Blog

  • The silent hero of modern learning

    The silent hero of modern learning

    Key points:

    Education is undergoing a profound digital transformation. From immersive AR/VR learning in science labs to hybrid classrooms, real-time collaboration platforms, and remote learning at scale, how students learn and educators teach is changing rapidly. These modern, data-intensive applications require far more than basic connectivity. They demand high bandwidth, ultra-low latency, and rock-solid reliability across every corner of the campus.

    In other words, the minimum requirement today is maximal connectivity. And this is where Optical LAN (OLAN) becomes a game changer.

    The challenge with traditional LANs

    Most schools and universities still rely on traditional copper-based local area networks (LANs). But these aging systems are increasingly unable to meet the demands of today’s digital education environments. Copper cabling comes with inherent speed and distance limitations, requiring rip-and-replace upgrades every 5 to 7 years to keep up with evolving needs.

    To increase network capacity, institutions must replace in-wall cables, switches, and other infrastructure–an expensive, time-consuming and highly disruptive process. Traditional LANs also come with large physical footprints, high maintenance requirements, and significant energy consumption, all of which add to their total cost of ownership (TCO).

    In a world that’s demanding smarter, faster, and greener networks, it’s clear that copper no longer makes the grade.

    Built for the campus of the future

    Optical LAN is a purpose-built solution for both in-campus and in-building connectivity, leveraging the superior performance of fiber optic infrastructure. It addresses the limitations of copper LANs head-on and offers significant improvements in scalability, energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

    Here’s why it’s such a compelling option for education networks:

    1. Massive capacity and seamless scalability

    Fiber offers virtually unlimited bandwidth. Today’s OLAN systems can easily support speeds of 10G and 25G, with future-readiness for 50G and even 100G. And unlike copper networks, education IT managers and operators don’t need to replace the cabling to upgrade; they simply add new wavelengths (light signals) to increase speed or capacity. This means educational institutions can scale up without disruptive overhauls.

    Better yet, fiber allows for differentiated quality of service on a single line. For example, a school can use a 1G wavelength to connect classrooms and dormitories, while allocating 10G bandwidth to high-performance labs. This flexibility is ideal for delivering customized connectivity across complex campus environments.

    New School Safety Resources

    2. Extended reach across the entire campus

    One of the standout features of OLAN is its extended reach. Fiber can deliver high-speed connections over distances up to 20–30 km without needing signal boosters or additional switches. This makes it perfect for large campuses where buildings like lecture halls, research centers, dorms, and libraries are spread out over wide areas. In contrast, copper LANs typically max out at a few dozen meters, requiring more switches, patch panels and costly infrastructure.

    With OLAN, a single centralized network can serve the entire campus, reducing complexity and improving performance.

    3. Energy efficiency and sustainability

    Sustainability is top-of-mind for many educational institutions, and OLAN is a clear winner here. Fiber technology is up to 8 times more energy-efficient than other wired or wireless options. It requires fewer active components, generates less heat and significantly reduces the need for cooling.

    Studies show that OLAN uses up to 40 percent less power than traditional LAN systems. This translates into lower electricity bills and a reduced carbon footprint–important factors for schools pursuing green building certifications.

    In fact, a BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) assessment conducted by ENCON found that deploying OLAN improved BREEAM scores by 7.7 percent, particularly in categories like management, energy, health and materials. For perspective, adding solar panels typically improves BREEAM scores by 5-8 percent.

    4. Simpler, smarter architecture

    Optical LAN significantly simplifies the network design. Instead of multiple layers of LAN switches and complex cabling, OLAN relies on a single centralized switch and slim, passive optical network terminals (ONTs). A single fiber cable can serve up to 128 endpoints, using a fraction of the physical space required by copper bundles.

    This lean architecture means:

    • Smaller cable trays and no heavy-duty racks
    • Faster installation and easier maintenance
    • Fewer points of failure and lower IT footprint

    The result? A network that’s easier to manage, more reliable, and built to grow with an education institution’s needs.

    5. Unmatched cost efficiency

    While fiber was once seen as expensive, the economics have shifted. The Association for Passive Optical LAN (APOLAN) found that POL saved 40 percent of the cost for a four-story building in 2022. Even more, Optical LAN now delivers up to 50 percent lower TCO over a 5-year period compared to traditional LAN systems, according to multiple industry studies.

    Cost savings are achieved through:

    • Up to 70 percent less cabling
    • Fewer switches and active components
    • Reduced energy and cooling costs
    • Longer lifecycle as fiber lasts more than 50 years

    In essence, OLAN delivers more value for less money, which is a compelling equation for budget-conscious education institutions.

    The future is fiber

    With the rise of Wi-Fi 7 and ever-increasing demands on network infrastructure, even wireless connectivity depends on robust wired backhaul. Optical LAN ensures that Wi-Fi access points have the bandwidth they need to deliver high-speed, uninterrupted service.

    And as educational institutions continue to adopt smart building technologies, video surveillance, IoT devices, and remote learning platforms, only fiber can keep up with the pace of change.

    Optical LAN empowers educational institutions to build networks that are faster, greener, simpler, and future-proof. With growing expectations from students, faculty, and administrators, now is the perfect time to leave legacy limitations behind and invest in a fiber-powered future.

    After all, why keep replacing copper every few years when operators can build it right once?

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : College Meltdown Fall 2025

    Higher Education Inquirer : College Meltdown Fall 2025

    The Fall 2025 semester begins under intensifying pressure in U.S. higher education. Institutions are responding to long-term changes in enrollment, public funding, demographics, technology, and labor markets. The result is a gradual disassembly of parts of the postsecondary system, with ongoing layoffs, program cuts, and institutional restructuring across both public and private sectors.

    In a stunning turn, the U.S. Department of Education has undergone a massive downsizing, slashing nearly half its workforce as part of the Trump administration’s push to dismantle the agency entirely. Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the move as a “final mission” to restore state control and eliminate federal bureaucracy, but critics warn of chaos for vulnerable students and families who rely on federal programs. With responsibilities like student loans, Pell Grants, and civil rights enforcement now in limbo, Higher Education Institutions face a volatile landscape. The absence of centralized oversight has accelerated the fragmentation of standards, funding, and accountability—leaving colleges scrambling to navigate a patchwork of state policies and shrinking federal support.

    AI Disruption: Academic Integrity and Graduate Employment 

    Artificial Intelligence has rapidly reshaped higher education, introducing both powerful tools and profound challenges. On campus, AI-driven platforms like ChatGPT have become ubiquitous—92% of students now use them, and 88% admit to deploying AI for graded assignments. This surge has triggered a spike in academic misconduct, with detection systems struggling to keep pace and disproportionately flagging non-native English speakers Meanwhile, the job market for graduates is undergoing a seismic shift. Entry-level roles in tech, finance, and consulting are vanishing as companies automate routine tasks once reserved for junior staff. AI-driven layoffs have already claimed over 10,000 jobs in 2025 alone, and some experts predict that up to half of all white-collar entry-level positions could be eliminated within five years. For recent grads, this means navigating a landscape where degrees may hold less weight, and adaptability, AI fluency, and human-centered skills are more critical than ever.

    Unsustainable Student Loan Debt and Federal Funding 

    A recent report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) highlights the depth of the crisis: more than 1,000 colleges could lose access to federal student aid based on current student loan repayment rates—if existing rules were fully enforced. The findings expose systemic failures in accountability and student outcomes. Many of these colleges enroll high numbers of low-income students but leave them with unsustainable debt and limited job prospects.

    Institutional Cuts and Layoffs Across the Country

    Job losses and cost reductions are increasing across a range of universities.

    Stanford University is cutting staff due to a projected $200 million budget shortfall.

    University of Oregon has announced budget reductions and academic restructuring.

    Michigan State University is implementing layoffs and reorganizing departments.

    Vanderbilt University Medical Center is eliminating positions to manage healthcare operating costs.

    Harvard Kennedy School is reducing programs and offering early retirement.

    Brown University is freezing hiring and reviewing academic offerings.

    Penn State University System is closing three Commonwealth Campuses.

    Indiana public colleges are merging administrative functions and reviewing low-enrollment programs.

    These actions affect not only employees and students but also local communities and regional labor markets.

    Enrollment Decline and Demographic Change

    Undergraduate enrollment has fallen 14.6% since Fall 2019, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Community colleges have experienced the largest losses, with some regions seeing more than 20% declines.

    The “demographic cliff” tied to declining birth rates is now reflected in enrollment trends. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) projects a 15% decline in high school graduates between 2025 and 2037 in parts of the Midwest and Northeast.

    Aging Population and Shifts in Public Spending

    The U.S. population is aging. By 2030, all baby boomers will be over 65. The number of Americans aged 80 and older is expected to rise from 13 million in 2020 to nearly 20 million by 2035. Public resources are being redirected toward Social Security, Medicare, and elder care, placing higher education in direct competition for limited federal and state funds.

    State-Level Cuts to Higher Education Budgets

    According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), 28 states saw a decline in inflation-adjusted funding per student in FY2024.

    The California State University system faces a $400 million structural deficit.

    West Virginia has reduced academic programs in favor of workforce-focused realignment.

    Indiana has ordered cost-cutting measures across public campuses.

    These reductions are leading to fewer courses, increased workloads, and, in some cases, higher tuition.

    Closures and Mergers Continue

    Since 2020, more than 100 campuses have closed or merged, based on Education Dive and HEI data. In 2025, Penn State began closing three Commonwealth Campuses. A number of small private colleges—especially those with enrollments under 1,000 and limited endowments—are seeking mergers or shutting down entirely.

    International Enrollment Faces Obstacles

    The Institute of International Education (IIE) reports a 12% decline in new international student enrollment in Fall 2024. Contributing factors include visa delays and tighter immigration rules. Students from India, Nigeria, and Iran have experienced longer wait times and increased rejection rates. Graduate programs in STEM and business are particularly affected.

    Increased Surveillance and Restrictions on Campus Speech

    Data from FIRE and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) show increased use of surveillance tools on campuses since 2023. At least 15 public universities now use facial recognition, social media monitoring, or geofencing. State laws in Florida, Texas, and Georgia have introduced new restrictions on protests and diversity programs.

    Automated Education Expands

    Online Program Managers (OPMs) such as 2U, Kaplan, and Coursera are running over 500 online degree programs at more than 200 institutions, enrolling more than 1.5 million students. These programs often rely on AI-generated content and automated grading systems, with minimal instructor interaction.

    Research from the Century Foundation shows that undergraduate programs operated by OPMs have completion rates below 35%, while charging tuition comparable to in-person degrees. Regulatory efforts to improve transparency and accountability remain stalled.

    Oversight Gaps Remain

    Accrediting agencies continue to approve closures, mergers, and new credential programs with limited transparency. Institutions are increasingly expanding short-term credential offerings and corporate partnerships with minimal external review.

    Cost Shifts to Students, Faculty, and Communities

    The ongoing restructuring of higher education is shifting costs and risks onto students, employees, and communities. Students face rising tuition, fewer available courses, and increased reliance on loans. Faculty and staff encounter job insecurity and heavier workloads. Outside the ivory tower, communities will lose access to educational services, cultural events, and local employment opportunities tied to campuses.

    The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to report on the structural changes in U.S. higher education—grounded in data, public records, and the lived experiences of those directly affected.

    Sources:

    National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), U.S. Census Bureau, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), Institute of International Education (IIE), Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Government Accountability Office (GAO), The Century Foundation, Stanford University, University of Oregon, Penn State University System, Harvard Kennedy School, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Education Dive Higher Ed Closures Tracker, American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

    Source link

  • Ty Hawkins | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Ty Hawkins | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Dr. Ty HawkinsTy Hawkins has been named associate dean for academic programs at Oklahoma State University. He most recently held the position of director for the University of Central Arkansas’ School of Language and Literature.

    In his new role, Hawkins will be responsible for overseeing curriculum development, program assessment and accreditation processes for OSU’s largest academic college. 

    A native of Missouri, Hawkins earned degrees in English and Spanish from Saint Louis University and Westminster College. He is a scholar of American literature who specializes in 20th- and 21st-century texts.

    Source link

  • Complaints About Federal Student Aid Office Rise Sharply

    Complaints About Federal Student Aid Office Rise Sharply

    The latest NASFAA survey shows financial aid services moving in the wrong direction.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post/Getty Images | MauMyHaT/iStock/Getty Images | subtik/E+/Getty Images

    Complaints about the Office of Federal Student Aid’s operations have increased significantly over the past few months, according to the latest edition of a survey from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. Challenges that were once just kinks behind the scenes are evolving to become student-facing issues on the front line, the association says.

    The share of institutions reporting disruptions to communication, responsiveness or processing timelines rose from 59 percent in May to 72 percent in July. Meanwhile, the share of aid offices reporting student confusion about the process increased from 32 percent to 51 percent.

    The report, which is based on responses from financial aid officers at more than 500 NASFAA member institutions across the country, builds upon a similar survey conducted in May. It shows rising frustration with the FSA, despite the agency’s attempt to rehire about 50 of the more than 300 employees laid off earlier this year.

    “I wasn’t overly surprised” by the data, said NASFAA president Melanie Storey. “But it was largely a disappointment that the trajectory is moving in the wrong direction.”

    She added that the new loan caps and repayment plan changes detailed in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act could compound the damage, creating long-term consequences for college attainment rates.

    Given the “fissures and cracks around trust in higher education, we need to eliminate barriers and support students clearly and consistently—and that includes helping them figure out how they’re going to finance their higher education,” Storey said. “If this trajectory continues, I’m really concerned about the decisions that students and families are going to be able to make to enroll in postsecondary education.”

    An Education Department official called the NASFAA report inaccurate and accused the organization of “peddling a false narrative to preserve the status quo.”

    “It is an embarrassment for NASFAA to release a ‘survey’ that blatantly parrots falsehoods and is not representative of the higher education community nor the American people’s overwhelming charge for change,” deputy press secretary Ellen Keast said in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “While NASFAA stands idly by ready to see us fail, the Trump Administration has just launched the earliest FAFSA form ever, which they are well aware of and decided to ignore.”

    Storey responded that NASFAA has tried repeatedly to partner with the administration in their “shared goal of serving students,” applauding efforts such as FAFSA beta testing.

    But to dismiss the survey results as “fabricated or political undermines the expertise of those working directly with students every day, eager to deliver on the promise of postsecondary education, and shows that the administration is not interested in working with experts in the field to achieve the best results for students; instead, it is focused on advancing its own agenda,” she said.

    Worsening Outcomes

    It’s been an eventful few months for the FSA. Mass layoffs throughout the department, first announced in March, quickly faced legal challenges; in May, a district court temporarily blocked the executive action. But any hopes that the staffing shortage would be resolved were squashed when the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling in July. And while the justices have yet to hear the full case or issue a final ruling, the order allows Education Secretary Linda McMahon to proceed with the pink slips.

    Storey said that some of the increased frustration and concern higher ed officials expressed in the survey may be related to timing; the district court ruling spurred cautious optimism in May, which had largely tanked by July. Similarly, the repercussions of staffing shortages were not necessarily evident in May but are now becoming clear. She also noted that the mounting discontent could simply be a reflection of the cyclical nature of student aid and the imminent start of the new academic year.

    Either way, the survey suggests that FSA operations are flagging, and many NASFAA members say it’s preventing them from properly processing aid. For example, 63 percent of institutions that have submitted their E-App—a form that must be completed and approved in order to receive federal aid—said their submission had yet to be processed in July.

    Department officials argue that this data is biased due to NASFAA’s survey method. They point specifically to the sample size, saying that the 500 institutions represented are predominantly nonprofit or public institutions, reflecting only a sliver of the more than 5,000 that FSA works with—and are the ones most likely to harbor anti-Trump sentiments.

    The department also described the survey’s questions as biased toward the negative and said it was conducted just as the department finished updating its Partner Connect Portal to address various complaints, meaning the results don’t accurately reflect the new changes.

    But Storey stood by her view that most of the challenges financial aid offices face today are the same as those they reported in May, only worse, and with longer delays in response time.

    For example, previous Inside Higher Ed reporting shows that when students hit a wall and cannot log in to the FAFSA application portal, college advisers struggle to reach the central processing system that manages user IDs. While a department spokesperson said all help lines remain fully open, multiple college and NASFAA representatives say they have been unable to get through at certain times.

    The latest survey shows this is still a major problem. More than half of institutions reported issues with federal call centers, and more than 40 percent cited problems with the National Student Loan Data System. In addition, over a third flagged disruptions with student loan servicing. Collectively, the NASFAA report said, these failures affect colleges’ ability to resolve aid issues for students in real time.

    Once the delays start to hit students—which is happening more and more often, according to NASFAA’s report—it could leave them without access to loans and therefore unable to pay their bills and stay enrolled. Although colleges can grant students extensions for tuition payments or on-campus housing fees, they can’t change when off-campus rent or childcare payments are due. Situations like these often force students to take a job and attempt to pay off their debt with some college but no degree.

    So unless FSA addresses its shortcomings, Storey said, the impact could be far-reaching.

    “It’s a compounding of issues and uncertainties that I think could have a long-lasting and significant impact on postsecondary enrollment and financing,” she said.

    Source link

  • 6,000 Student Visas Revoked

    6,000 Student Visas Revoked

    The administration has been revoking visas for months as part of a broader crackdown on international students.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | gradisca and Uladzimir Zuyeu/iStock/Getty Images

    The State Department has revoked 6,000 student visas so far this year, Fox News reported along with The Washington Post.

    Of that group, 4,000 were revoked due to crimes, including assault, driving under the influence and burglary. However, a department spokesperson told the Post that the students whose visas had been revoked “either faced arrest or charges,” but the spokesperson didn’t specify whether they were convicted.

    The spokesperson also said that between 200 and 300 visas were revoked due to “support for terrorism.” President Donald Trump has previously labeled pro-Palestinian student protesters as terrorist sympathizers and has targeted international students over their pro-Palestinian activism.

    The Post article does not address whether these students will have to stop their studies and leave the U.S. A visa—the stamp that permits an individual to enter the U.S.—is different from one’s nonimmigrant status, which refers to whether they are lawfully in the country, something immigration experts stressed amid a slew of student visa revocations in March and April.

    Source link

  • Strike Failed to Pressure Rochester Into Non-NLRB Election

    Strike Failed to Pressure Rochester Into Non-NLRB Election

    For a month this spring, the University of Rochester Graduate Labor Union, a group of Ph.D. student workers, staged a strike. Workers walked off the job, demanding that the university host a private unionization election so they could vote and win recognition of the union—all without having to go through the Trump-era National Labor Relations Board.

    But after workers protested during the May 16 commencement ceremony, GLU representatives told them that organizing committee members had voted unanimously to “pause” the strike. And, with fall semester classes starting Monday, the organizers say they have no plans to rekindle it.

    “We didn’t achieve what we wanted, which was them giving us a fair process for an election,” said Katie Gregory, a seventh-year environmental sciences Ph.D. worker. But, she said, “none of us consider the fight here to be over in terms of support for a union.”

    George Elkind, a fourth-year visual and cultural studies Ph.D. worker, said, “We intend to continue fighting for a fair election process.”

    The strike was both a carryover from an intense period of grad student union activity during the Biden administration—roughly 38 percent of grad student workers are unionized, according to a report from last August—and an indication of how President Trump’s return to the White House has raised concerns that the NLRB has become less favorable to unions.

    Last year, during Biden’s presidency, University of Rochester officials and GLU organizers discussed plans for a private election, which both parties were amenable to. If they had reached an agreement, the NLRB—which usually handles unionization votes at private nonprofit institutions such as Rochester—wouldn’t have been involved.

    But after Trump retook the White House in January—and fired a Democratic NLRB member and the agency’s general counsel—the university changed its tune. In February, a university lawyer told student organizers the institution no longer wanted a private election, citing multiple reasons, according to a document that Ph.D. student workers provided to Inside Higher Ed. Instead, the lawyer wrote, they could pursue an election with the Trump-era NLRB.

    Taking that route would be risky—not just for their own prospective union’s chances of winning recognition, but also for the continued rights of grad workers across the country to unionize. Some union supporters worry an NLRB dominated by Trump appointees might use a grad student unionization case such as Rochester’s to overturn the 2016 Columbia University precedent establishing that private nonprofit university grad workers can unionize through the NLRB.

    If that precedent were overturned, student workers could continue to unionize at public universities in the states that allow such action, but those at private institutions would have no other path than to seek voluntary recognition from their universities.

    So far, GLU hasn’t succeeded in pressuring the University of Rochester once again to back a private union vote that would circumvent the NLRB. Gregory and Elkind both said the outcome of the strike might have been different if more Ph.D. workers had withheld their labor.

    The union would have represented more than 1,400 students, Elkind said. About 300 withheld at least a day of work, Gregory said, but having 1,000 strike on day one would’ve sent a very different message.

    Elkind said a “more sweeping strike with bigger numbers … would have had [university leaders] at the table within days.”

    Both said the Trump administration’s attempts to remove international students from the U.S. had a “chilling effect” on strike participation. Elkind, who said about half of grad students at the university are international, called it “a horror show of a national environment.”

    They also pointed to the university’s announcement of “attestation” forms that asked workers to indicate how much they were working—allowing the university to cut off pay for strikers if it wished.

    “Clearly, a tactic to impact the strike participation,” Gregory said. The university didn’t move forward with requiring the forms; in an email, Sara Miller, a university spokesperson, said it “never implemented an attestation form and denies any allegation of ‘scare tactics.’”

    University representatives also “refused to acknowledge the union as an entity,” Gregory said. For instance, they responded to organizing committee members’ communications as if they were merely students, offering them help with issues such as registration.

    “It was a real slap in the face,” she said.

    In their May 18 email calling off the strike, GLU members noted the semester was ending, writing that “many grads only have 9-month stipends and do not have labor to withhold during the summer.”

    But Elkind and Gregory both said organizing is continuing. And the provost, in a Friday memo, announced new, universitywide minimum stipends for “full-time, full tuition remission PhD students”: $25,000 for nine-month stipends and $34,000 for yearlong stipends.

    “I think they’re trying to curb labor organizing and unrest,” Elkind said.

    Miller, the university spokesperson, wrote in an email that “the recent stipend update marks another step in implementing the University’s long-standing plans to enhance our graduate programs and was not related, in any way, to students’ prior organizing and/or protest activity.”

    In recent years, Miller said, Rochester has expanded support for full-time Ph.D. students to include “subsidized health, dental and vision insurance; childcare benefits; raising stipends, and enhanced access to mental wellbeing and counseling services.”

    And again, she said, “the students continue to have and have always had access to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).”

    Source link

  • No One Is Gaslighting You

    No One Is Gaslighting You

    In response to my column last week about “the myth of antisemitism at Harvard,” I received an email claiming, “Your argument is deeply antisemitic and morally bankrupt,” and adding, “Accusing victims of fabricating their own abuse to serve hidden agenda [sic] is gaslighting.”

    When I call antisemitism a “myth” at Harvard, I’m not denying the real, terrible experiences some people have. The myth of antisemitism—like the “Myth of Political Correctness” I wrote about decades ago—means that the bigger stories told are often based on real incidents but still promote a false, simplistic narrative. There are too many real cases of antisemitism, just as there are too many real cases of anti-Palestinian or Islamophobic bias. But universities are not guilty of antisemitic discrimination if they allow free expression of hateful ideas.

    However, I don’t want to repeat my arguments about what institutional discrimination means and why Harvard isn’t guilty of it. Instead, I want to focus on the common abuse of the term “gaslighting” to denounce our enemies.

    The truth is, no one is gaslighting anybody. No one is trying to drive you crazy with lies. No one cares enough about you to do that. And the more we see “gaslighting” everywhere around us, the weaker our intellectual arguments will become.

    “Gaslighting” is a term that comes from the world of fiction. It’s a fantasy—first a play in 1938 by British playwright Patrick Hamilton, then two movies in the early 1940s. The Victorian-era plot of Gaslight involves an evil husband trying to steal from his wife (Ingrid Bergman) by driving her crazy—dimming the gas lights and denying that anything is wrong.

    The term “gaslight” was fairly obscure until the 2010s, but it exploded in popularity, becoming Merriam-Webster’s word of the year in 2022 and a popular word for a culture swimming in conspiracy theories. When you gaslight, you’re not just getting debatable facts wrong. You’re not even intentionally lying to win an argument. No, gaslighting refers to someone who is trolling us, telling an outlandish lie so outrageous that it’s designed to drive us crazy.

    “Gaslighting” is a term that turns us all into villains or victims and discourages intellectual discourse. The concept of gaslighting also encourages people to hide in their ideological silos. After all, if a gaslighter is just trying to drive you crazy with lies, the solution is to refuse to listen to them. Any engagement with a gaslighter is giving them what they want.

    Gaslighting is also an outgrowth of our therapeutic culture, using this term for interpersonal psychological manipulation to describe intellectual debates. But it has a destructive impact when translated to universities and intellectual life.

    So is gaslighting ever real? Perhaps the most famous example of gaslighting theory is what Steve Bannon once admitted: “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” But even Bannon’s technique falls short of gaslighting. Bannon ultimately doesn’t care if he drives liberals crazy (even if he enjoys it)—he’s adapting an old tactic of competitive debate where you make so many claims that you win because your opponent can’t respond to every one of them. Overloading a media system of fact-checking with an endless parade of lies has become a key technique of Donald Trump’s presidency. But the goal is distraction, not gaslighting. The true target is the gullible mark in the middle who can be manipulated, not the progressive who is driven crazy by watching reality denied on a daily basis as democracy dims.

    Our intellectual discussions will suffer when we assume that everyone we encounter is a political hack like Bannon, intent on lying to win. When we insult our critics rather than engaging with their arguments, everybody suffers.

    When we imagine gaslighting behind every argument, we begin to develop the same sense of paranoia as Ingrid Bergman’s character. Debates are no longer sincere exchanges of ideas, but battles with gaslighting enemies who want to destroy you. When someone is out to get you, paranoia is an understandable response. In intellectual debates, the paranoia of seeing gaslighting everywhere has a deeply corrosive effect.

    Using the term “gaslighting” is an extreme type of ad hominem argument. Instead of refuting claims, you dismiss your opponent as intentionally lying for purely evil motives. It’s time for us to stop dismissing our opponents for “gaslighting” and to start engaging with and analyzing the merits of their arguments.

    John K. Wilson was a 2019–20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Routledge, 2008), and his forthcoming book The Attack on Academia. He can be reached at [email protected], or letters to the editor can be sent to [email protected].

    Source link

  • More Barriers on the Horizon for International Students

    More Barriers on the Horizon for International Students

    The potential policy changes could give international students another hoop to jump through, further burdening consulates and embassies.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | tarras79/iStock/Getty Images

    The Trump administration is planning to limit how long international students can remain in the U.S., likely mirroring a plan proposed at the end of Trump’s first term with the same name, advocacy groups and immigration attorneys say.

    The regulations are expected to replace “duration of status,” a 1991 rule that allows international students to remain in the country as long as they are enrolled at a college or university. In 2020, the administration proposed limiting that time to just four years—a period shorter than most Ph.D. programs and shorter than the average student takes to complete a bachelor’s degree—though it would have allowed students to apply for extensions. Students from certain countries, including those the administration said were state sponsors of terrorism and those with high overstay rates, would have been afforded just two years.

    That rule was withdrawn after President Joe Biden entered office. But the Trump administration is poised to propose it once again, based on a submission to the Office of Management and Budget. The Department of Homeland Security has yet to release details about the potential change, but a pending rule change with the same name as the 2020 proposal was sent to OMB in late June and approved Aug. 7. However, according to OMB’s website, the rule is now under review once again for unknown reasons. Neither OMB nor DHS responded to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. Until OMB signs off, DHS can’t publicly release the plan and take public comments.

    The anticipated proposal comes amid the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on international students, which included the sudden and unexplained terminations of students’ records in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System, the database that tracks international students, in March and April. The administration has also taken steps to make it more difficult for prospective students to receive F-1 visas, including reviewing all applicants’ social media profiles.

    Incoming international students, meanwhile, are struggling with long delays for visa interviews as a result of federal layoffs and a pause in student visa appointments this spring, leading to concerns that international enrollment could drop this fall semester. Changing duration of status, advocates say, would only gum up the works even more, giving international students another hoop to jump through and further burdening consulates and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

    “This is not just one particular proposed rule or change in policy; it fits within a number of policy changes that we’ve experienced throughout the past eight months that the administration has been in control,” said Jill Allen Murray, deputy executive director for public policy at NAFSA, the association for international education professionals. “Many of those interact with each other and make it much more difficult for international students to take the steps that are necessary to come to the United States and study, and this would be yet another challenge for students.”

    A ‘Regulated Population’

    Why is the administration looking to eliminate duration of stay? If its reasoning is the same as in 2020, it is aiming to reduce fraud and visa overstays.

    International students are indeed one of very few nonimmigrant categories allowed to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, giving them special flexibility so they can finish their studies. But Samira Pardanani, associate vice president of international education and global engagement at Shoreline College, argued that doesn’t mean there’s any reason to believe duration of status leads students to be more likely to overstay.

    “This is a very, very regulated population … there’s a lot of follow-up schools do with regards to helping students maintain their status, and there are a lot of record-keeping and reporting requirements for schools,” Pardanani said. “Duration of status is something that has been, in my opinion, working well.”

    Murray also noted that the F-1 visa overstay rate reported by the government is not necessarily reliable, by DHS’s own admission.

    Another policy aimed at streamlining the visa process for nonimmigrant visitors, including international students, is also on the chopping block. On Sept. 2, the Trump administration will end interview waivers for many nonimmigrant groups, including international students. Those waivers, which started during the COVID-19 pandemic, allow certain individuals whose visas have expired but who have maintained their lawful nonimmigrant status to renew their visas without an in-person consular interview.

    The duration of a visa depends on the country and can range from a few months to several years. Thanks to interview waivers, an international Ph.D. student whose visa had expired could visit home in the summer, easily renew their visa without an in-person appointment and return the next semester without issue. But now, they would have to return to the consulate in their country even for a routine visa renewal.

    Pardanani said she did not think the elimination of interview waivers was inherently problematic, but “right now, when there’s already a lot of visa backlogs and students are not getting visa appointments … it’s going to have a deeper impact in students and on universities and colleges.”

    Source link

  • AI Can Facilitate Mastery Learning in Higher Education

    AI Can Facilitate Mastery Learning in Higher Education

    Learning in contemporary higher education is rooted deeply in calendars and time rather than mastery of the topic of the learning. With an inflexible semester or quarter calendar and an often-inflexible schedule and length of meeting times, learners are marched through the system in the orderly method of an assembly line.

    As long as I have taught at the university level, beginning in the early 1970s, I have questioned this approach that puts time scheduling ahead of depth of learning. It seems to put teaching schedules ahead of learning outcomes. I must confess that over the decades, I have been an easy touch for an incomplete for a student who encountered some unforeseen life disruption or simply took on more than she or he could handle during the semester. My philosophy has been and still is that what is learned is more important than whether it was accomplished in eight weeks, 16 weeks or even longer.

    I am not alone in that view. Back in the 1960s, one of learning’s highly recognized scholars, Benjamin Bloom, probed this very issue: “Bloom’s Learning for Mastery (LFM) strategy evolved and was later on implemented in primary and secondary school settings.” Meanwhile, psychologist Fred Keller developed his Personalized System of Instruction focused on five key principles:

    1. Students should be allowed to work at their own pace.
    2. Students should achieve at least 90 percent accuracy on the assessment before moving to the next lesson.
    3. Lessons should be considered as “vehicles of motivation.”
    4. Teachers and students should consider using written communication in textbooks and study guides.
    5. Teachers and students should get closer through repeated testing, immediate scoring, continuous tutoring and progress tracking.

    These five principles cannot be easily integrated into classes that march forward with a rigid class calendar based on three 50-minute class meetings for 15 weeks! However, recent technological developments have opened the door to reinventing higher education from the assembly-line model to an online, asynchronous, tutor-enhanced, mastery-based learning model.

    To understand the differences between traditional teaching and mastery learning, one can best describe that our current practices place an emphasis on time-based teaching, while in mastery learning, the emphasis is, as the name suggests, on learning. Note that in Keller’s PSI approach, the goal is 90 percent or better learning as evidenced through frequent assessments required to move forward to the next module in the class.

    The PSI stresses personalized scaffolding of learning and evidence of mastery throughout the course, whereas our current common mode of delivery views the class as a whole rather than recognizing differences in background and learning by individuals. Inevitably, the current approach penalizes students for unintended, unrecognized shortcomings in understanding caused by any of a number of circumstances, such as prior knowledge deficits in some aspect of that which they are studying, poorly taught prerequisite or assumed previously taken classes, unanticipated life interventions, or some other inability to learn essential class concepts that had not been anticipated in the development and design of the class.

    If, instead, we were to create personalized learning intervention opportunities at every step of the way that are designed to be responsive to the needs of individual learners on a minimum of learning 90 percent of every module, we could ensure a minimum of mastery of 90 percent of the materials in every class.

    Artificial intelligence employed in an asynchronous or blended online class opens the pathway to mastery learning. An instructor can experiment with this process by folding this prompt into one or two modules of a class. Released by There’s an AI for That (TAAFT) it is a free and openly available prompt that can be inserted into any of the major frontier models, such as Gemini, ChatGPT or Claude. Titled Precision Learning Companion, the prompt is introduced:

    “This prompt turns AI into an ultra-detailed, dynamic personal tutor that doesn’t just quiz, it teaches deeply, layer by layer, until the user genuinely masters the material. It’s built to adapt in real time, constantly diagnosing knowledge gaps, and never moving forward without full comprehension. Every answer, right or wrong, triggers a structured, narrative-style breakdown explaining the what, why, how, and broader context, ensuring true understanding. The AI is designed to feel like having a supportive but meticulous mentor who scaffolds learning: progressively challenging the user if they perform well, slowing down and simplifying if they struggle, and always reinforcing psychological safety through encouragement. It uses textually described visual aids, memory tricks, real-world examples, and step-by-step remediation when needed. Mastery, not speed, is the goal.”

    I encourage readers to test this out, to examine more closely the impact of using AI to deliver learning opportunities. It took me less than two minutes to get my module up and running:

    1. I copied and pasted the page-long prompt from the TAAFT.Notion site into Claude 4 for test purposes and pressed enter.
    2. I entered the topic as “human eye anatomy” (of course you can enter any topic that you might cover in a week or so in your current class schedule).
    3. I was then launched into a congenial conversation with the AI module that probed deeply into my knowledge of the topic in a pleasant and reinforcing way.
    4. I must admit that I was so engaged that I didn’t stop for more than an hour.

    You can begin by testing it on yourself and perhaps a colleague, teaching assistant or another willing participant. Choose a relevant topic. I chose “physiology of the human eye,” which was a basic module in all of the many Communication Technology classes I offered. I found the AI module to be accurate, comprehensive, reinforcing and clear. If you find that it shows promise, you might choose to use it in one of your classes. Invite your instructional designer to join in a discussion of how this might best be used in your classes. Note how it personalizes instruction for learners by sharing additional information, readings and related learning opportunities to backfill areas that learners who may be deficient in background and need context to relate to the course. You can ask learners to share a copy of the exchanges. They may also share brief reactions on the quality and usefulness of the interaction with AI.

    Over time, with the help of your instructional designer, you may want to go fully into mastery learning, ensuring that every student in your classes masters the material at a 90 percent level. In some cases, you may need to be flexible with offering incompletes to provide time for those who need to complete the additional material triggered by submission of wrong answers.

    I always had an uncomfortable feeling in the pit of my stomach when I submitted a C, D or F as a final grade. I felt that I had failed my student. However, I had a full classroom and there was not enough time or opportunity to provide individualized attention to each student. Perhaps the new generation of university instructors who partner with AI assistants will enjoy the confidence that all their learners will master the topic of the class with the help of AI. No learner will be left behind, and none will be victims of the assembly-line model of teaching in higher education.

    Source link

  • Texas A&M Professor Arrested on Indecent Exposure Charge

    Texas A&M Professor Arrested on Indecent Exposure Charge

    Johns was supposed to begin teaching at Texas A&M University this fall.

    Texas A&M University professor Russell Taylor Johns was arrested by university police last Wednesday following an allegation that he exposed himself at the University of Texas at Austin earlier this year, KBTX reported. 

    Johns, who hadn’t yet begun teaching but was hired to join Texas A&M’s Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering this fall, worked at UT Austin from 1995 to 2010 and was invited back to campus in April by its department of petroleum and geosciences. Court documents obtained by KBTX allege that Johns exposed his genitals and touched himself inappropriately at the UT Austin student center on April 29. A staff member told police that she saw Johns masturbate while looking at two female students sitting across from him.

    Johns previously taught in the Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering at Pennsylvania State University.

    Johns was booked at the Brazos County Detention Center and released on a $7,000 bond. His bond conditions require that he not contact the alleged victims or their families, refrain from committing additional offenses, and submit to random drug testing. In Texas, indecent exposure is a Class B misdemeanor and punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine.

    Texas A&M did not return Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Tuesday. A university spokesperson told KSAT that the university was not aware of the allegation when Johns was hired and that he is currently suspended.

    Source link