I write in response to Ryan Quinn’s recent article (“The Battle for ‘Viewpoint Diversity’” Sept. 2, 2025) on the new civic center at Utah State University, which mandates general education courses on Western civilization. In his words: “Utah’s Legislature created a civic center at Utah State University committed to ‘viewpoint diversity and civil discourse’ … Those courses must include three that engage with ‘primary texts predominantly from Western civilization,’ such as ancient Israel, Greece or early Christianity. There’s no mention of Islam.”
Well, there’s no mention of Shintoism, Confucianism or Buddhism, either, but I fail to see what’s puzzling about excluding Islam from a “Western civilization” curriculum. Islam’s primary texts played no part in the political construction of the West. Quinn’s implied request is analogous to demanding that a curriculum devoted to Aztec or Inca civilization include the Bible simply because Spain invaded, conquered, subjugated and colonized those societies.
As a matter of civics, the distinction between the Islamic world and the West is foundational and elementary. It is recognized historically and intellectually by all who have studied the West’s construction.
Most Americans—and by extension, our education systems—naturally focus on their own historical and cultural heritage. We’re in the United States; courses here typically reflect what shaped this nation: Greco-Roman republicanism, state Christianity and Enlightenment ideals. People are curious how and why our country got to where it is. If we taught in Iran, China or elsewhere, the focus would reflect their heritage—not ours.
This isn’t a value judgment. It’s just a fact. As odd as it sounds, the United States was conceived as a reactivation of the Roman Republic 1,800 years after it came to an abrupt halt. The Founders live action role played as ancient Romans in their writings. It’s strange, but that’s precisely why it fascinates students. So these texts are not political baggage; they’re intriguing questions of origin and identity.
The question here isn’t moral judgment or wishful thinking. It’s scholarly clarity. Let’s demand substance, not ideology.
Mike Fontaine is a professor of classics at Cornell University.
Claremont McKenna takes the top spot, while Barnard College, Columbia University, and Indiana University come in last.
166 of the 257 schools surveyed got an F for their speech climate.
For the first time ever, a majority of students would prevent speakers from both the left and right who express controversial views, ranging from abortion to transgender issues, from stepping foot on campus.
WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 9, 2025– If America’s colleges could earn report cards for free speech friendliness, most would deserve an “F”— and conservative students are increasingly joining their liberal peers in supporting censorship.
The sixth annual College Free Speech Rankings, released today by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and survey partner College Pulse, show a continued decline in support for free speech among all students, but particularly conservatives. Students of every political persuasion show a deep unwillingness to encounter controversial ideas. The survey, which is the most comprehensive look at campus expression in the country, ranked 257 schools based on 68,510 student responses to a wide array of free speech-related questions.
The rankings come at a notable moment for free speech on college campuses: clashes over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a vigorous and aggressive culture of student activism, and the Trump administration’s persistent scrutiny of higher education.
“This year, students largely opposed allowing any controversial campus speaker, no matter that speaker’s politics,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “Rather than hearing out and then responding to an ideological opponent, both liberal and conservative college students are retreating from the encounter entirely. This will only harm students’ ability to think critically and create rifts between them. We must champion free speech on campus as a remedy to our culture’s deep polarization.”
For the second time, Claremont McKenna has claimed the top spot in the rankings. Speech controversies at the highest-rated schools are rare, and their administrations are more likely to support free speech. The schools that improved their score the most, including Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt University, worked to reform their policies and recently implemented new programs that support free speech and encourage open discourse.
“Even one egregious anti-free speech incident can destroy students’ trust in their administration and cause a school to plummet in the rankings,” said FIRE Vice President of Research Angela C. Erickson. “If campus administrators, faculty, and students want to enjoy an atmosphere of trust on campus, they can start by protecting each other’s rights.”
Other key findings from the report include:
166 of the 257 schools surveyed got an F for their speech climate, while only 11 schools received a speech climate grade of C or higher.
Only 36% of students said that it was “extremely” or “very” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus.
A record 1 in 3 students now holds some level of acceptance – even if only “rarely” — for resorting to violence to stop a campus speech.
53% of students say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss openly on campus. On 21 of the campuses surveyed, at least 75% of students said this — including 90% of students at Barnard.
For the first time ever, a majority of students oppose their school allowing any of the six controversial speakers they were asked about onto campus — three controversial conservative speakers and three controversial liberal ones.
“More students than ever think violence and chaos are acceptable alternatives to peaceful protest,” said FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “This finding cuts across partisan lines. It is not a liberal or conservative problem — it’s an American problem. Students see speech that they oppose as threatening, and their overblown response contributes to a volatile political climate.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.
Yesterday, I explained why the federal government now finds itself in a position where it has to cut program budgets by at least 15% just to keep the budget deficit to $50 billion by 2028. Today, I am going to explain how this will play out at Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), which plays a major role in funding for skills and education in Canada, mainly through the Canada Education Savings Program (CESP) and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program (CSFAP).
Now, just a note at the start. It is vanishingly unlikely that the feds will actually look for 15% savings in every program. The 15% rule is for the Department as a whole, and ESDC is one big mother of a department. It includes all sorts of programs including EI (which in theory is exempt from cuts), and child care.
So, let’s start with CESP, which delivers about a billion dollars a year via matching grants to parents saving for their kids’ education via Registered Education Savings Plans (RESPs). This program doesn’t allow for a lot of nuance in cutting. The program gives out about $1.1 billion a year in Canada Education Savings Grants (CESGs), roughly 85% of which goes on a basic 20 cent-to the dollar match rate and about 15% of which goes to “additional” (i.e. higher) matching rates for lower-income Canadians (A-CESGs). It also runs the Canada Learning Bond Program, which is another roughly $150 million per year which is a non-matching grant of up to $2000 to children from low-income backgrounds to start their educational savings.
There are basically four options here:
1)The government could cut program spending across the board by 15%. That is, it could lower the base CESG matching rate from 20% to 17%, and A-CESG payment rates for lower income contributors to 26.5% and 34% from the current 30% and 40%. That would save about $150 million/year. It could also reduce the CLB payout to $1700.
2)The government couldeliminate the A-CESG pieces entirely and go with a flat 20% coverage. That’s a pretty quick way to a 15% reduction.
3)The government could axe the CLB. Again, a very quick way to get close to 15% reduction.
4)The government could hold the A-CESG and CLB harmless and reduce the CESG base rate even further, to about 15%.
Now, personally, I think CESG probably comes out of this unscathed – that is, a 0% cut – because it’s one of the most popular government programs in existence. But these options give you a sense of what cuts might be, if applied uniformly across the department.
(Yes, there are also presumably some savings to be made on the personnel side, but it’s a pretty simple and lean program – if you could get savings equal to even 0.5% of total expenditures from that, I’d be shocked).
Let’s now head over to CSFAP spending and see how that might fare. It’s a bit more complex than CESG so it’s worth looking at its basic cost-structure. Using data from the CSFAP’s 2023 Actuarial report, it’s possible to look at overall direct program costs, as shown below in Figure 1. Technically, this is not a full state of program costs because there’s another billion or so in “alternative payments” to jurisdictions that do not participate in the CSFAP (i.e. Quebec, Nunavut and the NWT). But since this sum is calculated as a fraction of direct programs, we can more or less ignore them here – a 15% cut of the direct costs automatically translates through to a 15% cut in alternative payments as well. And our target number – given that CSFAP direct expenses are about $4.2 billion – would be about $628 million.
Figure 1: Major areas of CSFAP spending, in millions, 2023-24
So where do you carve out that much money from CSLP? Well for starters we could and should get rid of the $429 million we spent eliminating interest on loans after graduation. These subsidies do nothing for access; rather, they boost the incomes of middle-class 20–30-year-olds who have already finished school. And it is not a long-standing program. It is, in fact, a quite recent thing, announced by then-finance minister Chrystia Freeland in 2023 when the Liberals were desperately trying to throw a bone to house-poor urban twenty-somethings who at the time were threatening to vote not-Liberal. Now cutting this wouldn’t be a straight $429 million savings – loss of that subsidy would likely lead to increases in bad debt and Repayment Assistance program (RAP) charges somewhat. So, let’s call that a $350M win.
Where to find the other $275 million? Not administration: most of the admin money is tied up in payments to provinces for running the front end of the program or to the National Student Loans Service Centre (an outsourced agency which resides over by Square One in Mississauga for running the back end), neither of which can easily be changed in the short term. Maybe you could lose a couple of million in staff costs but not much more. Very little you can do about bad debts either. RAP and interest subsidies before consolidation could be made less generous. In particular, the income threshold for access to RAP could be brought back down from the current $45K (roughly – it depends on family size) to say $38K, and interest during school could be brought up from zero to the current inflation rate or the government rate of borrowing (i.e. somewhere between 2 and 2.5%). I don’t have access to detailed financial figures on this, but my guess is that the RAP measure might save $50M or so; in-school interest might get you $100M.
That still doesn’t quite get us to the required $625 million, so the only option left here is to start hacking away at grants. A straight cut in the maximum grant would be the easiest way to cut costs; bringing that down from $4200/year to, say, $3500/year would reduce spending by something along the lines of $400M/year. Another and more likely option would be for the feds to copy what Doug Ford did when he wanted to contain student aid costs – change grant eligibility criteria in such a way as to make grants harder to obtain. The obvious way to do this, I think, would be to change the rules for dependent/independent student status (i.e. the point at which students are considered to no longer get money from their parents) so that it took students five years to reach such independent status instead of four. I am not exactly sure how much that would save, but I’d wager it would be a minimum of a quarter-billion.
So, your menu of cut options for cutting CSFAP is, essentially:
Bring back interest after graduation
$350 million
Admin
$3-5 million
Reduce RAP threshold to $38K
$50 million
Introduce in-school interest of 2.5%
$100 million
Cut maximum grants by $700/year
$400/million
Change definition of independent student
$250 million
(To be clear here, I am guessing a bit on some of these numbers. Intelligently, I hope, but they are guesses. Don’t take the numbers here as gospel. And if any friends at CSLP want to correct me, please do!)
If it were me, to get to (roughly) the required $625 million I’d bring back interest after graduation – or introduce an equal-to-government-rate-of-borrowing interest rate for the entire life of the loan, which probably ends up with similar savings – and change the definition of independent students. Neither are pleasant but these are the ones that would probably affect access the least.
(Again, the Liberals may choose not to cut anything in CSFAP, because hey this is an income security program of a sort, and if we’re obsessing about “affordability” – but that just means cuts elsewhere in the portfolio will be larger).
Of course, ESDC is much more than these two programs. Take a gander at the full list of programs the programs the Ministry runs (I make it about fifty if you include everything). A lot of those are scattered skills initiatives like Youth Employment and Skills, Indigenous Skills and Employment Training, the Skills and Partnership Fund, Skills for Success Program, the Innovative Work-integrated Learning Initiative. I have no idea what most of these do exactly, nor is it easy to access any budget data about them. But let’s put it this way – few of these programs have a particularly large policy constituency to back them up. My guess is that cuts across these programs will be significantly higher than 15% and some of them may cease to exist altogether.
Enough for today. Tomorrow we’ll do research funding.
In 2025, consumers face a deepening dilemma: how much personal information they must surrender in order to simply participate in the digital economy—and how much risk of fraud, surveillance, and exploitation comes with it. The modern internet is locked down, not just by corporate firewalls, but by an endless cycle of demands for identification and the rising threat of scams.
The trade-off is stark. On one side, companies require increasingly invasive personal data for access to basic services. Signing up for a financial aid platform, an online class, or even a subscription news site often involves revealing Social Security numbers, bank accounts, or biometric data. Meanwhile, universities, retailers, and fintech companies justify these demands as “verification” or “compliance.” Consumers are told that without surrendering their information, they cannot belong.
On the other side, scammers are thriving. From phishing emails that mimic official communications to sophisticated AI-generated calls that sound like family members in distress, fraud is no longer just the realm of obvious spam. The same technology that enables secure payments and online enrollment also fuels deepfake schemes, identity theft, and financial ruin.
Caught in this digital chokehold, working-class families often pay the highest price. The poorest are more likely to rely on insecure devices, public Wi-Fi, or predatory fintech platforms. They are also more likely to be blamed when fraud occurs, accused of “carelessness” when in reality the system forces them into unsafe digital practices. Meanwhile, the wealthy and elite universities insulate themselves with private cybersecurity teams, exclusive networks, and legal firepower.
Higher education illustrates this divide vividly. Students applying for loans or grants must disclose enormous amounts of personal data—only to find themselves targets of phishing schemes or, worse, data breaches at the very institutions they trusted. The recent wave of ransomware attacks against universities, along with the growth of “robocolleges” that automate student services with minimal oversight, shows how fragile the system has become. The illusion of safety masks a reality of vulnerability.
The underlying problem is structural. Data has become currency, and consumers are forced to spend it in order to function. Yet once surrendered, it cannot be taken back. Every digital form filled out, every student portal login, every financial aid verification increases the exposure to fraud. The system tells us to “trust” while offering few protections when trust is violated.
“Tech on lockdown” means more than clamping down on personal devices. It means a society where access is conditioned on surrender, and where surveillance and scams thrive in tandem. Consumers must navigate between giving up their privacy or risking being locked out, between handing over sensitive information or falling prey to those who exploit it.
What Consumers Can Do
While systemic change is essential, there are some basic protective strategies individuals can adopt:
Use multi-factor authentication wherever possible, especially on student loan and financial accounts.
Limit use of public Wi-Fi for sensitive transactions.
Monitor credit reports and financial statements regularly.
Be skeptical of unsolicited emails, texts, or calls—even those that appear to come from trusted institutions.
When possible, push institutions (including colleges) to explain why they require specific personal data and how they will protect it.
These measures won’t fix the structural issues, but they can provide some insulation while policymakers, regulators, and institutions continue to fall behind in addressing this growing dilemma.
Sources
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2024.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Internet Crime Report 2024.
EDUCAUSE. Cybersecurity and Privacy in Higher Education, 2024.
The Higher Education Inquirer. “Robocolleges: Higher Education’s Automation Experiment.” (2024)
Identity Theft Resource Center. 2024 Annual Data Breach Report.
In today’s unpredictable higher education marketplace, TuitionFit, created by Mark Salisbury, offers something that colleges and universities have refused to provide—clear and honest information about what students actually pay. By gathering and anonymizing financial aid offers that students submit voluntarily, TuitionFit makes visible the hidden world of tuition discounting, where sticker prices are inflated but rarely reflect reality.
The statistics show just how broken and confusing the system has become. For the 2024–25 academic year, private nonprofit colleges awarded institutional grants that equaled 56.3 percent of the published sticker price for first-time, full-time undergraduates and 51.4 percent for all undergraduates. In other words, more than half of published tuition is an illusion. Despite average published tuition of $11,610 at public four-year in-state colleges and $43,350 at private nonprofit institutions, the real net tuition and fees that students pay is far lower. At public four-year schools, inflation-adjusted net tuition has fallen from $4,340 in 2012–13 to $2,480 in 2024–25, while net tuition at private nonprofits has gradually declined from $19,330 in 2006–07 to $16,510 in 2024–25. Families who see terrifying sticker prices often don’t realize that the average all-in, post-aid cost of a four-year degree is closer to $30,000.
These numbers also reveal deep inequities. At very selective private institutions in 2019–20, low-income students paid about $13,410 after aid, while wealthier peers often paid nearly $39,250. Such disparities are rarely explained by colleges themselves, who prefer to mask their discounting practices with vague averages and opaque award letters.
This is why TuitionFit is so important. Instead of navigating by distorted averages or marketing spin, students and families can see what peers with similar academic and financial profiles are actually paying. That knowledge provides leverage in negotiating aid offers and choosing institutions that will not leave them with crushing debt. In an era when sticker prices continue to climb while net prices quietly decline, TuitionFit brings clarity at the individual level.
The Higher Education Inquirer commends Salisbury and TuitionFit for providing a measure of transparency in a system that thrives on opacity. While it cannot by itself resolve the structural inequities of American higher education finance, it arms students and families with something they desperately need: the truth.
This morning, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment, are hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance, which is the most important annual international comparative education publication produced anywhere in the world.
Here, HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, takes a look at what it says.
The OECD’s Education at a Glance is the most important and the most mis-named publication in education, for this year’s edition is 541 pages long! It will take time to digest in full. But for now, here are 10 key points on what it all means for the UK (and especially England):
In England, you’re less likely to have benefited from tertiary education if your parents had a relatively low level of education … but you’re more likely to have had some tertiary education than similar people in other developed countries. This may be a surprise to people who know we still have a long way to go in widening access to higher-level education but it’s not a big surprise to anyone who has looked very closely at first-in-family students – there’s multiple ways to measure who is a first-in-family student but, on some measures, the majority of students these days are first-in-family.
The NEETs (young people Not in Employment, Education or Training) challenge is bad and has been getting worse, especially among men. Again, this won’t come as a huge surprise to anyone who has focused on the terrible educational and employment record of lower educated young men – or who has read HEPI’s recent report on the issue. But it is salutary to find out the UK is not only performing badly but that we are performing the worst of any developed country when it comes to earnings for low-skilled adults: ‘25-34 year-olds with below upper secondary education earn 43% less than those with upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment, the largest gap among OECD countries’.
Part of the reason for the UK’s comparative success at higher education relative to other countries is the comparatively low drop-out rate. Again, this is covered by a recent HEPI report, which also noted that new initiatives like the Lifelong Learning Entitlement call for a new conception of non-continuation.
People often say it’s better to invest government money in the compulsory stage of education rather than the tertiary / voluntary stage. The OECD’s numbers suggest the UK has already taken this policy to its extreme. Government spending on higher education (per student) is around $8,000, around half of the average for the OECD and about half of the amount spent ‘at primary to post-secondary non-tertiary levels’ ($13,000). This is an even more extreme way of describing comparative spending on schooling and higher education than the way I put it in a recent speech.
While there is one international student for every three home students in the UK, across the OECD as a whole the ratio is completely different at 1:13. From the vantage point of the OECD in Paris, this is a real UK success story – though the Home Office continues to push for policies to reverse recent trends.
Our postgraduate participation rates for home students are distinctly average, at least when compared to those across the OECD as a whole: ‘In the United Kingdom, 17% of 25-34 year-olds hold a master’s or equivalent degree, which is similar to the OECD average of 16%.’ If we aspire to be as well educated as the best educated countries, then we need more home postgraduates alongside all the ones from overseas. It’s probably fair to say that higher education debates in the UK (and HEPI is perhaps guilty here too) remain overly focused on undergraduate education.
Women are more likely to obtain tertiary education across the developed world. But the gap between men and women is bigger in the UK than elsewhere and has been slowly growing while it has stayed the same on average across the OECD as a whole: ‘In the United Kingdom, they [women] accounted for 56% of first-time entrants in 2023, up from 55% in 2013. Across the OECD, women make up 54% of new entrants on average, the same share as in 2013.’
The teacher supply crisis here is particularly down to a higher-than-average proportion of teachers leaving for other roles: ‘England is among the countries with high turnover, with 0.8% of teachers retiring and 8.7% resigning each year’. The OECD think it should be easier for people to switch careers into teaching here: ‘16 out of 28 countries with available data offer dedicated alternative pathways into teaching for individuals changing careers. In contrast, England does not offer dedicated pathways for second career teachers.’ (Now Teach might have something to say about this?)
In some important respects, our school system is different: primary school teachers’ salaries have been falling in England while rising elsewhere (including in Scotland); UK school pupils have around one week less of school holiday than pupils elsewhere on average (though I recognise this might sound odd at this precise moment, given the long summer holidays have just come to an end); and primary school class sizes are above average in the UK.
There’s a (very) big difference between the conditions for lower-level academic staff and more senior ones. The former receive less than similarly qualified people while the latter earn much more: ‘In England, junior academic staff earn 16% less than workers with at least a bachelor’s or equivalent degree, while senior academic staff earn 80% more.’ Perhaps this explains why some older staff have seemed less keen on industrial action than their younger colleagues. Our report on academics’ terms and conditions explains more.
The federal government and some state governments are now wanting to dictate to American colleges and universities what can and can’t be said on campus, what must and must not be taught in the curriculum, which students to admit and which to expel, which faculty to hire and which to fire, and what subjects to research and how.
Part of this effort at ideological capture of American higher education has been to try to redefine the role of trustees at our institutions, particularly the public ones, as mere partisan operatives who should impose the will of the party in power on the institutions they govern. Trustees are framed as accountable to “the public.” They should be. The problem is that in this context, what is meant by “the public” is only that portion of it that agrees with government officials in charge at the moment, not the broader citizenry.
Why is this a bad idea? Shouldn’t elected officeholders have some influence on the public campuses that their governments help fund? (Student tuition and donors help fund them, too, of course.) What about influence on private institutions whose students use public financial aid to pay tuition, and so much of whose research is government-funded? These are wholly reasonable expectations. However, when influence turns into direct intervention, when it manifests as heavy-handed government management, we have a problem. Why’s that?
The genius of American higher education since colonial times has been the absence of a Ministry of Education that controls the operation of colleges and universities. This approach is very much in the American vein. The notion is that those who occupy elected office should not be able to manipulate independent, credible sources of information that might influence whether they get re-elected. (Ironically, many of the people who are pushing direct government control of higher education are at the same time taking apart the federal Department of Education because they say it exercises too much control over educational institutions.)
The logical conclusion to today’s growing governmental pressure on higher education would be to dismiss all boards of trustees and establish a centralized ministry to govern the sector. Why resist the siren song of my favorite party telling those pointy-headed academics how to run their business without the intermediary layer of these governing boards? I’ll provide here just a few of the reasons.
First, because Americans don’t like censorship, especially when the government does it. They hate the idea of any government telling them or their kids how to think or what to say. They don’t like political parties determining for them what “the truth” is. Trustees are the border runners between the party in power and government entities on the one hand, and the university on the other. At their best, they act as a conduit to bring public opinion—and sometimes public criticism—into the university, while at the same time buffering it from interference that gets in the way of its always messy search for truth, and its service to the commonwealth that derives from that mission.
Second, boards in particular can and need to step up to defend America’s researchers in fields such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics as they follow their expertise to discoveries that benefit the health, economic well-being and national security of our citizens. Boards can assist in warding off politically motivated regulations and budget cuts that senselessly damage this vital progress pipeline. An Associated Press/NORC at the University of Chicago poll from May showed that 75 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans favor maintaining federal funding for scientific and medical research. Governing boards, populated by highly regarded, independent citizens with impressive personal and professional networks, are uniquely positioned to reflect the bipartisan will of the people, regardless of their personal partisan leanings.
Third, if elected politicians, not trustees and staff, decide who gets hired and fired at colleges and universities, employees will be chosen and dismissed based more on personal and party loyalty than expertise and merit. So much for meritocracy.
Fourth, boards can and should model for students, staff and the public at large how public-spirited volunteers civilly debate policy issues, without fear or favor, across whatever divisions exist among board members. Has there ever been a time when that would be a greater service by trustees to American democracy?
Colleges and universities are hardly perfect. For one thing, they have not adequately reflected the diversity of the country—intellectual, economic or ethnic. This and other flaws trustees can identify and help fix. As informed, “loving critics,” they know more about their institution than anybody else who does not work there. Working with their president, they can push their institution to teach the conflicts we live today authentically and objectively, not preach the prevalent party line on campus or in the state house.
In the current overheated political rhetoric, trustees, especially of public institutions, are presented with a false choice: Do you serve your institution or the citizens of your state? The question is based on the absurd assumption that you cannot serve both. Trustees have a responsibility to serve citizens by protecting the legacy of their institution built by previous generations, improving its quality and reach for today’s population, and ensuring its sustainability for generations to come. They should not be counting down to the next election; they should be taking the long view. That’s what we should be able to trust them to do.
Kevin P. Reilly is president emeritus and Regent Professor for the University of Wisconsin system and a member of PEN America’s Champions of Higher Education group of former college and university presidents.
Tom Fail and I work together on my institution’s Coursera portfolio, with Tom serving as our main point of contact. So far, I’ve enjoyed this collaboration, as Tom has been an effective and energetic partner. Tom not only works for Coursera, but he was also a consumer of university/Coursera partnerships as an online M.B.A. student (and now graduate) from the Gies College of Business at the University of Illinois. As I’m always interested in colleagues who combine full-time work and full-time learning, I was excited to engage Tom in a conversation about his career and education.
Q: Tell us about your role at Coursera. What are your primary accountabilities and responsibilities? What does a typical day look like?
A: As a strategic account manager at Coursera, I’m passionate about improving access to affordable, high-quality education from leading universities and industry partners. I’ve been with Coursera for nearly four years, initially as a technical account manager, where I focused on platform functionality and project success. Over time, I’ve had the opportunity to expand my scope both with the volume of partners as well as building strong partnerships focused on aligning their goals with Coursera’s mission to expand global learning opportunities.
On a typical day, I’m collaborating with university and industry leaders and internal teams to design, scale and optimize online programs. Some days I’m pitching new features or program designs to partners; other days I’m focused on marketing strategies and learner life-cycle experiments that drive engagement and retention. I’m also listening to our partners for opportunities, big and small, to improve workflows both for staff and students that allow our strategy to scale and work in reality. I love getting into the weeds to understand exactly how something works and coming up with solutions that can be adopted to improve outcomes.
I’m accountable to my partners to help them get the most out of Coursera; internal stakeholders rely on me to ensure we’re driving key priorities, features and work streams with our partners. And, of course, my first priority is the learner. Everything we do is about making sure learners can gain access to the skills they need to advance their careers and thrive in a rapidly changing world. Ultimately, success means creating programs that deliver real value, are accessible at scale and help drive better outcomes for learners everywhere.
Q: How did the process of working towards your iMBA influence how you think about Coursera’s role in working with universities on online degrees? What should universities be doing to make graduate degrees more accessible, feasible and high value for full-time working adults?
A: The most helpful part of earning my M.B.A. while working at Coursera has been understanding our platform from the learner perspective and what really differentiates content on our platform. Since I started at Coursera, I’ve completed my M.B.A., as well as professional certificates in data analytics and project management and Specializations in business strategy and data visualization. I always have fresh strategies and love getting to demo features from the lens of my own student account to give partners a real-world view of our learner experience and the outcomes they can drive with course design.
When it comes to any offerings on the platform, flexibility and accessibility are absolutely critical. Not all working adults have the means, or the desire, to leave their jobs and return to school full-time. I have a ton of respect for anyone who does, but that wasn’t the path for me. The iMBA gave me the opportunity to earn my degree over two years while continuing to work, and that flexibility made all the difference. It wasn’t easy, but the program’s design and curriculum kept me engaged and excited.
Every single class had a direct connection to my day-to-day work at Coursera, which kept me going forward and learning within the program. When I got my first master’s in management and leadership back in 2012, I didn’t have the professional context to apply what I was learning, so this was really meaningful, and I’m proud of completing the degree.
For universities, the key is designing programs that allow learners to learn on their own terms and start programs more like a consumer purchase. Having stackable content available in open courses that can be applied towards the degree allows learners to try the content and gain confidence in the program and themselves before they fully commit to a full program. Also, performance-based admissions pathways offer learners the opportunity to earn their way into degrees regardless of their background. Some people want live sessions; others prefer fully asynchronous options. Some enjoy group work; others need flexibility to work independently. There’s no one-size-fits-all model, and that’s where universities can differentiate themselves—by striking a healthy balance between structure and flexibility, best practices and personalization. Ultimately, accessibility, flexibility and relevance are what make these programs high value for working professionals.
Looking forward, a critical element for universities is the evolution of content. Two to three years ago, AI was barely part of the conversation; now every instructional design team and faculty member is grappling with its implications, from academic integrity to assessing skills in a new economy. You can’t “set it and forget it” with your curriculum and courses anymore. Learners have endless options, and that competition will only intensify. The partners that stand out will be the ones that prioritize continuous improvement: integrating learner feedback, refreshing content to stay aligned with industry trends and delivering programs that feel robust, relevant and career-focused.
Q: Reflecting on your career and educational path, what advice do you have for early and midcareer professionals interested in building a career at the intersection of technology and education?
A: When I started in undergrad at East Stroudsburg University, I wanted to be a high school social studies teacher. I hit a turning point when I realized all high school students—myself included—can be a handful, so I pivoted into economics and history. My adviser, Dr. Christopher Brooks, and my first boss, hall director and now friend Patrick Monoghan, helped me beyond words to figure out where I excelled and pushed me to shape my career. At ESU, I had so many incredible people invest time and energy into me, and I especially love my career in ed tech because I can help other students gain access to technology and education that helps them figure out their path.
As I think about my early career at EAB, I had the opportunity to work with almost 100 schools deploying student success technology to help identify at-risk students and get them the help and resources they need. You learn a lot as a 24-year-old explaining to provosts and CTOs how the system works, what the road map is and what you did to mitigate after a self-inflicted data error occurs. Coursera has taken that even further, as I get the opportunity to work with some of the most prestigious universities and companies in the world to improve education and build programs that can improve people’s careers and lives, the way education improved mine.
For anyone looking to build a career in education, I’d say this: You can work in any industry—telecom, banking, pharmaceuticals, whatever—but education offers a unique chance to make a meaningful difference. It’s not lip service to say that education lifts people up and improves lives, and being part of a team focused on making learning more accessible, scalable and affordable worldwide is incredible.
Pamela Baxter is Chief Product Officer and Managing Director of IELTS Cambridge at Cambridge University Press & Assessment
At a time when the value of higher education is being called into question, the OECD’s latest Education at a Glance report offers an unequivocal statement of support for the sector – both globally and in the UK.
This annual report gives a snapshot of the state of education in the world’s developed nations. By gathering comparative data covering the OECD’s members as well as partner countries, it lets policymakers measure their country’s achievements and set standards against best international practice.
The 2025 report’s focus on tertiary education gives many reasons for optimism. The highlight is that, with 48% of young adults in surveyed countries holding a tertiary qualification, educational attainment is higher than ever.
The share of 25 to 34-year-olds with tertiary attainment increased over the last five years across OECD and partner countries – rising from 45% (2019) to 48% (2024). In the UK, tertiary education among the same cohort grew from 52% to 60% over that period – twelve percentage points above the OECD’s average.
The report is unambiguous in stating the benefits of higher education: “Supporting equitable access to tertiary education”, it tells us, “remains crucial to strengthening social mobility as educational attainment is closely reflected in labour market outcomes.”
Adults with an undergraduate university qualification (or equivalent), the report tells us, earn on average 54% more than those with only upper secondary education. (This goes up to 83% when those adults have a postgraduate degree.)
But the benefits are not only financial. The report emphasises how tertiary education is directly linked to higher employment rates, and even to better health – with 51% of tertiary-educated adults rating their health as very good or excellent, compared to 26% of those with below upper secondary education.
The report also pinpoints areas where the developed world as a whole must do better. We are told, for instance, that completion rates of young adults going into tertiary education are low – particularly among men – with under half of new entrants finishing their programmes within the expected duration.
The rise and rise of international student mobility
The 2025 report shows the continuing growth of international student mobility in OECD countries, with the number of mobile students as a proportion of total student numbers more than doubling over the past decade. This is good news.
I was especially heartened to read that the UK continues to be one of the most attractive destinations for international students: 23% of all tertiary students in the UK were international according to 2023 numbers – an increase of six percentage points since 2013, and well above the OECD average of 7%.
International students contribute almost £42 billion a year to the UK economy – the equivalent of every UK citizen being £560 better off. This pipeline of international talent is essential to the UK government’s high-growth economic sectors, as well as our universities’ global reputation and competitiveness.
At Cambridge University Press & Assessment we are deeply aware of the importance of international students to the UK’s educational landscape – and indeed to the country’s wider strengths. International students’ ability to fully participate in, and contribute to, their chosen courses is essential not only to their future success, but to the UK’s prospects as an intellectual, economic and cultural power. We consider it our responsibility to make sure that those globally mobile students seeking paths to higher education are equipped with the right skills to thrive. We’re not alone in that.
The 2025 edition of Education at a Glance provides a vivid snapshot of the state of global education. It tells us what we are doing well and, crucially, where there is room for improvement. Cambridge welcomes these findings, and we are proud to be sponsoring its launch.
President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape higher education and the federal government have spurred a flurry of lawsuits as higher education associations, students, legal advocacy organizations and colleges push back and seek relief through the courts.
The lawsuits started almost immediately after Trump’s first day, and seven months later, advocates continue to file new complaints, challenging various executive orders, guidance documents or decisions to cut grants. Inside Higher Ed is tracking some of the key legal challenges related to higher ed. That includes Harvard University’s efforts to restore more than $2.7 billion in frozen research funding and protect its ability to enroll international students as well as several lawsuits aiming to stop the dismantling of the Education Department. Of the 42 included in our searchable database, judges have ruled against the administration in two-thirds of the cases so far. You can find more analysis of the lawsuits filed so far here.
We’ll refresh the database weekly, so check back on Mondays for updates.
What’s new as of Sept. 8: In one of the more significant rulings for higher ed this year, the district court judge ruled that it was illegal for the administration to freeze more than $2 billion in federal research funding for Harvard University. The judge wrote that doing so violated the institution’s First Amendment and procedural rights. The government is planning to appeal but hasn’t done so yet. Legal experts expect the fight over funding to end at the Supreme Court. For more on details of the ruling and what it means for higher education at large, check out Inside Higher Ed’s reporting on the matter here and here.
