The wave of new executive orders on DEI, immigration and gender identity has already significantly impacted the higher ed workplace. While the pace of change may feel overwhelming, HR departments are taking a leading role — just as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic — in navigating change and making sure all employees feel valued and supported at work.
As CUPA-HR President and CEO Andy Brantley affirmed in his message about the recent executive orders, higher ed workplaces can still:
Promote equitable work and career pathing opportunities and pay for all employees.
Cultivate inclusive learning and working communities.
Create a workplace culture that embraces respect and civil discourse.
Level the playing field for everyone by working to remove bias, reviewing outdated policies, and creating transparency.
Reinforce institutional values by ensuring that all employees feel connected and supported.
As you strategize your response to changes taking place on your campus, here are some considerations for ensuring that you are providing equal access and opportunity for all.
Conduct an Audit of Your Institution’s DEI Efforts
If you haven’t started already, conducting an audit of programs, policies and procedures can help identify areas of concern. Design a simple spreadsheet to help you organize and track your findings in areas such as training and development, hiring, performance management, communications and website content. For each item, indicate where it falls on the legal spectrum. Does it violate the law? Is it in compliance but in need of adjustments? Is it in compliance and effective as it stands?
When reviewing your programs and processes, the central question to ask is, do they provide equal access and opportunity to all employees without giving special advantages to any one person or group?
Here’s one example. The language of the recent DEI-focused executive orders emphasizes merit. Merit has always been critical to hiring, reviewing performance and making promotion decisions. Do your policies around hiring and promotion reflect that focus on merit? Are hiring and promotion processes fair and transparent? Are hiring and promotion decisions documented, and do they reflect those policies and processes?
Connect with Campus Partners
Your institution’s general counsel can help ensure any changes made to policies and procedures are in compliance with the new executive orders and mitigate risk for your institution.
If you’re undertaking a website audit, consult your chief information officer. Is there AI-enabled software that might help identify noncompliant wording or outdated programs?
Is your institution a federal contractor or subcontractor? If so, you may face additional oversight, including new contract terms certifying that your institution is following federal antidiscrimination laws. If your status is unclear, first check with the office of research.
Consider creating a neutral body of campus stakeholders to help suggest, implement and communicate changes in response to the executive orders, but also expect that employees and administrators will have strong opinions and feelings about these changes.
Reframe Inclusion
As you review policies and communications to ensure compliance, take the opportunity to make your workplace even more welcoming and accessible.
Align with your institution’s values. What are your institution’s core values and mission? It’s likely they involve respecting diversity of thought and perspective, creating a welcoming environment, and providing equal access and opportunity to all regardless of identity. Affirming and communicating these values can be an important way to stay focused on what matters during times of change.
Consider accessibility. When revising programs and processes to be more inclusive, envision accessibility for all. For example, if your goal is to make career development programs accessible to all employees, look for gaps in access across your employee population. Just as holding trainings in non-ADA compliant buildings may limit the ability of some people to participate in career development, so might neglecting the needs of groups like non-exempt employees and working parents and caregivers. Are there more flexible options? Can you support supervisors to make it easier for an employee to take time away from regular duties?
Ensure clarity and transparency. Equity in compensation, hiring and promotion is an effective way to bolster recruitment and retention. For example, hiring and promotion practices that are not transparent, written down, and consistently followed can negatively affect the workforce. Women are less likely than men to be promoted if clear, fair criteria aren’t used. Neurodivergent candidates are disadvantaged when job interviews rely on indirect measures like succeeding at small talk rather than a skills-based assessment. In both of these instances, vague criteria such as “culture” and “fit” may prevent qualified, highly skilled employees from being hired and from moving up the ladder. Finally, be sure that your institution’s job descriptions and job requirements are up to date and are being used as the basis for decisions related to hiring and pay.
Focus on purpose. To avoid misinterpretation, your efforts at creating an inclusive workplace should be characterized in ways that are purpose driven. For example:
Communities of people with varied backgrounds and life experiences create opportunities for community members to grow personally and professionally. When employees thrive, institutions thrive.
Parity and equity, in opportunity and pay, support job satisfaction, recruitment and retention.
A safe and welcoming work environment fosters community and collaboration.
Emphasize outcomes. Lily Zheng, author of the book DEI Deconstructed, encourages those invested in fair and healthy workplaces to strengthen outcomes. Zheng recommends an outcomes-based approach “focusing on measurable results like pay equity, physical and psychological safety, wellness, and promotion rates, rather than … a one-time training, posting on social media, or other behaviors that signal commitment without demonstrating results.”
Take Steps to Educate Employees
Review the ways managers and senior leadership are implementing the policies and processes that are in place. Is additional training required? If you have made changes to policies and processes, how will you communicate those to supervisors and other campus leaders?
Be sure to evaluate anti-harassment and antidiscrimination trainings you have in place. These trainings should continue, although they may need to be adjusted to emphasize even more strongly the importance of opportunity and respect for all.
Know That You’re Not Alone
The higher ed HR community has been through challenging times before, most recently as the pandemic reshaped the workplace. If you have resources or ideas to share with other CUPA-HR members regarding ways that you and your HR colleagues are creating and sustaining an inclusive campus community, please email them to [email protected]. Your submission will be treated as confidential and, if shared, will be described in terms that will not identify your institution.
Resilience in the Workplace — This CUPA-HR webinar, recorded in 2021, was designed to serve as resilience training for attendees, as well as a model that could easily be replicated at your institution for HR teams and other employees.
Scheduled for Feb 20, 2025. The Spring 2024 Inclusive Growth and Racial Equity Thought Leadership Lecture Series will feature a fireside chat with Dr. Ibram X. Kendi, Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities, Professor of History, Director of the BU Center for Antiracist Research, and National Book Award-winning Author.
In 2025 the state of American education is more precarious than ever. Many public schools, especially those in underfunded urban and rural areas, are failing their students. The term “failing schools” is often thrown around in political debates, but what does it actually mean? And how did we get here?
The Markers of Failure Failing schools are characterized by a combination of low test scores, declining graduation rates, poor teacher retention, crumbling infrastructure, and high student absenteeism. These institutions often serve marginalized communities where poverty, crime, and systemic neglect create an uphill battle for education.
The Road to Failure The crisis in education did not happen overnight. It is the result of decades of misguided policies, economic shifts, and societal neglect. Below are some of the key factors that have contributed to the decline of many schools:
Chronic Underfunding Public schools rely heavily on local property taxes for funding, which means that schools in wealthy areas flourish while those in impoverished communities struggle to provide basic resources.
Schools in affluent neighborhoods have modern facilities and abundant resources, while schools serving working class students operate in substandard conditions.
Attempts to “reform” through privatization and the push for charter schools have only exacerbated the problem. Instead of addressing root causes, these reforms often drain public schools of resources, leaving them even more vulnerable.
The Era of Standardized Testing
Since the early 2000s, the focus on standardized testing has led to a “teach to the test” culture that stifles creativity, critical thinking, and real learning. Schools that fail to meet test score benchmarks face punitive measures rather than meaningful support.
Teacher Burnout and Shortages Low salaries, lack of respect, increasing workloads, and political interference have driven many talented educators out of the profession. The teacher pipeline is drying up, leaving many schools with underqualified or temporary staff.
Educators are often forced to contend with not only limited resources but also overwhelming emotional and physical demands that contribute to burnout. The constant critique of teachers and their work environment, compounded by insufficient support, drives educators out of the profession, leaving students without the consistent mentorship they need.
Privatization and Charter Expansion The rise of charter schools and school voucher programs has siphoned funds from public schools, leaving them with fewer resources to educate the most vulnerable students, including those with disabilities and language barriers.
The push for privatization is a form of “corporate education reform” that undermines public schooling. Rather than addressing root causes, these reforms often divert funds to entities more interested in profit than equity. Charter schools in some cases have exacerbated the inequalities they were meant to address.
Social and Economic Inequality The challenges students face at home—such as food insecurity, lack of healthcare, and unstable housing—spill into the classroom. Schools cannot solve these problems alone, yet they are often expected to compensate for systemic failures in social services.
Historical inequalities—rooted in race, class, and gender—have been perpetuated through institutions like education, often leaving marginalized communities at a disadvantage. The lack of support for students in poverty is not a new phenomenon but part of a long history of structural neglect.
Immigration Immigration brings both opportunities and challenges to different socioeconomic areas. In affluent neighborhoods, immigrants often contribute to cultural diversity, stimulate local economies, and fill highly skilled labor gaps, which enhances the overall prosperity of these communities.
In working-class neighborhoods, the influx of immigrants can strain resources and services, leading to heightened competition for low-wage jobs and potential wage suppression. While some may thrive, others may experience economic hardship and decreased access to affordable housing and healthcare, creating disparities within these communities.
Violence and Safety Concerns Mass shootings, gang violence, and bullying have made many schools unsafe. Metal detectors and police presence have not necessarily improved learning conditions, and in some cases, they have exacerbated tensions between students and faculty.
Larger social forces at play include the militarization of society and its impact on the way schools are policed and students are treated. The criminalization of students, particularly students of color, has led to an environment where educational spaces are seen as places of fear rather than learning.
Why This Matters Failing schools do not just affect individual students; they have profound implications for the workforce, the economy, and democracy itself. Poor education leads to lower earning potential, increased crime rates, and a disengaged electorate.
If we continue to neglect our schools, we risk deepening inequality and weakening the fabric of our society. The consequences of educational inequity are far-reaching, affecting not only the students directly impacted but also the future of communities, economies, and the nation as a whole.
This is a broader reflection of a society where the interests of the wealthy are prioritized over the needs of the marginalized, reinforcing cycles of poverty and injustice. If educational opportunities remain unequal, democracy itself is at risk, as people from underprivileged backgrounds are denied the tools to engage critically with society and its political structures.
What Other Nations Are Doing: Lessons from Abroad While the United States of America struggles with these deep-rooted issues, other nations have found ways to achieve better outcomes in education by focusing on equality, teacher support, and broadening the definition of success beyond standardized testing.
Finland: A Model of Equity and Teacher Respect Finland has long been held up as a model of educational excellence. One of its core principles is equality. Finnish schools ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to high-quality education. Teachers in Finland are highly trained (requiring a master’s degree), well-compensated, and respected as professionals. Unlike the U.S., Finland has largely avoided the pitfalls of standardized testing, focusing instead on a holistic approach to education that values critical thinking, creativity, and individual growth. This model shows that when teachers are supported and empowered, students thrive.
South Korea: Education as a National Priority South Korea places a high cultural value on education, with rigorous academic standards and a highly motivated student body. However, unlike the U.S., the country provides significant government investment in education, ensuring that public schools are well-funded and that there are resources available to support students. In addition, after-school programs and tutoring are common, helping to bridge gaps for students who may need extra assistance. This holistic approach to supporting students, both inside and outside of school, contrasts sharply with the U.S. approach of leaving many schools to fend for themselves without sufficient resources.
Japan: Focus on Social Emotional Learning and Collaborative Learning Japan’s education system is grounded in social emotional learning, emphasizing respect, discipline, and collaboration over competition. Schools focus not only on academic achievement but also on developing students’ interpersonal and social skills. Teachers work closely with students to create a supportive learning environment where collaboration is prioritized. This focus on emotional and social development creates a more balanced and well-rounded educational experience. In the U.S., social emotional learning is often sidelined in favor of academics and test scores, but Japan’s success shows that nurturing the whole child leads to better outcomes overall.
Canada: Supportive Communities and Inclusivity Canada’s approach to education is centered on inclusivity, ensuring that marginalized groups—whether they be Indigenous communities, newcomers, or children with disabilities—receive the support they need to succeed. The Canadian model places a heavy emphasis on community involvement in schools, and local governments play a key role in ensuring that educational programs are tailored to meet the unique needs of their populations. This inclusive, community-driven approach contrasts with the U.S. focus on market-driven reforms and privatization, showing that investing in public education for all students pays off in the long run.
The Way Forward Reversing this trend requires a fundamental shift in priorities, which are unlikely to happen in the near term in the United States of America. But it could happen in individual states that value justice and fairness and are willing to lead.
Policymakers must commit to fully funding public education, reforming assessment methods, supporting teachers, and addressing social inequalities that impact learning. Communities must also demand accountability from leaders and support initiatives that uplift students rather than punish them for systemic failures.
Looking beyond our borders, Finland, South Korea, Japan, and Canada offer valuable lessons on how to create equitable, supportive, and high-performing educational systems. These countries demonstrate that with the right priorities—such as teacher respect, equality of opportunity, community involvement, and a broader definition of success—educational systems can overcome even the deepest challenges.
The U.S. Naval Academy’s provost told faculty last week not to use course readings “or other materials that promote” critical race theory, “gender ideology” and other topics targeted by the Trump administration, The Baltimore Banner reported.
The institution pointed to Trump’s multiple executive orders, which include one specifically restricting the curricula of military academies.
Provost Samara Firebaugh told faculty in the email to search materials for “diversity,” “minority” and other words and forbade them from using “materials that can be interpreted to assign blame to generalized groups for enduring social conditions, particularly discrimination or inequality,” the Banner reported. The Naval Academy confirmed the email to Inside Higher Ed but declined to provide a copy, saying it doesn’t share internal emails.
“That was a leak,” a representative from the institution’s public affairs office said.
In an email to Inside Higher Ed, the Naval Academy’s media relations arm said the provost’s message “provided more detailed guidance and clarity to ensure course materials and assignments are in alignment with all executive orders.” Commander Ashley Hockycko, public affairs officer at the Naval Academy, said the provost’s letter wasn’t meant to further restrict curriculum and coursework beyond the presidential executive orders—it’s just meant to provide “amplifying guidance and clarification.”
A Jan. 27 executive order titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” said educational institutions operated or controlled by the Defense Department and military “are prohibited from promoting, advancing or otherwise inculcating the following un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist and irrational theories.” It then went on to list “gender ideology,” “divisive concepts,” “race or sex stereotyping,” “race or sex scapegoating” and the idea “that America’s founding documents are racist or sexist.”
On Jan. 29, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sent a memo saying, “No element within DoD will provide instruction on critical race theory, DEI or gender ideology as part of a curriculum or for purposes of workforce training“ and that military academies “shall teach that America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history.”
The U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point didn’t respond to requests for comment Tuesday about whether they’ve released similar guidance.
Edward Blum isn’t quite a household name. But at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., he’s a minor celebrity.
The conservative think tank has played host to an array of high-profile politicos, pundits, journalists and businesspeople over the years: Bill Gates, Mike Pence, Jordan Peterson, the Dalai Lama. Blum, who took affirmative action to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 and won, spoke at the institute earlier this month about his decades of legal activism.
It was something of a homecoming for the president of Students for Fair Admissions, who lives in Florida but has been a visiting fellow at AEI since 2005. It was also, in many ways, a victory lap.
Since the court ruled in his favor in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Blum’s vision of what he calls a “colorblind covenant in public policy” has been ascendant, and in the new Trump administration, Blum’s zealous opposition to race-conscious programs has become a domineering force driving education policy.
Over the weekend, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a letter outlining an expansive interpretation of the SFFA ruling and its plans to enforce a ban on all race-conscious programming in higher ed; colleges that don’t comply in 14 days could lose their federal funding. During her confirmation hearing Thursday, Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon said ending “race-based programming” would be a priority if she were confirmed.
Blum, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed before the OCR letter was published, believes that affirmative action has long been unpopular—winning the public relations battle, he said, was “the easiest part of my job.” Still, he said the political, legal and cultural backlash against affirmative action and DEI over the past few years was affirming. In Trump’s Washington, Blum, who fought the courts unsuccessfully for decades, feels like an insider at last.
“It’s gratifying for those of us who have labored in this movement to see that now, rather than these policies being whispered about as unfair and illegal, there’s a full-throated cry against them,” he said.
The Trump administration’s adoption of Blum’s views on race in higher ed has also prompted another wave of backlash from Blum’s many critics, who say his work is undoing decades of progress toward racial equality and integration.
During his AEI session, Blum was asked about his own views on racial diversity on college campuses, constitutional law notwithstanding. He rejected the premise outright.
“The question implies that someone’s skin color is going to tell me something very fundamental about who they are as an individual. I don’t believe that’s the case,” Blum said. “Your skin color, the shape of your eyes, the texture of your hair tells me nothing about who you are. For some people, being on a campus with racial diversity is important … There are others that don’t seem to care about that.”
From Outsider to Agenda Setter
Blum has railed against race-conscious admissions for two decades. A former businessman in Houston, Blum, who has no law degree, founded the legal defense fund Project on Fair Representation in the mid-2000s. He challenged Texas’s reinstatement of race-based admissions in the second Fisher v. the University of Texas case; the case went to the Supreme Court but was ultimately defeated in 2016 when justices ruled that the university’s admission practices were constitutional.
Now, he’s not alone. A corps of public interest law groups has sprung up to litigate the SFFA decision in higher ed at prestigious law firms, on Wall Street and beyond. This month, a brand-new public interest legal group filed a lawsuit against the University of California system accusing it of secretly using racial preferences in admissions, citing increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its most selective colleges.
Blum said SFFA isn’t passing the buck and is committed to challenging universities on their compliance with the law, but a groundswell of efforts has lightened his load.
“The SFFA decision has energized the public interest law apparatus,” Blum said. He predicted that under Trump, the Education Department will also play a bigger role in investigating institutions for their compliance with the affirmative action ban. That forecast appears to be coming true with Friday’s Dear Colleague letter, though the agency still has to enforce the directive, a complicated prospect considering its broad scope.
Edward Blum (left) at the American Enterprise Institute on Feb. 5, with moderator Frederick Hess.
Blum supports the intensifying attacks on DEI and said that with more state laws forbidding spending on diversity and equity programs, there’s room for legal work to ensure colleges aren’t spending on “DEI by another name.”
But despite the high-profile political implications of his work, he doesn’t see himself as a political actor. In the late 1990s, he ran a failed congressional campaign in Houston, but the thought of running for office now evokes “overwhelming negative emotions.” And he’s careful to draw a line between his legal advocacy work and the anti-DEI crusades of conservative lawmakers.
“There is a 20-foot wall between the political people in the movement and the public interest groups,” he said.
‘A Forever Endeavor’
Blum is not finished suing colleges over affirmative action, or at least those he believes could be flouting the law. He’s particularly interested in selective colleges that reported similar or higher rates of Black and Hispanic enrollment this year, such as Yale, Duke and Princeton—a sure sign, he believes, that they’ve been “cheating.” SFFA has a “vibrant role to play,” he added, in holding them to account.
“So many of us are befuddled and concerned that in the first admissions cycle post-SFFA, schools that said getting rid of affirmative action would cause their minority admissions to plummet didn’t see that happen,” he said.
When asked if recent expansions to financial aid offerings at these universities could account for the change, Blum was circumspect. He’s not opposed to economically progressive admissions initiatives; he calls Rick Kahlenberg, a liberal proponent of “class-based affirmative action,” a like-minded friend. But he said the onus was on colleges to prove that’s the source of their continued racial diversity. He also said that geographic diversity initiatives would be unconstitutional if they only applied to “Harlem and the South Side of Chicago, and not also rural Missouri and northern Maine.”
Since the Supreme Court ruling, experts, college administrators and lawyers have debated whether the SFFA decision applies to race-conscious scholarships, internships and precollege programs as well as admissions. In the months after the ruling, attorneys general in Ohio and Missouri issued orders saying it did, and some colleges have begun to revise racial eligibility requirements on scholarships. At the same time, scholars and lawyers said implementing changes to nonadmissions programs amounted to overreach from state lawmakers and institutions alike.
Blum doesn’t actually believe the decision itself extends to those programs. He does think they’re illegal—there just hasn’t been a successful case challenging them yet.
“I haven’t really made myself clear on this, which is my fault, but the SFFA opinion didn’t change the law for those policies” in internships and scholarships, he said. “But those policies have always been, in my opinion, outside of the scope of our civil rights law and actionable in court.”
He’s still looking for a case that could enshrine his view in the law—two weeks ago McDonald’s settled a lawsuit he filed against their Latino scholarship program, putting that one out of contention. But he said that for the most part, in the wake of the SFFA decision, colleges have proactively altered or ended those programs themselves.
“Even if the ruling didn’t apply directly, it’s had this cascading effect,” he said.
That effect, Blum said, has spread to cultural and corporate institutions as well as higher ed, contributing to a general chilling effect on what he views as unconstitutional racial preferences in American society. It’s a major turnaround, he acknowledged, from the ubiquity of DEI initiatives and racial reckoning just five years ago after the murder of George Floyd.
While he’s relishing in the legal, political and cultural victory of his crusade, he’s not resting on his laurels.
“There are no permanent victories in politics,” Blum said, loosely quoting Winston Churchill. “The same applies to legal advocacy. This is a forever endeavor.”
Having successful career outcomes is important for colleges and also for students, but getting students to engage in career services can feel like an uphill battle.
A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Edfound just about one-third of college students had no experience with or no opinions on their career center staff. Research from the National Association of Colleges and Employers shows a correlation between students who utilize their career center and the number of job offers a student receives.
Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania decided to bring careers to students with an event called the LVC Success Expo. On the day of the expo, LVC cancels classes so students can engage in an all-day career fair or meet with academic support staff to ensure their success in and after college.
In this episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader spoke with Tomomi “T” Horning, vice president of college partnerships and strategic initiatives, and Jasmine Bucher, senior director of the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development, to learn more about the event and campus partnerships and how it contributes to a larger institutional mission.
An edited version of the podcast appears below.
Inside Higher Ed: Give me the 30,000-foot view of the Success Expo. Where did this idea come from?
Tomomi “T” Horning, vice president of college partnerships and strategic initiatives
Horning: This is our third year undertaking this initiative, and we’re so pleased at how it’s developed and changed and improved over that time period.
The original genesis was we wanted to make sure that students had dedicated time to develop a success plan, whether it involved academic advising, career and professional development services. So [staff at] the provost office and the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development got our brains together and said, “What if we canceled classes on a day in the spring and really dedicated, marshaled all of our resources together to make this happen?”
This includes a whole variety of programming, events, presentations, interactive workshops, some fun, but mostly on that adulting 101 idea around making sure that our graduates are as optimally prepared to enter the workforce as possible.
Jasmine Bucher, senior director of the Breen Center for Career and Professional Development
Bucher: One of the things that I think is so extraordinary, not only is it that we do have this dedication of truly not having classes that day, and our students know that is worked right into their academic schedule, but also that the career and success expo really reaches beyond just our doors here on campus as well.
Not only inviting our community members, [but] K-12 leaders in those different areas as well as high school students come with those leaders to really see what [college] could be [like]—even the questions to ask when starting your career plan. But also our alumni and our faculty, who are a huge part of this day.
Not only do our faculty come to support our students in their advising and what comes next in their career exploration, but they’re really reminded about the resources that we have, the services we provide and how that weaves in and out of not only the time that students are here at Lebanon Valley College, but also beyond … graduation. We have alumni who are welcome—they come back and they learn so many incredible things, as well as make connections with potential employers.
Inside Higher Ed: A lot of colleges and universities will have career fairs throughout the academic year—I’m thinking about new student orientation, where there’s club fairs and different ways to get plugged in on campus. But I love the timing of this event, and that it’s in the spring term, and maybe when students already have questions, or they’re thinking about internships.
I wonder if you can talk about how the timing is strategic and making sure that all students are captured and those different interests or questions that may be coming up during that point in their academic experience?
Horning: I would say it’s not only strategic in terms of in the calendar year, helping maybe graduating seniors prepare for that entry into the workforce, but as you indicated, preparing for summer internships, which is a very popular time for students to be out in the field.
But also it operationally manages some opportunities we have in the fall and then making sure that those same opportunities are spread out in the spring. So sometimes, based on student schedules, they just can’t get around to it in the fall, and some of our fall events are more dedicated to specific lines of career or specific industries.
This pathways to professions, all-majors career fair—which is part of the larger success expo event itself—gives that opportunity for everyone at the key time that they need to be thinking about these things, to have access to the resources and as well as the employers through specifically the career fair itself. It’s an opportune time for those students to make those connections.
The Success Expo takes place each spring, allowing students to devote a day not to attending classes but to considering their future academic and career plans.
Bucher: And it really helps our students be well prepared for it. They’ve been working throughout the year on résumés, cover letters, even mock interviewing skills and knowing what that is like, having their elevator speeches ready so that they can really speak about the skills that they’re learning, not only in the classroom, but also through our services here in the Breen Center. I really like this time of year. I think it fits well with where the student brain is, but I think it also works really well so that we can help support them in the success of that day.
Inside Higher Ed: Totally. I think about lower-level students who might still be career exploring and trying to understand how their major ties into that first job after college. By the spring, they might have figured it out by March, or at least have an idea of where they’re going, versus that first week of first semester, where it’s like, “What is happening right now?”
Bucher: Or at least have an idea at that point of sort of the fields they would like to continue to explore. It’s not at all about finding the end of a journey. It’s about the next steps on that journey. So this day provides wherever that is—if they’re going off into the employment world, we have information in sessions that help them with decisions around insurance and the next steps of what comes in repayment of loans and all of the things that is that adulting 101 piece.
But also, if it’s students who are just getting into [career thinking], what would it be like to have a meal with future employers? We have an etiquette dinner that day where we can help to teach those skills as well. It’s really hitting up all of wherever they are in their career journey and whatever that is, really trying to make sure that we are thinking about how they’re best prepared to take that as well. Because nothing is worse than when you’re getting all this information thrown at you and you’re not ready for it, right?That’s why we want to be there, making sure they’re well prepared.
Inside Higher Ed: You bring up an interesting point in that sometimes these events can be overwhelming for students. A career fair, I know as a college student, was a very scary experience. You never know how to dress or how to prepare, and obviously your career center is there to guide you in that experience and prep you for that.
But at the success expo, how do you make sure that students know how to navigate these situations? What are some of those forward-looking messages that you’re giving to students to make sure that this is something that they are taking advantage of and are getting the most out of?
Bucher: Absolutely, as someone who spends a great deal of time figuring out how we communicate that to students who are in all different places, and alumni and all of the different pieces—making sure that we have a schedule that can be broken down very well. Making sure our communication is very much around providing those opportunities for wherever you are.
If you’re looking for sessions that help support and prepare you, those are there. If you’re ready to jump in and meet future employers, we have all of these wonderful employers. We make sure that we are communicating to the students who [the employers are] are ahead of time, so they’re not coming in blindly.
We have a robust website that has information on it; our social media campaign will be very robust this year to help with that messaging as well. So that may be, instead of it being overwhelming, because they [feel they] have to incorporate the entire day on all those pieces, but really being able to see where they can make the most of their time.
They’re busy, and even a day without classes, they could be studying, they could be preparing for finals, they could be doing a lot of things, so making sure that they know the choices.
And also making sure we’ve got some fun in there. We’ve got some great speakers. We have Tunji [Adebayo] who’s coming in, talking about picking yourself up from failure. Where you are anywhere on the journey, we all need to know how to be resilient and do that. So some things that aren’t so much about, “this is what you do in the career,” but “this is what you do in life.”
Jack Hubley is coming in and is going to speak not only about what it’s like to work with the birds that he has trained all this time. He’s such a celebrity in this area, people are pretty familiar with he does. But also, how do you do that and stay on brand? If you’re working with live animals and you’re in environments that are not always predictable?
So trying to make sure that we have this clear idea of skills beyond just what you see as career is also an area where we think would help students to not be as overwhelmed and know that we’re there to help them through this process.
Throughout the Success Expo, students can participate in workshops or informational sessions about topics like resiliency and financial literacy.
Inside Higher Ed: You’re going into year three of this event. When it comes to logistics, or how the event has scaled up, can you talk a little bit about those partners that are involved in this work? We’ve mentioned a few different groups and stakeholders on and off campus, but who’s going to be there in the spring?
Horning: We do extend an invitation to K-12 partners, and mostly it’s going to be high school students who are interested in a field trip opportunity to get to understand what higher ed is like. But also, some of the sessions that Jasmine mentioned, those we purposefully choose to make sure that it’s a broad-reaching topic that any of our K-12 partners would benefit from hearing, not only the educators that bring the students as chaperones, but also the students themselves, right? Picking yourself up from failure is one of those life lessons that anybody can benefit from.
We also try to make sure that the concept of career development is woven into the day as well. Some of our high school students will get exposure to how internships themselves may help direct someone deeper into the trajectory of what they had hoped to achieve upon graduation, and sometimes completely flip it, 180 degrees through an internship experience. They learn those life lessons that, through experiential learning and high-impact opportunities, they may want to readjust what their career outlook is like.
Through the community, we also connect with the Chamber of Commerce to make sure that if there are things like venture capital or even some of the entrepreneurship opportunities. That if there are businesses with young people, or maybe recently just graduated college—maybe the alumni want to start their own business—that they have access to some of these workshops where they can talk to experts or talk to students who want to get into that business, maybe to do some idea sharing, networking.
We all know that professional networking is just one of those great benefits of bringing people together.
The college community, and even within Annville, it’s a small little quaint town here, but we make sure that our employer partners know about our restaurant and eateries that are in town. We make sure that those venues and opportunities of connection [are known] to make sure that we’re pushing business to make our local community thrive as well.
Inside Higher Ed: I don’t want to get too high-level here, because this is obviously focused on a specific event, but it seems like this is really fulfilling a lot of those goals of higher education, right? Helping students navigate their pathways to and through college, helping students thrive while they’re enrolled but also beyond college. But then continuing to invest in your local community with that socioeconomic development and those community partnerships. This is one day, but it seems like it’s connecting a lot of these bigger pieces of the puzzle to the institutional vision, which is really exciting.
Bucher: It’s very true to the Lebanon Valley College mission and method of what has always been very true and practical and hands-on and community-oriented, and so it stays very true to who we are. There are so many incredible initiatives that T has in mind and has been brainstorming for years. Me, as a new person on this staff, I’m incredibly excited for all those things, but we always bring them back to the mission, exactly what you’re saying, which is that they have to be true to the mission, otherwise we would be spinning our wheels in 100 directions that don’t make sense.
Inside Higher Ed: One group that we have alluded to but haven’t talked about a lot is faculty on campus. I wonder if you can talk about their role in this event and how they’re incorporated.
Bucher: We work very closely with our faculty to incorporate curriculum directly into their classroom, and we are as helpful as possible. Several of us on the staff here are educators ourselves; we teach courses.
Some of the specific ways are students who need to come [to the event] and interview specific employers and then provide reflections and pieces like that. So we help to provide the structure to that to faculty members who are very happy to partner with us.
But then we even have exciting things going on, like we are piloting an app this year for wayfinding through [the event]. So we’ve partnered with a marketing professor who is going to have a portion of her class use the app, a portion of the class use nothing and a portion of the class explore other items.
We’ve really taken the opportunity to not just do sort of the traditional, yes, you can come and attend and reflect and do it, which is wonderful, of course, but also to really integrate into the curriculum in meaningful ways and in ways that give the students experience on that day for true, real-life experience. Our faculty are very keen on this. They’re thrilled for the partnership, and so are we. It’s one of the things that a school this size and energy of Lebanon Valley College really allows you to do.
Horning: Something else that I would add, too, is some of our specific academic programs are able to incorporate opportunities to marry not only their academic program, but also employers and create opportunities for the collaboration.
For example, we have the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Protection coming, so [the faculty member is] weaving that into environmental sciences, the academic curriculum. Also as an employer, they’re looking to recruit interns and potential future employees. So really connecting all of those dots to make sure that we’re optimizing the program time that we have on this day.
Specifically because classes are canceled, we know that that also puts a hardship on some of the faculty to make sure that they’re covering all of their academic points. So finding creative ways to incorporate that, just like Jasmine said, with marketing, there are definitely ways that faculty are creatively making sure that they’re driving participation also to our events. We’re very appreciative of, just generally, the partnership that happens across campus.
And of course, a lot of the sessions, like I said, are relevant to any audience. So if they wanted to do some sort of professional development, we have something on customer service, and that’s something that we’re rolling out as an institution that could be relevant for any staff person or faculty.
Inside Higher Ed: What kind of feedback have you heard from students over the past few years as you’ve created and led the event, and how has that driven decision-making, if at all?
Horning: Wealways try to keep our surveying or feedback assessment from students to the point: “Would you recommend coming to this event? Why or why not?” Or “Did you have any recommendations for changes? Why are you making those recommendations?”
And I think over all, the feedback has been very positive. Mostly all of the suggestions are logistical in nature, which can be easily addressed. I think students are hungry for it. This is our third year doing it, so I think there is now a knowledge and an understanding of what students can expect. So maybe coming in future years, they’ll have more substantive feedback, like, “I would like a session on fill-in-the-blank,” but we try to hit those high-level adulting 101 topics as best as possible with the input from our student workers.
Some of our student workers will actually go upstairs [on campus] and survey some of the students: “Hey, if it was a choice between this session and this session, what would you prefer?” We try to [work in] real time as we’re developing programming and workshop ideas, make sure that that student voice is incorporated from the get-go.
Inside Higher Ed: When you talk about adulting 101, can you give a few examples of what those subject matters are?
Bucher: Some of the items that we have going on: understanding your student loans and repayments. Pieces like that obviously are in the forefront of our students’ minds. They work hard. Every dollar means something and how that repayment is, and really understanding it afterwards, is not easy.
Some of the other things I mentioned before, discussions around insurance, so in their next stages of life, they’re going to be having to choose [insurance coverage], and I was saying to T this morning, it doesn’t get any easier. I’ve been doing it for 20 years now, and it changes all the time, our choices in insurance, whether that’s health insurance and the other pieces of that. I was just talking about pet insurance yesterday. So there’s so many decisions to be making, and what’s worthwhile and not.
In many ways I think the etiquette dinner really calls into that as well. Once you’re outside of the walls of school, expectations change, and you expect something different of yourself, [but] just having that confidence and knowing what comes next. That has been an event that has been around the college for quite some time, and I really appreciate that it’s been incorporated into this day, remembering that it’s part of the next steps. So sort of from morning to night, it’s woven into all of our many, many events throughout the day.
Horning: I would just add there are other things that, you know, the event happens in April, and so we’re still going through the process of adding some additional workshops.
Some things that we have brought back from year one are things like credit cards, car loans and common-sense investing. So just a primer; we’re not trying to overwhelm students, but present to them what options and what type of decisions they will have to make as an adult.
And along with that, Jasmine mentioned about insurances, and we actually have a senior who is going to go into personal financial planning as a career track; he will be employed by a wealth management firm. And we thought, “Hey, why don’t we pair entrepreneurship with a hands-on workshop?” So he’ll be providing consultations. It helps him practice his skill set becoming an entrepreneur and providing those professional services along with the students, so they get an understanding of, “Gee, when I’m out there, these are the types of questions I will be asked if I have an appointment with a personal financial planner.”
A lot of just realistically making sure that students understand the variety of adulting 101 decisions they will have to make, and then hopefully educating them to be better prepared.
Inside Higher Ed: I love that idea of a peer who can support in those ways, because it’s a little less intimidating than asking somebody you’ve never met before, somebody who’s decades older than you. There’re no silly questions when it’s a classmate.
Bucher: And then they tend to continue that conversation, then with other peers, which is really what we want, right? We want to put this out there in a nonscary way, so that it can infuse out to the student body.
Horning: You really bring up a strong point there. We have recognized that the peer-to-peer learning and education is really important. Whether it’s mentoring, trying to identify peers with common experiences that you can start a conversation with the comfort of knowing, “Oh, you had my professor. You lived in my dorm.” Those types of connections are so invaluable.
Even the program about credit cards and car loans, we specifically tap into one of our corporate sponsors that runs a management trainee program so it’s employment at that particular place of business. And we ask those individuals so they’re like, one to three years out from graduating college, they’re the ones that present on those topics because those are also the decisions they recently made, and now, with the backing of their employer, which is a financial institution, they’re able to speak a little bit more eloquently about what those options might be.
Inside Higher Ed: If you had to give advice to a colleague at a different institution or someone else who wanted to model this on their campus, what’s something that you’ve learned or advice that you would give?
Horning: I think the biggest piece of advice is make sure that the communication and the collaboration across campus is set at the highest levels of leadership. Without the support of the entire community, people are going to wonder what the benefit is or what the return is for their areas. But this truly is a multistakeholder, an entire-campus event, and it has to be treated with that level of engagement. So leadership and just making sure the communication and the coordination, also that everything is moving without a hitch, occurs.
Bucher: I completely agree. This was an initiative started before I worked in this office, and I remember being incredibly impressed knowing that the institution was fully behind it, and that was clear because it was from the top down.
I think really remembering the audiences that it’s serving has also served us really well. I think I would just remind people to really keep in mind who those audiences are, making sure you know that that pairing of young alumni with students, so that they’re not feeling fearful of what’s coming next or intimidated—all of those pieces really lead to success.
Inside Higher Ed: The event is looming; it’s in the next few months. What is something that you’re excited for or something that you would like to tease our audience with as you’re preparing for the event in April?
Bucher: I’m extremely excited for the wide variety of items that are offered here and scheduled, if I could say so, in a really smart manner, so that students can sort of pick and choose throughout the day what creates the best journey for them on that day.
I’m really excited for the communication that’s coming to say, you want to work on your personal brand? Here you go. Looking for an internship? Come and hear how interns have been successful and what has led to that.
I’m just really excited for sort of that audience-speak that really gets to offering to people the really nice variety of pieces that are making up this exciting day.
Horning: Because this is our third year, I’m just excited that it feels like we have found our groove, and people are anticipating this event. People are excited and they want to get in on the action. And I think that is exciting to us in the Breen Center, because we do this because we want it to be of value to the community, and the fact that people are eagerly waiting for this and asking about it, talking about it, just builds the energy, builds the enthusiasm.
I’m looking forward to a great third year and making sure that, again, we’re delivering on the promise of making sure our graduates are really well prepared and that we are behind them 100 percent.
I had the pleasure recently to participate in a lifelong learning session with a group of mostly current or retired educators at my nearby Lincoln Land Community College. The topic was AI in education. It became clear to me that many in our field are challenged to keep up with the rapidly emerging developments in AI.
The audience was eager to learn, however, many were unaware of the current models and capabilities of AI available to them. I had mentioned in the previous edition of “Online: Trending Now” that we are now in the third of a five-step development of AI as envisioned by the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman:
Level 1: Chat bots, AI with conversational language
Level 2: Reasoners, human-level problem solving
Level 3: Agents, systems that can take actions
Level 4: Innovators, AI that can aid in invention
Level 5: Organizations, AI that can do the work of an organization
Most Popular
Level 1, chat bots, are the question (prompt) and answer version that many users still think of as generative AI. Famously, on Nov. 30, 2022, OpenAI released GPT-3.5 featuring ChatGPT, an interactive, conversational AI trained with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and fine-tuned safety measures, derived from the GPT-3.5 model. That became the inflection point for this technology that has rapidly spread around the world:
“ChatGPT stands out as the undisputed leader of this boom, capturing over 82.5% of the total traffic, with over two billion global visits and 500 million users each month. The pace of adoption is particularly noteworthy. ChatGPT set a record as the fastest-growing consumer software in history, reaching 100 million users just 64 days after the release of the updated ChatGPT3.5 in May 2023. It’s not alone in this surge; Baidu’s AI chatbot, ‘Ernie Bot,’ surpassed 200 million users within just eight months of its launch.”
Yet, this technology has, importantly, developed beyond earlier versions to stage 2, which Sam Altman called “reasoners,” such as the more recently released OpenAI o1 and OpenAI o3-mini. Every version of GPT engages in some form of text-based pattern recognition that can look like reasoning. The newer versions exhibit markedly stronger logical consistency, better multistep problem-solving and better handling of extended context. This is why Altman calls the latest iterations “reasoner” models: They integrate more advanced techniques, larger context windows and improved training methods to produce answers that seem more logically sound. Ultimately, these “reasoner” capabilities reflect the evolution of large language models toward more complex forms of textual analysis and response.
The newer model OpenAI o3-mini is available to all users (paid and unpaid). I encourage you test out this reasoner model. You are welcome to use the GPT I trained for higher education emphasis, Ray’s eduAI Advisor, or the general ChatGPT site. In either case, try running a deep, questioning prompt that requires interpretation and significant research in its response. You will be able to briefly view the thought process that o3 is taking flash onto the top of your screen. The model shares this thought process with you as it assesses your question and context, then gathers data and ultimately responds to your question. What is unique about this level of AI is that you can see how the application is thinking about your inquiry. This will give you hints as to how you might craft follow-up prompts to add insights and perspectives to your inquiry.
On Feb. 2, 2025, OpenAI announced a highly advanced application built upon 03-mini named “Deep Research,” saying:
“Today we are launching our next agent capable of doing work for you independently—deep research. Give it a prompt and ChatGPT will find, analyze & synthesize hundreds of online sources to create a comprehensive report in tens of minutes vs what would take a human many hours … Powered by a version of OpenAI o3 optimized for web browsing and python analysis, deep research uses reasoning to intelligently and extensively browse text, images, and PDFs across the internet. Deep Research is built for people who do intensive knowledge work in areas like finance, science, policy & engineering and need thorough & reliable research.”
While Deep Research is not available to the general public at this time, online demonstrations show that this very powerful tool conducts both reasoning and far-reaching analysis. In her podcast of Feb. 9, AI expert Julia McCoy reports that the release of Deep Research puts us on the cusp of artificial general intelligence (summarized by Gemini 2.0 Flash):
“The podcast talks about OpenAI’s new deep learning models, 03 mini and Deep Research. 03 mini is a groundbreaking reasoning Powerhouse that fundamentally changes how AI approaches problems. Unlike previous models, 03 mini actually thinks before it speaks, methodically working through complex tasks with unprecedented precision. Deep Research is an autonomous research assistant that can spend up to 30 minutes deeply analyzing information, something previously unheard of in AI systems. What makes Deep Research truly special is its ability to dynamically adapt its research path, combining multiple sources and presenting its findings in fully cited comprehensive reports in seconds. The podcast discusses how Deep Research can be used to provide medical diagnoses and treatment recommendations. It can also be used for other knowledge work, such as market research and product development. The podcast concludes by discussing the implications of these new models for the future of AI. The host believes that we will see AGI [Artificial General Intelligence] this year and ASI [Artificial Super Intelligence] possibly as soon as 2027.”
“We will next ship GPT-4.5, the model we called Orion internally, as our last non-chain-of-thought model. After that, a top goal for us is to unify o-series models and GPT-series models by creating systems that can use all our tools, know when to think for a long time or not, and generally be useful for a very wide range of tasks. In both ChatGPT and our API, we will release GPT-5 as a system that integrates a lot of our technology, including o3. We will no longer ship o3 as a standalone model. The free tier of ChatGPT will get unlimited chat access to GPT-5 at the standard intelligence setting (!!), subject to abuse thresholds. Plus subscribers will be able to run GPT-5 at a higher level of intelligence, and Pro subscribers will be able to run GPT-5 at an even higher level of intelligence. These models will incorporate voice, canvas, search, deep research, and more.”
The funneling of all of the capabilities of OpenAI technologies into the GPT-5 track shows a maturing of the technology. The three levels of intelligence most likely point to true AGI in the higher levels that will be released with GPT-5 later this year! Clearly, advancements are taking place very rapidly.
In addition, with the advent of new competitors both here and abroad, we are seeing new options for open-source models and alternative approaches. As these become more efficient and reliable, prices are headed lower while features continue to expand. McCoy’s vision of AGI seems only months, not years, away.
How are these highly advanced tools being used by your university to enhance teaching, learning, research and other mission-centric tasks? Are most of your faculty, staff and administrators well versed on the recent developments and potential of AI? Are they prepared for the full release of GPT-5? What can you do to help your institution remain efficient, effective and competitive?
Founded in 1957, Cabrini University, a small, tuition-driven Roman Catholic liberal arts institution located outside of Philadelphia, closed last June after providing a year’s notice of its impending closure. One of at least 14 nonprofit four-year colleges that announced closures in 2023, Cabrini announced a memorandum of understanding with Villanova University in June 2023, signed a definitive agreement in November 2023 and closed the transaction in June 2024.
Through this transaction, Cabrini was afforded a final year of operation prior to closure. Villanova acquired Cabrini’s assets, including a 112-acre property, and committed to preserving the legacy of Cabrini through commitments like naming its new campus Villanova University Cabrini Campus, providing Cabrini representatives two seats on the Villanova board for up to two successive five-year terms, stewarding the Mother Cabrini special collections and planning events for Cabrini alumni.
In this three-part essay, we—Cabrini’s former interim president, Helen Drinan, and former members of the academic leadership team—describe our decision to seek a strategic partner, the planning that went into a dignified closure and the ways we supported employees and students through a mission-driven plan to help them transition in terms of their careers and academic studies.
High acceptance rate: It increased from 72 percent in 2018 to 79 percent in 2022.
Low yield on offers of admission: It declined from 17 percent in 2018 to 11 percent in 2022.
Falling enrollment: 29.3 percent decline between 2018 (2,283) and 2022 (1,613).
Rising institutional aid: Institutional aid awards increased by about 38 percent from 2018 to 2022 ($10,595 per student in 2018 to $14,638 per student in 2022), outpacing small increases in tuition. In 2022–23, 39 percent of Cabrini’s undergraduate students were receiving Pell Grants and 99 percent received institutional grant or scholarship aid.
Persistent operating losses: Eight years of operating losses from 2015 to 2022, ranging between $1.9 million and $10 million, topped off by a fiscal year 2023 budget awaiting approval that included its highest-ever multimillion-dollar operating loss.
Enrollment and financial operating data of course tell only part of the story of a troubled institution. Many leadership decisions made over time cumulatively result in these kinds of outcomes. At least three common practices have emerged as critical leadership traps in higher education: nonstrategic launches of initiatives intended to increase revenues or decrease costs, consistent drawdowns of the endowment to cover annual losses and accumulation of deferred maintenance. All three of these institution-threatening practices were occurring at Cabrini over the eight years leading to the summer of 2022, when we realized time was running out.
The Road to Closure
Sound strategic planning for a tuition-dependent, modestly endowed, indebted institution like Cabrini depends on choosing opportunities that expand on existing expertise, require minimal capital outlays and are tested for success within a three-year time frame. At Cabrini, too many new initiatives, well beyond historic areas of expertise, were launched in the eight years prior to closure, resulting in a laundry list of only loosely related activities: a targeted international student recruitment program, graduate online education, revived adult degree completion offerings, new doctoral programs, a new residence hall and parking garage, efforts to qualify as a Hispanic-serving institution, and the start-up of a new undergraduate nursing program. All this occurred while the university took on additional debt for construction activity and used federal pandemic relief funding to fill revenue gaps, pushing the institution to the point where it faced its largest-ever annual deficit and rapidly declining cash on hand going into fiscal year 2023.
In summer 2022, Cabrini’s Board of Trustees approved a four-month budget delay, and the senior leadership team sought to identify $10 million in revenue and expense improvements. In September, the senior leadership team presented the board with two alternative paths: 1) a plan to operate for three-plus years to assess the financial feasibility of staying independent or 2) a plan to find the best possible partner to help support the institution financially. Past strategies such as voluntary separation programs, involuntary separations and the hiring of external consultants all yielded unsuccessful results and negatively impacted employee morale. The best opportunities for maintaining independence involved growing revenues, reducing costs (with the understanding that previous attempts to do so were insufficient), capitalizing on real estate and seeking nontraditional revenue streams.
The Penultimate Year
Prior to the decision to close, while institutional leaders remained focused on staying viable, senior leadership offered an exclusive interview to ThePhiladelphia Inquirer in the spirit of transparency, announcing very aggressive organizational changes and plans for new programs and publicly expressing an interest in partnerships. Such an approach, we realized, would raise further questions about the future of the institution: The truth is that once an institution acknowledges difficulties, questions will proliferate, and it is best to be transparent and open when responding.
As fall 2022 moved into winter, our leadership team became aware of three negative trends: 1) efforts to recruit the new first-year class were falling short of enrollment targets, 2) new program launches took longer than expected, creating a lag in new revenue, attributable in large part to reduced marketing resources, and 3) partnership conversations yielded few opportunities serious enough to pursue. Two institutions were seriously considering partnering with us, allowing for academic and possibly athletic continuity. However, in both cases, potential partner boards determined they were “unable to buy Cabrini’s problems” because of its declining cash and indebtedness.
Given the direction of these conversations, we concluded that the institution was not financially viable. We determined that the best opportunity to preserve Cabrini’s legacy and ensure students, faculty and staff would experience a full academic year prior to closure was to readily agree to the MOU with Villanova, the initial step toward an asset purchase agreement and a graceful closure.
Villanova’s strategic direction proved key to the partnership decision. Villanova’s strength as an Augustinian institution in the Catholic tradition aligned beautifully with Cabrini’s heritage, and the missions of both institutions made for wonderful integration opportunities in such areas as immigration, leadership and services for marginalized populations. Cabrini’s real estate offered the expansion opportunities Villanova desired in close proximity to its beautifully built-out campus. And Villanova’s financial resources enabled Cabrini to deliver a robust final year to all its students, faculty and staff, the value of which is beyond measure.
The university graduated a senior class in May 2024, offered placements to every student interested in continuing their education and supported its workforce with a combination of job-seeking resources, retention payments and severance, none of which would have been possible without Villanova’s remarkable engagement. (Part 2 of this series provides further detail about Cabrini’s final year and transition planning.)
Part of why we think the partnership worked was because we, as the institutional leadership team, effectively checked our egos at the door. We knew our focus had to be on what was best for the institution, not our own personal outcomes, to credibly lead the university through closure. A key lesson for other institutions exploring acquisitions or mergers is that the future expectations of the sitting president as well as of board members in a new organization should be clarified early in partner conversations; otherwise, personal expectations could present an obstacle to the transaction’s success.
Another lesson for any struggling institution is to think critically about the kinds of partner institutions that would find you attractive, how much leverage you might have and how much you can do to minimize your downsides. This is not typically work you can do as you face the threat of immediate closure. For institutions that may be financially stable but are experiencing some of the indicators of risk and stress mentioned at the start of this essay, the task of thoughtfully identifying potential partners could be an important activity for trustees and senior leadership teams to pursue.
Editor’s note: The second and third installments of the series will be published on the next two Wednesdays.
Helen Drinan served as interim president of Cabrini University. Previously, she served as president of Simmons University.
Michelle Filling-Brown is associate vice provost for integrated student experience and a teaching professor in the Department of English at Villanova University. She formerly served as chief academic officer/dean for academic affairs at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Richie Gebauer is dean of student success at Bryn Mawr College. He formerly served as assistant dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University.
Erin McLaughlin is the interim dean of the College of Arts, Education and Humanities at DeSales University. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Business, Education and Professional Studies at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Kimberly Boyd is assistant professor of biology and anatomy and physiology at Delaware County Community College. She formerly served as dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 25 years.
Missy Terlecki is dean of the School of Professional and Applied Psychology at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Arts and Sciences at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 19 years.
Lynda Buzzard is associate vice president and controller at Villanova University. Previously, she served as the vice president of finance and administration at Cabrini University in its final year.
Arguably, the most recognisable example of translational research in recent years was the swift development and rollout of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The world was waiting for this research to meet its real-world ambition. Many members of the public would recognise that some of this research was undertaken at Oxford University and, with some exceptions, would also recognise the beneficial impact of the vaccine for both individuals and society. Following the rollout, there was even a public discussion that touched upon the idea of interdisciplinarity. How could the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine be communicated to communities who felt reluctant to have the jab or distrustful of medical science?
However, there was another piece of research that was translated into real-world effect with serendipitous timing.
In 2013, Professor Andrew Ellis was working at the Aston Institute of Photonic Technologies. Ellis had previously worked at BT, where his observations and experience suggested that the ‘capacity’ needed in the telephone infrastructure had and would increase consistently over time and was consistently underestimated. Ellis recalls an ongoing refrain of ‘surely we have enough capacity already’. This continued to be true once the copper phone lines were used to deliver data for home internet usage.
At this point, most residential properties were on ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) internet connections. That is where copper wires are used to deliver broadband internet. Homes were typically working at speeds of around 8 megabits per second (Mbps).
The Government had developed a strategy setting out that the majority of residential properties should be able to work at speeds of ‘at least 2 Mbps per second and 95% of the UK receiving far greater speeds (at least 24 Mbps) by 2017’. Fibre broadband was beginning to be rolled out, which used fibre optic cables to transmit data much more quickly. However, these fibre optic cables were generally only used to reach the street cabinet, with copper wires connecting the street cabinets to individual homes, restricting the broadband speed that could be achieved.
From his previous work, Ellis could see that this ambition was neither competitive internationally nor of sufficient use long-term when demand for emerging applications was taken into account. He demonstrated that capacity was falling well below the predicted need and that the UK was slipping down the league table for connectivity in economically developed countries. Estonia, Poland, Korea and Norway were all streaking ahead.
Ellis contacted MPs working on this strategy via the Industry and Parliament Trust. Two breakfast meetings and a dinner meeting were held to discuss the lack of ambition in the strategy. However, only the fortuitous attendance of a senior civil servant at the dinner meeting led to a policy breakthrough. Further momentum and publicity were generated by a meeting organised by the Royal Society to discuss ‘Communication networks beyond the capacity crunch’, including a presentation by Dr Andrew Lord.
Ellis was lobbying for an increase in ambition. There was resistance to this as there was no additional money to spend on improving infrastructure outside of the spending review cycle. Ellis convinced the Government that no additional spending was needed to change the ambition. Changing a number in a policy document wouldn’t (on this occasion) cost the government any more money. (The terms ‘pure-fibre’ and ‘full-fibre’ were also coined at these meetings, meaning using fibre optics cables to the street cabinet and from the cabinet to individual homes.)
With the Government changing their ambition, providers such as Clear Fibre, Gigaclear and BT Openreach would need to improve the infrastructure to deliver faster broadband to our homes.
It was estimated that upgrading the whole UK to full fibre would cost £40-60 billion as part of the EU-funded Discus project. Research by the AiPT team showed that it would be closer to £8-10 billion if the network was reconfigured according to their research proposals, a one-for-one replacement of network equipment from copper to fibre-based ones. Further, research demonstrated that fibre is also more energy efficient.
Optical networks were using about 2% of the electricity in the developing world. (Ellis explained that BT objected to this figure, stating that it was, in fact, 1.96%!) Not only was a full-fibre network faster, it was also more energy efficient. (This now pales in significance to the energy consumption that will increasingly be needed to power AI data centres.)
BT began rolling out full-fibre broadband to 80% of the UK. In 2019, BT hired heavily for this work, much of which was completed in the first few months of 2020. The increased activity and presence of BT vans helped fuel the 5G coronavirus conspiracy!
In a moment of serendipity, this meant that by the 23rd of March 2020, when the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced the first lockdown, there was enough access capacity for many of us to begin working at home. As we got used to Zoom and Teams, multiple people were using video calls in one household for work and homeschooling. Not only did this allow for a relatively smooth transition to remote working, but it allowed our children to continue accessing their education and for us to keep in touch with friends and family (Zoom quiz, anyone?) The societal shift to remote working, prompted by lockdowns but enabled by full-fibre, remains both contested in terms of productivity and profound in terms of impact.
I asked Andrew what challenges he faced when trying to inform industry and policy of his research. He noted three key barriers:
To impact Government policy, one needs to know the right person to talk to. There must be barriers to prevent a free-for-all lobbying system of civil servants. However, policy institutes, research impact centres and organisations such as the IPT should be able to facilitate connections when this is helpful to both parties.
The second – is the structure of academic contracts. New ideas often come from, and are certainly implemented by, PhD students and Research Assistants. However, given that most research assistants are on two- or three-year contracts, their eyes are firmly on improving their CV to land the next contract. This often leads them to focus almost entirely on publications. To build good links with industry and engage in long-term strategy, longer-term job contracts are needed.
Similarly, he feels a strong tension between metrics, such as 4* papers, required for REF and rapid publication of results in outlets read or attended by decision-makers in industry, where solutions are often required in months rather than years
Whilst the success of the COVID vaccine development may have made global headlines, the work of the AiPT’s team (Andrew believes that others lobbied on the same topic, including Professor Dimitra Simeonidou at the University of Bristol, Professor Polina Bayvel CBE at University College London and Professor Sir David Payne at Southampton University) quietly allowed many of us to continue working and to be connected to our colleagues, friends, and family throughout the pandemic. Further, as Professor Sarah Gilbert, Professor of Vaccinology at the Jenner Institute and lead scientist on the vaccine project, explains, the ability to work remotely with trial volunteers (giving them information via video instead of in-person presentations) and collaborating with colleagues across the globe was vital in the vaccine production itself.
As more and more students travel from their home to study, grappling with all the challenges of supporting commuter students has become the norm for the sector.
How do we create a sense of belonging for these students, how do we make their time on campus as positive as possible and how do we increase attendance and then keep them on campus? It’s often approached as a problem to fix.
And at the University of Worcester we did just this. And we’ve had some great solutions – providing fridges and microwaves, so commuters could bring and store food. Students services have run “fancy a cuppa” sessions throughout the week so that students have space to gather at no cost and many academic teams are developing flexible approaches to delivery that recognise the challenges of travel.
But behind the scenes colleagues were starting to recognise that the reasons for commuting and the challenges this created were complex, multi-faceted and far reaching.
Commuting students are now the majority of our students and this impacts on the experience for all students – getting it right for commuting students means getting it right for all students.
We need to shift our thinking from commuters as a problem to solve to instead how can the university change and adapt across the institution to meet the evolving needs of our students.
We needed to listen
We needed to understand the why, the how and the impact of daily travel to university. And to do this we needed to raise the profile of these students with those tasked with decision making across the university.
We launched “listening lunches” to combat survey fatigue and facilitate comfortable spaces in the middle of the day where students could drop in on their own terms, have a free lunch and share anything that was on their minds.
Travelling to campus daily involved managing caring responsibilities, school runs, late or cancelled trains and the impact of travel disruption caused by flooding and road closures. When students were unable to attend it meant disrupted classes, low attendance and made it harder for students to maintain group assignments.
It wasn’t all negative. Students shared examples of thoughtful and reactive responses from staff who were aware of these challenges and were adapting their practice accordingly. Crucially, this wasn’t formalised or widely applied.
Where staff were finding ways to support students’ engagement and students had the opportunity to talk to staff about their experience and seeing things being done as a result, this improved how students felt about the university.
Examples where students felt heard, and where their engagement was not measured in attendance but in participation, were particularly positive.
Making a case for change.
While we had anecdotal evidence from multiple sources, it wasn’t being captured in our formal feedback mechanisms, and therefore wasn’t being centred in discussions.
As part of our sustainability initiatives, we have run a student travel survey for a number of years – surveys were widely seen as important in shaping students’ experience – this was an opportunity to formally gather the feedback we had had anecdotally.
The surveys were adapted to incorporate questions relating to “commuting students” and we asked students what measures could be put in place to support their participation. Unsurprisingly a lot of the feedback was around the cost of travel, including the cost and availability of car parking and the impact of poor public transport.
Our second round of listening lunches took the feedback from this survey back to the students as a series of discussion prompts. A complex picture started to emerge that touched on areas such as sustainability, widening participation, retention, campus experience, learning and teaching and support services.
These are not necessarily areas that have always had a central focus on commuters.
We need to talk about commuter students on a much broader scale across institutions.
To do this, we’re sharing our understanding across the university, via formal committees and working groups as well as building a diverse network of colleagues who can centre the needs of commuter students in any and all conversations about the student experience.
For example, colleagues who are now members of the transport and travel group have been able to support campus-based students needing to travel to placement with timely and affordable university managed transport.
Building an institutional agenda
In order to adequately support commuter students, support can’t be centred in one department. Here’s some ways to think about commuter students across an institution.
Find ways to first centre the student voice in building your understanding of how students participate and engage when living off campus. Then consider ways to broaden the conversation to include colleagues from less obvious areas of the university such as sustainability, EDI, retention and outcomes, resources and facilities as well as continuing to include colleagues from student services and academic schools.
Reframe the way you consider engagement to go beyond attendance and towards participation and consider that there are more students impacted by commuting than you may first think.
Don’t view commuters as the problem, but instead a valued and core part of your student community. Making sure your university works for commuters means that it also works for all students.
Long breaks between lectures on campus are common and when it comes to downtime between lectures, a study or hospitality space isn’t always sufficient. Meaningful things to do on campus makes commuters feel part of a community. At Worcester we’ve co-created the “You Matter” programme to facilitate this with drop-in creative focused activities during the day.
Finally commuter students’ lives are busy and complex. They place a great deal of importance on how close the university is to their home, i.e. relocating is not a priority or an option due to complex responsibilities. The cost and availability of transport options have a significant impact on students’ ability to attend and students are often juggling family, part-time work and study in an increasingly challenging financial climate.
The more institutions begin by understanding this, the better. Only then can you build an agenda across an institution to recognise, value and support commuters.
This blog is part of our series on commuter students, click here to read more.
