Blog

  • Centralized IT governance helps improve learning outcomes

    Centralized IT governance helps improve learning outcomes

    Key points:

    As school districts continue to seek new ways to enhance learning outcomes, Madison County School District represents an outstanding case study of the next-level success that may be attained by centralizing IT governance and formalizing procedures.

    When Isaac Goyette joined MCSD approximately seven years ago, he saw an opportunity to use his role as Coordinator of Information Technology to make a positive impact on the most important mission of any district: student learning. The district, located in northern Florida and serving approximately 2,700 students, had made strides towards achieving a 1:1 device ratio, but there was a need for centralized IT governance to fully realize its vision.

    Goyette’s arrival is noted for marking the beginning of a new era, bringing innovation, uniformity, and central control to the district’s technology infrastructure.  His team aimed to ensure that every school was using the same systems and processes, thereby advancing the students’ access to technology.

    Every step of the way, Goyette counted on the support of district leadership, who recognized the need for optimizing IT governance. Major projects were funded through E-rate, grants, and COVID relief funds, enabling the district to replace outdated systems without burdening the general fund.  MCSD’s principals and staff have embraced the IT team’s efforts to standardize technology across the district, leading to a successful implementation. Auto rostering and single sign-on have made processes easier for everyone, and the benefits of a cohesive, cross-department approach are now widely recognized.

    To successfully support and enable centralization efforts, Goyette recognized the need to build a strong underlying infrastructure. One of the key milestones in MCSD’s technology journey was the complete overhaul of its network infrastructure. The existing network was unreliable and fragmented in design. Goyette and his team rebuilt the network from the ground up, addressing connectivity issues, upgrading equipment, and logically redoing district systems and processes, such as the district’s IP network addressing scheme. This transformation has had a positive impact on student learning and engagement. With reliable connectivity, students no longer face disruptions.

    The implementation of an enterprise-grade managed WAN solution has further transformed the educational experience for MCSD’s students and educators, serving as the backbone for all other technologies. Goyette’s innovative co-management approach, coupled with his deep understanding of network topology, has enabled him to optimize the resources of an experienced K-12 service provider while retaining control and visibility over the district’s network.

    New School Safety Resources

    Another significant milestone MCSD has achieved is the successful deployment of the district’s voice system. This reliable phone system is crucial for ensuring that MCSD’s schools, staff, and parents remain seamlessly connected, enhancing communication and safety across the district.

    Goyette’s innovative leadership extends to his strategies for integrating technology in the district. He and his team work closely with the district’s curriculum team to ensure that technology initiatives align with educational goals. By acting as facilitators for educational technology, his team prevents app sprawl and ensures that new tools are truly needed and effective.

    “Having ongoing conversations with our principals and curriculum team regarding digital learning tools has been critical for us, ensuring we all remain aligned and on the same page,” said Goyette. “There are so many new apps available, and many of them are great. However, we must ask ourselves: If we already have two apps that accomplish the same goal or objective, why do we need a third? Asking those questions and fostering that interdepartmental dialogue ensures everyone has a voice, while preventing the headaches and consequences of everyone doing their own thing.”   

    MCSD’s IT transformation has had a profound impact on student learning and engagement. With reliable connectivity and ample bandwidth, students no longer face disruptions, and processes like single sign-on and auto account provisioning have streamlined their access to educational resources. The district’s centralization efforts have not only improved the educational experience for students and educators but have also positioned Madison County School District as a model of success and innovation.

                                                                                                                ###

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Fitch: Private nonprofits see lowest operating margins in a decade

    Fitch: Private nonprofits see lowest operating margins in a decade

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • Operating margins at private nonprofit colleges have plummeted to their lowest levels in over a decade due to growing financial challenges, especially for tuition-dependent institutions, according to a new Fitch Ratings analysis. 
    • The median adjusted operating margin, which includes endowment funds for operations, fell to -2.0% in fiscal 2024 for the 56 private nonprofit colleges in Fitch’s portfolio. Despite the median margin sitting squarely in negative territory, the highest-rated colleges still enjoyed positive operating margins. 
    • Fitch analysts expect the credit environment for the U.S. higher education sector to deteriorate in 2025 year over year, with federal policy shifts likely to increase pressure on operations and revenue. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The Fitch analysis reflects the challenging financial environment that private nonprofit colleges are navigating. The litany of problems includes continued inflation, threats to federal funding and an expected decline in the number of high school graduates starting next year. 

    Amid these challenges, adjusted operating margins shrank for all types of colleges. 

    That includes the three private nonprofits with AAA ratings from Fitch — the highest one given by the credit rating agency, signaling an institution at very low risk of default. Their median adjusted operating margins declined to 8.4% in fiscal 2024. While “still strong,” that’s down from double-digit highs seen during the coronavirus pandemic, according to Fitch. 

    Colleges with AA ratings showed a median adjusted operating margin of 2.3%, while those with ratings below AA had negative margins, a continuation of a yearslong trend. 

    Lower-rated colleges tend to rely on tuition as their primary revenue source, while higher-rated colleges are more likely to get large contributions from their healthcare operations or investment returns, according to analysts. 

    “This growing credit differentiation within the sector highlights mounting financial challenges for less selective, tuition-dependent institutions,” they wrote. 

    Despite numerous challenges, private nonprofits brought in more tuition and fee revenue in fiscal 2024 than the year before. On average, AA-rated colleges and below saw this revenue stream increase between 1.2 and 3.8%, while institutions with AAA ratings saw a 0.1% decline. 

    However, this year has brought even more financial turbulence. 

    “Operating margins and financial flexibility will remain narrow in 2025, as further increases in tuition, if any, will likely be offset by losses in other revenue streams and are unlikely to be sufficient to preserve margins,” analysts wrote. 

    Financial challenges are not new to much of the higher education sector. But many well-known private research universities are also starting to feel the pressure due to massive drops in federal research funding under the second Trump administration. 

    The National Science Foundation, for instance, approved only $989 million in new grant funding from Jan. 1 through May 21, according to a recent analysis from The New York Times. That’s a massive 51% decline from the 10-year average over the same time period. 

    On top of the slowdown in new grant approvals, NSF has so far terminated some 1,600 active grants, totaling $1.5 billion in research funding. 

    Major research universities across the nation — from the University of Southern California to Brown University, in Rhode Island — have signaled they will have to turn to layoffs to grapple with these declines. 

    Source link

  • Trump 2.0 brings layoffs and budget cuts at 8 major colleges

    Trump 2.0 brings layoffs and budget cuts at 8 major colleges

    The economic climate for higher education wasn’t exactly breezy when the year began.  

    Years of regional demographic shifts, heightened inflation and wavering demand for college have taken their toll on institutional operations across wide swaths of the sector. 

    President Donald Trump’s return to office introduced myriad new fiscal ordeals for colleges, along with legal and political tribulations. 

    Already the administration has terminated or slowed countless research grants both universally and in targeted attacks on disfavored institutions. With the passage and signing of Republicans’ massive budget bill, taxes will rise for some of the larger college endowments while the student aid system will undergo a revamp that includes an end to Grad PLUS loans and introduction of various borrowing limits, all of which could weigh on revenues.

    Moreover, Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration and international students could hamper college demand and revenue, as Moody’s analysts recently noted.

    As colleges try to adapt, reimagine their operations or just survive, many are shrinking their budgets, including by laying off faculty and staff. In effect, Trump has introduced a new era of austerity for higher ed, while the pain of inflation and enrollment pressure never went away. 

    Here’s a look at how some are girding for an uncertain fiscal future in Trump’s second term:  

    Source link

  • The Enshitification of Higher Education in the United States

    The Enshitification of Higher Education in the United States

    Cory Doctorow’s theory of enshitification—originally coined to describe how digital platforms decay over time—perfectly captures the grim evolution of U.S. higher education. Institutions that once positioned themselves as public goods now exist primarily to sustain themselves, extracting revenue, prestige, and labor at the expense of students, faculty, and the broader public.

    In the post–World War II era, higher education in the United States was broadly seen as a driver of social mobility, economic growth, and democratic citizenship. The GI Bill and substantial state funding opened college doors to millions. Tuition at public institutions was minimal or nonexistent. Academic freedom, faculty governance, and research for the common good were foundational ideals.

    By the 1980s, neoliberal policies began to reshape the higher education landscape. Public disinvestment led institutions to rely more heavily on tuition, philanthropy, corporate partnerships, and student debt. Universities became more bureaucratic and brand-conscious. Students were reframed as consumers, and education as a commodity. Faculty positions gave way to underpaid adjunct labor, and Online Program Managers like 2U, Academic Partnerships (aka Risepoint) and Kaplan emerged to monetize digital learning. Marketing budgets ballooned. Classrooms and research labs became secondary to enrollment targets and revenue generation.

    A 2019 Higher Education Inquirer report revealed how elite universities joined the downward spiral. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, and USC outsourced online graduate programs to 2U, employing aggressive recruitment tactics that resembled those of discredited for-profit colleges. Applicants were encouraged to take on excessive debt for degrees with uncertain returns. Whistleblowers likened it to fraud-by-phone—evidence that even the most prestigious universities were embracing an extractive model.

    Doctoral education offers a deeper glimpse into how enshitification has hollowed out academia. Sold as a noble pursuit of truth and a path to secure academic employment, the Ph.D. has become, for many, a journey into economic instability, psychological distress, and underemployment. Only a small percentage of doctoral students land tenure-track jobs. Graduate schools continue to admit far more students than they can responsibly support, while providing little preparation for careers outside academia. Mentorship is often lacking, and financial support is frequently inadequate. Many graduate students rely on food pantries, defer medical care, or take on gig work just to survive. Meanwhile, universities benefit from their labor in teaching and research.

    International graduate students face even steeper challenges. Promised opportunity, they instead encounter a saturated job market, low wages, and immigration precarity. Their labor props up U.S. research and rankings, but their long-term prospects are often bleak.

    The rise of career-transition consultants—like Cheeky Scientist and The Professor Is In—has become a booming cottage industry, a byproduct of the failed academic job pipeline. For most Ph.D.s, what was once considered “alternative academia” is now the only path forward.

    Financial hardship compounds the crisis. Graduate stipends in many programs are far below local living wages, especially in high-cost cities like San Francisco, Boston, or New York. Few programs provide retirement benefits or financial literacy resources. The financial toll of earning a doctorate is often hidden until students are years deep into their programs—and years behind in wealth accumulation.

    Meanwhile, university medical centers—often affiliated with elite institutions—offer a parallel example of institutional enshitification. These hospitals have long histories of exploitation, particularly of poor and minority patients. Even today, these facilities prioritize affluent patients and donors, while relying on precariously employed staff and treating marginalized communities as research subjects. The disparities are systematic and ongoing. The rhetoric of innovation and healing masks a legacy of racial injustice and extractive labor practices.

    Legacy admissions further entrench inequality. While race-conscious admissions have been rolled back, legacy preferences remain largely untouched. They serve to maintain elite networks, ensuring that wealth and access remain intergenerational. These policies not only contradict the rhetoric of meritocracy but also deepen structural inequities in the name of tradition.

    Today, higher education serves itself. Institutions protect billion-dollar endowments, award executive salaries in the millions, expand sports programs and real estate portfolios, and depend on underpaid faculty and indebted students. Campuses are rife with inequality, surveillance of student protest, and performative gestures of inclusion, even as DEI initiatives are gutted by state governments or internal austerity.

    The consequences are clear. Enrollment is declining. Campuses are closing. Faculty are being laid off. Public trust is eroding. And even elite institutions are feeling the strain. Doctorow’s theory suggests that once a system has fully enshittified, collapse becomes inevitable. The College Meltdown is not hypothetical—it’s here.

    And yet, collapse can be a beginning. Higher education must be radically reimagined: public investment, tuition-free education, student debt relief, labor protections, honest admissions policies, and genuine democratic governance. The alternative is more of the same: a system that costs more, delivers less, and cannibalizes its future to feed its prestige economy.

    Selected Sources

    Caterine, Christopher L. Leaving Academia: A Practical Guide. Princeton University Press, 2020.

    Cassuto, Leonard. The Graduate School Mess: What Caused It and How We Can Fix It. Harvard University Press, 2015.

    Kelsky, Karen. The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. into a Job. Three Rivers Press, 2015.

    Roberts, Emily. Personal Finance for Ph.D.s. https://www.pfforphds.com

    Shaulis, Dahn. “2U Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities.” Higher Education Inquirer, Oct. 4, 2019. https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2019/10/college-meltdown-expands-to-elite.html

    Shaulis, Dahn. “The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers.” Higher Education Inquirer, Mar. 13, 2025. https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/03/the-dark-legacy-of-elite-university.html

    Doctorow, Cory. “TikTok’s Enshittification.” Pluralistic.net, Jan. 21, 2023. https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/

    American Association of University Professors. Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2023. https://www.aaup.org

    National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Current Term Enrollment Estimates, 2024. https://nscresearchcenter.org

    Newfield, Christopher. The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016.

    Goldrick-Rab, Sara. Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream. University of Chicago Press, 2016.

    Roth, Gary. The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press, 2019.

    Teen Vogue. “The Movement Against Legacy Admissions.” Jan. 2, 2025. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/movement-against-legacy-admissions

    The Guardian. “‘Affirmative Action for the Privileged’: Why Democrats Are Fighting Legacy Admissions.” Aug. 11, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/11/college-legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-democrats

    Source link

  • Americans Recognize Nuances of Higher Ed’s Value

    Americans Recognize Nuances of Higher Ed’s Value

    While the Trump administration has painted a bleak picture of the higher education sector as a costly enterprise that burdens taxpayers and pushes leftist ideologies, new survey data shows that most Americans—regardless of their political leanings—still value it.

    “Increasingly, higher ed is being cast as elite, expensive and not connected with everyday Americans,” said Sophie Nguyen, senior policy manager with the higher education team at New America, the left-leaning think tank that published its annual Varying Degrees survey on Wednesday. “There’s a significant disconnect in the narrative about what higher ed is” and how it’s perceived.

    Capturing the American public’s views on the purpose of higher education drove many of the questions Nguyen and her colleagues asked 1,631 respondents in March for the ninth iteration of the survey.

    After reaching a low point last year, the data shows that satisfaction with higher education is on the rise: 40 percent of respondents—including 42 percent of both Republicans and Democrats—reported that higher education is “fine as it is,” compared to 36 percent who said the same last year.

    “We see a lot of alignment between Democrats and Republicans, something we haven’t heard a lot about,” Nguyen said, describing such data points as “the common ground” colleges can tap into when defending their worth to both consumers and lawmakers.

    New America’s findings are in line with a poll Gallup also released Wednesday in partnership with the Lumina Foundation, which shows that 42 percent of Americans surveyed said they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, compared to a low of 36 percent in 2024 and 2023—though it’s still far from the nearly 60 percent confidence peak in 2015. The share of people who reported “very little” or no confidence is also on the decline, falling from 32 percent last year to 23 percent this year. Although Democrats reported much higher confidence in higher education institutions, Republican confidence in both four- and two-year colleges rose by 11 and 12 percentage points, respectively, compared to last year.

    Data visualization of change in confidence in four- and two-year colleges, by political party.

    Respondents cited the economic and social benefits of higher education, its standing at the forefront of innovation, the quality of education and training—both for jobs and exposure to different viewpoints—as drivers of the uptick in their confidence.

    The Trump administration’s war on higher ed may have played a role, said Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning.

    “It is possible that we are seeing people in support of the sector because they see so many attacks,” she said. Whatever the reason, she said the new data is positive, and if institutions want to restore confidence to 2015 levels they should consider “how they can build on this moment and show up for students and ensure they’re getting value.”

    Like Gallup’s report, New America’s survey revealed partisan divides as well as agreements. Sixty percent of Republicans said colleges are having a negative impact on the country, while 75 percent of Democrats said they’re having a positive impact. But respondents from both parties were much more aligned on questions about specific aspects of higher ed’s value and purpose.

    While Republican lawmakers pressure universities into proving their return on investment, the vast majority of Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats, believe higher education should function as more than a transaction. They say it should not only equip students with the skills and knowledge to succeed in their chosen fields (97 percent of Democrats; 98 percent of Republicans), but also help students become informed citizens (97 percent of Democrats; 89 percent of Republicans) and critical thinkers (97 percent of Democrats; 92 percent of Republicans).

    “The rhetoric coming from Washington tends to be a caricature of what are some real issues facing college campuses and the sector in general,” Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute who focuses on the economics of higher education, said at a media briefing about New America’s survey. While “there’s room for improvement … it’s unfortunate that the rhetoric is empowering misinformation about what institutions are doing.”

    Bar chart of responses to the question "How important do you think it is for colleges and universities to do the following?" Responses are detailed earlier in thes tory.

    Even as Trump and his political allies move to dramatically cut federal funding for university research—which advocates say will devastate university budgets, local economies and progress toward lifesaving research—88 percent of Republicans and 97 percent of Democrats believe it’s important to some degree that colleges and universities conduct research to expand understanding in various subjects.

    Despite political rhetoric that suggests otherwise, American higher education has delivered an array of personal and societal benefits for decades, Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said during a news briefing on the report.

    “Higher ed continues to be the single most powerful socioeconomic catalyst in America, which is associated not only with higher earnings, but longer productive lives, better physical and mental health, resilience, adaptability, and personal development and fulfillment,” she said. “At the societal level, education drives long-term economic growth for local communities and the nation.”

    More broadly, it “strengthens our democracy,” because it “tends to mitigate or tame authoritarian tendencies” and “reduces individuals’ sensitivities to potential triggers by providing them with psychological protection in the form of self-esteem, personal security and autonomy,” she said. “It fosters a moral imagination—imagining what it’s like to be in the shoes of another, different from oneself—and interpersonal trust.”

    Despite the Trump administration and its allies’ attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, the survey data shows that an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats agree that higher education should create an environment where students of all backgrounds feel supported, provide a platform for exploration of diverse ideas and foster cross-cultural understanding.

    Bar chart showing responses to the question "How important do you think it is for colleges and universities to do the following" including "create an environment where students of all backgrounds feel supported" and "provide a platform for exploration of diverse ideas."

    Although New America’s survey suggests that most Americans recognize the layered value of higher education, Republican lawmakers have increasingly focused on both controlling the subjects colleges can teach and research and making it harder for students and colleges to access federal funding.

    The sweeping policy bill Trump signed into law earlier this month requires colleges to show that their graduates earn more than an adult with only a high school diploma or risk losing access to federal loans. Trump has also proposed billions of dollars in cuts to education funding, including eliminating all federal support for college-access programs that have long helped low-income, first-generation and students with disabilities navigate higher education.

    While Republicans and Democrats are divided on who they think should be primarily responsible for paying for college—76 percent of Democrats believe the government should; 67 percent of Republicans believe students should—respondents from both parties cited cost as the single biggest barrier to enrolling in or finishing college.

    At the same time, 75 percent of respondents over all (91 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of Republicans) said the federal government should spend more on making college more affordable.

    Hironao Okahana, vice president and executive director of the Education Futures Lab at the American Council on Education, said this data offers a ray of optimism for the higher education sector navigating an onslaught of partisan attacks from Republican policymakers.

    “The public is seeing higher education as a sector beyond some of the sound bites we’re hearing,” he said. “They’re seeing that it has more nuance and texture, and that there’s not just one way higher education can contribute to society.”

    Source link

  • China “Will Blow Us Away” if Trump Destroys U.S. Universities

    China “Will Blow Us Away” if Trump Destroys U.S. Universities

    The first Nobel Prize–winning scientist to join a White House cabinet, Steven Chu made history when he became Barack Obama’s energy secretary in 2009. But his move to Washington cost him an incredible $300 million.

    “I joined the Nvidia board in 2004, before the company took off, but I had to sell my shares in 2009 when I joined government,” Chu said about his early involvement in the microchip firm that recently became the world’s most valuable company with a $4 trillion capitalization.

    “At the time Nvidia was a small graphics company, but there were rules about conflict of interest so I had to sell,” he told Times Higher Education. With Nvidia’s stock rising 22,000 percent in the past decade alone, Chu’s stake would be worth $300 million, he said.

    Nvidia’s astonishing rise has amazed the stock market in recent years, but Chu, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1997, felt the company had huge promise when he joined.

    “When Jenson Huang [Nvidia’s founder] told me about developing this high-level chip, I said, ‘If you do that, this computer will be at the heart of every supercomputer in the world.’ And he did it,” recalled Chu.

    Sanguine about his lost wealth, Chu’s main takeaway from Nvidia is not his own misfortune. Instead, he worries that this American success story—co-created by a Taiwanese-born Stanford graduate, employing foreign-born engineering talent—might not have been able to happen today given the double whammy faced by U.S. academia: massive cuts to federal science budgets and an immigration crackdown deterring many students, particularly from China, from applying to U.S. institutions.

    “Trump wants to cut science budgets by half or more and reduce the number of foreign postdocs—particularly from China,” explained Chu, speaking earlier this month at the annual Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in southern Germany.

    “That’s a problem because if you go to any major research university, you’ll find about a third of researchers are East Asian.”

    Chu’s own parents—born and educated in China before moving to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1940s—are a good example of how this brain gain has worked in America’s favor. “When the Communists took over, they couldn’t go back, but this is how America got many of its best scientists and engineers—as refugees from Germany, Italy and China.”

    “That’s true for business, too—many of America’s captains of industry, from Jenson Huang to [ex-Intel boss] Andy Grove and Alexander Graham Bell, were immigrants,” he said.

    Reflecting on how America “didn’t become a scientific superpower until World War II,” Chu said he believes the 1930s are instructive in other ways. “In this era America took what was innovative and applied it to industry. That allowed places like Ford to take what Volkswagen and Peugeot was doing but do it cheaper, but good enough to work,” he said.

    “That is what China is doing to America now—for instance, taking the electric car and making it cheaper and now better. What we did to Europe, China and now Korea are doing to us,” he said.

    Traditionally, the U.S. has been able to stay ahead thanks to its education system, in particular its generously funded world-leading research universities. With that system under attack, however, that advantage is weaker, he said. “Something magical happens at Ph.D. level in U.S. universities—we teach creativity. China is trying to learn this … and then apply it to their industrial sector. When they do, they will blow us away.”

    Without America’s outstanding universities and with its foreign talent pool diminished, China’s path to global dominance will be immeasurably easier, predicted Chu. “Trump is perfectly willing to destroy institutions that any country in the world would give its eyeteeth for,” he said.

    Unusually for a Nobel laureate, Chu’s prize did not mark the peak of his scientific achievements. He led a committee that recommended the creation of ARPA-E, a science agency that has funded more than $4 billion in battery, nanotech and other types of energy research since 2009, generating spin-out companies worth more than $22 billion.

    Meanwhile, his time as energy secretary saw further investment, including the funding of an experimental $1 billion carbon-capture plant in Louisiana—a stark contrast to the “drill, baby, drill” priorities of the current administration. Obama also credited his expertise as a major reason why the cleanup after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010—the biggest oil spill in history—was successful.

    And there are his brushes with some of the 21st century’s biggest tech companies, even if Nvidia wasn’t the only big fish he missed out on. “I knew [financier] Richard Blum, who said he could get me on the board of Apple— I didn’t say yes because I had a lot of nonprofit activities, but that was 2006, the year before the iPhone was launched,” he reflected.

    Not that he thinks the money would have made much difference. “If I was worth a couple of hundred million dollars, would I have stopped doing science and just bought sports cars and houses? I hope not.”

    Source link

  • Wins and Losses of the Reconciliation Bill

    Wins and Losses of the Reconciliation Bill

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will bring the biggest change to higher ed in a generation.

    Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    It’s been six months since the second Trump administration took office, and in that time it has radically changed the policy around federal student loans, grants and college accountability. With the One Big Beautiful Bill Act now signed into law, Inside Higher Ed’s editor in chief, Sara Custer, spoke with news editor Katherine Knott about what’s in the bill and the outcome of the sector’s efforts to influence the massive piece of legislation. 

    In a recent episode of The Key, Inside Higher Ed’s news and analysis podcast, they also checked in on Harvard and Columbia’s negotiations with the administration and shared what they’ll be looking out for in the next six months. 

    Source link

  • F-1, J-1 Student Visa Issuances Dropped in May

    F-1, J-1 Student Visa Issuances Dropped in May

    The U.S. Department of State issued 12,689 fewer F-1 visas in May 2025 compared to the May before, which could forecast a decline in international students able to attend U.S. universities this fall.

    Recently published data from the State Department shows a 22 percent drop in F-1 visas issued across the world and a 13 percent decline in J-1 visas.

    While visa issuances can help predict international student enrollment trends, they don’t tell the full story, said Rachel Banks, senior director for public policy and legislative strategy at NAFSA, the association of international educators. Still, the trend line isn’t positive.

    “We’re not really going to know until we get through September to know everyone who arrives, to know what the enrollment really looks like,” Banks said. “But it’s certainly not encouraging.”

    Over the past few months, President Donald Trump has cracked down on international students via arrests, travel bans and revocations of legal status. Those moves and other executive orders could affect the number of F-1 and J-1 visas issued.

    In May, the administration said it would revoke visas from Chinese nationals who have ties to the Chinese Communist Party. The number of Chinese nationals issued a F-1 visa in May declined by 15 percent (or about 2,578 students). The State Department also paused visa interviews in late May while the agency developed a policy to screen international students’ social media profiles. Interviews resumed in June once the policy was in place.

    The interview pause may have contributed to but cannot fully explain the decline in visa issuances, said Finn Reynolds, head of market research at Lawfully, a legal tech start-up focused on immigration.

    The State Department doesn’t publish the number of visa applications or interviews it engages in, which means the decline could be tied to a decreased demand or slower processing by the department, Reynolds added. A May 27 survey by Study Portal found student interest in studying in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest point since COVID-19, with fewer students interested in U.S. programs and instead considering other English-speaking nations such as the U.K. or Australia.

    Additionally, the State Department doesn’t share daily visa issuance numbers, meaning the drop could be tied solely to the pause in the final week of May, Banks said. The connection, over all, is unclear.

    The data also points to the effect of travel restrictions on students from certain nations. The Trump administration banned visitors from 12 countries and implement heightened restrictions for seven other countries in June. The May numbers show a nearly 150 percent decline in F-1 visa issuances (or 451 visas) and a 105 percent decline in J-1 issuances (157 visas) to citizens from the impacted nations, even before the ban took place.

    One factor not reflected in the data is the number of students returning to their institutions who already hold visas. Students don’t need to receive a new visa if they remain in the U.S.; they only need one when traveling in and out of the country. Given the disruption to Student Exchange and Visitor Information System statuses in April, many students chose to remain in the U.S. over their summer break, Banks said.

    Reynolds expects to see a further drop in visa issuances for June and July, because social media vetting procedures result in fewer appointment slots.

    Students in China, Ghana, India, Japan, Niger and Nigeria have had the most trouble getting appointments, according to NAFSA members.

    “We’re halfway through July, and there’s still students who are struggling to get an appointment; that’s troubling,” Banks said.

    Future policies could also bottleneck the visa pipeline for international students. A proposed rule at the Office of Management and Budget would end duration-of-stay policies and instead implement a fixed date for how long students can remain in country on their visa.

    “We’re very concerned that if that were to go through, that sort of adds to further disruptions and hurdles that students have to jump over, that then gives students more reason to say, ‘You know, this seems like a hassle, this seems like I’m not welcome, I’m going to find another opportunity to pursue,’” Banks said.

    Enrollment Declines Loom

    Colleges and universities are already anticipating declines in their international student populations. The Institute of International Education found that 40 percent of institutions projected declines in their undergraduate population of international students, and 49 percent anticipated a drop in graduate student populations.

    A NAFSA survey of about 150 members institutions this summer found 78 percent of institutions predict a decline in both undergrad and graduate international students.

    Each year, institutions enroll 1.1 million international students, about 6 percent of all college students in the U.S.

    Calculations by The Financial Times, published last week, found that a decline of even 10 percent in international student enrollment would cost U.S. colleges and universities $3 billion in revenue. A significant portion of this loss would be in tuition revenue; a 10 percent drop would result in a $900 million decrease in tuition dollars.

    Source link

  • Columbia “Incorporating” IHRA Antisemitism Definition

    Columbia “Incorporating” IHRA Antisemitism Definition

    Columbia University’s acting president says the institution is incorporating the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into the Office of Institutional Equity’s work. That office investigates discrimination complaints against students and employees.

    “Formally adding the consideration of the IHRA definition into our existing anti-discrimination policies strengthens our approach to combating antisemitism,” Claire Shipman said in a statement Tuesday announcing “additional commitments to combatting antisemitism.”

    The IHRA, which calls its definition a “working definition,” says antisemitism “might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

    It also says antisemitism might include “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” or “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

    Columbia’s leaders, like those at Harvard University, have been negotiating with the Trump administration to restore funding the federal government said it froze over alleged campus antisemitism. Harvard announced in January that it would start using the IHRA definition when evaluating complaints of antisemitic harassment or discrimination—before its public war with the Trump administration began.

    In a statement, Afaf Nasher, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ New York chapter, called Columbia’s move “an attack on free speech” and a “shameless weaponization of antisemitism in order to stifle the ability of students to speak out against the ongoing genocide of Palestinians by the Israeli government.”

    Shipman also announced that Columbia would not “recognize or meet with the group that calls itself ‘Columbia University Apartheid Divest’ (CUAD), its representatives, or any of its affiliated organizations. Organizations that promote violence or encourage disruptions of our academic mission are not welcome on our campuses and the University will not engage with them.”

    Source link

  • Student Preferences in On-Campus Housing

    Student Preferences in On-Campus Housing

    Recent survey data focused on student housing officers shows students want more privacy and mental health supports.

    YinYang/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    What do students look for in on-campus housing? According to university staff, students are most satisfied with their space when it’s well furnished and clean.

    A new report from StarRez, a student housing management platform, identified room conditions and a sense of community as top priorities for on-campus housing residents. The survey also found that a majority of institutions see social events and mental health support as key to the student experience in residence halls.

    In addition, the research reveals that today’s students prefer privacy in their living space but are still interested in creating connections and engaging with peers who share their residence hall. They are also open to opportunities to build living-learning communities.

    Methodology

    StarRez’s survey was fielded between Feb. 10 and April 14, 2025. It yielded 459 responses from 418 institutions across the globe, including 360 institutions based in the Americas.

    Setting the stage: An estimated 16 percent of all undergraduates live on campus, including 30 percent of those who attend four-year, public institutions and 43 percent of students at independent colleges, according to an analysis from the American Association of Community Colleges.

    Previous research shows that students who live in residential housing on campus are more likely than their peers who live off campus to persist and complete a degree. This trend may be due in part to the proximity to peer support, academic resources and security in basic needs that living on campus affords.

    In recent years, many colleges have seen a housing crunch impact their students, resulting in less-than-ideal accommodations and residence halls exceeding capacity. StarRez’s survey found that 64 percent of responding institutions had 90 percent or higher occupancy rates; 15 percent had occupancy rates of 99 percent or higher. Yet nearly 57 percent of students do not have access to on-campus housing, according to respondent data.

    But StarRez’s report points to a post-pandemic spike in students interested in living on campus—a trend that has leveled out this year—meaning the exceptionally high demand for on-campus housing may decline.

    Affordability also remains a growing concern in the campus housing market. Student housing prices are rising faster than those of single-family housing, growing 8.8 percent in 2023 compared to multifamily rentals, which rose 4.5 percent in cost over the same period.

    Survey says: When students say they’re satisfied with their housing, approximately one-third are referring to the room conditions and furnishings, their sense of community, or the residence hall’s amenities, according to institutional respondents.

    On the flip side, cost, facility issues and dissatisfaction with food or meal plans were the most commonly reported criticisms of on-campus living. Inside Higher Ed’s Student Voice survey from 2023 found that 48 percent of students believe their dining hall options need improvement and 37 percent said dining facilities need improvement.

    Across room types, apartment-style housing is the most requested option by students (34 percent), followed by suite-style housing (27 percent) and traditional dorms (21 percent), according to StarRez’s survey. The report also found that a greater share of students want their own space; at a majority of institutions (51 percent), students rank single rooms as their top choice on the housing application.

    Not every housing placement turns out to be successful. A majority of colleges said more than 10 percent of their residents requested a room change during the year, with 8 percent saying between 25 and 50 percent of residents asked for a new room.

    Among events offered to residents, 90 percent said social events are the most popular and widely attended, followed by recreational activities (56 percent) and wellness programs (39 percent).

    When asked which health and well-being activities students most often requested of their housing facility, nearly 60 percent of respondents said mental health support programs, and over half (56 percent) wanted social events and community-building activities. Less popular responses included counseling and peer support networks (46 percent), healthy dining options (38 percent), and financial and academic support services (36 percent).

    Living-learning communities continue to grow in popularity, with four out of five colleges offering this type of student housing. Academic-focused communities (23 percent) and honors programs (17 percent) were the most popular LLCs, while career (5 percent) and leadership-focused (6 percent) groups were the least popular.

    National data shows students with disabilities are enrolling in higher education at higher rates, and StarRez’s report points to an increase in emotional support animals making their way to campus as well. One-third of institutions said between 3 and 10 percent of residents have emotional support animals, with 3 percent of respondents saying more than 10 percent of students have them.

    Fewer institutions reported offering gender-inclusive housing in 2025 (69 percent) than in 2024 (73 percent), and there was little difference in the number who said they were considering implementing gender-inclusive housing space.

    Growth in international student enrollment is also pushing an increase in housing demand from international students, with 34 percent of respondents indicating a slight increase and 6 percent reporting a significant increase. A majority of respondents house fewer than 10 percent of their international students on campus. The report data does not reflect recent federal actions this spring that may impede international student enrollment in the fall.

    So what? Based on the report’s findings, authors recommend housing providers consider:

    • Students’ desire for privacy, mental health and belonging, which are core to their experiences on campus.
    • More students want apartment-style and single-room housing options, creating opportunities for institutions to adapt spaces to match this need.
    • Living and learning communities can provide high-impact experiences for residents, leading to greater satisfaction and retention.

    How does your institution promote belonging and well-being in the residence halls? Tell us more.

    Source link