Blog

  • University of Southern California signals layoffs amid $200M budget gap

    University of Southern California signals layoffs amid $200M budget gap

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The University of Southern California plans to use layoffs and other budget austerity measures to tackle a $200 million operating deficit and gird against a massive blow to federal funding, Interim President Beong-Soo Kim said in a community message on Monday. 
    • On top of USC’s growing budget shortfall, which ballooned from $158 million in fiscal year 2024, officials are now grappling with federal headwinds affecting the outlook for research support, student financial aid and international enrollment, Kim said.
    • Lower federal research funding could cost the highly selective private university $300 million — or more — each year, Kim said. “To deal decisively with our financial challenges, we need to transform our operating model, and that will require layoffs,” he said. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Kim pointed out that USC isn’t alone in making painful budget decisions — but said that didn’t make the news any easier to hear. Indeed, many other well-known research universities have also been tightening their budgets and signaling layoffs amid the Trump administration’s widespread federal grant terminations. 

    That includes Stanford University, a fellow California college, and Brown University, in Rhode Island, which have both signaled potential staff reductions as they contend with federal funding shifts. Boston University, another private nonprofit, recently cut 120 employees and eliminated an equal number of vacant positions to deal with those challenges. 

    Kim did not disclose how many employees the university plans to lay off, and a USC spokesperson did not provide more details in response to questions Tuesday. But Kim said in his message to faculty and staff that USC has also taken other measures to shore up its budget. 

    The university will forego merit raises for the 2026 fiscal year, has ended certain services from third parties, and tightened discretionary and travel spending. It’s also planning to sell unused properties, streamline operations and adjust pay for the most highly compensated employees. 

    Kim, however, said it wasn’t feasible to bank on increased tuition revenue, drawing down more on the university’s endowment or taking out additional debt. 

    “Each of these ‘solutions’ would simply shift our problem onto the backs of future generations of Trojans,” Kim said, referring to the university’s mascot and student body nickname. 

    He also noted that the university could not likely count on federal funding returning to prior norms. “While we will continue to advocate for the vital importance of research and our academic mission, we cannot rely on the hope that federal support will revert to historical levels,” he said. 

    Kim’s message comes just two weeks into his tenure as the college’s interim leader, making it one of his first acts. 

    USC depends heavily on federal research funding. In fiscal 2024, the university received $569 million for federally funded research, according to a recent FAQ posted to its website. Overall, the university brought in nearly $7.5 billion in operating revenue that year and had $7.6 billion in operating expenses.

    Source link

  • Confidence in higher education increases for the first time in a decade

    Confidence in higher education increases for the first time in a decade

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Americans’ confidence in higher education has increased for the first time in a decade, according to research released Wednesday by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation.
    • Among those surveyed, 42% of adults expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the sector, compared with 36% in 2023 and 2024. The percentage of respondents with little to no confidence declined from 32% last year to 23% in 2025.
    • However, the share of adults with high confidence in higher education is still well below 57%, the share who held those views when Gallup first posed the question in 2015.

    Dive Insight:

    Along with breaking a decadelong trend, Wednesday’s findings are noteworthy because they come amid increasing conservative attacks on the sector and continued questioning of the value of college.

    Researchers polled just over 1,400 adults via phone from June 2 to 26.

    When asked to explain their responses, 30% of participants confident in higher education pointed to the value of being educated. And 24% said colleges provide good training, with some respondents citing learning to think for oneself and others citing the ability to appreciate different viewpoints.

    Other reasons were named more frequently than they were in previous years. Last year, 5% of surveyed adults cited the innovations higher education fosters as inspiring confidence. This year, that share jumped to 15%. And 14% said U.S. colleges are some of the best in the world, up from 7% last year.

    In contrast, the share of respondents who pointed to the strength of college instructors and administrators declined from 7% last year to 4% in 2025. And just 1% of adults said college is available to anyone who wants to further their education, down from 2% the previous year.

    More than a third of respondents who said they lacked confidence in higher ed, 38%, cited concerns about political agendas, up from 28% in 2024. Those who had little confidence in the sector also expressed concerns about the cost of college and institutions not focusing on and teaching the “right things,” though mentions of both reasons declined from 2024 to 2025.

    When researchers asked all participants what would increase their confidence in higher education, they said colleges could focus more on practical job skills, lower their costs, and remove politics from the classroom.

    Confidence increased among respondents across the political spectrum, researchers found. But Republicans — who drove much of the decline in confidence in the sector over the past decade — continue to hold more negative views of higher education.

    Among Democrats, 61% expressed confidence in higher ed, up from 56% last year. By comparison, 26% of Republicans said the same, an increase from 20% in 2024. 

    About 2 in 5 respondents who identified as politically independent, 41%, expressed confidence in higher ed. That’s up from 35% last year. 

    Republicans are more likely to express confidence in two-year colleges than four-year colleges, the research found. Almost half of surveyed adults in the party, 48%, expressed confidence in two-year institutions, while just over a quarter, 26%, said the same of four-year colleges.

    A majority of surveyed Democrats had high confidence in both institutional types.

    Source link

  • This New Jersey district tackled chronic absenteeism despite COVID

    This New Jersey district tackled chronic absenteeism despite COVID

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

    SEATTLE — For almost a decade, Hamilton Township Public Schools in New Jersey has seen major gains in chronic absenteeism — despite the bumps that came with the COVID-19 pandemic.

    During the 2016-17 school year, 21 of the district’s 23 schools exceeded the state’s average chronic absenteeism rates, said Mary Beth Currie, coordinator of special projects at the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association. 

    With the help of a grant-funded initiative at the association’s Foundation for Educational Administration, Hamilton Township Public Schools eventually changed course. As of June 2025, only two of its 23 schools surpass the statewide average for chronic absenteeism, Currie said.

    Currie and Kisthardt Elementary School Principal Diana Vasil shared how the FEA’s partnership with Hamilton Township Public Schools contributed to a long-term drop in chronic absenteeism rates during a Friday session at UNITED, the National Conference on School Leadership in Seattle. 

    A team-based approach to boosting attendance

    In 2018, FEA received a $10,000 grant from the Princeton Area Community Foundation to create a plan to combat chronic absenteeism in the district, Currie said. Later on that year, FEA received an additional five-year $30,000 grant from the foundation to carry out the plan across all 23 schools at Hamilton Township. 

    FEA hired coaches to meet monthly with every school to help address their chronic absenteeism rates, Currie said. FEA trained the coaches beforehand on best practices in English language arts and math, legal knowledge on attendance, climate and culture, and data analysis, she added. 

    Then, FEA helped each school identify members for their own “Be There Team,” a group focused on school climate and attendance. The teams often included school leaders, nurses, counselors and teachers, Currie said. The FEA coaches met with these teams to identify student target groups and develop action plans based on Attendance Works’ tiered approach for combatting chronic absenteeism.

    During the first school year of the program’s implementation in 2018-19, Currie said, attendance soared while chronic absenteeism fell significantly. That trend continued into the first semester of the 2019-20 school year until the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020. Once the pandemic hit, FEA modified its plan and shifted all of its meetings to be virtual gatherings with coaches and central office administrators.

    When students returned to in-person classes in 2021-22, attendance dropped in line with national trends, Currie said. But as the in-person coaching and team meetings picked back up, attendance began to rebound again in 2023-24 as did the district’s climate and culture, she added.

    In fact the district’s chronic absenteeism rate fell by 3.9% between the 2021-22 and 2023-24 school years — a decline from 18.4% to 15.2%, said Vasil. RAND Corp. and the Center on Reinventing Public Education estimated that 19% of students were chronically absent nationwide during the 2023-24 school year. 

    One elementary school’s approach

    Vasil, who was principal at Sayen Elementary School from 2019 to 2025, said her previous school’s Be There Team was already established before she was hired into the role. 

    As Vasil’s team explored how to address the school’s chronic absenteeism rates, she said, it was important to remember that fixing attendance isn’t just about getting students in the door. “It’s getting them to want to come tomorrow.”

    To better understand the root of the school’s attendance problem, Vasil’s team did a deep dive scoring their school’s climate using a rubric and found there was a lot of work needed to improve school culture. In 2019-20, the team identified three areas they needed to address: the school’s mission statement, its social-emotional learning programs and professional norms for staff, she said. 

    Vasil said that the team was able to meet their goals during the pandemic by revisiting and tightening the school’s mission statement, consolidating the school’s many scattered SEL programs, and establishing a set of professional norms for staff meetings to ensure everyone has a voice. 

    Source link

  • Free Photo Library Captures Authenticity of Higher Ed

    Free Photo Library Captures Authenticity of Higher Ed

    The library’s photos offer an alternative to generic, staged stock photos of college life.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Allison Shelley/Complete College Photo Library

    Towering, Hogwarts-style academic buildings. Carefree young students posing with generic textbooks in their dorm rooms or throwing a Frisbee on the lawn. Racially balanced study groups composed of stunningly attractive students who may not actually be students at all.

    Those are the types of stock images that news organizations, policymakers, education and research groups, and institutions often use to visually represent what higher education looks like.

    “They have a very specific look and feel,” said Brandon Protas, interim vice president of alliance and engagement, research and innovation at the higher education advocacy group Complete College America. “Students are often posed, looking directly into the camera, and the racial makeup is very intentional.”

    While they may provide organizations with quick options to accompany stories, reports, presentations and campaigns, such photos don’t always represent what college life actually looks like on a particular campus. Portas said they can also reinforce misconceptions about higher education, including the widespread notion that it’s only an option for recent high school graduates who can afford to attend a pricey, residential, four-year institution.

    Although attending college isn’t without cost, many institutions—especially those rarely pictured in the stock photos that run alongside education-related media—are more affordable than the general public may believe. According to a recent survey from Strada, 77 percent of respondents said college is unaffordable, and the majority significantly overestimated how much it costs.

    “When people are saying college is too expensive, they’re probably not thinking about community colleges or states that offer free tuition programs. They’re thinking of really expensive, elite colleges, which aren’t the types of colleges most students are attending,” Protas said. “We want to change how people are seeing and understanding higher education.”

    That’s why CCA created the new Complete College Photo Library, which launched Wednesday. The searchable photo library includes nearly 1,000 photographs of college students at a mix of institution types, including historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, community colleges, tribal colleges, and technical schools. The photos are licensed under Creative Commons and are free for media outlets, researchers and education organizations to use for noncommercial purposes.

    “We took authentic photos of students, faculty and staff on-site to show the reality of students’ lived experiences,” Protas said. “If we can make this the go-to source that people look at first, then that can slowly influence the ecosystem.”

    The library, which is an ongoing project that will be updated with additional images, features photos from seven different campuses across the country, including Bergen Community College, the College of Northern New Mexico, the College of Southern Nevada, Salish Kootenai College, Pasadena City College, Tougaloo College and the University of Indianapolis. At each one, photographer Allison Shelley captured images of actual college students as they balanced their coursework with social lives, jobs and family responsibilities.

    Those artistic choices were meant to reflect the reality that for many college students, school is just one part of life. An estimated 20 percent of students are caregivers or parents, while learners over the age of 25 make up about one-third of all postsecondary students.

    The collection includes shots of students sitting in traditional lecture halls, meeting with their advisers, playing chess, walking to class, reading to their children and getting hands-on training in a variety of different technical fields.

    CCA’s selection of those institutions was designed to reflect a cross-section of geographic locations and institution types.

    And the types of institutions students attend also varies: More than 40 percent attend community colleges, which enroll higher numbers of Black and Hispanic students compared to other institutions. Moreover, HBCUs enroll 10 percent of all Black students in the United States, while HSIs enroll more than 65 percent of all Hispanic undergraduates.

    In addition to widening representation of institution types and student experiences, CCA’s project could also provide a model for how the higher education sector should portray itself during a moment of political and public scrutiny, said Nathan Willers, director of internal communications at the University of Denver, whose research has focused on authenticity in higher education marketing.

    “For a lot of institutions that have limited creative resources, they may be going to something like Shutterstock because they don’t have a lot of other options,” he said. A model like CCA’s library, however, shows how colleges can prioritize using photos that “look like real students in a real classroom with levels of diversity that are appropriate to the institution.”

    Over the past decade, colleges have made a dramatic swing from clamoring to portray themselves as bastions of racial and ethnic diversity—some have even been caught doctoring photos to create such an illusions—to dismantling their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts to comply with President Trump’s recent orders to root out any mention of DEI in education.

    When it comes to promoting a commitment to diversity and inclusion nowadays, “we really have to show and not tell, for better or worse,” Willers said. “This kind of a project helps inform institutions on how to show that effectively.”

    Source link

  • 3 More Campus Leaders Face Congress

    3 More Campus Leaders Face Congress

    For the fifth time since late 2023, congressional Republicans on Tuesday interrogated a group of university leaders about campus antisemitism. But unlike previous hearings, this one was short on fireworks and viral moments, even as the three leaders—Georgetown University interim president Robert Groves; University of California, Berkeley, chancellor Rich Lyons; and City University of New York chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez—faced a grilling over faculty remarks, foreign funding and alleged failures to protect Jewish students from discrimination and harassment.

    While the first hearing, in December 2023, contributed to the ouster of the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania, who equivocated on a hypothetical question about calls for the genocide of Jewish students, subsequent sessions have not had the same impact.

    Conducted by the Republican-led Committee on Education and the Workforce, Tuesday’s hearing—titled “Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding and Ideology”—spanned more than three hours and was interrupted several times by pro-Palestinian protesters, who were quickly removed. In sometimes-heated questioning, lawmakers focused on controversial social media posts by college employees and hypothetical situations, such as whether a faculty union might demand a boycott of Israel in collective bargaining agreements.

    But the campus leaders largely avoided gaffes and appeared to emerge mostly unscathed.

    Here are highlights from Tuesday’s hearing.

    Social Media in the Spotlight

    While past hearings often centered on what happened on campus—particularly at institutions that had pro-Palestinian encampments—at Tuesday’s hearing lawmakers focused more on social media, questioning and condemning posts by professors that were critical of Israel. Some posts also seemed to show support for Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

    Rep. Glenn Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, specifically highlighted a social media post from Georgetown employee Mobashra Tazamal, associate director of a multiyear research project on Islamophobia who allegedly reposted a statement that said, “Israel has been recreating Auschwitz in Gaza for two years.” Thompson asked interim president Robert Groves if he thought it was “appropriate for a Georgetown-affiliated scholar to publicly endorse a statement comparing Israel actions in Gaza to the evil of Auschwitz.”

    Groves made it clear that he rejected the statement and apologized to anyone harmed by it. But he also defended Georgetown officials for not disciplining Tazamal for the post.

    “That’s behavior covered under the First Amendment on social media that we don’t intervene on,” Groves told Thompson in response. “What we do intervene on quickly is behavior that affects our students in the classroom and research-related activities that involve students.”

    Republican lawmakers also asked about posts by Ussama Makdisi at UC Berkeley, zeroing in on one that read, “I could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7,” the title of an article sympathetic to the Palestinian plight that praised the “determination and courage” of the attackers.

    Several Republicans pressed Berkeley chancellor Rich Lyons on how he perceived that post and why Makdisi, a Palestinian American scholar who teaches history, was hired in the first place. Lyons, who became chancellor last July, acknowledged his concerns about the post.

    “I believe it was a celebration of the terrorist attack on Oct. 7,” he told lawmakers.

    Despite that acknowledgement, Lyons twice defended Makdisi as “a fine scholar” and said he was hired as the inaugural chair of a new Palestinian and Arab Studies program based on his qualifications. His defense prompted a sharp rebuke from Lisa McClain, a Michigan Republican.

    “I’m sure there’s a lot of murderers in prison that are fine people, too, fine scholars, but they do some pretty nefarious and heinous acts,” McClain responded to Lyons.

    Protest Interruptions

    Pro-Palestinian protesters interrupted Tuesday’s proceedings at least four times. Authorities quickly shut down and removed protesters, who were not visible and only faintly audible via live stream.

    The protesters seemed to be targeting City University of New York chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, given that the interruptions occurred when he was speaking or being questioned by Congress. Partial phrases audible over the live stream included “blood on your hands” and “genocidal warmonger.”

    Florida Republican Randy Fine fired back after one such interruption.

    “Shut up and get out of here,” he bellowed at a protester, calling them a “loser” before blaming campus leaders for the disruption. “I hold you all responsible for this. It is the attitude that you have allowed on your college campuses that make people think that this is OK.”

    Stefanik Targets Legal Clinic

    New York Republican Elise Stefanik made headlines in prior hearings when she asked the hypothetical genocide question that tripped up the presidents of Harvard, Penn and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But for the first time in five antisemitism hearings, she did not ask that question. Instead she focused on a legal clinic at the CUNY School of Law

    She expressed concern that the legal clinic, CUNY CLEAR, is representing Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate who was arrested without charge and incarcerated for three months for his role in organizing pro-Palestinian campus protests.

    Khalil, who was freed last month, has not been accused of a crime and has subsequently sued the Trump administration, alleging he was falsely imprisoned and smeared by the federal government for First Amendment–protected activism.

    “Does it concern you that New York taxpayers are paying the salary for the legal defense fund of Mahmoud Khalil?” Stefanik asked Rodriguez. ”And I’ll remind you who Mahmoud Khalil is: This is the chief pro-Hamas agitator that led to the antisemitic encampments at Columbia, the rioting and violent takeover of Hamilton Hall, the harassment and physical assault of Jewish students.”

    The CUNY chancellor told Stefanik he was not aware CUNY CLEAR was representing Khalil, but that such decisions are “made in the clinics” and at the individual campus level.

    Dems Needle the GOP

    Democratic lawmakers focused less on the presidents on the stand than on the hearing itself. Several cast antisemitism concerns as pretext for the Trump administration’s crackdown on higher education. They also criticized the administration for slashing staff at the Office for Civil Rights, the enforcement arm of the Department of Education tasked with investigating antisemitism and other complaints.

    Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat, argued that Republicans are “weaponizing the real problems of the Jewish community” to attack higher education. She also noted that Republicans have been largely silent about President Donald Trump’s own antisemitic remarks recently.

    Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, argued that the Trump administration is not approaching concerns about antisemitism in good faith but rather as a way to exert control.

    “The Trump administration is destabilizing higher education itself, eroding trust, silencing dissent and undermining universities’ ability to promote diversity and critical inquiry, while at the same time sabotaging the Office [for] Civil Rights,” he said in closing remarks. “Who suffers most from this strategy? It’s the students, Jewish and non-Jewish, marginalized and unrepresented. They’re the ones who will be left vulnerable and voiceless. This should not be a partisan debate. It should be about ensuring that our schools are safe, inclusive and intellectually vibrant.”

    However, House Education and Workforce chairman Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican, made it clear that despite criticism from Democrats, such hearings will continue to be held.

    “We need to continue to highlight bad actors in our higher education institutions,” Walberg said.

    Source link

  • Mixed Findings on Community Colleges’ Shared Governance

    Mixed Findings on Community Colleges’ Shared Governance

    A new report, released by the American Association of University Professors Tuesday, found mixed results when it comes to community colleges’ shared governance practices.

    The report used data from the AAUP’s inaugural survey of community colleges, conducted in partnership with the Center for the Study of Community Colleges. In the first survey of its kind, faculty leaders at 507 community colleges were asked to assess their institutions’ shared governance practices in 26 different decision-making areas; faculty senate chairs and governance officials responded at 59 colleges.

    The institutions excelled in some areas and proved lackluster in others. For example, at most institutions surveyed, especially those with tenure systems, faculty had an AAUP-recommended level of authority over decisions about curricula, salary policies, teaching assignments, faculty searches and evaluations, and tenure and promotion standards. But when it came to other decision-making areas—like budgets, provost selection, buildings and strategic planning—faculty were given little say, according to the report.

    Community college professors also participated less than faculty at four-year institutions in most academic and personnel-related decisions, though they played more of a role in decisions about salary policies. The report speculated that the prevalence of community college faculty unions may account for the difference. At higher ed institutions where faculty engage in collective bargaining, faculty tend to have more authority in salary policies and teaching loads. At community colleges, unionized faculty are also more engaged in decisions about full-time, non-tenure-track faculty promotion.

    “Community college–based faculty members and administrators can use the tools described in this report to assess governance practices at their institu­tions and compare those practices with national trends to identify areas where levels of faculty authority might be strengthened,” the report says. “Given the current political climate, economic uncertainty, demographic changes, and chronic underfunding of US higher education, now is the time for community colleges to identify and correct weaknesses in their own shared governance practices.”

    Source link

  • Tax Policy Belongs in Liberal Arts Curriculum (opinion)

    Tax Policy Belongs in Liberal Arts Curriculum (opinion)

    As congressional Republicans scratched and clawed to pass President Trump’s signature policy effort, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—a sprawling, tax-heavy package celebrated as much for its branding as for its contents—it is notable how few people could explain what exactly was in it. Tax cuts for some, probably. A Social Security bonus, maybe. A gutting of public benefits, almost certainly. What is clear, though, is that the bill’s complexity was always in service of its politics: When no one understands tax policy, it’s much easier to sell whatever story you want.

    That confusion is exactly why we should be teaching tax policy more broadly—not just in sparsely attended law school classes and accounting departments, but in general education curricula and first-year seminars. Tax isn’t just a technical rule-following subject; it’s a civic one. Tax policy shapes everything from fairness and inequality to the functional shape of the state itself. Yet, most students will graduate college without ever being asked to consider what tax is for—much less whom it helps, whom it harms and why it remains so easy to obscure.

    That is precisely the starting point for the course I designed at Drexel University, Introduction to Tax Theory and Policy, which I teach in our innovative undergraduate law major, housed at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law. It’s not a course for aspiring tax attorneys, prospective C.P.A.s or Excel mavens—few of my students intend to practice tax law. They’re interested in criminal or family law, or they’re business majors, future social workers, engineers or undecided second-years. But they’re all taxpayers—and that’s the relevant bit.

    Courses like mine aim to democratize access to legal and policy tools so that all students, irrespective of their major, can become more informed and empowered participants in civic life. In class, we don’t parse tax rates or calculate deductions. No calculators are required, and at no point is anyone expected to consider the straight-line depreciation of an apartment complex. We ask why the system is built the way it is, and we talk about the power that it reflects and protects. We talk about values: what kinds of behavior the tax code encourages or punishes. We talk about trust and legitimacy: What happens when people believe the system is rigged, and what if they’re right? In short, we treat tax not as a set of arcane rules and rates to memorize, but as a lens through which we can better understand the power structures we live under.

    The surprising part (at least to me, when I first taught it and admittedly just hoped I wouldn’t be lecturing to an empty room) is how much students connect with this approach. More than connect with it—they often enjoy it. I’ve received feedback from students that describes the class as life-changing and course reviews that have noted how it changed assumptions regarding what tax even is. High praise from 19- and 20-year-olds.

    The course itself draws on philosophy, political theory, economics and law—but what it really cultivates is a kind of civic literacy. It asks students to think about who they are in relation to the state and how much of their future may be shaped by the tax policy they’ve never been taught to see. For many, it is the first time they’ve encountered taxation not as something to dodge, but as something to question, debate and reimagine in furtherance of their own values.

    In one session, we explore how the tax code is employed as a kind of soft steering wheel in the economy—how it at turns encourages homeownership, subsidizes sports stadiums, directs corporate research and development, and shapes (or even outright creates) the market for electric vehicles. Another week, we explore estate taxes and inheritance: not just who pays, but what it means to redistribute wealth across generations and what happens when we don’t. We read Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons,” engage in spirited debates about the potential for tax to solve the artificial intelligence copyright debate, and unpack why TurboTax spent two decades fighting free filing.

    Over the course of the class, the question shifts away from what is a tax and toward whose values does this system reflect? That shift—from mere definitional awareness to focused critical engagement—is when I know the class is working. Students cease to see tax as someone else’s problem and begin seeing it as a potent tool of and for democracy.

    In their final papers, students have proposed remarkably forward-looking and sophisticated tax policy reforms—reflecting both creativity and civic seriousness. One student argued that companies receiving public subsidies through tax credits, like chemical and drug manufacturers, should be barred from claiming additional credits to remediate harms their products create. Another proposed a data-collection “sin tax” aimed at discouraging exploitative surveillance practices by tech companies. These aren’t rote academic exercises. They’re thoughtful intervention proposals that treat tax as a lever for shaping society.

    If tax policy determines who gets what, who pays for it and how the government keeps a hand in the marketplace, then it belongs squarely at the heart of a liberal arts education. We don’t cabin discussions of justice in law schools, and we don’t isolate questions of the public good in policy programs—why do we treat taxation, which intersects with both and innumerable other facets of modern life, as off-limits or too technical for undergraduates?

    This isn’t a plea to teach undergraduates to file their own taxes—though there is probably a case to be made for that, too. It’s about ensuring curricula help them understand how the world works and how it’s been designed to work for some more than others. That means tackling the politics of Internal Revenue Service funding, exploring how “tax relief” often functions as an upstream transfer of wealth and how a positively sprawling bill like the one recently passed through Congress can obscure much more than it reveals.

    If no one understands how tax policy works, how can anyone meaningfully weigh in on whether they support one revenue bill or another? On issues like immigration, abortion or education funding, many people bring at least some passing knowledge or lived experience to the conversation. Tax remains, for most, a black box. The more opaque it becomes, the more tempting it is for lawmakers to retreat into it—tucking major redistributive choices into the shadows of the tax code, where they can be shielded from public scrutiny.

    On the other hand, when students come to see tax as a form of the civic superstructure—something they live within and not just under—they are empowered to not only understand tax policy but to shape it. That should be one of the goals of any serious undergraduate education.

    We don’t have to, and should not, keep treating tax as one professional niche within other professional niches. If we want students to understand how tax relates to power, fairness and democratic participation, we should give them the tools to talk about it. This needn’t focus on the rates and rules but should illustrate the values taxes reflect and trade-offs they embed.

    Courses like mine don’t require a background in economics, accounting or law. They require a willingness to take seriously the idea that how we tax equates to how we govern. If we can help students see tax not as a source of dread or line item on their paycheck, but as the site of collective economic decision-making, we don’t just produce better-informed graduates—we’ll also produce more engaged citizens.

    Andrew Leahey is a practice professor of law at Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law.

    Source link

  • Pa. Clinic Run by Students Supports Community Health

    Pa. Clinic Run by Students Supports Community Health

    Experiential learning opportunities provide students with a space to connect in-classroom learning to real-world situations. A student-run clinic at Widener University provides graduate health science professional students with hands-on learning and career experiences while supporting community health and well-being for Chester, Pa., residents.

    The Chester Community Clinic was founded in 2009 for physical therapy services but has since expanded to cover other health and wellness services, including occupational therapy and speech-language pathology. The clinic gives students studying those fields leadership opportunities, experience working with diverse clients and the confidence to tackle their professional careers.

    What’s the need: Before the clinic was established, physical therapy students at Widener would volunteer at a pro bono clinic in nearby Philadelphia. But students pushed for a clinic within Chester, which is considered a primary care health professional shortage area, meaning it lacks enough providers to serve the local population.

    For some patients, a lack of health insurance can impede their ability to receive care. In Pennsylvania, 5.4 percent of residents are without private or public health insurance, roughly two percentage points lower than the national average. The clinic addresses gaps in health care by providing services for free while educating future health science professionals.

    How it works: The clinic is led by a board of 12 to 14 students from each class and supervised by faculty and community members who are licensed physical therapists. Students begin service in their second semester of the program and participate in the clinic until their final clinical placement.

    Most clients are referred by a physician but have been turned away from local PT clinics due to a lack of health insurance or because they exceeded the allotted insurance benefits for PT.

    During appointments, students provide direct physical therapy services to patients, including making care plans, walking them through exercises and creating medical records.

    Over the years, the clinic has expanded to include occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, clinical psychology and social work services. In 2024, Widener included a Community Nursing Clinic to provide pro bono services as well.

    All students studying physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech-language pathology at Widener volunteer at the clinic as part of the program requirements. PT students are required to serve a minimum of three evenings per semester; board members typically serve more hours.

    The clinic’s multifaceted offerings increase opportunities for students to work across departments, engaging with their peers in other health professions to establish interdisciplinary plans for care.

    Free Talent

    Other colleges and universities offer pro bono student services to support community members and organizations:

    • Gonzaga University has a student-led sports consulting agency that offers strategy ideas and tools to sports brands and teams.
    • Utah Valley University students can intern with a semester-long program that provides digital marketing to businesses in the region.
    • American University’s Kogod School of Business has a business consulting group that provides students with project-based consulting experience.
    • Carroll University faculty and students in the behavioral health psychology master’s program run a free mental health clinic for those in the area.

    The impact: Since the clinic began in 2009, students have provided over 12,000 physical therapy appointments to community members, worth about $1.3 million in costs, according to a 2024 press release from the university.

    A 2017 program evaluation, published in the Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, found that PT students who served in the pro bono clinic felt more equipped to launch into clinical work. They were prepared to manage documentation, use clinical reasoning and engage in interprofessional communication.

    A 2020 study of the clinic also found that students performed better than expected in cultural competence, perhaps due to their experience engaging with clients from a variety of ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, health literacy levels, religions and languages.

    Both Widener and students in the health science professions continue to support the development of other pro bono clinics. The class of 2015 created The Pro Bono Network, facilitating advancement of student-run pro bono services among 109 member institutions across the country. This past spring, Widener’s annual Pro Bono Network Conference welcomed 250 individuals working at or affiliated with pro bono clinics, and featured 32 student leaders presenting their work.

    How do your students gain hands-on experience and give back? Tell us more.

    This article has been updated to reflect the addition of a pro bono nursing clinic in 2024, not the creation of it, and to identify students as health science professional students, not health professional students.

    Source link

  • We Can’t Ban Generative AI but We Can Friction Fix It (opinion)

    We Can’t Ban Generative AI but We Can Friction Fix It (opinion)

    As the writing across the curriculum and writing center coordinator on my campus, faculty ask me how to detect their students’ use of generative AI and how to prevent it. My response to both questions is that we can’t.

    In fact, it’s becoming increasingly hard to not use generative AI. Back in 2023, according to a student survey conducted on my campus, some students were nervous to even create ChatGPT accounts for fear of being lured into cheating.  It used to be that a student had to seek it out, create an account and feed it a prompt. Now that generative AI is integrated into programs we already use—Word (Copilot), Google Docs (Gemini) and Grammarly—it’s there beckoning us like the chocolate stashed in my cupboard does around 9 p.m. every night.

    A recent GrammarlyGO advertisement emphasizes the seamless integration of generative AI. In the first 25 seconds of this GrammarlyGO ad, a woman’s confident voice tells us that GrammarlyGO is “easy to use” and that it’s “easy to write better and faster” with just “one download” and the “click of a button.” The ad also seeks to remove any concerns about generative AI’s nonhumanness and detectability: it’s “personalized to you”; “understands your style, voice and intent so your writing doesn’t sound like a robot”; and is “custom-made.” “You’re in control,” and “GrammarlyGO helps you be the best version of yourself.”  The message: Using GrammarlyGO’s generative AI to write is not cheating, it’s self-improvement. 

    This ad calls to my mind the articles we see every January targeting those of us who want to develop healthy habits. The ones that urge us to sleep in our gym clothes if we want to start a morning workout routine. If we sleep in our clothes, we’ll reduce obstacles to going to the gym. Some of the most popular self-help advice focuses on the role of reducing friction to enable us to build habits that we want to build. Like the self-help gurus, GrammarlyGO—and all generative AI companies—are strategically seeking to reduce friction by reducing time (“faster), distance (it’s “where you write”) and effort (it’s “easy”!). 

    Where does this leave us? Do we stop assigning writing? Do we assign in-class writing tests? Do we start grading AI-produced assignments by providing AI-produced feedback? 

    Nope. 

    If we recognize the value of writing as a mode of thinking and believe that effective writing requires revision, we will continue to assign writing. While there is a temptation to shift to off-line, in-class timed writing tests, this removes the opportunity for practicing revision strategies and disproportionately harms students with learning disabilities, as well as English language learners.  

    Instead, like Grammarly, we can tap into what the self-help people champion and engage in what organizational behavior researchers Hayagreeva Rao and Robert I. Sutton call “friction fixing.” In The Friction Project (St. Martin’s Press, 2024), they explain how to “think and live like a friction fixer who makes the right things easier and the wrong things harder.” We can’t ban AI, but we can friction fix by making generative AI harder to use and by making it easier to engage in our writing assignments. This does not mean making our writing assignments easier! The good news is that this approach draws on practices already central to effective writing instruction. 

    After 25 years of working in writing centers at three institutions, I’ve witnessed what stalls students, and it is rarely a lack of motivation. The students who use the writing center are invested in their work, but many can’t start or get stuck. Here are two ways we can decrease friction for writing assignments: 

    1. Break research projects into steps and include interim deadlines, conferences and feedback from you or peers. Note that the feedback doesn’t have to be on full drafts but can be on short pieces, such as paragraph-long project proposals (identify a problem, research question and what is gained if we answer this research question). 
    1. Provide students with time to start on writing projects in class. Have you ever distributed a writing assignment, asked, “any questions?” and been met with crickets? If we give students time to start writing in class, we or peers can answer questions that arise, leaving students to feel more confident that they are going in the right direction and hopefully less likely to turn to AI.

    There are so many ways we faculty (unintentionally) make our assignments uninviting: the barrage of words on a page, the lack of white space, our practice of leading with requirements (citation style, grammatical correctness), the use of SAT words or discipline-specific vocabulary for nonmajors: All this can signal to students that they don’t belong even before they’ve gotten started. Sometimes, our assignment prompts can even sound annoyed, as our frustration with past students is misdirected toward current students and manifests as a long list of don’ts. The vibe is that of an angry Post-it note left for a roommate or partner who left their dishes in the sink … again!

    What if we were to reconceive our assignments as invitations to a party instead?  When we design a party invitation, we have particular goals: We want people to show up, to leave their comfort zones and to be open to engaging with other people. Isn’t that what we want from our students when we assign a writing project? 

    If we designed writing assignments as invitations rather than assessments, we would make them visually appealing and use welcoming language.  Instead of barraging students with all the requirements, we would foreground the enticing facets of the assignment. De-emphasize APA and MLA formatting and grammatical correctness and emphasize the purpose of the assignment. The Transparency in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education framework is useful for improving assignment layout. 

    Further, we can invite students to write for real-world audiences and wrestle with what John C. Bean calls “beautiful problems.” As Bean and Dan Melzer’s Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom (Wiley, 2021) emphasizes, problems are naturally motivating. From my 25 years of experience teaching writing, students are motivated to write when they:

    • write about issues they care about;
    • write in authentic genres and for real-world audiences;
    • share their writing in and beyond the classroom;
    • receive feedback on drafts from their professors and peers that builds on their strengths and provides specific tasks for how to improve their pieces; and
    • understand the usefulness of a writing project in relation to their future goals. 

    Much of this is confirmed by a three-year study conducted at three institutions that asked seniors to describe a meaningful writing project. If assignments are inviting and meaningful, students are more likely to do the hard work of learning and writing. In short, we can decrease friction preventing engagement with our assignments by making them sound inviting, by using language and layouts that take our audience into consideration, and by designing assignments that are not just assessments but opportunities to explore or communicate. 

    How then do we create friction when it comes to using generative AI? As a writing instructor, I truly believe in the power of writing to figure out what I think and to push myself toward new insights. Of course, this is not a new idea. Toni Morrison explains, “Writing is really a way of thinking—not just feeling but thinking about things that are disparate, unresolved, mysterious, problematic or just sweet.” If we can get students to truly believe this by assigning regular low-stakes writing and reinforcing this practice, we can help students see the limits of outsourcing their thinking to generative AI. 

    As generative AI emerged, I realized that even though my writing courses are designed to promote writing to think, I don’t explicitly emphasize the value of writing as mode of discovery, so I have rewritten all my freewrite prompts so that I drive this point home: “This is low-stakes writing, so don’t worry about sentence structure or grammar. Feel free to write in your native language, use bullet points, or speech to text. The purpose of this freewriting is to give you an opportunity to pause and reflect, make new connections, uncover a new layer of the issue, or learn something you didn’t know about yourself.” And one of my favorite comments to give on a good piece of writing is “I enjoy seeing your mind at work on the page here.” 

    Additionally, we can create friction by getting to know our students and their writing. We can get to know their writing by collecting ungraded, in-class writing at the beginning of the semester. We can get to know our students by canceling class to hold short one-on-one or small group conferences. If we have strong relationships with students, they are less likely to cheat intentionally. We can build these bonds by sharing a video about ourselves, writing introductory letters, sharing our relevant experiences and failures, writing conversational feedback on student writing, and using alternative grading approaches that enable us to prioritize process above product. 

    There are no “AI-proof” assignments, but we can also create friction by assigning writing projects that don’t enable students to rely solely on generative AI, such as zines, class discussions about an article or book chapter, or presentations: Generative AI can design the slides and write the script, but it can’t present the material in class. Require students to include interactive components to their presentations so that they engage with their audiences. For example, a group of my first-year students gave a presentation on a selection from Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation, and they asked their peers to check their phones for their daily usage  report and to respond to an anonymous survey.

    Another group created a game, asking the class to guess which books from a display had been banned at one point or another. We can assign group projects and give students time to work on these projects in class; presumably, students will be less likely to misuse generative AI if they feel accountable in some way to their group. We can do a demonstration for students by putting our own prompts through generative AI and asking students to critique the outputs. This has the two-pronged benefit of demonstrating to students that we are savvy while helping them see the limitations of generative AI. 

    Showing students generative AI’s limitations and the harm it causes will also help create friction. Generative AI’s tendency to hallucinate makes it a poor tool for research; its confident tone paired with its inaccuracy has earned it the nickname “bullshit machine.” Worse still are the environmental costs, the exploitation of workers, the copyright infringement, the privacy concerns, the explicit and implicit biases, the proliferation of mis/disinformation, and more. Students should be given the opportunity to research these issues for themselves so that they can make informed decisions about how they will use generative AI. Recently, I dedicated one hour of class time for students to work in groups researching these issues and then present what they found to the class. The students were especially galled by the privacy violations, the environmental impact and the use of writers’ and artists’ work without permission or compensation. 

    When we focus on catching students who use generative AI or banning it, we miss an opportunity to teach students to think critically, we signal to students that we don’t trust them and we diminish our own trustworthiness.  If we do some friction fixing instead, we can support students as they work to become nimble communicators and critical users of new technologies.

    Catherine Savini is the Writing Across the Curriculum coordinator, Reading and Writing Center coordinator, and a professor of English at Westfield State University. She enjoys designing and leading workshops for high school and university educators on writing pedagogy.

    Source link

  • It’s time we moved the generative AI conversation on

    It’s time we moved the generative AI conversation on

    • By Michael Grove, Professor of Mathematics and Mathematics Education and Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education Policy and Academic Standards) at the University of Birmingham.

    We are well beyond the tipping point. Students are using generative AI – at scale. According to HEPI’s Student Generative AI Survey 2025, 92% of undergraduates report using AI tools, and 88% say they’ve used them in assessments. Yet only a third say their institution has supported them to use these tools well. For many, the message appears to be: “you’re on your own”.

    The sector’s focus has largely been on mitigating risk: rewriting assessment guidance, updating misconduct policies, and publishing tool-specific statements. These are necessary steps, but alone they’re not enough.

    Students use generative AI not to cheat, but to learn. But this use is uneven. Some know how to prompt effectively, evaluate outputs, and integrate AI into their learning with confidence and control. Others don’t. Confidence, access, and prior exposure all vary, by discipline, gender, and background. If left unaddressed, these disparities risk becoming embedded. The answer is not restriction, but thoughtful design that helps all students develop the skills to use AI critically, ethically, and with growing independence.

    If generative AI is already reshaping how students learn, we must design for that reality and start treating it as a literacy to be developed. This means moving beyond module-level inconsistency and toward programme-level curriculum thinking. Not everywhere, not all at once – but with intent, clarity, and care.

    We need programme-level thinking, not piecemeal policy

    Most universities now have institutional policies on AI use, and many have updated assessment regulations. But module-by-module variation remains the norm. Students report receiving mixed messages – encouraged to use AI in one context, forbidden in another, ignored in a third, and unsure in a fourth. This inconsistency leads to uncertainty and undermines both engagement and academic integrity.

    A more sustainable approach requires programme-level design. This means mapping where and how generative AI is used across a degree, setting consistent expectations and providing scaffolded opportunities for students to understand how these tools work, including how to use them ethically and responsibly. One practical method is to adopt a ‘traffic light’ or five-level framework to indicate what kinds of AI use are acceptable for each assessment – for example, preparing, editing, or co-creating content. These frameworks need not be rigid, but they must be clear and transparent for all.

    Such frameworks can provide consistency, but they are no silver bullet. In practice, students may interpret guidance differently or misjudge the boundaries between levels. A traffic-light system risks oversimplifying a complex space, particularly when ‘amber’ spans such a broad and subjective spectrum. Though helpful for transparency, they cannot reliably show whether guidance has been followed. Their value lies in prompting discussion and supporting reflective use.

    Design matters more than detection

    Rather than relying on unreliable detection tools or vague prohibitions, we must design assessments and learning experiences that either incorporate AI intentionally or make its misuse educationally irrelevant.

    This doesn’t mean lowering standards. It means doubling down on what matters in a higher education learning experience: critical thinking, explanation, problem-solving, and the ability to apply knowledge in unfamiliar contexts. In my own discipline of mathematics, students might critique AI-generated proofs, identify errors, or reflect on how AI tools influenced their thinking. In other disciplines, students might compare AI outputs with academic sources, or use AI to explore ideas before developing their own arguments.

    We must also protect space for unaided work. One model is to designate a proportion of each programme as ‘Assured’ – learning and assessment designed to demonstrate independent capability, through in-person, oral, or carefully structured formats. While some may raise concerns that this conflicts with the sector’s move toward more authentic, applied assessment, these approaches are not mutually exclusive. The challenge is to balance assured tasks with more flexible, creative, or AI-enabled formats. The rest of the curriculum can then be ‘Exploratory’, allowing students to explore AI more openly, and in doing so, broaden their skills and graduate attributes.

    Curriculum design should reflect disciplinary values

    Not all uses of AI are appropriate for all subjects. In mathematics, symbolic reasoning and proof can’t simply be outsourced. But that should not mean AI has no role. It can help students build glossaries, explore variants of standard problems, or compare different solution strategies. It can provoke discussion, encourage more interactive forms of learning, and surface misconceptions.

    These are not abstract concerns; they are design-led questions. Every discipline must ask:

    • What kind of skills, thinking and communication do we value?
    • How might AI support, or undermine, those aims?
    • How can we help students understand the difference?

    These reflections play out differently across subject areas. As recent contributions by Nick Hillman  and Josh Freeman underline, generative AI is prompting us to reconsider not just how students learn, but what now actually counts as knowledge, memory, or understanding.

    Without a design-led approach, AI use will default to convenience, putting the depth, rigour, and authenticity of the higher education learning experience at risk for all.

    Students need to be partners in shaping this future. Many already have deep, practical experience with generative AI and can offer valuable insight into how these tools support, or disrupt, real learning. Involving students in curriculum design, guidance, and assessment policy will help ensure our responses are relevant, authentic, and grounded in the realities of how they now learn.

    A call to action

    The presence of generative AI in higher education is not a future scenario, it is the present reality. Students are already using these tools, for better and for worse. If we leave them to navigate this alone, we risk widening divides, losing trust, and missing the opportunity to improve how we teach, assess, and support student learning.

    What’s needed now is a shift in narrative:

    • From panic to pedagogy
    • From detection to design
    • From institutional policy to consistent programme-level practice.

    Generative AI won’t replace teaching. But it will reshape how students learn. It’s now time we help them do so with confidence and purpose, through thoughtful programme-level design.

    Source link