tests often reward memorization and recall. College exams (and especially graduate-level work) require synthesis, application, and critical analysis. 

    In other words, your flashcards might have been perfect for memorizing vocabulary or formulas, but now you need to apply those concepts to novel situations or synthesize information across multiple sources.

    2. The external structure disappears.

    In high school, teachers often build review into class time, tell you exactly what to study, and remind you about deadlines. 

    But in college, professors expect you to figure out what’s important, create your own review schedule, and manage longer-term projects without check-ins. Your study system (and you!) now has to do the work your teacher used to do.

    3. The pace accelerates.

    You might have had a week to prepare for a high school test covering two chapters. In college, you might have three days to prepare for an exam covering six weeks of material across lectures, readings, and discussions.

    What This Signal Means and What to Do:

    Your active recall methods aren’t wrong; they’re just not scaled to match your current demands. Here’s how to level up your study methods:

    1. Extend your spaced repetition timeline.

    If you used to start studying three days before a test, you now need to start a week or two out. If you used to start a week out, now start two weeks out. Spread your active recall sessions over more days to account for the increased volume of material.

    2. Add more complex practice problems.

    Don’t just test yourself on definitions — test yourself on application. Look for practice problems at the end of textbook chapters, old exams from your professor (just ask; they may say no, but it’s worth asking), or create your own “what if” scenarios that force you to apply concepts in new ways.

    3. Create study materials that force higher-order thinking.

    Instead of flashcards that ask “What is X?”, create questions like “How does X relate to Y?” or “What would happen if X changed?” Write practice essay prompts for yourself. Teach the concept out loud as if explaining it to someone who’s never taken the class. Make Venn diagrams.

    2. The Invisible Skill Gap: Your Classes Require Skills You Don’t Have Yet

    Many teachers assume you have certain skills that you were never actually taught, especially executive function skills like planning, prioritizing, and self-monitoring. Or metacognitive skills like knowing how to study effectively or recognizing when you actually understand something versus when you just think you do.

    These invisible skills weren’t required at earlier academic levels, so your study system didn’t need to account for them. But now they’re essential, and their absence is why it feels like your system is failing. (Again, it’s not that your system is failing…it’s just that it needs to scale up.)

    Examples of invisible skill gaps:

    1. Backwards planning (aka reverse engineering). 

    In high school, most assignments were short-term: read chapter 3, answer the questions, done. In college, you have research papers due in six weeks, and you need to break that down into smaller tasks and deadlines yourself. Your planner worked before because you just wrote down what the teacher told you to do. Now you need a system that helps you create your own deadlines.

    2. Managing competing priorities.

    When you had five classes with predictable homework each night, a simple to-do list was often enough. Now you have fewer classes but longer-term projects, exams on completely different schedules, and activities outside of school. You need a system that helps you see the big picture and make strategic decisions about where to focus your time.

    3. Critical reading vs. just reading.

    You could sometimes get away with passive reading in high school because teachers reviewed everything in class. Now you’re expected to extract key concepts, identify arguments, and connect ideas across readings on your own. Your old annotation system captured facts, but didn’t require you to truly think analytically about the material.

    What This Signal Means and What to Do About It:

    You’re simply discovering skills you haven’t developed yet. Here are what skills to focus on:

    1. Build in backwards planning. 

    For any assignment longer than a week, break it into smaller milestones with self-imposed deadlines. Put those milestones in your planner or calendar just like you would “real” deadlines.

    2. Use a priority system, not just a task list. 

    Add a way to mark tasks as high/medium/low priority, or use a system that helps you see what’s due soon versus what’s due later. This helps you make decisions when everything feels urgent.

    3. Add metacognitive check-ins to your study sessions. 

    After each study session, ask yourself: “Could I teach this to someone else right now?” or “What am I still confused about?” This self-awareness helps you catch gaps before the exam does.

    3. Capacity vs. Method: Sometimes It’s More About What You Can Handle, Not How You Handle It

    Sometimes a study system stops “working” not because there’s anything wrong with the method, but because you’re operating beyond your capacity. Maybe you’re maxed out and overloaded and don’t even know it. (Or maybe you do know, but you just know what to do about it.)

    When you’re at capacity, even the most effective active recall methods will feel impossible to execute. You’ll cut corners, skip steps, or give up on the whole thing simply because you don’t have the bandwidth to figure things out.

    Signs you’re at capacity:

    • Everything feels hard, even methods you know should work or that used to work
    • You’re consistently sacrificing sleep to keep up
    • You’re skipping meals or exercise because there’s “no time”
    • You feel anxious or overwhelmed most days
    • You’re behind in multiple classes, not just one
    • Helpful Resource: Are You Doing Too Much? Link

    When you’re in this state of maxed-out capacity, the problem isn’t your study technique. It’s that you can’t execute because you’re exhausted.

    What This Signal Means and What to Do About It:

    Before you overhaul your entire study system, honestly evaluate whether you need to reduce your load or increase your support. Here’s what to consider:

    1. Audit your commitments. 

    List everything you’re doing: classes, work hours, extracurriculars, family obligations. Is anything optional that you could step back from, even temporarily? Sometimes “doing less, better” is the answer. (Inside SchoolHabits University, I have students complete an Activity Inventory, a self-assessment that provides concrete, measurable evidence about whether they’re overcommitted or undercommitted. This kind of objective data can help you see the reality of your schedule instead of just feeling overwhelmed.)

    Look at your course load specifically. Are you taking too many credits? Are you taking multiple high-demand classes in the same semester? Sometimes the best study system is strategic course selection.

    2. Increase support, not just effort. 

    This might mean going to office hours, hiring a tutor, joining a study group, or talking to a counselor about time management or stress. It might also mean having honest conversations with family about what you can realistically handle.

    No study system, no matter how evidence-based, can compensate for chronic overload. If you’re consistently operating at 110% capacity, something has to give.

    4. You Cling to What You Know Because You’re Nervous to Try Something New

    This one is more psychological than practical, but it’s just as important to consider: sometimes students keep using a system they know isn’t working because changing it feels even scarier than failing with it.

    Familiar failure has a strange comfort to it. At least you know what to expect. At least you know it’s the system’s fault and not yours. At least you don’t have to risk trying something new and discovering it doesn’t work either. These are all super uncomfortable realities to accept.

    Below are some mental traps that you might be falling into. Read them with an open mind.

    1. “At least I know what to expect.”

    Even if your current system produces mediocre results, those results are predictable. Changing your system means uncertainty, and uncertainty feels risky when grades are on the line.

    2. The sunk cost fallacy.

    “I spent so much time building this planner system / making these flashcards / organizing my notes this way. I can’t just abandon it now.” Yes, you can. Time already spent is gone, whether you continue or not.

    3. Perfectionism paralysis.

    “If I can’t find the perfect system that will work forever, I might as well stick with what I have.” This is all-or-nothing thinking. Better is better, even if it’s not perfect.

    4. Fear that the problem is you.

    This is the deepest trap. If you change your system and it still doesn’t work, then you have to confront the possibility that maybe you’re the problem. So you don’t change anything, because at least then you can blame the method.

    What This Signal Means and What to Do About It:

    Resistance to changing a system is often emotional, not logical, and that’s completely normal. But here’s how to work through it:

    1. Name the fear.

    Ask yourself honestly: “What am I afraid will happen if I change this?” Sometimes just identifying the fear reduces its power.

    2. Start small.

    You don’t have to overhaul everything at once. Pick one element to modify and try it for a week. Low stakes, low risk.

    3. Separate your worth from your system.

    Your study methods are tools, not reflections of your intelligence or character. If a tool isn’t working, you get a different tool. That’s it.

    5. Signal vs. Noise: Bad Day or Bad System?

    Not every struggle means your system is awful. Sometimes you just have a bad week. Sometimes the material is genuinely harder. Sometimes life gets in the way.

    The challenge is distinguishing between temporary friction (noise) and systematic failure (signal). 

    Students often abandon perfectly good systems after one rough experience, or they stick with failing systems because they blame external circumstances instead of recognizing a pattern.

    It’s important to know the difference. Here’s how:

    1. One bad week doesn’t mean your whole system is bad.

    If your active recall study method worked great all semester and then you bombed one quiz during a particularly stressful week, that’s noise. Don’t overreact.

    2. Consistent friction over 2-3 weeks means something needs attention.

    If you’ve been struggling to execute your system, feeling frustrated with the results, or dreading your study sessions for multiple weeks in a row, that’s a signal. Pay attention to it.

    3. The “good days/bad days” test.

    Does your system work on your good days? If yes, the system is probably fine. You might just need to work on consistency or capacity (see Section 3). If your system doesn’t work even when you have time, energy, and focus, then your study system itself needs adjustment.

    4. Consider seasonal and cyclical patterns.

    Midterms and finals weeks are brutal for everyone. The week before spring break when you have three papers due is not the time to evaluate whether your planning system works. So look at patterns across normal weeks, not crisis weeks.

    What This Signal Means and What to Do About It:

    Trust patterns over individual instances. Some strategies:

    1. Track your system for at least two weeks before making changes.

    Keep a simple log: Did I follow my system today? How did it feel? What were the results? Patterns will emerge.

    2. Distinguish between execution problems and design problems.

    If you keep forgetting to use your planner, that’s an execution problem (maybe you need reminders or a different location for it). If you’re using your planner consistently but it’s not helping you manage your time, that’s a design problem (the system itself needs work).

    3. Give new systems a fair trial.

    When you do make changes, commit to trying them for at least two weeks before judging whether they work. New systems always feel awkward at first.

    Final Notes: What To Do With This Information

    If your study system stopped working, it’s normal and understandable. It’s just a sign that one or more of the following might be happening.

    1. Your academic demands leveled up, but your system didn’t
    2. You’re missing key skills your classes assume you have
    3. You’re operating beyond capacity
    4. You’re clinging to familiar failure out of fear
    5. You’re reacting to noise instead of recognizing real signals

    Recognizing which of these is happening is the critical first step. Once you know why your system stopped working, you can make informed decisions about what to do next.

    Sometimes you need to tweak your existing system to work better for you. (If that’s where you are, read “How to Personalize Your Study Skills” for a step-by-step process.) Sometimes you need to reduce your commitments or increase support. And sometimes you need to acknowledge that a system that served you well has run its course, and it’s time to build something new.

    Here’s what I want you to remember: no study system lasts forever. As you grow, as your classes change, as your life circumstances shift, your systems need to evolve too. That’s called evolution and adaptation, and it’s not only part of life but it literally is life.

    The students who succeed aren’t the ones who find the perfect system and never change it; they’re the ones who notice when something stops working and have the courage to do something about it.


    Source link

  • School Specialty LLC Announces Acquisition of Nasco Education U.S.

    School Specialty LLC Announces Acquisition of Nasco Education U.S.

    Greenville, Wis – December 8, 2025 – School Specialty®, a leading provider of learning environments, supplies and science curriculum to the preK-12 education market, today announced the acquisition of Nasco Education U.S., a trusted name in specialized, curated education solutions for K-12 schools. This strategic acquisition enhances School Specialty’s ability to serve its core customers by enhancing its value proposition to schools across the country.

    “We estimate that nearly two-thirds of Nasco Education U.S.’s customers are already School Specialty buyers,” said Ryan Bohr, CEO of School Specialty. “Like School Specialty, Nasco Education U.S. has been an industry fixture of supplying schools for decades. Combining our companies will bring procurement efficiencies to our customers and expand the scope of products available to them.”

    School Specialty has more than 60 years of leadership in transforming classrooms into future-ready learning spaces for preK-12 educational institutions, serving five in every six school districts nationwide and curating products from hundreds of trusted brands. Nasco Education U.S.  offers a broad selection of specialized products, including hands-on, activity-based resources that support instruction across subjects like science, math, and the arts. Both companies share a deep commitment to providing high-quality, relevant resources that empower teachers and students.

    Both organizations will operate independently for the near term.  School Specialty expects to integrate the businesses gradually to ensure a seamless experience for the longstanding customers of both organizations. 

    “Together, we will be able to provide even greater support, innovation, and value to schools nationwide, helping them deliver the best possible learning experiences for their students,” said Ryan Bohr, CEO of School Specialty.

    About School Specialty, LLC 

    With a 60-year legacy, School Specialty is a leading provider of comprehensive learning environment solutions for the pre-K12 education marketplace in the U.S. and Canada. This includes essential classroom supplies, furniture and design services, educational technology, sensory spaces featuring Snoezelen, science curriculum, learning resources, professional development, and more. School Specialty believes every student can flourish in an environment where they are engaged and inspired to learn and grow. In support of this vision to transform more than classrooms, the company applies its unmatched team of education strategists and designs, manufactures, and distributes a broad assortment of name-brand and proprietary products. For more information, go to SchoolSpecialty.com.

    About Nasco Education U.S.

    Nasco Education U.S. is a leading developer and distributor of instructional materials, offering a wide range of hands-on learning products for the preK-12 education market with 80+ years of experience. Nasco Education U.S. provides schools and educators with the educational materials needed to create impactful classroom experiences that enhance student engagement and academic performance. For more information, go to NascoEducation.com.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Trinity College bans political activism over chalkboard messages

    Trinity College bans political activism over chalkboard messages

    Imagine wearing an “I Voted” sticker to class and having the school investigate you for it. Or handing out pocket editions of the Constitution on campus for Constitution Day, only for your school to deem this disruptive.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Juneteenth. Labor Day. Columbus Day. Connecticut’s Trinity College seemingly prohibits on-campus celebrations of all these federal holidays. (Don’t even get us started on t-shirts that read “Reagan-Bush 1984” or “Nevertheless, She Persisted.”)

    On November 7, individuals identifying with Students and Faculty for Justice in Palestine left chalkboard messages around campus while classes were out of session. These messages read, “Trinity is suppressing freedom of assembly,” “Disclose Divest Protest,” “Trinity Invests in Genocide,” “You are on stolen land,” and “Free Palestine.” 

    Message left by Students and Faculty for Justice in Palestine on a chalkboard in Seabury Hall. (@sfjp_trin / Instagram.com)

    That evening, Trinity President Daniel Lugo emailed the campus community, announcing an investigation of the messages for disruption, intimidation, and harassment. Then came the anti-speech money quote: “Our Student Handbook and employment policies clearly prohibit political activism within academic settings.”

    No nuance. No qualifiers. Just a blanket ban on political activism anywhere “academic.”

    There’s only one problem. FIRE couldn’t find any such rule. In fact, Trinity’s official policies affirm the importance of free expression and academic freedom, and — to its credit — the school’s time, place, and manner rules largely track First Amendment standards. Although Trinity is a private college and not legally required to protect students’ First Amendment rights, it laudably promises to uphold students’ expressive freedom in its policies. So last week, FIRE wrote to Lugo, urging him to make good on these commitments.

    FIRE calls on Trinity to end its investigation into the matter and remove any existing policy prohibiting “political activism within academic settings.”

    Lugo’s letter said that the college community “deserves to teach, learn, and work in spaces free from intimidation, harassment, or disruption.” We certainly agree, but this letter errs in suggesting that the chalkboard messages should merit punishment. On the contrary, the after-hours commentary doesn’t come close to a material and substantial disruption. Even if they did, it still wouldn’t justify outlawing all political speech on campus.

    The chalkboard messages weren’t harassment either. Harassment requires content so objectively offensive, pervasive, and severe that it effectively denies students equal access to education. There is no evidence these messages rise to this level of unprotected speech.

    Nor are they intimidation. Unprotected intimidation (i.e. a true threat) requires a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence, and a conscious disregard of the potential for that expression to put its recipient in fear of serious physical harm. Again, nothing of the sort here.

    Viral video appears to show Trinity College singling out one student’s political dorm display for removal

    Without the freedom to express even inoffensive political convictions, the promise of free speech is meaningless. America’s colleges and universities cannot conceivably function as insulated vacuums for discussion on topics of national and international importance, especially in service of such a broad and spontaneous edict. 

    Political activism has always been part of campus life in the United States. Without it, groups from Students for a Democratic Society to Turning Point USA wouldn’t exist, and George Carlin’s most legendary, politically charged bits (including his landmark UCLA set) might never have happened.

    Trinity’s overbroad language puts America’s long and proud tradition of fostering political engagement in jeopardy, and that is cause for alarm. Accordingly, FIRE calls on Trinity to end its investigation into the matter and remove any existing policy prohibiting “political activism within academic settings.”



    Source link

  • ED Calls Civil Rights Workers It’s Trying to Ax Back to Work

    ED Calls Civil Rights Workers It’s Trying to Ax Back to Work

    The OCR employees were fired in March as part of a broader reduction in force at the Education Department.

    Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

    The Education Department is calling Office for Civil Rights employees who were fired earlier this year back to work.

    The Trump administration tried to ax half of the Education Department’s OCR staff in March, but it has been paying them not to work since then while it continues to fight litigation contesting its plan. The department says it hasn’t given up on defending that move, but now says it’s “important to refocus OCR’s work and utilize all OCR staff to prioritize OCR’s existing complaint caseload.”

    “In order for OCR to pursue its mission with all available resources, all those individuals currently being compensated by the Department need to meet their employee performance expectations and contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints,” the department said in Friday emails obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “Utilizing all OCR employees, including those currently on administrative leave, will bolster and refocus efforts on enforcement activities in a way that serves and benefits parents, students, and families.”

    One email gave an employee a Dec. 15 return date, while another said Dec. 29. It’s unclear how many workers will return. Bloomberg reported that the order went out to “more than 260,” while USA Today cited the department as saying “roughly 250,” but the Associated Press said “dozens.” Inside Higher Ed is awaiting clarification from the department.

    Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents department employees, said her union hasn’t been told how many workers in its bargaining unit received the email. She said in a statement Monday that “while we are relieved these public servants are finally being allowed to return to work, Education Secretary Linda McMahon has made clear that she would rather play politics than uphold her responsibility to protect students’ rights.”

    “For more than nine months, hundreds of employees at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have been sidelined from the critical work of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students and families,” Gittleman said. She said the administration’s actions keeping these employees out of work and on leave “wasted more than $40 million in taxpayer funds.”

    “By blocking OCR staff from doing their jobs, Department leadership allowed a massive backlog of civil rights complaints to grow, and now expects these same employees to clean up a crisis entirely of the Department’s own making,” she added.

    Source link