Moderated by Samir Sonti – Assistant Professor, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies.
What are the real costs to bear on workers–especially civil service and public sector workers – with Project 2025 and the establishment of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency? What strategies can labor employ to counter this attack on working people and unions? How can looking back at previous far right policy projects help prepare us in our fight to protect workers? Join us to hear from law & policy experts and journalists as they discuss these urgent questions.
A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression finds that conservative and very conservative Americans have more confidence that President Trump will protect their First Amendment rights than Gov. Gavin Newsom or the Supreme Court. Liberal and very liberal Americans are skeptical that any of them will protect their first amendment rights, though they are most confident in Newsom.
The fifth installment of FIRE’s National Free Speech Index further reveals that there is a partisan disagreement about the security of free speech in America and whether or not it is headed in the right direction. When it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, conservatives are more likely to think that things in America are heading in the right direction and are likely to think that the right to freedom of speech is secure in America today, compared to liberals.
This was not the case three months ago.
Overall, when it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, 41% of Americans think things in America are heading in the right direction, up 5% from October when 36% of Americans felt this way. Yet, compared to last year, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the direction freedom of speech is headed in America in this month’s survey. In July of last year, 31% of very liberal and 45% of liberal Americans reported that freedom of speech in America is headed in the right direction while just 16% of conservative and 20% of very conservative Americans reported the same. Then, in October, 46% of very liberal and 49% of liberal Americans reported the same while just 18% of conservative and 30% of conservative Americans did.
This month however, more conservative (52%) and very conservative (49%) Americans reported thinking things in America are heading in the right direction when it comes to freedom of speech compared to moderate (42%), liberal (34%) or very liberal (31%) Americans. After October last year, a drastic shift in ideological perspective on the state of free speech occurred between liberals and conservatives. While liberal and very liberal Americans were more likely to think that things in America were heading in the right direction in October, in January, conservative and very conservative Americans are now the ones most likely to report the same.
In addition, last year, very liberal and liberal Americans reported much more confidence than conservative and very conservative Americans in the security of free speech in America. In July, 41% of very liberal and 30% of liberal Americans reported that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very” secure while 49% of conservative and 61% of very conservative Americans reported the same.
In October, the partisan divide grew larger, with 32% of very liberal and 27% of liberal Americans reporting that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure” while 55% of conservative and 60% of very conservative Americans reported the same.
The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election.
Yet, this month, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the security of free speech in America, with 46% of very liberal and 36% of liberal Americans reporting “not at all” or “not very secure” and 29% of conservative and 41% of very conservative Americans reporting the same, showcasing conservatives’ growing trust that their free speech rights are secure.
Moderates, on the other hand, have remained consistent in their views over the last six months, with approximately 40% of moderates reporting that the freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure”.
This quarter’s survey makes evident the ideological trends among Americans and their perspectives on the security and condition of their free speech rights. The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election.
You’ve got this idea in your head that learning is just for the young. That somehow, because you’ve crossed an invisible threshold of time, your ability to grow has diminished.
But that’s not true. The truth?
Learning has no expiration date. Growth is unlimited—if you choose it.
If you’re over 30 and thinking about going back to school, learning a new skill, or changing careers, you might have some limiting beliefs that are holding you back.
These beliefs aren’t facts.
They’re stories you’ve been telling yourself for years—stories that keep you stuck, small, and afraid to take action. But here’s the good news: you can rewire your mind, break free from these false narratives, and set powerful goals that put you on the path to success.
Let’s shatter these mental barriers and replace them with unstoppable momentum.
Limiting Beliefs and SMART Goals for Students Over 30
30. “I’m too old to learn.”
The problem isn’t your age—it’s your mindset.
If you believe learning is only for the young, it’s because society has conditioned you to think that way. Maybe you were told that school was for kids, or that adults can’t absorb information as quickly. The effect? You hesitate to sign up for that course, procrastinate on picking up that book, and let your comfort zone shrink.
But here’s the truth: your brain is capable of growth at any age. Neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to adapt and form new connections—doesn’t shut off at 30, 40, or even 70. The solution? Shift your identity from someone who “missed their chance” to someone who is a lifelong learner.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Enroll in one online or in-person course within the next month.
Measurable: Complete at least one lesson or chapter per week.
Achievable: Choose a subject you’re genuinely interested in to stay motivated.
Relevant: Align your learning with a skill that benefits your career or personal growth.
Time-bound: Finish the course within three months and apply what you learn immediately.
29. “I’ll never be as good as younger students.”
This belief stems from comparison, and comparison is the thief of progress.
If you’re constantly measuring yourself against younger students who might grasp concepts faster or have more energy, you’re setting yourself up for frustration.
The effect? You feel discouraged before you even begin, convinced that you’ll always be behind. But here’s what you need to understand: success isn’t a race, and mastery isn’t about age—it’s about consistency.
The solution? Stop competing with others and start competing with yourself. Focus on progress, not perfection.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Track your personal improvement by journaling your learning progress weekly.
Measurable: Set a goal to improve by at least 10% in a specific area (e.g., test scores, typing speed, fluency in a language) within three months.
Achievable: Break down skills into manageable chunks and celebrate small wins.
Relevant: Focus on skills that directly enhance your personal or professional life.
Time-bound: Commit to reviewing your progress every month and adjusting your approach as needed.
28. “It’s too late to start over.”
This belief is rooted in fear—fear that you’ve invested too much time in one path to pivot, fear that others will judge you, fear that you won’t succeed.
The effect? You stay stuck in a situation that no longer fulfills you, convincing yourself that it’s “too late” while years keep passing by. But here’s the truth: every successful person you admire took a leap at some point.
The solution? Reframe starting over as an opportunity, not a setback. Instead of focusing on what you’re leaving behind, focus on what you’re gaining—new skills, new possibilities, and a future you’re excited about.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Research at least three career paths, degrees, or certifications that align with your interests within the next two weeks.
Measurable: Have informational interviews with at least two professionals in your desired field within the next month.
Achievable: Choose one small step, like enrolling in a beginner-level course or attending an industry event, within six weeks.
Relevant: Ensure the new path aligns with your long-term personal and financial goals.
Time-bound: Set a deadline to make a concrete decision and take action within three months.
27. “I don’t have the time to go back to school.”
The real issue isn’t time—it’s priorities.
You tell yourself you’re too busy, but if you audit your schedule, you’ll see hours lost to social media, TV, or tasks that don’t move you forward. The effect? You put off your education for “someday,” which never comes. But here’s the truth: you don’t need endless free time to succeed—you need better time management.
The solution? Shift from “I don’t have time” to “I will make time.” Learning can fit into your life if you create a plan and stick to it.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Identify and eliminate at least one time-wasting habit within the next week.
Measurable: Dedicate a minimum of 30 minutes per day to studying or skill development.
Achievable: Use micro-learning techniques, such as listening to audiobooks during commutes or studying in short, focused bursts.
Relevant: Align study time with your peak productivity hours and daily schedule.
Time-bound: Stick to this routine for the next 90 days, then reassess and adjust.
26. “I won’t be able to keep up with the workload.”
This belief comes from a fear of failure—of being overwhelmed, falling behind, and proving yourself right that you “can’t do it.”
The effect? You hesitate to even start, or if you do, you self-sabotage by procrastinating or avoiding challenges. But here’s the truth: success isn’t about doing everything at once—it’s about mastering the art of prioritization and consistency. The solution? Stop focusing on the entire mountain and start focusing on the next step.
You don’t need to finish everything in one day; you just need to build momentum.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Break down your coursework or learning material into weekly, manageable goals.
Measurable: Complete at least one key assignment, chapter, or study session per week.
Achievable: Use productivity techniques like the Pomodoro method (25-minute focus sessions) to avoid burnout.
Relevant: Ensure your study plan aligns with your learning pace and lifestyle.
Time-bound: Maintain a consistent study routine for the next 60 days, then reassess and refine.
25. “I don’t have enough money to go back to school.”
Money is a real challenge, but the bigger problem is the belief that a lack of funds equals a lack of options.
The effect? You rule out education before even exploring financial aid, scholarships, or alternative learning paths. But here’s the truth: there are countless ways to learn and advance your career without massive debt. The solution?
Get strategic. Research funding options, seek out free or low-cost courses, and remember—education is an investment, not an expense.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Identify at least five scholarship, grant, or financial aid options within the next month.
Measurable: Apply for at least three funding opportunities within the next 60 days.
Achievable: Explore alternative learning options like MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) or employer-sponsored training programs.
Relevant: Focus on education that aligns with your career goals and has a strong return on investment.
Time-bound: Secure a financial plan for your education within the next three months.
24. “I was never good at writing essays, so I’ll struggle now.”
This belief is rooted in past academic experiences—you might have received poor grades, struggled with structuring your thoughts, or been told you weren’t a “good writer.”
The effect? You convince yourself that essay writing is an insurmountable skill, leading to avoidance, procrastination, or self-doubt. But here’s the truth: writing is not an innate talent—it’s a skill that improves with practice and structure.
The solution? Instead of seeing essay writing as a test of intelligence, approach it as a formula you can master step by step.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Learn a simple essay structure (introduction, body, conclusion) within the next two weeks.
Measurable: Write one short (300-500 word) practice essay every week for the next two months.
Achievable: Use writing aids like outlines, templates, and AI writing tools for guidance.
Relevant: Focus on topics that align with your coursework or personal interests to stay engaged.
Time-bound: Review and refine your essays over 60 days, tracking improvements in clarity and structure.
23. “I don’t know where to start when writing an essay.”
The blank page can feel paralyzing, making essay writing seem like an impossible task. The effect? You either spend hours staring at an empty document, or worse, rush through your essay at the last minute with little confidence in the final result. But here’s the truth: the hardest part of writing is getting started, and the key to overcoming this is to break the process into small, manageable steps. The solution? Instead of trying to write a perfect essay in one sitting, start with brainstorming, then an outline, then a rough draft.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Spend 15 minutes brainstorming ideas before writing any essay.
Measurable: Create an outline before writing at least three essays over the next month.
Achievable: Follow a step-by-step essay writing process (brainstorm, outline, draft, edit).
Relevant: Apply this method to actual assignments or practice essays to build confidence.
Time-bound: Implement this structured writing approach for the next 90 days and track improvements in speed and clarity.
22. “I don’t have a big enough vocabulary to write well.”
Many people believe that great writing requires fancy words and complex sentences, but this is a myth. The effect? You second-guess your word choices, feel insecure about your writing, and sometimes overcompensate by using words you don’t fully understand, making your essays sound unnatural. But here’s the truth: clear, concise writing is more powerful than complex vocabulary. The solution? Focus on learning and using new words naturally rather than forcing them into your writing. Strong essays are built on clarity, not complexity.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Learn five new academic words each week and use them in sentences.
Measurable: Incorporate at least three newly learned words into every essay.
Achievable: Use a vocabulary journal or flashcards to reinforce new words.
Relevant: Focus on words commonly used in academic writing rather than obscure terms.
Time-bound: Track vocabulary improvement over three months and assess its impact on your writing.
21. “I don’t know how to structure my essays properly.”
If your essays feel unorganized or lack flow, it’s likely because you were never taught a clear structure. The effect? Your arguments feel scattered, making your writing harder to follow, which can lead to lower grades or frustration with the writing process. But here’s the truth: essay structure follows predictable patterns, and once you master them, writing becomes much easier. The solution? Learn a reliable essay structure, like the five-paragraph model, and practice organizing your thoughts before writing.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Learn and apply the basic essay structure (introduction, body paragraphs, conclusion) to every essay.
Measurable: Write at least three structured practice essays within the next month.
Achievable: Use templates or outlines to ensure logical organization.
Relevant: Apply structured writing techniques to assignments that impact your academic progress.
Time-bound: Assess improvements in essay clarity and coherence after 60 days of structured writing.
20. “I’ve never been good at studying, so I won’t do well now.”
This belief comes from past experiences—maybe you struggled in school, crammed at the last minute, or never developed effective study habits. The effect? You assume that no matter how hard you try, you won’t retain information or perform well on exams, leading to self-sabotage or procrastination. But here’s the truth: studying is a skill, and like any skill, it can be learned and improved. The solution? Shift your focus from effort to strategy—by using proven study techniques, you can dramatically improve your retention and performance.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Experiment with at least three different study techniques (active recall, the Feynman technique, or spaced repetition) over the next month.
Measurable: Track which method helps you retain information best by testing yourself after each session.
Achievable: Start with short, focused study sessions (30-45 minutes) to avoid burnout.
Relevant: Apply these techniques to real coursework or exam preparation.
Time-bound: Evaluate study effectiveness after 30 days and refine your approach.
19. “I get distracted too easily to focus on studying.”
With phones, social media, and life responsibilities, it’s easy to feel like focus is impossible. The effect? You sit down to study but end up scrolling your phone or doing something else entirely, leading to frustration and wasted time. But here’s the truth: focus isn’t about willpower—it’s about creating the right environment and using strategies that help you stay on track. The solution? Set up distraction-free study sessions, use time-blocking techniques, and train your brain to concentrate in short bursts.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Create a dedicated study space free of distractions within the next week.
Measurable: Use the Pomodoro technique (25 minutes of focused work, 5-minute breaks) for at least three study sessions per week.
Achievable: Install website blockers or put your phone in another room while studying.
Relevant: Focus on eliminating distractions that directly interfere with study efficiency.
Time-bound: Maintain distraction-free study sessions for the next 60 days and assess improvements in focus.
18. “I can’t remember what I study, so there’s no point in trying.”
This belief stems from ineffective study techniques—you might be reading passively, cramming, or relying on rote memorization without truly understanding the material. The effect? You feel frustrated when information doesn’t stick, leading to discouragement and avoidance of studying altogether. But here’s the truth: memory is trainable, and using the right techniques can drastically improve retention. The solution? Move from passive reading to active learning—use recall, summarization, and teaching methods to reinforce what you study.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Use active recall by summarizing key concepts from memory after each study session.
Measurable: Test yourself on the material at least twice before each exam or assignment deadline.
Achievable: Implement spaced repetition by reviewing notes on a structured schedule (e.g., after 1 day, 1 week, 1 month).
Relevant: Apply memory techniques to subjects that require strong recall, like exams or presentations.
Time-bound: Track improvements in retention over the next 90 days by comparing test performance.
17. “I don’t know how to take effective notes.”
Many people think note-taking is just about copying information, but without structure or strategy, notes become overwhelming and ineffective. The effect? You spend time writing but struggle to understand or recall the material later, making studying feel pointless. But here’s the truth: good notes should simplify, organize, and highlight key concepts. The solution? Use structured note-taking methods like the Cornell Method, mind mapping, or summarization to make notes clear and useful.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Learn and test at least one structured note-taking method over the next two weeks.
Measurable: Review and refine notes after every class or study session.
Achievable: Keep notes concise by summarizing key points instead of writing everything verbatim.
Relevant: Apply structured note-taking to subjects where organization helps most (e.g., complex topics, essay writing).
Time-bound: Track improvements in comprehension and recall over the next 60 days.
16. “I don’t know how to manage my time effectively for studying.”
This belief comes from feeling overwhelmed—you juggle work, family, and responsibilities, so studying often gets pushed aside. The effect? You either cram at the last minute or avoid studying altogether, leading to stress and poor retention. But here’s the truth: time isn’t the problem—how you structure it is. The solution? Create a study schedule that works with your lifestyle, using time-blocking and prioritization to ensure steady progress.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Develop a weekly study schedule that includes dedicated time slots for learning.
Measurable: Study for at least five hours per week, broken into manageable sessions.
Achievable: Use a planner or digital calendar to track and adjust study sessions as needed.
Relevant: Align study time with peak focus hours (e.g., early morning or late evening).
Time-bound: Maintain this routine for 30 days, then evaluate and refine based on effectiveness.
15. “I always procrastinate when it comes to studying.”
Procrastination isn’t laziness—it’s often a response to overwhelm, perfectionism, or fear of failure. The effect? You delay studying until the last minute, leading to rushed work, high stress, and lower performance. But here’s the truth: breaking procrastination requires momentum, not motivation. The solution? Start with small, easy tasks to build consistency and use accountability techniques to stay on track.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Use the “two-minute rule” to start study sessions with a small, manageable task.
Measurable: Begin at least three study sessions per week with a five-minute warm-up (e.g., reviewing notes).
Achievable: Set mini-deadlines for assignments to avoid last-minute cramming.
Relevant: Apply anti-procrastination techniques to high-priority subjects first.
Time-bound: Stick to this approach for the next 60 days and track procrastination patterns.
14. “I don’t have the discipline to study consistently.”
This belief comes from the idea that discipline is something you either have or you don’t—but that’s not true. The effect? You rely on motivation, which fades, and when you inevitably skip a study session, you feel like a failure and give up altogether. But here’s the truth: discipline is a muscle that grows with consistent effort. The solution? Start small, build habits, and make studying part of your routine rather than something you force yourself to do.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Set a fixed time for studying each day, treating it like an appointment.
Measurable: Stick to a minimum of 20 minutes of study per day for the next 30 days.
Achievable: Start with short sessions and gradually increase study time as the habit builds.
Time-bound: Review and refine study discipline after 60 days to improve long-term commitment.
13. “I always forget what I study after a few days, so why bother?”
Forgetting isn’t a sign of failure—it’s a natural part of how memory works. The effect? You feel discouraged, assume you’re “bad at learning,” and stop putting in the effort. But here’s the truth: forgetting is part of the learning process, and the key to retention is using spaced repetition and active recall. The solution? Instead of cramming, review information in spaced intervals to reinforce memory.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Use spaced repetition by reviewing material 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month after learning it.
Measurable: Create and review summary notes for each subject at least once per week.
Achievable: Use flashcards or self-quizzing methods to reinforce key concepts.
Relevant: Apply memory techniques to high-priority subjects where retention matters most.
Time-bound: Implement these strategies for 90 days and track improvement in recall.
12. “I’m just not a naturally smart person.”
This belief stems from a fixed mindset—the idea that intelligence is something you’re born with, rather than something you develop. The effect? You hesitate to challenge yourself, avoid difficult subjects, and reinforce the belief that effort won’t change anything. But here’s the truth: intelligence grows with learning and practice. The solution? Shift to a growth mindset by embracing challenges and seeing effort as a pathway to improvement.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Read one book or article about growth mindset within the next month.
Measurable: Write down one learning success per week to track progress.
Achievable: Reframe failures as learning experiences and reflect on them.
Relevant: Focus on progress rather than perfection in your studies.
Time-bound: Commit to tracking mindset shifts for the next 60 days.
11. “I need to be perfect at studying, or I’ve failed.”
Perfectionism kills progress. The effect? You set unrealistic expectations, fear mistakes, and end up either overworking yourself or avoiding studying altogether. But here’s the truth: progress beats perfection every time. The solution? Aim for consistency, not flawlessness, and learn to embrace mistakes as part of growth.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Complete each study session with the goal of learning, not perfection.
Measurable: Set a “good enough” study standard (e.g., 80% comprehension) rather than 100%.
Achievable: Allow yourself to submit assignments even if they aren’t “perfect.”
Relevant: Focus on steady improvement rather than flawless performance.
Time-bound: Track and celebrate small wins for the next 90 days to build confidence.
10. “Going back to school won’t be worth it financially.”
This belief comes from the fear that the time and money spent on education won’t lead to better job opportunities. The effect? You hesitate to invest in yourself, worrying that you’ll end up in the same financial position or worse. But here’s the truth: education, when strategically chosen, increases earning potential and career mobility. The solution? Focus on skills and credentials with strong job market demand, and treat learning as an investment, not an expense.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Research at least five career paths that align with your studies and have strong earning potential.
Measurable: Identify at least three industry certifications or skills that increase job prospects.
Achievable: Enroll in a program with a high graduate employment rate.
Relevant: Focus on education that directly leads to a career or financial growth opportunity.
Time-bound: Develop a career advancement plan within the next six months.
9. “I’ll never make as much money as people who started their careers earlier.”
This belief stems from comparison—you see younger professionals moving up in their careers and assume you’re permanently behind. The effect? You feel discouraged before even trying, limiting your ambition and financial potential. But here’s the truth: success isn’t linear, and many late starters build highly successful careers by leveraging their life experience. The solution? Focus on building skills that set you apart, rather than competing with someone else’s timeline.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Identify and develop one high-value skill that increases earning potential.
Measurable: Apply for at least three new job opportunities or promotions in the next six months.
Achievable: Leverage work experience and transferable skills when job hunting.
Relevant: Choose career paths where experience and expertise matter more than age.
Time-bound: Increase income through upskilling or new opportunities within one year.
8. “I’ll be stuck paying off student loans forever.”
Student debt is a real concern, but the belief that it will ruin your financial future keeps you from making smart, strategic investments in your education. The effect? You avoid opportunities that could increase your earning potential, staying stuck in a lower-income position. But here’s the truth: debt should be approached strategically, not fearfully. The solution? Seek out scholarships, grants, employer tuition assistance, and repayment strategies that minimize long-term financial burden.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Research and apply for at least five scholarships or tuition assistance programs.
Measurable: Create a repayment strategy based on projected earnings within the next three months.
Achievable: Limit loans to only what is necessary and prioritize low-interest options.
Relevant: Ensure educational costs align with realistic earning potential.
Time-bound: Have a concrete financial plan in place before enrolling in a program.
7. “I’m too old to build wealth from a new career.”
This belief is based on the idea that wealth-building requires starting young, but financial success is about strategy, not just time. The effect? You avoid investing in yourself because you assume you won’t see results quickly enough. But here’s the truth: many successful professionals and entrepreneurs built wealth later in life by making smart career shifts and financial decisions. The solution? Focus on high-return skills, career growth, and smart financial planning.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Develop a long-term financial plan that includes savings, investments, and career growth.
Measurable: Increase income by at least 10% in the next year through career advancements or side income.
Achievable: Build financial literacy by reading one book or taking a course on wealth-building.
Relevant: Focus on careers or businesses with strong earning potential.
Time-bound: Have a five-year financial growth strategy in place within the next six months.
6. “I won’t be able to balance school, work, and family.”
This belief stems from the fear that adding education to an already full schedule will lead to burnout or failure. The effect? You avoid enrolling in courses or feel overwhelmed before even starting. But here’s the truth: millions of working adults successfully juggle school, work, and personal responsibilities by using time management strategies. The solution? Prioritize, delegate, and set clear boundaries to ensure all areas of life stay manageable.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Create a weekly schedule that includes study time, work, and personal commitments.
Measurable: Dedicate at least 5–10 hours per week to coursework without sacrificing essential responsibilities.
Achievable: Use planning tools like digital calendars or task management apps.
Relevant: Ensure study plans align with long-term career and life goals.
Time-bound: Maintain a balanced schedule for 90 days and reassess workload.
5. “I’m afraid I won’t finish what I start.”
This fear often comes from past experiences of quitting or struggling with commitment. The effect? You hesitate to enroll in school or start a new course, assuming you’ll fail before you even begin. But here’s the truth: finishing isn’t about willpower—it’s about setting clear, actionable goals and following through. The solution? Break large goals into small, achievable steps and celebrate progress along the way.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Set milestone goals for each phase of your coursework.
Measurable: Complete at least 80% of assignments on time each semester.
Achievable: Use accountability partners or study groups for motivation.
Relevant: Focus on programs that genuinely interest and benefit you.
Time-bound: Review and adjust study habits every 60 days to stay on track.
4. “I’ll feel out of place as an older student.”
This belief comes from the assumption that classrooms and learning spaces are dominated by younger students. The effect? You avoid engaging fully, miss networking opportunities, and feel isolated. But here’s the truth: adult learners are a growing part of education, and your experience is an asset. The solution? Embrace your role as a lifelong learner and seek out communities of like-minded adult students.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Connect with at least one other adult learner in your course.
Measurable: Participate in discussions or study groups at least once per week.
Achievable: Reach out to professors or mentors for support.
Relevant: Engage with networking opportunities that align with your career goals.
Time-bound: Build meaningful academic connections within the first 90 days of enrollment.
3. “I don’t have the confidence to succeed in an academic setting.”
Lack of confidence comes from years of self-doubt or past struggles with school. The effect? You hesitate to ask questions, seek help, or challenge yourself academically, reinforcing the cycle of self-doubt. But here’s the truth: confidence isn’t something you have—it’s something you build through action. The solution? Start small, acknowledge progress, and seek support when needed.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Set a goal to speak up in class discussions or ask one question per week.
Measurable: Complete at least one challenging assignment outside of your comfort zone.
Achievable: Use positive reinforcement techniques, such as tracking small wins.
Relevant: Focus on growth rather than comparison with others.
Time-bound: Build confidence through academic engagement over the next 60 days.
2. “I don’t know if this will actually change my life.”
This belief comes from doubt—doubt in yourself, in the process, and in the impact education can have. The effect? You hesitate to commit fully, treating learning as an experiment rather than a transformation. But here’s the truth: education opens doors, but only if you walk through them with purpose. The solution? Define clear personal and career outcomes, and actively seek ways to apply what you learn.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Identify and write down three ways this education will improve your life.
Measurable: Take one tangible action each month to apply new knowledge (networking, skill-building, job applications).
Achievable: Set a realistic vision for how this education will support your goals.
Relevant: Align studies with a career or personal growth path that excites you.
Time-bound: Track and reflect on changes in opportunities and mindset over one year.
1. “What if I fail?”
Fear of failure is the biggest barrier to success. The effect? You hesitate to try, afraid of embarrassment, wasted time, or proving negative beliefs about yourself true. But here’s the truth: failure isn’t the opposite of success—it’s part of the process. The solution? Redefine failure as learning, take calculated risks, and commit to growth no matter the outcome.
SMART Goals to Overcome This Belief
Specific: Set a goal to take one academic or professional risk in the next three months.
Measurable: Reflect on each challenge and write down what you learned.
Achievable: Normalize mistakes by reframing setbacks as learning experiences.
Relevant: Focus on long-term success rather than short-term struggles.
Time-bound: Commit to continuous learning and self-improvement for one year.
Conclusion
Limiting beliefs are just that—beliefs, not facts. They hold you back from opportunities, growth, and the future you deserve. But the moment you decide to challenge them, everything changes. The question isn’t whether you’re too old, too late, or too behind—it’s whether you’re willing to take action despite those fears. Because success isn’t about age, background, or talent—it’s about the commitment to keep moving forward.
Now, the only thing left to ask yourself is: What’s my first step?
Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]
The Department for Education is consulting on a requirement for providers delivering courses under a franchise model to register with the Office for Students in order that they and their students can access student finance. We also get an impact assessment and an equalities assessment.
The consultation defines “franchise” as follows:
A ‘franchised student’ is one who is registered with a lead provider, but where more than 50% of their provision is taught by a delivery partner
The proposals suggest that should a provider delivering teaching as part of a franchise arrangement (a delivery partner) have over 300 (headcount) higher education students in a given year it would need to be fully registered with the Office for Students under the existing Approved or Approved (Fee Cap) rules. A failure to register would mean that the institution could not access fee loans, and that students could not access maintenance loans.
There would be some exceptions: providers already regulated elsewhere (schools, FE colleges, NHS trusts, local authorities, and Police and Crime Commissioners) would be exempt. Providers (not courses) would be designated (by DfE) as being eligible to access student finance, meaning that providers running courses regulated by a Professional Statutory Regulatory Body (PSRB) would not be exempt.
The consultation (which closes 4 April 2025) will inform regulation from April 2026 onwards, with the first decisions about designation made in September 2027 (based on 2026-27 student data) for the 2028-29 academic year. Once up and running this pattern will continue: providers will be designated (based on student numbers from the previous academic year) for the academic year starting the year after. This gives newly designated providers a year to register with OfS.
Student numbers would not be allowed to breach the 300 threshold without registration – the expectation is that providers should register the year before this happens. Should the threshold be breached, the provider will lose a year of eligibility for student finance for new students: the upshot being that if an unregistered provider had 300 or more students in 2026-27 and then registered with OfS, it would lose a year of designation (so would not be able to access student finance in 2029-30).
In November of each year, DfE intends to publish a list of designated providers for the following academic year – providing a point of reference for applicants looking to access finance. Interestingly, despite the requirement being to register with OfS it is intended that DfE runs the process: making decisions about eligibility, managing appeals, and communicating decisions.
The background
We’ve been covering some of the issues presented by a subset of franchise providers on Wonkhe for quite a while, and it is now generally accepted that higher education in the UK has a problem with the quality and ethics at the bottom end of such provision. Students either enrol purely to access student finance, or are duped (often by higher education agents rather than providers themselves) into accessing fee and maintenance loans for substandard provision. Continuation and completion rates are very low compared to traditional providers, and the qualification awarded at the end (despite bearing the name of a well-known university) may not open the career doors that students may hope.
We knew that an announcement on this issue was supposed to be coming in January via the government’s response to the former Public Accounts Committee’s report on franchising, which was sparked by a National Audit Office (NAO) report on the issue from a year ago – so the announcement today has just squeaked in under the Treasury’s wire.
There is a slightly longer backstory to all of this – and we’re not referring to the various bits of coverage on potential abuses in the system that we’ve run in recent years. It was back in 2023 when the Department for Education’s heavily belated response to the Augar review reached a conclusion – promising to “drive up” the of franchised provision, in part by promising to:
…closely consider whether we should take action to impose additional controls, in particular regarding the delivery of franchised provision by organisations that are not directly regulated by any regulatory body.
There’s an important lesson in that to be drawn at some stage – the repeated pattern seems to be that an issue is raised, the sector is asked to self-regulate, it seemingly can’t, the regulator is asked to step in instead, and then it is discovered that what we actually need is secondary legislation.
How big a deal is franchising
Despite a number of years trying, OfS has never managed to compile full data on the extent of franchised, validated, and other partnership provision – the details are not in any current public dataset. It’s important here to distinguish between:
Franchised provision: where a student is registered at one institution, but teaching is delivered at another
Validated provision: where a student is both registered and taught at one institution, but receives an award validated by another institution on successful completion of their course
Other academic partnerships: which include arrangements where students are taught by more than one institution, or where existing providers partner to allow students to apply to a “new” provider (like a medical or veterinary science school)
Of the three, it is just franchised provision that is in the scope of this new DfE requirement. It’s also (helpful) the most easily visible of the three if you are a fan of mucking about with Unistats data (though note that not all courses are in the unistats release, and the other vagaries of our least-known public data release continue to apply).
DfE has done a bang-up job in pulling together some statistics on the scale of franchise provision within the impact assessment. We learn that (as of 2022–23 – usual student numbers caveats for that year of data apply):
There were currently 96 lead providers, franchising to 341 partners, of which 237 were unregistered.
135,850 students were studying via a franchise arrangement – some 80,045 were studying at unregistered providers (a proportional fall, but a numerical rise, over previous years)
These students tended to study business and management courses – and were more likely to be mature students, from deprived areas, and to have non-traditional (or no) entry qualifications.
An astonishing 92 per cent of classroom based foundation years delivered as an intercalated part of a first degree were delivered via franchise arrangements.
There were 39 franchise providers teaching 300 students or more – of which four would be subject to the DfE’s proposed exemptions because of their legal status. These providers accounted for 66,540 students in 2022–23.
A note on OfS registration
Office for Students registration is confusing at the best of times. Though the registration route is currently paused until August 2025, providers have the choice of registering under one of two categories:
Approved (fee cap) providers are eligible to access fee loan finance up to the higher limit if they have an approved access and participation plan, receive direct funding from OfS, and access Research England funding.
Approved providers can access fee loan finance up to the “basic” fee limit. They are not eligible for OfS or Research England funding – but can directly charge students fees that exceed the “basic” fee limit.
In the very early stages of developing the OfS regulatory framework it was briefly suggested that OfS would also offer a “Basic” level of registration, which would confer no benefits and would merely indicate that a provider was known to the OfS. This was speedily abandoned, with the rationale being that it would suggest OfS was vouching in some way for provision it did not regulate.
The long and painful gestation of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) also yielded suggestions of a third category of registration, which would apply to providers that currently offer provision backed by the Advanced Learner Loans (ALLs) that would be replaced by the LLE. We were expecting the Office for Students to consult on this new category, but nothing has yet appeared – and it does feel unlikely that anyone (other than possibly Jo Johnson) would be keen on a riskier registration category for less known providers that offers less regulatory oversight.
Statutory nuts and bolts
The proposal is to lay secondary legislation to amend the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011 – specifically the bit that is used to designate types of courses for student finance eligibility. There is currently a specific section in this SI – section 5 part 1 subsection d, to be precise – that permits registered providers to franchise the delivery of courses to partners.
The plan appears to be to amend this section to include the stipulation that were more than 300 higher education students (in total, excluding apprenticeships) are taught at a given franchise provider (I assume in total, across all franchise arrangements) then it must be registered with the Office for Students in order to be designated for student finance (allowing students to receive maintenance loans or providers to receive fee loan income).
This might seem like a small technical change but the implications are surprisingly far reaching – for the first time, the OfS (as regulator and owner of the register) has the ability to decide who can and cannot deliver UK higher education. If anyone – even a well established university – is removed from the OfS register it will be unable to access fee loans (and students will be unable to access maintenance loans) for intakes above 300 students, even if it enters into a partnership with another provider.
Let’s say, for example, that a large university becomes financially unsustainable and thus breaches the conditions of registration D1 or D2. Under such circumstances it could no longer be registered with OfS and thus would no longer be able to award degrees. The hope would be that student interests would be protected with the support of another university, and one way that this could happen is that someone else validates the awards offered to students so they can be taught out (assuming temporary financial support is forthcoming from government or elsewhere). Under the new rules, this arrangement would only work for 300 students.
What might go wrong
OfS has classically regulated based on the registered student population – the implication being that providers involved in franchise provision would be responsible for the quality and standards of teaching their students experience wherever they were taught. There have been indications via the B3 and TEF dashboards that students studying at franchise partners tend to have a worse experience overall.
This does pose the question as to whether franchise partners who registered with OfS would now be responsible for these students directly, or whether there will be some sense of joint responsibility.
There’s also the question of how providers will respond. Those franchised-to providers who either worry about their own outcomes (no longer judged within a larger university’s provision) wouldn’t cut it might stay that way – an outcomes based system that is always playing catch up on experience could see some poor provision linger around for many years. On the other hand, if they are now to be subject directly to conditions like those concerning transparency, finances and governance, they might as well switch to validation rather than franchising, which will change the relationship with the main provider.
We might in aggregate see that as a positive – but that then raises the question as to whether OfS itself will be any better at spotting issues than universities have previously been. They could, of course, not fancy the scrutiny at all, and disappear with a rapidity that few student protection plans are designed to withstand.
It’s also worth asking not just about OfS’ capacity or regulatory design, but its powers. Many of the issues we’ve identified (and that have been called out by the NAO and the PAC) concern how the courses are sold – OfS’ record on consumer rights is at best weak, and completely untested when the profit incentives are so high.
And even if the sunlight of better outcomes data puts pressure on over outcomes, we do have to worry about how some of the providers in this space get there. In at least one of the providers that we have seen an OfS report for, a call centre team in another country that is supposed to offer support to students sounds more like a debt collection agency, chasing students up to submit, with academic staff paid partly on outcomes performance. Remember, providers that do this are already registered with OfS – so clearly the registration process itself is not enough to weed out such practices.
The impact assessment is very clear that it expects some (an oddly precise four in the first year and two in subsequent years) unregistered franchise partners to drop out of HE provision altogether rather than applying for registration. The unspoken codicil to this is that everyone hopes that this will be the poor quality or otherwise suspect ones – but many excellent independent providers (including a number of Independent HE members) have struggled to get through a lengthy and often bureaucratic process, even before registration was temporarily closed because OfS decided it didn’t have capacity to run it this year.
The line between supporting students and spoon feeding them is often debated in HE, but we might worry that a decent dose of it in a way that few would think appropriate could enable providers to evade regulation for some time – especially if validation (and therefore less risk to the validator) becomes the norm.
And naturally, this is an approach that ignores two other things: whether a demand-led system at the edges should respond to the sort of demand that seems to come from those profiting from selling more than it does from students themselves, and whether it’s right. Even if you accept some for-profit activity, for anyone to be arranging for predominantly low-income and disadvantaged students to be getting into full tuition fees debt when sometimes more than half is kept in profits, and what is spent seems to include high “acquisition” costs and quite low delivery and support costs.
In other words, one of the tests should be “does any of this change the incentives,” and it’s not at all clear that it does.
FIRE’s poll found confidence in the future of free speech is still low (41%), but jumped 10 points compared to a July poll.
Conservatives went from the most pessimistic subgroup to the most optimistic following Donald Trump’s election, while liberals’ optimism fell.
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 30, 2025 —A new poll finds that confidence in the future of free speech in America and belief in Donald Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment both saw an uptick, at least among conservatives. (Liberals are not so sure.)
The newest edition of the National Speech Index — a quarterly barometer of free speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — found that Americans are still mostly pessimistic about the state of free expression in America, with only 41% saying the country is headed in the right direction.
But those numbers represent an all-time high since FIRE began asking the question last year, and a 10-point jump from the 31% who said the country was headed in the right direction in July.
The increase in confidence is driven in large part by a substantial surge in free speech optimism from self-described conservatives. The October edition of the National Speech Index found that less than a third (30%) of very conservative Americans and less than a fifth (18%) of conservative Americans said that people’s ability to freely express their views was headed in the right direction, while now roughly half of very conservative (49%) and conservative (52%) Americans now say it is headed in the right direction.
“Unsurprisingly, the sudden shift suggests that for many Americans’ their feelings about the future of free speech depend in large part on whether they trust whomever occupies the White House,” said FIRE Research Fellow and Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. “Of course, we at FIRE have long recognized that no party has a monopoly on censorship.”
Liberals, on the other hand, saw a drop in free speech optimism. In October, 46% of very liberal Americans and 49% of liberal Americans said people’s ability to freely express their views was headed in the right direction, compared to about a third now (34% and 32% respectively). That fall wasn’t large enough to outweigh the large jump from conservatives.
When asked about Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment, opinions were mixed. While 39% said they had “quite a lot” or “full” confidence he would protect their First Amendment rights, 41% said they had “very little” or “no confidence at all.” But that’s still a seven-point increase from when FIRE asked the same question about then-candidate Trump in October, when 32% said they had “quite a lot” or “full confidence” in Trump’s protection of the First Amendment.
For comparison, FIRE also asked about the Supreme Court and a high-profile elected official on the other side of the political aisle, California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Opinions on Newsom were split neatly into thirds: 34% said they had high confidence, 34% said they had some confidence, and 32% expressed low confidence. Meanwhile, only 23% of Americans said they had high confidence in the Supreme Court to protect their First Amendment rights, compared to 44% who said they had low confidence.
“Though declining levels of trust in institutions is concerning, skepticism that politicians or the courts will protect your free speech is always a healthy instinct,” said Honeycutt. “The best defense against censorship isn’t a particular public official. It’s the American people themselves cultivating a free speech culture, defending others’ right to disagree, and holding leaders accountable.”
As censorship attempts tend to target controversial and unpopular opinions, FIRE asked respondents to judge several political statements on how offensive they found them. The results showed that wide swathes of Americans identified statements on both sides of certain divisive topics as offensive. While 45% of respondents found it “very” or “extremely” offensive to say “Black Lives Matter is a hate group,” for example, 51% said “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan” was an offensive statement as well.
In another example, 40% of Americans believe that “transgender people have a mental disorder” — a sentiment banned on Facebook and Instagram until earlier this month — is an extremely or very offensive statement. But 59% also said the idea that “children should be able to transition without parental consent” was offensive.
“The problem with policing offensive speech is that there will always be disagreement on what is and isn’t offensive,” said FIRE’s Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “Many people who want to ban offensive speech imagine they could never end up on the receiving end, but often what people find offensive changes rapidly.”
The National Speech Index is a quarterly poll designed by FIRE and conducted by the Dartmouth Polarization Research Lab to capture Americans’ views on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, and to track how Americans’ views change over time. The January 2025 National Speech Index sampled 1,000 Americans and was conducted between January 3 and January 9, 2025. The survey’s margin of error of +/- 3%.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
The Polarization Research Lab (PRL) is a nonpartisan collaboration between faculty at Dartmouth College, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to monitor and understand the causes and consequences of partisan animosity, support for democratic norm violations, and support for partisan violence in the American Public. With open and transparent data, it provides an objective assessment of the health of American democracy.
CONTACT:
Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]
Latin America sometimes flies below the radar in discussions of global higher education. It’s too poor to have major players in the world-class universities game, but it’s too rich to be among the attention-getting new highfliers like Vietnam. And even within Latin America, not every country gets the same attention. Colombia also kind of flows below the radar, lacking the size of Mexico or Brazil, not punching above its weight like Chile, and not being stark raving tonto like Venezuela. But Colombia actually is pretty special because of the size and shape of its system. It’s actually in the middle of a range of debates going on across the world, making it a kind of miniature of the globe as a whole. A move to gratuidad, like in Chile? Colombia is doing that. Constant pressures on quality assurance, given its 207 public and private institutions? Check. Creating new popular universities on the Mexican model? Yep, that’s happening too. Working out how to improve student loan repayment? Well, ICETEX, the country’s national student loan agency—actually the oldest such agency in the world—is working on that too. In short, this is a country whose thinking on higher education deserves a lot more attention than it usually gets.
The current government of Colombia, led by left-wing President Gustavo Petro, came to office with big ideas about higher education. But without a majority in Congress, things are not going his way. It’s not clear that he can pay for the gratuidad he promised young voters three years ago during his election campaign.
With me today is Javier Botero, a lead consultant at the World Bank and formerly the Vice Minister of Higher Education in Colombia. He’s here to walk us through the latest developments in that country around free tuition, student assistance, and an intriguing case of institutional closure at the University of Antioquia.
This was a fun, fast interview, and I enjoyed it a lot. I hope you do too. So, without further ado, let’s hand things over to Javier.
The World of Higher Education Podcast Episode 3.18 | Colombia’s Higher Ed Utopia or Illusion? Insights with Javier Botero
Transcript
Alex Usher (AU): Javier, the last time you were on, we discussed President Petro’s ambitious plans for the higher education sector. One of his goals was to increase enrollment by half a million students. Two years later, have we seen much progress on that promise?
Javier Botero (JB): Well, really, not as much as one would have expected. Of course, at the very beginning—and I’m sure I said this in that interview—I thought it was far too ambitious, you know, something in the clouds. But I think they’ve achieved about 20–25% of that.
Mostly, this growth has been in technical education through SENA, this huge public institution that offers free technical education. Very little has happened in private education, where enrollments have actually decreased. Some state universities have increased their enrollments, but much less than what the government expected.
AU: So it’s as much a shift in enrollments as it is an addition to enrollments.
JB: That’s right. I mean, it is an addition in some sense because it’s true that some students who would have had difficulty accessing higher education have been able to do so—mainly through technical education or state universities. So there has been an increase in access for students from lower economic sectors of society.
AU: That’s good. So, late last year—or maybe it was the year before—the president signed a law guaranteeing free tuition at Colombian public universities. Now, we have to be careful about that word because, for instance, in Chile, you have gratuidad, but it only applies to certain students, under specific conditions, like an income cutoff. So, what does the Colombian promise about free tuition consist of? Does it really mean free tuition for everyone?
JB: Yeah, of course not. But the first thing I’d say is that this isn’t actually a policy of this government—it started under the previous government. What Petro did was clarify some points and widen the scope of the policy. Still—and I’m glad about this—it’s not for everyone. It’s targeted at certain groups, based on income. We have something called estratos, and it’s for the three lowest estratos. There are also other groups included, like Indigenous people, some Afro-descendants, and others who have faced significant disadvantages for years. So, yes, it has restrictions, but this is something Colombia has been working on for about six years now.
AU: So, it is targeted free tuition, but not just based on income. As you said, there are some ethnic categories involved as well. That’s interesting.
JB: And not just ethnicity. You all know Colombia has been through a peace process. People involved in or victimized by the violence during that period also qualify for free tuition in public institutions—and there are quite a lot of them.
AU: All the groups involved in the peace negotiations, or their children, would benefit from this?
JB: Yeah, and not just them. People who declared themselves victims during the period of violence in Colombia also qualify.
AU: How much does this commitment cost? I’ve noticed there’ve been stories in the Colombian press about the government losing a tax reform vote just before Christmas, which must make it harder to afford these programs. So what’s the government’s financial ability to keep this promise?
JB: You know, that’s one of the main issues—and a big question—because no one really knows how much it costs. In Colombia, universities have a lot of autonomy. Each university sets its own tuition, even public ones. So there’s a huge variety in tuition rates.
Some public universities were almost free for poor students, while others charged tuition based on income, and some had relatively high tuition rates. This diversity makes it very difficult to calculate the cost.
Chile faced a similar challenge when implementing gratuidad, but I’d say it’s even worse here because of the variation. For example, universities that used to charge very little would continue to receive little funding, while those that charged a lot would get much more. To resolve this, they came up with an average subsidy amount based on factors like the type of university, research output, and number of professors.
AU: I’s a per-student subsidy based on the institution, not tuition?
JB: That’s right. That’s the free tuition program.
AU: I remember in Chile, when they were setting up their policy of gratuidad, they asked a question that made no sense in English: “Where do we set tuition so that tuition can be free?” It was funny, but it made sense in context.
JB: Exactly, because that determines how much money the university gets from the government per student.
AU: So I understand that while the government is trying to lower tuition costs, it’s also reducing expenditures on the student loan program, ICETEX. That feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul. What’s the logic behind this—free tuition but lower student aid?
JB: First of all, free tuition in Colombia is not like in Chile—it’s only for public institutions. Private institutions don’t qualify for free tuition, so they don’t receive any subsidies for it. ICETEX, which is our student loan agency with over 50 years of experience, is mainly used for students attending private universities.
Your point is valid, though. The logic is mostly ideological—the idea that education should be public and free. The private sector is seen as unnecessary, so the government focuses on public institutions and doesn’t assist students attending private ones.
But this hasn’t helped at all with the goal of increasing enrollment by 500,000 students. ICETEX’s budget has already been cut, and the situation for 2025 looks critical. Not only because of these ideological choices, but also because of the budget deficit. We’re starting the year already in deficit, and I’m sure ICETEX will face more cuts.
AU: Javier, I remember that quite early on in his tenure that President Petro seemed to be quite taken by the Mexican model of the Benito Juarez universities in remote locations. Maybe there may be some Venezuelan model he has in mind as well because they’ve opened a lot of new universities too. Has there been much movement on this front in the last two years?
JB: A little bit, I would say, but also let me add that that’s not a either a new policy either. You know, we did this 20 years ago when I was working with the government with what we called the regional centers of higher education. The idea was to bring higher education to rural and small towns in Colombia because what you see is that for those who can—students from those towns that can go to a university, to higher education—they have to go to the big cities, and most of them stay there. So, it’s actually a brain drain from the small cities to the big cities, and that’s an issue. You really want more equity and homogeneous development in a country.
So, many countries—Venezuela, at the time we did this, that was 2002 or 2003—were also starting what they called aldeas universitarias, like small-town universities, with the same idea. Mexico did that and has now a big program. But there are still many issues with that. One of them is the academic part—students from these regions have relatively low academic levels, so you have to work a lot to get them to a level where they can actually start a university program.
The second issue, as with most things, is funding. How do you fund this? Of course, it’s very hard to expect that students will pay tuition to private universities in those regions, and those issues have not yet been resolved.
AU: Recently—I think it was in September or October—the University of Antioquia in Medellín was the center of some very significant protests, some of which turned a little bit violent. What sparked those demonstrations? Was it something about specific issues at that institution, or was it about wider issues within higher education in Colombia?
JB: I would say both. It’s wider issues—issues that are common to most universities—but at the University of Antioquia, these issues have brought the institution to a more difficult situation. And it’s really the funding, the financing of the universities. The University of Antioquia was one of those that actually charged very little tuition. Most students paid just a couple of dollars to study a semester, and they increased enrollment numbers significantly. They joined the policy, 10 to 15 years ago, of opening different regional campuses in small towns at very high cost. But they haven’t gotten the money to cover all of that, so they’ve been in a very difficult financial situation.
Students started asking, “What will happen with this university?” There were delays in paying teachers, especially the type of teachers we have here in Colombia who are not regular faculty but teach specific classes and get paid for those hours. The university delayed those payments, and students and unions joined the protests—particularly the union of those types of teachers. This eventually led to the university closing. The university is now closed, and we are discussing how they will end last year’s final semester. It seems they won’t be able to.
AU: So, did they close because of the protests, or did they close because they couldn’t make payroll?
JB: Both. The teachers joined the demonstrations and the strike, so it wasn’t possible to keep the university open. They tried to keep some programs running virtually, using what they had learned from the pandemic, but it’s been very difficult.
AU: To regain some stability—both there and in the rest of the country—you need a stable government. But the president has never had a majority in Congress. He’s losing key votes on taxes, recently lost a finance minister to a graft scandal, and he’s only about 18 months away from the end of his term. Is there any prospect he regains the initiative and can forge a renewed policy in this area, or is this going to be a really long lame-duck period?
JB: I think the latter is most probable. It’s been less than three years, and we’ve had three ministers already. It looks like there will be another change in the ministry, so there’s no continuity in policies. The political situation is not getting better—it’s getting worse. As the elections approach next year, it will get even worse. The opposition will polarize further. And President Petro is not the type to try to calm things down; instead, he often throws gasoline on the fire.
Maybe two years ago, they tried to pass a statutory law on education, but they couldn’t. Now, the minister is talking about passing a law just to change the funding model, which I must say is very archaic. It doesn’t incentivize universities to do much. With free tuition, it pushes them a little to admit more students, but that’s not a good solution because, as we see in Antioquia, it only worsens the problem. I don’t think much will happen in the remaining 20 or 22 months of this administration.
AU: We’re already seeing the 2026 presidential elections start to take shape. Are any of the leading candidates likely to pursue policies in higher education that are radically different from the current government? You mentioned that, to a large extent, what President Petro is doing is a continuation of the previous government. So, do we expect continuity or change as we head towards those elections?
JB: I would say there will be very different positions among the candidates. What you said isn’t totally true—Petro kept the free tuition policy, but there are many other aspects behind that. I expect some candidates, like Alejandro Gaviria—who was Petro’s first minister, though only for a few months—will bring higher education to the forefront. Gaviria is already a pre-candidate, and higher education is very popular as an issue because students vote, unlike primary and secondary students.
Higher education in Colombia needs a deep reform, going far beyond just funding. Funding is an important issue, but the system requires much deeper changes. I expect some candidates will propose strong policies, but we’ll have to wait and see what happens with those proposals and who gets elected. The political situation in Colombia, like in many parts of the world, is very polarized, and in polarized environments, the best choices don’t always get into office.
AU: Javier Botero, thank you so much for joining us today.
JB: It was my pleasure. Thank you very much.
AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining in. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected]. Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education. Join us in one week’s time when our guest will be freelance writer Ben Wildavsky. He and I are going to chat about the 15th anniversary of his influential book, The Great Brain Race. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.
Etus Hurata, 56, and Tatoyo Penes, 64, gather sago, a starch found in tropical palm, in the forest near the Kali Meja River with bamboo sticks and machetes. They will process the sago they collect into daily food ingredients.
Daniel Totabo, 27, meanwhile, hunts for Sogili, a type of eel, in the middle of the fast-flowing river.
According to data from Survival International, 300 to 500 O’Hongana Manyawa people still reside in the forested interior of the island of Halmahera. The tribes have never had direct contact with people outside the forest.
But mining companies have already taken over increasing parts of their forest. The latest research data from the Association of Indigenous Peoples Defenders of Nusantara reports 21 matarumah (lineages) of this tribe inhabit the entire Halmahera mainland. One matarumah usually consists of 4–5 heads of families.
Nickel dredging projects in the corners of Halmahera have disrupted their lives. Based on observations on digital maps, there are at least four mining companies operating within a 50–100 kilometers radius of the forests inhabited by indigenous peoples. This number is likely to increase in the next few years as global demand for nickel continues to increase.
“If it continues like this, the forests in Halmahera will be destroyed,” Sumean said. “The trees will be cut down and the animals will be driven out and die because their homes have been completely cleared. Then where will we live?”
Moving people to make way for mines
The Indonesian government has tried to resettle people in other hamlets and villages, like Dodaga Village where Sumean lives. But supporting facilities such as health, economy and education built there are often inadequate. And for a people who lived nomadically, moving from forest to forest, it is difficult to adapt to land and houses in a village.
“The house is very hot during the day and very cold at night because it uses a zinc roof. It is different from a leaf roof that can adjust to the season,” Sumean said. “We did get a house, but maybe they forgot that we also must find our own food every day.”
As a result, the indigenous community largely abandoned Dodaga Village. It is now inhabited by immigrants from outside the area.
Some are pinning their hopes on Tesla which seemed to take a firm stand for Indigenous peoples in its 2023 Impact Report published in May 2024. The electric car manufacturer owned by Elon Musk says it is pushing for a no-go zone for mining system or a mining-free area that can protect the rights of uncontacted Indigenous peoples such as O’Hongana Manyawa.
The UK-based nonprofit organization Survival International has said that this concept could provide fixed boundaries for the industrial sector and any mining company so that they do not pass through the living space of indigenous peoples.
But until now, the company has not provided any follow-up regarding the development of the concept in the report. Tesla says it uses around 13% of nickel ore from Indonesia and that energy transition is almost impossible without these nickel supplies. Moreover, they predict that nickel production in Indonesia will continue to increase along with the increasing demand for electric vehicles in the global market.
The multinational corporations moved in.
Travel six hours by road from Dodaga Village and the beautiful, green and dense Halmahera plains begin to change shape as the highway reaches the Indonesia Weda Industrial Park (IWIP) located along Weda Bay. In Lelilef Sawai Village, coal-fired power plants and nickel smelters stand where the forest once stood. Thick smoke from chimneys billow without pause.
This industrial area began operating in 2020 through development carried out by PT Weda Bay Nickel, a joint venture between state-owned company PT Aneka Tambang and Strand Minerals which was initially formed in 1998.
The two parties then also attracted French mining company Eramet and Chinese stainless steel company Tsingshan Holding Group. Over time, Tshingsan and Eramet took full control of the project. This area, included in the Indonesia’s National Strategic Project since November 2020, is predicted to attract investment worth U.S. $15 billion
While sales of electric vehicles have slowed in the United States and Europe, it is projected that half of all new cars sold in China will be electric. China, Europe and the United States represent the largest markets for electric vehicles, collectively accounting for approximately 95% of all sales in 2023.
Un-environmental side effects of an environmental push
The carbon footprint of the nickel smelting in Indonesia could negate much of the carbon reductions the e-cars promise. In addition to the smoke coming out of a total of 12 new coal-fired power plants there, deforestation activities are also clearly visible.
Seen from satellite imagery monitoring, queues of trucks carrying materials snake along the road. Dozens of heavy equipment are also digging the hills next to it. This view will be visible up to 10 kilometers away.
Geospatial analysis research conducted by Climate Rights International and the AI Climate Initiative at the University of California, Berkeley revealed that nickel mining activities throughout the island of Halmahera have destroyed 5,331 hectares of tropical forest that act as absorbers of greenhouse gases.
The industrial area currently employs around 43,000 employees. They are housed in huts built not far from the smelter and power plant chimneys. The huts are built close together with very limited ventilation in each room. In some places, garbage is left to pile up in the open space. The grass and plants growing around it are also covered in road dust.
The massive deforestation that has taken place, mostly in the upstream areas of large rivers, has increased the risk and frequency of flooding.
Danger from flooding
JATAM, an organization that advocates for communities affected by the mining industry, reported that between 2020 and 2024, floods with a height of more than one meter occurred more than 12 times. In the summer of 2024, a flood in the Weda Bay mining area submerged seven villages, sending some 1,670 residents into temporary tents.
Flood waters completely covered the home of Ahmad Kruwet, 62, a transmigrant from Tegal who now lives in Woe Jarana Village, Central Weda. “I think this is the effect because the forest upstream has been cut down until it is completely gone,” he said.
Ahmad added that changes in the quality of the groundwater around his house made it unsafe to use. Since the industrial park started operating, he has had to buy gallons of water to meet his daily drinking water need.
Meanwhile, in Lukolamo Village, Central Halmahera, cocoa farmer Adrian Patapata, 64, also saw a change in the quality of his water, which became smelly and colored.
“Before, the water in our house was still clean and fresh,” he said “We drank this water. After the mine came here, the water could no longer be used. Let alone for drinking, we couldn’t even bathe.”
Now he and his family make sure they are prepared for the next flood. They will run to the tent on the hill behind his village where there is a new post set as an initial mitigation site for flood victims.
Health suffers near nickel plants.
Mining activities and the disasters that occurred also have physical and health consequences. Beside Adrian, Juni Nadira Patapata, 9, was scratching her feet which looked blistered as result of being submerged in the floodwater for too long. In addition the local health center has been seeing an increase in upper respiratory infections in areas near the industrial areas, mostly in children and the elderly, but some mine workers as well.
In January 2024 the center saw 174 cases. That increased to 345 in July. He has special attention for them, because every day almost 40% of patients who come to the health center are workers.
Data from Eramet shows that the company plans to mine around 6,000 hectares of the total area of Weda Bay Nickel’s 45,065-hectare concession over a 25-year period.
Currently, as many as 2,000 hectares of land and forest have been exploited, both for the construction of new smelters and for mining activities.
Mining activities in the industrial area and massive deforestation around it have also damaged the ecosystem of agricultural land and plantations owned by residents who live not far from there. Many farmers have experienced crop failures because the plants they planted died or sickened due to declining water and soil quality. Others were lost in the flooding.
In his plantation in the Trans Kobe area, Adrian saw coconut and chocolate trees that he had cared for destroyed by the flood.
For many years he has maintained a 5.5-hectare plantation planting cocoa, coconuts, nutmeg and a fuzzy fruit called langsat. “Before the mud flood like now, I could even plant bananas and sweet potatoes. Now I can’t anymore,” he said.
Adrian said floods occurred even before the logging and nickel extraction but the puddles of water and sand that rose to the surface of would recede quickly. The mud that now inundates his garden takes longer to recede, and inhibits plant growth.
“When it is already flooded and muddy like this, the roots absorb too much water,” he said. “Now it is just left like that, the children are also lazy to clean the garden because not much is growing anymore.”
Meanwhile, the same situation is also seen on the coast. The expansion carried out by mining companies coupled with the contamination of liquid waste and heavy metals from the ferronickel processing smelter also polluted the estuary, beach and Weda Bay areas where fishermen would catch fish every day.
Pollution enters the sea water.
One day, Hernemus Takuling left his fishing boat abandoned on the beach. Although it was a good season for fishing, the waves were too high and fierce and he was reluctant to fish on the beach. Hundreds of meters from where he stood, a pipe from the smelter was discharging waste into the sea, turning the water around the beach brownish yellow.
Now, Hernemus and most fishermen on the coastal villages directly adjacent to the industrial park must travel farther to get better quality fish without exposure to hot water radiation from the waste disposal.
Some even fish as far as other islands. “Now, I rarely fish here,” Hernemus said. “Usually, I take the closest boat up to four kilometers from the end of the beach because there the condition of the fish caught is much better.”
He leaves every day at 4 AM and returns around 3 PM. In one day, he might only get a few fish with an average weight of just one kilogram. “Now I need more time and energy just to catch fish,” he said. “Moreover, I must buy diesel for boat fuel. When I get fish, it’s sometimes hard to sell. In the end, I just eat it alone with my family at home.”
Three questions to consider:
1. How is nickel mining and processing affecting the Indigenous people of Indonesia? 2. What is being proposed to help the people who live near nickel plants? 3. Do you think the benefits from electric cars outweigh the damage done from mining the needed metals?
Last April, Congress banned companies from distributing, maintaining or updating a “foreign adversary controlled application,” specifically those “operated, directly or indirectly” by TikTok or its parent company, ByteDance Ltd. As a result, TikTok went dark for about 12 hours two days before Trump, who had previously supported the idea of a TikTok ban, took office. Almost immediately after his inauguration, he issued an executive order halting enforcement of the ban for 75 days, while the administration determines “the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown” of TikTok.
Some experts say Trump’s order falls into murky legal territory, and TikTok’s fate in the U.S. remains unclear. But banning a social media app that 170 million Americans use as a tool for self-expression and self-promotion would have numerous implications for both college students and their institutions. A 2022 study found two-thirds of teenagers were using TikTok to consume a wide range of information, including news, tutorials, entertainment and advertisements, making it a vital recruiting tool for colleges.
“TikTok represents a pivotal transition point between what was the social media–driven higher ed of the last 15 years and now the artificial intelligence–powered, immersive digital future that’s going to define the next decade,” said J. Israel Balderas, an assistant professor of journalism at Elon University and a lawyer specializing in First Amendment cases. “TikTok isn’t just a social media platform somehow caught in this geopolitical battle. It represents a transition point in digital history.”
Last week, Inside Higher Ed asked Balderas five questions about what a TikTok ban would mean for students, faculty and institutions. The interview has been edited for concision and clarity.
1. What are the implications of a TikTok ban for the culture of higher education?
TikTok has become a dominant space for student expression, activism and social engagement. For professors, it also has become a place of research and AI literacy. Losing the platform means that student organizers would lose a mobilization tool. TikTok has played a critical role, not just in campus activism—from political movements to social justice campaigns—but it has also been a way for others to communicate and play a role in the marketplace of ideas.
What’s most concerning to me is the potential chilling effect on student expression. Students will start to question whether other digital spaces will face similar crackdowns. For example, if TikTok can be banned under the guise of national security, what will happen to other foreign-owned or politically sensitive platforms? Will they be next?
Universities would also lose a primary storytelling platform. You have campus life blogs; you have student-run media accounts. TikTok allows institutions and students to shape their narrative in a way that no other platform currently allows.
2. Do you think there’s justification for a TikTok ban?
It depends on how you weigh national security risks versus free speech rights. The Chinese government could potentially use TikTok’s recommendation engine to shape political discourse, suppress content or even promote certain narratives. But we’ve been here before with that. We were here in 1919 with Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States that questioned influence from socialists and communists. What we discovered is that the marketplace of ideas theory works and the truth rises.
While the national security argument is valid, why is TikTok being singled out when U.S.-based platforms with equally invasive data practices, like Meta, Google and X, remain untouched? The First Amendment doesn’t protect the companies from regulation, but it does protect Americans’ right to access information.
J. Israel Balderas is a journalism professor at Elon University and a First Amendment lawyer.
3.Could such a ban really be enforced? What might college students do to get around it?
Banning a social media app in a free society is incredibly difficult.
Big tech being so powerful and so close to power in Washington also creates a very gray legal area, because Apple and Google control access to mobile apps. If they refuse to reinstate TikTok, then enforcement becomes a de facto reality even without the government directly blocking access. But what we saw earlier this month, with Trump’s intervention to reinstate TikTok, shows that enforcement can be overridden by executive power. So, it’s unclear how consistently a ban could be applied, but enforcement of a ban is far more complicated than either the courts or Congress can anticipate.
College students are digital natives, and they adapt to these things by bypassing restrictions. They can use VPNs [virtual private networks], which are already widely used in countries with restricted internet laws, like China. Students could also download it from unofficial sources, instead of the traditional app stores. They can also use alternative apps, like the other, increasingly popular Chinese-owned app, RedNote.
Somebody will find an emerging app, especially now in the world of AI, where AI is open source. You can take the backbone of TikTok, and with AI and proper coding you can create the same kind of environment as TikTok. So how many more clones out there would that be, right?
4. How would a TikTok ban shape colleges’ digital literacy efforts in the age of AI?
A TikTok ban would be a blow to digital literacy and AI education. This is the moment when we need to be talking about AI education and what it means for the workforce, students and us as faculty members, who are teaching that it’s not just about facts and knowledge. It’s about teaching students how to ask the right questions and how to connect the dots.
TikTok opens the door to asking students what it is the algorithm knows about you, if that’s an ethical thing and if they want it. It’s not about shaming students for their choices. It’s about teaching them to think critically about what they’re doing and then letting them decide what it means for their lives and relationships.
If the government can decide what content is good or bad for the population, we’d have to rethink what it means to have AI literacy in the curriculum.
5. TikTok is caught in a geopolitical crossfire. Is there a teachable moment in all of this?
The fact that we are having these conversations is the best part of this entire fiasco. Because students are questioning if the government can really do these things. What about the future? What about AI? Will the government be able to say that it’s not suppressing speech, but just suppressing the person who’s writing these codes or the person who’s putting these algorithms into the marketplace? Students are at least trying to figure out what is the role the government will play going forward when it comes to ideas that are not popular.
If they’re being more critical about those things, then as a professor, I’ve done my job.
This is one of those times I’m glad I’m in charge of only myself. I can’t imagine the pressure of leading an organization—like a higher ed institution—that is dependent on support from the federal government for its literal day-to-day operations.
Also, I am aware of the old saw about free advice … it’s worth what you pay for it.
Nonetheless, I’m going to venture some advice for institutions experiencing the assault of the opening 10 or so days of the second Trump presidency.
If you believe this is true, there’s no room for accommodation. Ending democratic governance leaves no room for the kind of higher education that has made the U.S. the envy of the world.
You’ve got to resist, all of it, actively, with as much countering force as possible. An administration that without notice “pauses” NIH and NSF activities, that even stops disbursement through the Office of Management and Budget, is not merely reorienting the government around the new president’s priorities. It seems clear they either intend to destroy or hobble higher education to make it a vassal state.
I’ve got myself thinking of a couple of dynamics that I think are important to recognize in the moment.
One is the problem of “institutional awe,” which I draw from the term “vocational awe,” coined by Fobazi Ettarh from observing the work of librarians such as herself. She calls vocational awe “the set of ideas, values and assumptions librarians have about themselves and the profession that result in notions that libraries as institutions are inherently good, sacred notions, and therefore beyond critique.”
Ettarh identifies vocational awe as a route to self-exploitation as librarians are called upon to sacrifice their own well-being in order to preserve the operations of the library itself.
“Institutional awe” is a bit different, and something perpetrated not by the laborers, but by leadership, where it’s judged that the continued operation of the institution is of the utmost importance, no matter the sacrifices required by the individual stakeholders, or the damage to the underlying mission of the institution.
Under institutional awe, as long as the doors remain open, anything goes.
There are already some worrying signs of this mentality in terms of some pre-emptive compliance with merely perceived threats from the Trump administration. In some cases, these moves appear to be motivated by a desire for administrations to use Trump policy as a rationale for either seizing more control or silencing dissent that’s causing them headaches. I do not want to think uncharitably of some of the leaders of the nation’s higher education institutions, but “Trump made me do it” appears to be a handy rationale for dodging responsibility.
The other big-picture caution I have is something I wrote about recently, to remember that there is always something next, and decisions you make in the present shape what that next thing is going to be.
It seems clear to me that higher ed institutions are going to be fundamentally different both because of the efforts of Trump and some red state governors to make them over to something that must express fealty to their preferred vision, and simply because we’ve reached an endpoint regarding a prior vision of postsecondary education as something that should be accessible to all.
A long-standing belief of many conservatives, that too many people go to college—and by too many people they mean women and minority students—that has been simmering under the surface for decades has now come into the open as overt attempts to, in the words of Victor Ray, “resegregate America” under the guise of challenging diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
I understand the urge to treat what’s going on as perhaps elevated but still normal government functioning in line with what happens during any transition from one party to the other holding the White House. Members of the Democratic Party themselves seem to be acting according to this view.
But how much evidence is necessary to recognize that this is a delusion and that pre-emptive appeasement or ducking and covering while hoping the blows land elsewhere is not going to work?
While public trust in higher education has declined in recent years—mostly along partisan lines—it does not follow that most Americans would like to see the important work of teaching and research be utterly destroyed.
As much as possible, institutions should act in solidarity with each other, considering an attack on one institution an attack on all, given that your institution will be next at some point.
In the words of Alexander Hamilton, as imagined by Lin-Manuel Miranda, “If you stand for nothing, what will you fall for?”
As an undergraduate student, Lisa MacLeod wasn’t sure where her career path would take her. She majored in English literature and international relations with the aspirations of being a journalist or a State Department staffer and found herself back in academia not long after.
Lisa MacLeod, assistant dean of student success at Soka University of America
Lisa MacLeod/Soka University of America
Now, as the inaugural assistant dean of student success at Soka University of America since last fall, MacLeod is charged with breaking institutional silos at the California institution to improve student outcomes after graduation, working collaboratively across campus.
MacLeod spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her time thus far at the institution, a private liberal arts college, and her aspirations in the long-term.
Inside Higher Ed: What is your new role at Soka and how does it fit into institutional goals for student success?
MacLeod: One of the most important things [about my role] is that I am housed under the dean of faculty, so I’m not under the dean of students, which is very different from how a lot of schools have done this.
My top priority, luckily, isn’t getting students to graduate—because we already are doing that very well as an institution … I’m not just new in the job, the position is new at the university—so there’s some room for me to define what the position is.
I was asked to look specifically at advising. Right now, our program is all faculty individually advising students for academic advising. Career services and internships is the other side of the house, and historically, the two sides of the house don’t talk to each other very well. So looking at how we advise, but also thinking about, are there ways that we can integrate better, because we have lots of good things happening by different people. But do faculty know about that? Do they know enough about it to recommend it to students? Not so much.
The other thing is starting to integrate career readiness skills into the curriculum. This year, we are rolling out RATE (Reflect, Articulate, Translate, Evaluate), which was developed by the University of Minnesota for their liberal arts students.
We’re having our first cohort this coming semester—so beginning in February—of faculty fellows who have pledged to develop the RATE system into their existing course, and we’re supporting them with some training and other kinds of activities so that we’re very specific in the application. We’re not asking you to change your course. What we’re asking is that you make it more evident to students how they are developing career readiness skills in addition to academic and subject area knowledge.
Inside Higher Ed: You were a double major in college. While interdisciplinary learning can be an asset to students, sometimes academic departments can be more focused on helping students on a specific path within their discipline. Do you have any insights based on your experience as a dual major and helping students find their own path?
MacLeod: At Soka, we don’t have majors—everyone graduates with a major in liberal arts, and then within that, we have concentrations. Students here do have the opportunity to double concentrate, so they’re not taking as many courses as you would for a major, but there’s still some degree of specialty.
I encourage them to look at the whole course catalog and say, “Take the classes that really attract you, that are interesting, and you’ll figure out how they connect to each other if you look for it,” and to not worry about double concentrations. Or, you know, force yourself to take courses you wouldn’t otherwise.
Certainly, I encourage students, depending on what their interests are, if you’re going to go to graduate school, yes, take statistics, take a research methodology course. Do these kinds of courses that are skill building [so] you’ll have that [for] the next level of your education; they will have expected you to have that background.
But beyond that, I’m really focused on having students maybe try something they wouldn’t otherwise. I wish as an undergraduate I had taken an anthropology class, but it never occurred to me; it just wasn’t on my radar. Explore, because you don’t know what you don’t know, and to really find something that drives them, that they’re really excited about doing the coursework and learning more about that area. Because they’ll put more into it, and as they put more into it, they’re going to develop the liberal arts skills in the process. Whereas, if they’re forcing themselves to take a course because they feel they should take this course, they’re not going to have the same level of motivation. They’re not going to get the same out of it.
Inside Higher Ed: As you said, one of your priorities is advising, which is so important to the student journey. What does quality advising look like to you?
MacLeod: I think that quality advising really requires time and listening.
I always ask students to come in with kind of a worksheet: Where are you [in your progress] toward graduation? Where are you in terms of taking required courses? But I also ask them things like, “OK, this is a required course, but you have a selection of five different faculty members that might be teaching that course, and of course, they bring their skills and expertise and kind of personality in each course. Why did you choose that faculty member? If you’re interested in this, maybe this other faculty member—even though it’s the same requirement—might teach that course in a way that you would find appealing?” And directing them to resources, encouraging them to talk to faculty before they enrolled in the course if they have questions or concerns or if they’re not certain about something.
Then also asking them very blatant questions that I wish someone had asked me when I was an undergraduate. What are your plans after you graduate? What are you doing to achieve that goal? What information do you need to know, and how are you going to get it moving forward?
I took time off [after graduating] because I’d never had those conversations. Maybe people at the university thought I was having it with my family. My family may have thought I was having it with people at the university. I’m not sure where I lost the memo, but it just didn’t happen. Before, someone had always come along and said, “Apply for this,” and it was a very structured thing. That’s not how life after graduation works at all. So I ask those questions I wish someone had asked me.
Inside Higher Ed: What is student success to you?
MacLeod: It’s not for me to define for someone else what success looks like. I have my own ideas, but I think it’s wrong to impose that on other people, because success can look like so many different things.
In general, I feel that student success is they graduate from the program, and they feel good about that. That there’s not regret that they should have gone someplace else, but also that we’ve equipped them with the skills in their personal and in their professional life to face the challenges that will inevitably come and to be able to surmount them.
The first couple years after graduation for everyone is hard—that’s just kind of the nature of the beast—but that they are prepared for, that they can get through it, and know that there’s something on the other side. that they are confident in their skills, that they will figure it out and then end up on the other side in a career that they find fulfilling in some manner, being able to contribute to the community, if that’s their goal, in a way that is meaningful to them. And hopefully happy alumni that are talking to our current students that and sharing their experiences.
Inside Higher Ed: What are your long-term goals in this new role?
MacLeod: It feels like so much of academic life is keeping your head above water for now.
I think that in the long term, I’d really like to see a more collaborative campus culture, where faculty members are supporting each other in their endeavors, maybe a bit more. It’s not that my colleagues are unsupportive, but we don’t always ask each other or are aware of the ways in which our research overlaps and we could actually be doing more—whether it’s with our teaching or where we could be drawing more on each other’s skills and knowledge base.
I’m still really new at this … so I think right now my priority is still listening, rather than planning for the future.
Seeking stories from campus leaders, faculty members and staff for our Student Success focus. Share here.
