Blog

  • What’s not talked about when you live overseas

    What’s not talked about when you live overseas

    The first time someone told me I was “too loud” in Latvia, I laughed. Not because it was funny, but because I genuinely hadn’t realized I was being loud. We were eating pizza one evening at Easy Wine in Riga, and despite being the only one not tipsy on the refreshments, I was still somehow the rowdiest at the table. 

    I shrank down an inch in my seat. The moment gave me pause. It was oddly familiar, like déjà vu. Everything around me felt almost known, just slightly askew, like it had been tilted on its axis. 

    The shame of taking up too much space? That I knew. But this time, it didn’t come from being Brown. It came from being American. 

    In the United States, my race is always top of mind. I’m a university student, and as a Government major, it’s a regular feature of my coursework. Having grown up in a nearly all-White town, I’ve been explaining my identity to others since I could talk. 

    With nearly two decades of practice under my belt, I’m well-versed in how my skin color and ancestry shape the world around me, and how to articulate that for others. So, the longer I spent in Riga, the more unsettled I felt by how absent race seemed from the conversation. 

    Conversations not had

    Hours spent gazing out the windows of trolleybuses gliding through the city confirmed what I suspected: Riga is not very diverse. Among the small number of people of color I did see, most were other South Asians, like me. In the United States, race is an ever-present topic, whether it’s in political debates, academic syllabi or heated threads on X. In Latvia, it felt like race had slipped out of the cultural vocabulary altogether. 

    As part of my study abroad program, we often heard from expert guest lecturers. And as each one spoke, a quiet confusion grew inside me: Why is nobody talking about race? I started to feel like a foreign lunatic, playing an internal game of “spot the non-white person” on every street. But the more I searched, the more questions I had. Where was the discussion? Why wasn’t it happening? 

    So, I brought it up with a friend I’d made in my hostel. Arsh is an Indian student studying mechanical engineering at Riga Technical University. He had been living in the city since February. When I asked if he’d experienced discrimination as a visibly Punjabi Sikh, his answer surprised me. 

    “No,” he said. 

    And then he added something that completely shifted my perspective. 

    “Nobody talks.”

    Silence and race

    I’d known Latvians were famously quiet, but I’d never considered how that silence might shape their understanding and construction of race. 

    In the United States, your racial identity is often the first thing people ask about. Strangers want to know what you are and where you’re from. Race in America is personal, political and inescapable. The constant conversation can be both exhausting and empowering: it pushes systems to change, creates space for shared stories of resilience and holds people accountable.

    But it also creates a kind of fatigue. As a person of color, you’re constantly on: explaining, reacting, defending. You’re visible, but often through a lens of trauma or tension. 

    In Latvia, it was different. What I came to think of as a kind of “quiet neutrality” reigned. People didn’t ask where I was from. They didn’t comment on my skin tone. They didn’t bring up diversity or inclusion, mainly because they weren’t speaking to me in the first place. 

    At first, that silence felt like relief. But eventually, it began to feel like an absence, because bias still exists, even if no one’s talking about it. 

    The power of passive racism

    After speaking with Arsh, I turned to the Internet, searching for other South Asian perspectives on racism in Latvia. I found plenty. 

    One Quora user bluntly wrote, “Indians are treated like shit here in Latvia.” Another shared that she didn’t know if others felt negatively about her brown skin, but if they did, they didn’t confront her about it. A Redditor described being told to “go back to your own country.” These stories varied wildly from hate crimes to total indifference, but they painted a clear picture: racism existed here. It just didn’t look the same. 

    Curious to dig deeper, I reached out to Gokul from @lifeinlatviaa on Instagram. A popular Indian content creator who’s lived in Latvia for seven years, Gokul shares his takes on life in the Baltics. Many of his videos humorously cover topics of social culture, stereotypes, education and work. He also co-hosts the podcast Baltic Banter with Brigita Reisone. 

    When I asked Gokul about his experience, he described the racism in Latvia as mostly “passive.” Latvians, he said, are reserved. “If they don’t like something, they won’t be in your face about it,” he said. 

    Still, he shared more overt examples, like housing ads that openly say Indians need not call. He noted persistent stereotypes, too: that Brown people are dirty kebab shop owners or delivery drivers. 

    The familiarity of bias

    None of this was unfamiliar to me. I’ve experienced housing discrimination. I’ve been called dirty by a White person. The common style of racism in Latvia was new to me: distant and quiet. In the United States, I once had a tween boy bike past me and mock an Indian accent — it was less traumatic than it was bizarre. There was certainly nothing subtle about it though. 

    Looking further, I found several reports from Latvian Public Broadcasting documenting hate crimes and prejudice against South Asians. So no, it’s not that racism doesn’t exist in Latvia. It’s that it shows up differently, and more importantly, it’s not widely discussed. 

    That difference matters.

    Race is fluid and contextual; its meaning shifts with time, place and history. In the United States, racism is foundational. It began with colonization and slavery, extending through the systemic injustice known as Jim Crow in the 19th and 20th centuries, to modern-day Islamophobia and racial profiling by police. Racial violence and resistance are woven into the country’s DNA. 

    Latvia’s history tells a different story. Latvia is a nation shaped more by being colonized than by colonizing. Ethnic Latvians have fought for sovereignty under foreign rule, whether by Germans or Soviets. Today, its population is overwhelmingly White, and ethnic tensions tend to focus on Latvians and Russians, or Roma communities. Immigration is relatively new here, so the language to talk about race may simply not have developed yet. 

    And that brings me back to volume. 

    In the United States, being loud is often classed and racialized as “trashy,” especially when tied to communities of color. In Latvia, loudness is framed differently: it’s seen as a kind of cultural rudeness. It’s not about being Brown, it’s about being foreign. And because everyone is generally quieter, the social cues around race, identity and belonging shift, too. 

    Little things like volume, friendliness and eye contact build the scaffolding around how race is perceived in different societies. They may seem like surface-level quirks, but they shape deep-rooted assumptions.

    And they remind us: racism may look different in various places, but it doesn’t disappear. It just changes form. And recognizing that change is the first step to dismantling it.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why do many people outside the United States connect loudness with being American?

    2. Why was the author troubled about the lack of conversation about racism in Latvia?

    3. What kind of conversations do you have about race and do they make you feel more or less comfortable?

     

    Source link

  • Why stories still matter in a fast-moving world

    Why stories still matter in a fast-moving world

    Key points:

    Seventeen years after Suzanne Collins first introduced us to The Hunger Games, the world is still captivated by Panem. The latest installment, Sunrise on the Reaping, dives into Haymitch’s backstory and has been called a “propulsive and heart-wrenching addition” to the series by The New York Times. For many of us, books like these aren’t just stories–they’re cultural moments.

    I remember reading the original trilogy on my iPad while training for a half-marathon. Katniss’ fight against the Capitol powered me through some of my longest runs. That’s the magic of books: They meet us where we are and carry us somewhere else entirely. They become part of our personal history, woven into our memories and milestones.

    But the power of books goes far beyond personal nostalgia. When a major title drops, it’s not just a release date–it’s a shared experience. Readers rush to get their hands on it. Social media lights up with reactions. Libraries field waitlists. These moments remind us why books matter. They connect us, challenge us, and inspire us.

    This fall, we’re about to experience two more of these moments. On October 21, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Partypooper hits shelves. Jeff Kinney’s beloved series has become a rite of passage for young readers, and this latest installment–centered around Greg Heffley’s attempt to throw himself the ultimate birthday bash–is already generating buzz. It’s funny, relatable, and perfectly timed for a generation that’s grown up with Greg’s awkward, hilarious adventures.

    Just a few weeks later, on November 11, Dog Man: Big Jim Believes arrives. Dav Pilkey’s Dog Man series has redefined what it means to be a children’s book phenomenon. With its blend of humor, heart, and comic-style storytelling, Dog Man has helped countless kids fall in love with reading. This new title promises to be no different, offering a story about belief, friendship, and finding strength within.

    These books aren’t just for kids–they’re cultural touchstones. They bring generations together. Parents read them with their children. Teachers use them to spark classroom discussions. Librarians build displays around them. And kids? They devour them and talk about them with the kind of passion usually reserved for blockbuster movies or viral games.

    And yes, there’s a business side to books. Pricing, distribution, marketing strategies–they all matter. Behind every book on a shelf is a network of people working to make that moment possible. Publishers, authors, illustrators, binders, warehouse teams, sales reps, marketers, and more. It’s easy to forget that when you’re holding a finished book, but every title is the result of countless decisions, collaborations, and passions.

    In a world dominated by screens, short-form content, and constant notifications, books offer something different. They ask us to slow down. To focus. To imagine. To empathize. And that’s more important than ever.

    Literacy isn’t just about reading words on a page–it’s about understanding the world. It’s about critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and the ability to engage with complex ideas. Books help build those skills. They give kids the tools to navigate life, not just school.

    Because in a world that’s constantly changing, books remain one of our most powerful tools for understanding it–and each other. The world needs stories. And stories need us.

    Britten Follett
    Latest posts by Britten Follett (see all)

    Source link

  • What does Trump’s executive order on foreign gift reporting mean for colleges?

    What does Trump’s executive order on foreign gift reporting mean for colleges?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Since President Donald Trump retook office, the U.S. Department of Education has launched investigations into several high-profile colleges over their compliance with Section 117, a decades-old law that was largely ignored until 2018. 

    The law — part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1986 — requires colleges that receive federal financial assistance to disclose contracts and gifts from foreign sources worth $250,000 or more in a year to the U.S. Department of Education. 

    In late April, Trump signed an executive order charging U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to work with other executive agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, to open investigations and enforce Section 117. The order also explicitly ties compliance with Section 117 to eligibility for federal grant funding and directs McMahon to require colleges to disclose more specific details about their foreign gifts and contracts. 

    However, complying with the law is difficult and time-consuming for colleges given the challenges they face collecting the needed data and uploading it to the Education Department’s system, according to higher education experts. That means universities must take steps to ensure they are complying, such as dedicating a staff member to meet the law’s requirements, they said.

    Failing to properly do so could put colleges in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and potentially cause them to miss out on federal grants, as higher education experts speculate the executive order will be used as another tool to target institutions’ funding. 

    “The Trump administration has it out for American higher education, particularly those they have branded elite institutions,” said Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, investigations manager on the higher education program at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “Section 117 is another cudgel for them.”

    The history of Section 117

    After Section 117 was enacted nearly 40 years ago over concerns about foreign donations to colleges, it was never really implemented by the Education Department and went largely ignored, said Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education. People just stopped thinking about the issue and didn’t pay attention to it, she said. 

    However, concerns in Congress grew in 2018 when then-Federal Bureau of Investigations Director Christopher Wray testified before a Senate panel that China was exploiting the open research and development environment in the U.S. and universities were naive to the threat. 

    Proactively monitoring Section 117 and investigating disclosures was seen at the time as a way to “mitigate malign and undue foreign influence,” a Congressional Research Service report released this past February stated. 

    Following the hearing, the first Trump administration “really started making a show of Section 117,” said Bauer-Wolf. 

    Between 2019 and 2021, the Trump administration opened investigations into prominent institutions such as Harvard University, Georgetown University, Cornell University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale University. The administration was more focused on enforcing compliance through investigations than working with colleges to help them understand what the law required, said Spreitzer. 

    That had a “chilling impact on our institutions,” said Spreitzer. Colleges had a lot of questions about Section 117 reporting that went unanswered because they “were worried that if they called the Department of Education, they would be hit with an investigation.” 

    The investigations led colleges to report $6.5 billion in “previously undisclosed foreign funds,” according to Trump’s executive order. 

    When the Biden administration took over, Education Department officials moved enforcement of Section 117 from the Office of the General Counsel to Federal Student Aid. The Biden Education Department also closed several investigations launched under the Trump administration, and it did not open any new ones. 

    Trump, in his executive order, alleged the Biden administration “undid” the investigatory work completed during his first term. But those investigations had been going on for several years, so it’s unclear whether those probes should or should not have been closed, said Spreitzer.

    Source link

  • The Dangers of the Manhattan Statement

    The Dangers of the Manhattan Statement

    After several decades of writing books and blogs about the culture wars, academic freedom and campus free expression, I’ve started this column to illuminate some of the key debates about these issues, past and present, as I see them. I hope my thoughts spark disagreement and discussion, both of which I welcome.

    Something that caught my eye last week was news of a statement calling for even more government control over higher education from a group of conservatives. This comes as the right fully embraces Donald Trump’s authoritarian commands against universities. Developed by Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute, the Manhattan Statement was carefully designed using public polling to create vague, popular-sounding principles (“truth” “freedom of speech” “equality” “civil discourse” “transparency”) that obscure its plan for massive federal control over colleges and repression of dissent. 

    The Manhattan Statement is a recipe for tyranny. Even if some people might agree with its goals, what’s important are not the ends but the repressive means used to achieve them. It calls for “a new contract with the universities, which should be written into every grant, payment, loan, eligibility, and accreditation, and punishable by revocation of all public benefit.” We’ve already seen how the Trump regime has terribly, illicitly abused its power over government contracts to punish colleges without due process. The Manhattan Statement would vastly expand this power to include all federal funding and student loans, making every college held hostage for its existence to any demands of the government.

    Instead of pretending that “antisemitism” somehow justified cutting off federal funds in direct defiance of the due process required under Title VI, the Manhattan Statement would provide a wide array of reasons for political ideologues to destroy a college, with its amorphous calls to abolish “ideology” and “activism” and require “swift expulsion” of anyone deemed to violate “civil discourse.”

    And what if some poor deluded student still wants to attend a college deemed to have violated the Rufo rules? Sorry, he’s from the government, and he’s here to help, whether you like it or not. The Manhattan Statement demands that colleges give total obedience to the reigning president and his interpretation of what the politically correct ideas are.

    In recent years, many conservatives have abandoned their past commitments to free speech and the rejection of federal control over academia. The nearly 50 signers of the Manhattan Statement represent a broad range of the alt right and the old right, with celebrities like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro joining serious scholars such as Dorian Abbot, Victor Davis Hansen, Lee Jussim and Eric Kaufmann, as well as several professors whose academic freedom I have defended, such as Peter Boghossian and Joshua Katz. It’s disturbing to see so many thoughtful conservatives that I respect joining a call for massive expansion of government control over colleges.

    One of the signers, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), is a member (and former chair) of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, a sign that the Manhattan Statement is not some theoretical wish list aimed at reforming universities, but a very real political threat that could easily be enforced on colleges in the near future. 

    However, even terrible legislation is too slow a process for these conservatives, who write that “we call on the President of the United States to draft a new contract with the universities” with these extraordinary requirements. It shows a breathtaking ignorance of basic American civics for so many conservatives to believe that the President single-handedly has the power to impose extraordinary conditions at his whim on any college receiving any grants or student loans, and even personally dictating the accreditation status of colleges.

    To legitimize government intrusion, the Manhattan Statement invents pure historical fiction: “During the Founding era, schools of higher education were established by government charter and written into the law, which stipulated that, in exchange for public support, they had a duty to advance the public good, and, if they were to stray from that mission, the people retained the right to intervene.”

    The first American colleges were chartered in the Colonial era, not the Founding era, and there is no mention of any “right to intervene” by “the people” in any college charter. That imaginary “right to intervene” would be prohibited now by the First Amendment. The AAUP’s 1915 Declaration of Principles—revered by this Statement’s signers such as Peter Wood—states that politicians and even college trustees “have neither competency nor moral right to intervene” in the professional work of academics.

    The Manhattan Statement claims, “The American people send billions to the universities and are repaid with contempt.” The “American people” represent a wide range of views. They are repaid for their money with scientific and medical advances of enormous value, with educated students who expand the productivity of the leading economy in the world, and with the general expansion of knowledge. And contempt for the American people is pretty rare among academics. But I oppose this anti-contempt rhetoric on a deeper, moral level. Universities should have more expressions of contempt. We need more arguments on campus, more core disagreements, even when it offends people. If contempt is forbidden, many of the Manhattan Statement’s signers would be the first against the wall. And the belief that universities should precisely mirror the public’s views and identities is wrong, as these same conservatives have repeatedly said when denouncing diversity.

    A Manhattan Institute poll last month found that a strong majority of Democrats and independents support free speech on campus. But only 44% of Republicans agreed that “it’s more important for universities to protect free speech, even if some find it offensive.” Conservatives are retreating from principles of free speech and limited government because they want to purge their enemies, and the Manhattan Statement is a clear declaration of this move.

    What the Manhattan Statement claims to be the problem—“a new kind of tyranny—one in which ideology determines truth, and the university functions as a political agent …”—is, in fact, the perfect description of Rufo’s solution. He’s simply taking a deluded fantasy of left-wing tyranny on campus as a justification to impose a very real proposal for right-wing tyranny. 

    We are witnessing the worst government attacks on academic freedom in the history of American higher education, as the Trump regime has launched an assault on campus free inquiry that’s unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and indefensible. It’s a moment when all principled defenders of academic freedom, regardless of their critiques of academia, should speak out strongly against repression and the belief that government control can be a solution to academia’s problems. Instead, these so-called conservatives are standing up to applaud authoritarianism, and calling for greater destruction of their enemies, the universities.

    I want this column to be a space for interviews with authors and debates with those who disagree with me, and I encourage readers to write letters to the editor in response ([email protected]) and to email me ([email protected]) with their own ideas.

    Source link

  • College business officers survey finds risks, resilience

    College business officers survey finds risks, resilience

    The latest Inside Higher Ed/Hanover Research Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, released today, reveals concerns about near-term uncertainty and financial sustainability—buoyed by confidence in the longer-term outlook.

    One of the most significant findings is that federal policy uncertainty has created difficulties in conducting basic financial planning as the Trump administration has introduced a flurry of changes impacting federal funding for higher education, international students, how students pay for college and more.

    That uncertainty, experts noted, has had a palpable effect on the sector.

    “Chief business officers like certainty, whether it’s certainty about revenue streams or potential costs,” said Kara Freeman, president and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers. “And right now they just are not getting it and that leads to anxiety.”

    The annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, now in its 15th year, offers insights from financial leaders at 169 institutions in 2025, both public and private nonprofits. Responses were gathered in April and May.

    Amid the uncertainty, about three in five CBOs (58 percent) rate their institution’s financial health as good or excellent, with differences by institution type.

    Pressure Tests

    In last year’s survey, 56 percent of CBOs expected that their institution would be in better financial shape a year later. That number fell to 43 percent in this year’s survey, which asked the same question.

    CBOs who believe their institution will be worse off financially next year cited concerns about the federal policy/funding environment for the sector (82 percent), potential increases to nonlabor operating costs (67 percent), rising labor costs (67 percent) and general economic concerns (62 percent).

    More on the Survey

    On Wednesday, Aug. 20 at 2 p.m. E.T., Inside Higher Ed will present a free webcast to discuss the results of the survey, with experts who can answer your most pressing questions about higher education finance—including how to plan effectively amid the current financial and policy uncertainty. Please register here.

    The 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers was made possible by support from Strata Decision Technology and CollegeVine.

    Inside Higher Ed’s 15th annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers was conducted by Hanover Research. The survey included chief business officers, mostly from public and private nonprofit institutions, for a margin of error of 7 percent. The response rate was 7 percent. A copy of the free report can be downloaded here.

    Larry Ladd, a subject matter specialist at AGB Consulting, noted that colleges are taking a number of measures to protect themselves in the short term, such as delaying building projects, freezing hiring and/or travel, and pulling other levers to protect themselves this coming fall.

    “You’re seeing colleges do everything they can to preserve their liquidity,” Ladd said. “The biggest reason to do that of course is that they don’t know what their fall enrollment will be.”

    Of particular concern, he noted, is the potential for disruption to federal financial aid funds, given mass layoffs at the Education Department, which has raised concerns about disbursement. Just 12 percent of CBOs support the elimination of the department.

    Other possible signs of caution: On deferred maintenance, 63 percent of respondents said that their institution was poised to fund less than a quarter of identified needs in the then-current fiscal year. Some 24 percent said their institution was freezing hiring to control costs for students; another 62 percent said their institution would consider doing this.

    Despite these challenges, respondents were much more confident in their institution’s five- to 10-year outlooks, with 73 percent believing their college or university will be financially stable over the next five years and 71 percent expressing that same level of confidence over the next decade. For reference, in 2024, 85 percent of CBOs were confident in the five-year outlook, and 73 percent in the 10-year outlook.

    Some 11 percent of CBOs say senior administrators at their institution have had serious internal discussions in the last year about merging with another college or university, about the same as last year’s survey. Most of these CBOs indicate such conversations are about proactively ensuring the institution’s financial stability rather than risk of imminent closure.

    Another 16 percent of CBOs report serious internal discussions about consolidating some programs or operations with another college or university. Two in five (42 percent) say it’s highly likely that that their college will share administrative functions with another institution within five years. CBOs in the Northeast, with its relative concentration of institutions, are especially likely to say so, at 63 percent.

    Beyond the Fog

    Ruth Johnston, vice president of NACUBO consulting, said that while business officers may be stressed by the immediate pressures, they are confident in their scenario planning for the future.

    “I think we’ll figure it out. Higher ed, even if it’s slow to change, is resilient. So I expect that we’re going to see new, creative solutions that will help bolster higher education,” Johnston said.

    That said, just 28 percent of CBOs described themselves as very or extremely confident in their institution’s current business model. Another third expressed moderate confidence.

    View online

    Top issues for those CBOs with just some or no confidence in their institution’s business model: lack of diverse revenue streams (64 percent of this group), ineffective cost containment and/or operational efficiency (54 percent), and insufficient cash reserves for “rainy days” or strategic investments (50 percent).

    Tuition discounting is another standing concern. Among all CBOs, more than half (54 percent) are at least moderately concerned about the financial sustainability of their institution’s tuition discount rate; two in 10 (21 percent) are highly concerned. Similarly, 50 percent of CBOs are at least moderately concerned about the sustainability of their institution’s tuition sticker price increases. In both cases, private nonprofit CBOs are the most concerned, by sector.

    Respondents also saw government efforts to influence institutional strategy and policy as an increasing risk to their institutions, with 71 percent registering this as a concern. That number is up slightly from last year’s 65 percent.

    CBOs in 2025 were much less concerned about donor efforts to influence institutional strategy, with 16 percent worrying that this amounts to an increasing financial risk to their college or university.

    Internally, at least, some 81 percent of CBOs agree that they have sufficient agency influence within their institution to ensure its financial stability. Most also report a strong working relationship with their president, and understanding among trustees of the financial challenges facing their institution.

    Survey respondents were notably concerned about federal student aid policies, overwhelmingly picking that as the top federal policy-related risk over the next four years, at 68 percent. Some experts suggest that concerns about other federal policy matters may have been heightened if the survey were administered after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month. It included major changes for higher education as well as cuts to other public programs that could have downstream effects on the sector.

    “There are both direct and indirect implications of the bill, some of which have not fully been explored by colleges and universities,” Ladd said. “I think of the Medicaid cuts—even those will have implications for colleges and universities.”

    When asked about general financial risks to their institution over the next five years, many CBOs—especially those at publics—flagged state and federal policy changes, along with state and federal funding reductions. Enrollment declines, rising personnel costs and infrastructure and deferred maintenance costs also registered.

    As for what would most improve their institution’s financial situation and sustainability, CBOs’ top responses from a list of options were: growing enrollment through targeted recruitment and improved retention programs; optimizing operational efficiency through process improvement and strategic cost management; and—in a more distant choice—forming strategic partnerships with employers, community organizations and/or other educational institutions. Cutting faculty and cutting staff were especially unpopular options.

    Asked about value and affordability, CBOs largely agreed that their institution offers good value for what it charges for an undergraduate degree (93 percent) and that its net price is affordable (88 percent). Two in three (65 percent) said their institution has increased institutional financial aid/grants in the last year to address affordability concerns.

    The survey also found that CBOs are increasingly using artificial intelligence. Nearly half of respondents—46 percent—indicated that AI helps them make more informed decisions in their role. That number is up from 33 percent in last year’s survey.

    Despite that uptick, respondents at most institutions aren’t all-in on artificial intelligence yet. Only 6 percent reported that their college has made a comprehensive, strategic investment in AI. But many are experimenting: 39 percent of CBOs noted that their institution is in the early exploration phase with AI, while another 28 percent are piloting such tools in select departments.

    “AI is here to stay,” Johnston said.

    Source link

  • Bridging the Gap: How Smart Technology Can Align University Programmes with Real-World Skills

    Bridging the Gap: How Smart Technology Can Align University Programmes with Real-World Skills

    • By Pete Moss, Business Development Director at Ellucian.

    ‘Pouvez-vous s’il vous plaît me dire où se trouve la gare?’ – this is the extent that a colleague of mine can remember from his Introductory French module that he completed as part of a computing degree in the late 90s.  That institution’s attempt at the time to embed flexibility and cross-curriculum choice to help students develop skills out of their discipline to help with employability.  ‘It was easier to pass than the programming courses’  was the authentic feedback that my colleague gave in retrospect, but they did at least have the choice to expand their learning experience and gain some broader foundational skills.  That institution, however, has long abandoned much of that flexibility, largely due to the apparent complexity of administration.

    That is not to say that there are not fantastic examples of employability related skills initiatives across the sector, but the recent policy landscape (not least the Skills England Sector evidence on the growth and skills offer) and ever-present national growth agenda are now firmly putting the spotlight on the role of HE in this area.  The if element of HE holding that key role in the skills agenda is widely held, but now the thorny problem of how must be addressed.  Technology advancements, specifically AI, will play a contributory factor in how institutions can remove barriers that caused institutions to reduce flexibility in the past, but what of the wider considerations?

    To explore this topic further I asked Ben Rodgers, an experienced academic registrar and AHEP consultant, for his views on the topic:

    In today’s fast-moving global economy, the value of a university education is increasingly measured not just by academic achievement, but by the employability of graduates. Employers are no longer looking solely for degrees, they’re looking for skills: digital fluency, critical thinking, communication, and technical know-how that align with the needs of their industries. Meanwhile, universities are under pressure to demonstrate that their programmes deliver real-world value. The challenge is clear: how do we bridge the gap between what is taught and what is needed?

    This is where technology can make a transformative difference. At the forefront of this change is a new wave of AI-powered innovation designed to bridge the gap between academic programmes and real-world skill demands. These emerging technologies can analyse curricula, extracting the skills embedded within them and mapping those against labour market data to identify areas of alignment and gaps.

    Crucially, they work in both directions; institutions can see what skills a course develops, while students or employers can start with a desired competency like coding or digital marketing and trace back to the programmes that build those capabilities.

    It is the kind of innovation that higher education has long needed. For too long, the link between the classroom and the workplace has been inconsistent or poorly articulated. Universities may know they are delivering valuable learning, but haven’t always had the means to evidence that value in terms that resonate with employers and prospective students. These technologies bring much-needed clarity, offering structured and data-informed ways to demonstrate how academic learning contributes directly to employment readiness.

    A Game-Changer for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE)

    This kind of technology becomes even more important as the UK rolls out the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE). The LLE is set to reshape the educational landscape by allowing individuals to access student finance for short courses, modular learning and skills-based development over the course of their lives. This shift away from traditional three-year degrees opens new possibilities, but also new challenges.

    How will learners know which modules to pick? How will they know what skills they need for the job they want or even the job they haven’t yet imagined? With the support of emerging AI-driven tools, learners can begin to reverse-engineer their career goals. Want to become a Data Scientist? These systems can help identify which combinations of modules across a university lead to that destination. Interested in project management? The technology can pinpoint where those skills are taught, and which courses offer them. It’s like having a careers advisor, curriculum guide, and labour market analyst all in one—offering personalised insights that connect educational choices with professional ambitions.

    This sort of capability is vital if LLE is to be more than just a funding mechanism. It needs to be supported by intelligent infrastructure that empowers learners to make informed choices. Otherwise, there’s a risk that modular study becomes a confusing patchwork of disconnected learning.

    Towards a Shared, Inter-University Skills Ecosystem

    Now imagine if we took this even further. What if a skills platform were adopted not just by individual institutions but as a shared framework across regions or even nationally? In this model, students in Glasgow, Cardiff, Birmingham, or Belfast could see the skills they need for local job markets and be directed to the institutions offering them. This would create a more agile, responsive, and learner-centred education system. Universities wouldn’t just be competing with each other; they’d be collaborating to build a broader skills ecosystem.

    The scale of opportunity here is significant and growing fast. Consider this: if every individual in the workforce has access to around £1,800 in personal development funding each year, the cumulative potential across a university’s learner base is vast. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands of learners, and you’re looking at a transformative funding stream that’s currently underutilised.

    This is not just an opportunity for students, it’s a strategic imperative for institutions. By enabling individuals to build relevant, targeted skills, universities position themselves as essential engines of workforce development, driving economic resilience at local, regional, and national levels. It’s a win-win: empowered learners, future-ready graduates, and sustainable new revenue for the sector.

    Of course, this requires a shift in thinking from institutional autonomy to inter-institutional alignment. But the benefits are compelling: more efficient use of public funding, stronger regional economies, and better outcomes for students.

    Making Programme Design More Purposeful

    Beyond helping students choose what to study, this technology also has the power to influence what universities choose to offer. If data consistently shows that a particular programme has little connection to current or emerging job markets, it is worth investigating. It does not mean the course should be cut. There may be academic or social reasons to preserve it, but it does mean the institution is equipped with the intelligence needed to make informed decisions.

    It also invites a more purposeful approach to curriculum design. Are we including this module because it is pedagogically valuable, or because it’s always been there? Are we assessing this way because it builds a skill, or because it is the easiest to administer? When you can map outcomes to employment skills, these questions become easier to answer.

    Moreover, it provides a compelling framework for conversations with students, parents, and policy-makers about the value of university education. It shows that we are listening to what the world needs and responding with academic rigour and strategic intent.

    Global Potential, Local Application

    The skills gap is not just a UK issue; it’s a global one. The World Economic Forum reports that nearly half of all workers (66 per cent) will need reskilling by 2030. Universities worldwide are grappling with how to stay relevant in an era of automation, AI and constant disruption. Emerging AI tools offer the potential for a globally shared skills taxonomy that could, with appropriate localisation, apply anywhere.

    Conclusion

    As universities continue to evolve, their role as engines of economic and social mobility becomes more important than ever. To fulfil that role, we must ensure that what we teach aligns with what the world needs. That does not mean turning every degree into job training, but it does mean being thoughtful, strategic, and transparent about the skills our programmes provide.

    Emerging technologies offer an exciting glimpse into a more connected, skills-aware future. They empower students to take greater control of their learning, help universities refine and align their programmes and ensure that the promise of Higher Education translates into meaningful, real-world opportunities.

    After all, education is a journey. It’s time the map caught up.

    Source link

  • Look to Your Culture (American Indian College Fund)

    Look to Your Culture (American Indian College Fund)

    Cheryl Crazy Bull, President and CEO of the American Indian College Fund, was the 2025 keynote speaker for Oglala Lakota College’s graduation ceremony. She acknowledges the difficulties Native communities are facing with the new administration’s budgets. Native experiences in the sixties and seventies led to a renaissance in Native communities and education and she cites the lessons they provide, based on Lakota culture, for surviving and thriving.

    Source link

  • Universities should face the consequences for misleading students over the cost of living

    Universities should face the consequences for misleading students over the cost of living

    Why do students run out of money? And is it their mistake?

    It’s partly because student maintenance support has not kept pace with the cost of living.

    Last year, the Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) at Loughborough University calculated that students need £18,632 a year outside London (and £21,774 a year in London) to have a minimum acceptable standard of living.

    But if you’re living away from home in England, the maximum maintenance loan is £10,227 – and it’s less than that once your parents earn over £25,000.

    And if you’re an international student, the Home Office’s “proof of funds” figure – the money you need to show you have in the bank to cover your living costs – has been (un)helpfully aligned to that inadequate figure.

    In that scenario, you’d need help with budgeting – especially if you’ve never lived away from home before, if you’ve not participated in higher education before, or if you’ve never lived in the UK before.

    You’d want to know, for example, how much a TV license costs. The good news is that your chosen university has a guide to student living costs, and it lists the license as costing £159 per year.

    The problem? £159 was the 2021 rate – a TV licence now costs £174.50. Still, one little mistake like that isn’t going to break the bank, surely?

    Delay repay

    Over the past few years I’ve whiled away some of my train delays surfing around university websites looking at what the sector says about student cost of living.

    I’ve found marketing boasts dressed up as money advice, sample student budgets that feature decades old estimates, and reassuringly precise figures that turn out to be thumbs in the air from the ambassadors in the office.

    Often, I find webpages that say things like this:

    The problem is that the “fact” turns out to be from 2023, the source on the “lowest rents” claim turns out to be “not yet reliable”, and the “one of the cheapest pints in the country” claim has its source this story in the Independent. From 2019.

    That’s also a webpage that says you can get a bus to the seaside and back for £4.30 (it’s currently £12), a ferry to Bruges for £50 (the route was withdrawn in 2020), and a train to London for “for just over a tenner” – when even with a railcard, the lowest fare you’ll find is £22.66.

    Campus gym prices are listed as less than £20 a month (it’s actually from £22.95 for students), rent for a one-bed city flat is listed as £572 (the source actually says £623.57), and you’re even told that you can head to a “legendary” local nightclub to “down a double” for £1.90.

    Sadly, even Spiders Nightclub is having to cover “the increasing cost of basic overheads” and “the ongoing inflationary cost of purchasing stock”. The current price is £2.50.

    Those were the days

    Sometimes, I find tables like this – where the costs listed appear to be exactly the same as when the webpage was updated in 2022.

    HERTS 1

    Actually, that’s not quite true. Someone has bothered to update the lower rent estimate up to £500 a month since then – leaving all of the other figures unchanged.

    Archive.org allows me to see all sorts of moments when someone, somewhere, has performed an update. Of sorts.

    Here’s one where food and rent have gone up, but everything else is as it was in 2022. The main difference is that the “Yearly costs for students” lines in the table have been deleted – presumably because they would stretch credibility.

    Not every university has a run at listing costs. Many (over 30 at the time of typing) refer their readers to the Which? Student Budget Calculator.

    The Which? Student budget calculator was deleted in 2022 – and even when it was live, its underpinning figures were last updated in 2019.

    Sometimes the google search takes you to undated slide decks and PDFs. This metadata suggests that this one is from 2023 – although the figures in it look suspiciously similar to the numbers in the UG prospectus in 2015.

    To be fair, that’s a university that has at least got an updated chart showing sample costs in its international arrival guide – with a reassuring note that average costs are correct as of March. You’d perhaps be less reassured to find that those average costs – other than the cost of (university) accommodation – have remained exactly as they were since last year.

    Sometimes, a picture is painted of painstaking research carried out by dedicated money advisors. Here’s a table that says the minimum costs have been estimated by the university’s support teams:

    How lucky students in that city are, given that the only things that have increased over the past year are accommodation and rent:

    Actually, tell a lie. Many of the costs seem to be identical to those in 2020:

    Save us from your information

    Lost of the sample budgets and costs are unsourced – but not all of them. A large number quote figures from Save the Student’s student money survey – which last year used responses from 1,010 university students in the UK to calculate the results.

    Even if that was a dataset that could be relied upon at provider or city level, that was a survey that found 67 per cent of students skipping meals to save money, 1 in 10 using food banks and 60 per cent with money related mental health problems. Not a great basis on which to budget, that.

    Others quote their costs from the NatWest Student Living Index – which for reasons I’ve explained in 2024, 2023 and 2022, isn’t an approach that I think comes close to being morally sound.

    Plenty of universities don’t list costs at all, but imply to international students that the “proof of funds” figure has been calculated by Home Office officials as enough to live on:

    It has, of course, just been copied across from DfE’s maximum maintenance loan – a figure widely believed to be wholly inadequate as an estimate of living costs for students.

    Sometimes you find things like this, a set of costs “based on feedback from our current international undergraduate and master’s students”. Someone has gone in and updated the costs for university halls – but hasn’t updated anything else, and nor have they updated the estimate for total monthly living expenses:

    Sometimes you find things like this – costs that haven’t changed in two years contained in an official looking document called “Student Regulations and Policies: Standard Additional Costs”:

    And sometimes you find miracles. Here’s a university where most of the costs haven’t increased in 18 months, and the cost of clothing has fallen dramatically – despite ONS calculating that clothing inflation is currently 5.9 per cent.

    Then there’s charts like this that are “subject to change” – although no change since last summer:

    Or unsourced tables like this, where somehow student costs have started to fall. I want to move there!

    2024. Here’s 2025:

    The long arm

    The good news for prospective students – and the bad news for universities – is that this is all now going to have to change.

    Looking at all of this through the lens of the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Act, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that universities have been sailing remarkably close to the wind – and that the wind direction has now changed dramatically.

    Under DMCC, the systematic provision of outdated cost-of-living information would likely constitute a serious breach of consumer protection law. The Act makes it automatically unfair to omit material information from invitations to purchase – and there’s little doubt that accurate living costs are material information for prospective students making decisions about whether and where to study.

    Crucially, there’s no longer any need to prove that students were actually misled by the information, or that it influenced their decision-making. The omission itself is the problem.

    The legal framework has fundamentally shifted in universities’ disfavour. The scope of what counts as material information has expanded beyond those categories defined by EU obligations, while misleading actions are no longer restricted to predefined “features” of a product or service.

    Instead, any information relevant to a student’s decision can now trigger a breach – meaning universities can no longer rely on narrow, checklist-based approaches to compliance. Outdated transport costs, inflated claims about local entertainment prices, or misleading accommodation estimates all fall squarely within this expanded scope, even though they might previously have been considered peripheral to the core “product” of education.

    The Act has also lowered the threshold for proving breaches of professional diligence. Previously, universities might have argued that minor cost discrepancies didn’t cause “material distortion” of student decision-making. Now, practices need only be “likely to cause” a different decision – shifting the focus from proving impact to ensuring accurate practice from the outset.

    The Act explicitly recognises that certain groups of consumers are particularly vulnerable, and that practices which might not affect others can cause disproportionate harm to those groups.

    International students – who rely heavily on university cost estimates for visa applications and have limited ability to verify information independently – are a textbook example of vulnerable consumers. So too are first-generation university students, those from lower-income families, and young people making major financial commitments for the first time. The Act requires universities to proactively identify and mitigate risks to these vulnerable groups as part of their duty of care.

    The Competition and Markets Authority now has significant new enforcement powers, including the ability to impose civil penalties of up to 10 per cent of an organisation’s turnover and to hold corporate officers personally liable where they have consented to or negligently allowed breaches to occur.

    Given the sector-wide nature of these problems, and the ease with which accurate cost information could be obtained and maintained, it would be difficult for universities to argue that continued reliance on years-old estimates meets the standard of professional diligence now required by law.

    The sector has had years to get this right voluntarily. With enhanced legal obligations, fundamentally expanded definitions of what constitutes actionable information, lowered thresholds for proving breaches, and much sharper enforcement teeth now imminent, universities that continue to present outdated or inaccurate living costs as current information may find that their casual approach to accuracy has become a rather expensive mistake. Their mistake.

    Source link

  • Temple University to lay off 50 employees

    Temple University to lay off 50 employees

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Temple University in Philadelphia plans to lay off about 50 staff members as it looks to cut a budget deficit previously forecasted at $60 million down to $27 million, according to a community message Friday from university President John Fry. 
    • The layoffs — amounting to nearly 1% of Temple’s workforce — are part of a larger reduction of 190 positions across the university, the majority of which were eliminated via attrition, retirement or cutting vacant roles. None of the layoffs impact faculty members, a spokesperson said Monday.
    • Temple is also “closely monitoring” the potential impacts of changes to the federal student loan and Pell Grant programs set to start in the 2026-27 academic year following the implementation of Republicans’ massive new spending bill, Fry said.

    Dive Insight:

    Temple leaders signaled in June that job cuts were likely as officials tried to reduce the university’s structural budget. At the time, Fry pointed to a long-term dip in enrollment, specifically a decline of 10,000 students since 2017, with much of the loss coming during the pandemic. As of fall 2023, Temple had just over 30,200 students.

    However, the public university just logged its highest-ever number of first-year student deposits — 6,313 — indicating a second year of growth in Temple’s first-year class on top of a projected overall enrollment increase of roughly 200 students, according to Fry’s announcement. That would mark the first time the university’s student body has grown since 2017.  

    But for Temple, the historic enrollment decline has meant a drop of $200 million in tuition revenue, putting pressure on the university to reduce its expenses — the large majority of which are tied to employee compensation and benefits. And so to cut the university’s deficit, leaders have looked to its workforce.

    Of the coming layoffs, Fry said “considerable efforts were made to ensure that the reduction to our current workforce was as minimal as possible.”

    “It is my promise that care will be taken to ensure that any employee’s separation from the university will be handled as equitably and compassionately as possible,” he added.

    In his message, Fry described “significant financial challenges” facing Temple, stemming from both its structural deficit as well as “uncertainty at the federal level.”

    Fry highlighted the changes set for the federal student aid program without elaborating on their potential impact on Temple. Those changes include new limits on Pell Grant eligibility, caps on student and parent borrowing, and an elimination of Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate students to take out loans up to their cost of attendance. 

    He also announced the roster of a 13-member university advisory group made up of faculty, students and staff to, as he put it, “help us navigate this complex and evolving environment.”

    Wide swaths of the higher education world are making workforce and spending cuts as the Trump administration takes a hatchet to the federal research funding system. Colleges are also bracing for further financial impacts from other federal policy changes in Republicans’ spending and tax bill, including an increased endowment tax and Medicaid cuts that will land hard on many university hospital systems.

    Source link

  • 20 states sue over immigration restrictions for Head Start, other programs

    20 states sue over immigration restrictions for Head Start, other programs

    Dive Brief:

    • Twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration Monday afternoon, challenging the administration’s decision earlier this month to restrict publicly funded programs — including those related to education — based on immigration status.
    • The lawsuit, led by New York, argues that the restrictions to previously inclusive programs like Head Start will hurt low-income families and lead to the “collapse of some of the nation’s most vital public programs.”
    • Seeking to block the changes in the short and long term, the states allege the U.S. Department of Education and three other federal agencies did not follow the required rulemaking process in issuing new immigration verification requirements.

    Dive Insight:

    In July 10 announcements, the Education Department said it will require immigration status verification for adult education services like dual enrollment and career training programs, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services mandated such verification for participation in Head Start programs.

    HHS said at the time that Head Start would be “reserved for American citizens from now on.″ An HHS spokesperson clarified to K-12 Dive on July 10 that children of green card holders will remain eligible for the program and said Head Start agencies will determine eligibility based on the immigration status of the child. Head Start has heretofore been open to any child eligible based on their age or their family’s low-income status, regardless of immigration status.

    However, the lawsuit filed Monday alleges that the policy changes will impact not only undocumented immigrants, but also people holding legal status, such as temporary workers, exchange visitors and those with student visas. The suit was filed in federal district court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

    The state attorneys general filing the lawsuit also warned that even U.S. citizens and lawful residents could be denied services, since many low-income individuals lack government-issued identification.

    “For decades, states like New York have built health, education, and family support systems that serve anyone in need,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a press statement on Monday. “Now, the federal government is pulling that foundation out from under us overnight, jeopardizing cancer screenings, early childhood education, primary care, and so much more.”

    James and the coalition filing the lawsuit said the policies are already “causing significant disruption” as state programs are expected to comply immediately without the infrastructure they say is necessary to do so.

    “Some longstanding providers, including those serving children, pregnant patients, refugees, and other vulnerable populations, will not be able to comply under any timeline and are already facing the risk of closure,” James’ statement said.

    These changes have alarmed civil rights advocates — who say the changes will harm the very low-income children Head Start is intended to serve. The National Head Start Association, which represents Head Start workers, meanwhile, has said the Head Start Act has never required them to check the citizenship or immigration status of children prior to their enrollment in the 60 years of the program’s existence.

    Upon release of the policy change on July 10, the American Civil Liberties Union immediately threatened to expand an existing lawsuit over the Trump administration’s actions vis-a-vis Head Start to include “this new attack on Head Start.” In April, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s moves to gut Head Start by shuttering half of the regional Office of Head Start offices and laying off much of the federal offices’ staff.

    Plaintiffs in that lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington state, include parent groups and the Head Start associations of Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    “Implementation of this directive will create fear and confusion for immigrant families about enrolling their children in Head Start regardless of what their legal status may be. This will harm children and destabilize Head Start programs,” said Lori Rifkin, litigation director at the Impact Fund, in a statement on July 10. The Impact Fund, a public interest law group, is representing plaintiffs in the Head Start lawsuit alongside ACLU.

    “If the administration moves forward with publication of this notice, we will take legal action,” RIfkin said at the time.

    The Department of Education has not specified an implementation date for the new restrictions, but has said it “generally” wouldn’t be enforcing them before Aug. 9. HHS said its changes were effective immediately in its July 10 announcement.

    Source link