Blog

  • Faculty Scholarship: First Steps and Advice for Publishing – Faculty Focus

    Faculty Scholarship: First Steps and Advice for Publishing – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Why the LLE may not radically reform tertiary education — and how it might still move the dial

    Why the LLE may not radically reform tertiary education — and how it might still move the dial

    Picture two people you probably know. Amira works in a GP surgery and wants to move into health data. Ben’s a video editor who keeps bumping into AI tools he doesn’t quite understand.

    The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) looks built for them: pay per credit, learn in chunks, fit study around life. It’s a real step forward. But a finance switch rarely rewires a whole system. Who recognises learning, who lets you progress, and who supports you while you study still decide who actually gets through the door.

    In simple terms, the LLE funds learning at levels 4–6 (from Higher Nationals up to bachelor’s) and lets people use an entitlement over time (currently up to age 60). Providers are paid per credit. Early emphasis is on areas with clear employer demand (for example computing, engineering, health) and on Higher Technical Qualifications. Funded modules typically need to be at least 30 credits, assessed, and housed inside an approved “parent course”. Subjects are tagged using a national list (HECoS), and modules are expected to align with the parent course’s main subject tag – a guard-rail that ties funding to real, quality-assured programmes.

    Money fix won’t deliver system fix

    Being able to pay isn’t the same as being able to progress. One university ultimately decides whether learning you did elsewhere counts towards its award, and practice varies. Modularity also isn’t cost-free: even short units need admissions checks, timetables, advice and assessment, so institutions may scale cautiously or stick to subjects with clear prerequisites. And performance metrics were built for whole degrees, not “step-on, step-off” study, so departments worry about being penalised when learners pause between modules.

    At the most selective end of the system, mid-course entry and external credit are rare. That’s not special pleading; it reflects how recognition works in England: one university confers the degree and decides what counts. The LLE can pay for learning in many places; it doesn’t compel acceptance.

    Colleges and universities can make progress quickly by acting as one system: align first-year expectations so college students aren’t starting cold; recognise T Levels and Higher Technical Qualifications clearly in admissions; share transition data so support follows the learner; co-deliver study-skills content; and publish simple maps showing which level-4 modules count towards which degrees. Otherwise, too many learners hit the boundary and bounce off it (see this practical bridging agenda from Imran Mir at Apex College Leicester).

    In countries where adult study is normal, systems don’t just fix tuition; they also help with the time cost of learning and make credit transfer routine. The pattern is tuition + time + transfer solved together. England’s LLE chiefly tackles tuition; the other two levers still need work.

    The wider growth story is that systems that reach more adult learners tend to do three things at scale: institution-wide digital delivery (not a side-project), employer-linked curricula and experiential learning, and a clear identity around inclusion and student success. The LLE can be the catalyst, but only if leaders build for lifelong learners across the whole institution rather than at the edges, with enterprise-level innovation in online and hybrid learning, partnerships, brand reach, and transfer-friendly design.

    Interdisciplinarity without contortions

    A live tension is the HECoS rule: a module’s main subject tag is expected to match its parent course. That keeps data tidy and protects students, but it can blunt genuinely cross-field learning just as employers ask for blended skill-sets (AI plus a domain like health or media; green and digital transitions).

    Createch – where creative practice, design, computing, data/AI and business models meet – is a good test case. There are two practical tracks. One is provider-led, inside today’s rules, and would involve setting up interdisciplinary parent programmes (for example, Createch and Digital Production) so the main tag stays compliant, and using secondary or proportional tags to reflect the mix. Institutions would co-deliver paired modules across departments with published progression maps and build employer-validated outcomes so transfer is easier to justify.

    A policy-led approach would require government and regulators to clarify guidance on proportional coding and run time-limited pilots allowing defined exceptions to the strict primary-code match where labour-market need is clear (Createch is a strong candidate). After consultation, there could be small, targeted tweaks so specified cross-disciplinary modules can be funded without awkward rebadging.

    Options for system development

    Portability needs to be easier to plan. A credit-transfer guarantee in a few defined subject areas, backed by shared learning-outcome descriptors and a standard digital transcript, would give learners and providers confidence. Publishing typical acceptance rules – and deciding transfer requests within indicative timeframes – would also help.

    Fund time as well as tuition, selectively. A wage-linked maintenance pilot for priority level 4–6 modules, with pro-rata childcare and disability support, could unlock participation for adults who can’t take a pay hit to study.

    Commission where demand is obvious. A small national fund could buy short university courses in shortage areas with colleges and local employers.

    Build planned pathways. Federated degrees and regional FE–HE compacts can publish simple maps from level 3/4 to degree entry (including any bridging) and show how 30-credit modules stack inside an approved parent course.

    Tune the measures. Outcome metrics that recognise pauses between modules would reduce the risk of doing the right thing for modular learners.

    Balance selective and inclusive levers. Any growth money might come with contextual admissions and targeted pathways at high-tariff universities, alongside serious student success investment where most low-income learners actually study and, crucially, institution-wide innovation rather than pilots at the margins.

    The LLE widens options but on its own it won’t rebalance outcomes. If England wants fair access and attainment, the system can combine portable recognition, realistic support for time out of work, and commissioned provision where need is greatest – and pair it with institution-wide innovation that treats adults as core learners, not extras. That’s how Amira and Ben actually get through the door, and how the sector grows again.

    Source link

  • Five Data-Informed Steps for Optimizing College Student Retention

    Five Data-Informed Steps for Optimizing College Student Retention

    Where do you start as you are creating a student retention plan? The answer is with data. Simply put, data are the lifeblood of successful student recruitment and retention efforts. You cannot possibly hope to maximize enrollment yields and student completion rates without strong data analysis and planning. The following five steps illustrate how to achieve a robust, data-informed approach to retention.

    1. Make data the foundation for decision-making.

    It sounds simple, yet we know that many campuses do not rely on data to guide strategies. Often “conventional wisdom” or “that’s the way we’ve always done it” override any actual research or data. Those types of processes are very flawed for crafting enrollment strategies, especially given the rapid changes that are reshaping the higher education environment.

    2. Collect all the data that are relevant to student success.

    Data are the lifeblood to successful student recruitment and retention efforts

    In discussing student retention, first-to-second year persistence and overall completion/graduation rates are useful metrics. However, they are lagging indicators gathered only after it is too late to intervene with students and do not provide a complete picture of persistence patterns. There are many data elements that can help not only provide a more accurate assessment of retention at your campus, but also allow you to intervene with students in a more timely fashion such as:

    • Student motivation data. How do students feel about attending college? What are their attitudes toward studying? What family and/or social factors could interfere with their success? Motivational data can go a long way toward focusing your student retention initiatives, especially when gathered as students first enroll at your institution. (Learn more about the motivational assessment tools that are available to support your efforts).
    • Credit hours attempted versus credit hours earned. This ratio is very revealing as it demonstrates if students are succeeding in their educational plans before reaching the critical juncture of withdrawing. These data can be especially helpful during a student’s first and second semesters.
    • Student satisfaction and priorities assessment. When students are not satisfied, they become less likely to persist. Improving their satisfaction improves the quality of their life and learning. When satisfaction is viewed within the context of importance (priorities), the data allows you to better understand which satisfaction issues are more pressing and in need of immediate attention. (Take a look at the satisfaction-priorities surveys options).
    • Common characteristics in student retention. Do students who persist or withdraw share common characteristics? Are there indicators of student success or red flags for persistence that would help you quickly understand which students you should target? (Contact me if you would like to learn more about data analytics options for retention guidance).
    • Institutional barriers to student success. Similar to student characteristics, are there certain factors across campus that may hinder persistence and completion? Conducting an opportunity analysis with an outside perspective can help you identify places where you could make improvements.

    3. Understand what the data are telling you

    Once you have made a commitment to collect the data and have gathered what you need to inform your decisions, you may ask yourself, “Now what?” This is your turning point for using data to improve student retention. You have to know what the data say about student persistence. Are there patterns to observe? Do you know which students or cohorts to prioritize? Which resources are having the greatest impact on student success? This is admittedly one of the more difficult tasks in data-informed retention planning and one where experience can make a big difference. However, once you successfully analyze your data, your retention efforts have the potential to improve!

    4. Take action based on the data

    Here we close the loop with steps one and two. Now that you are informed by data, you can build retention initiatives on solid information. You will be able to focus your limited resources more strategically on the students who need the most help and/or are the most receptive to assistance. You will be able to direct your attention to improving areas that matter to students. You will be able to be proactive based on the knowledge of characteristics of successful (and less successful) students. The power of data comes when your institution takes action based on what it has learned about your students.

    5. Use what you know about retention to guide recruitment

    There is a tendency to look at student recruitment and retention as two unrelated silos. But one of the biggest factors in student retention is the shape of the incoming class. It is vital for campuses, when recruiting, to extend their concept of the funnel past the initial enrollment state and through the career of the student. By determining which students not only have the desired characteristics you want, but also the best chance to persist and success, your entire campus benefits.

    Are you curious about how institutional choice plays into student satisfaction (the idea that students have enrolled in the college they want to attend), along with importance factors in the decision to originally enroll and how satisfied students are with financial aid? (All of these are links between recruitment and retention efforts). If yes, I invite you to download the 2025 National College Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report.

    If you are looking for support with data collection, data analytics and/or understanding what opportunities exist for your campus in the area of student success, contact me to learn more.

    Thanks to my former colleague Tim Culver for the original development of this content.

    Source link

  • From MIT to Brown and Beyond

    From MIT to Brown and Beyond

    The Monday killing of MIT professor Nuno F.G. Loureiro at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts has shaken the academic community and reinforced a troubling reality already examined in Higher Education Inquirer’s recent reporting on campus safety and mental health: violence affecting higher education in the United States is neither isolated nor confined to campus boundaries.

    Loureiro, a Portuguese-born physicist and internationally respected scholar in plasma science and fusion research, was a senior leader at MIT and director of its Plasma Science and Fusion Center. His death occurred off campus, yet it reverberated powerfully within higher education because it underscores how scholars, students, and staff exist within a broader national environment shaped by widespread gun violence, strained mental-health systems, and limited preventive safeguards.

    Authorities have confirmed the incident as a homicide. At the time of writing, no suspect has been publicly identified, and investigators have released few details about motive. The uncertainty has compounded the shock felt by colleagues, students, and international collaborators who viewed Loureiro as both a scientific leader and a deeply committed mentor.

    A Pattern, Not an Anomaly

    Loureiro’s killing followed a series of violent incidents tied to U.S. college campuses throughout 2025, reinforcing that these events are not aberrations but part of a broader pattern.

    Just days earlier, a deadly shooting at Brown University left two students dead and several others wounded when a gunman opened fire in an academic building during final exams. The attack disrupted campus life, forced lockdowns, and exposed vulnerabilities in building access and emergency response procedures.

    Earlier in the year, Florida State University experienced a mass shooting in a heavily trafficked campus area, resulting in multiple fatalities and injuries. The suspect, a student, was taken into custody, but the psychological impact on students and faculty persisted long after classes resumed.

    At Kentucky State University, a shooting inside a residence hall claimed the life of a student and critically injured another. The alleged shooter was not a student but a parent, underscoring how campus violence increasingly involves individuals with indirect or external connections to institutions.

    In September 2025, violence took an explicitly political turn when Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was assassinated during a public speaking event at Utah Valley University. Kirk was shot during a large outdoor gathering attended by thousands. The killing, widely described as a political assassination, was unprecedented in recent U.S. campus history and raised urgent questions about security at high-profile events, free expression, and political polarization within academic spaces.

    Together, these incidents — spanning elite private universities, public flagship institutions, regional campuses, and HBCUs — illustrate how violence in higher education now crosses institutional type, geography, and purpose, from classrooms and residence halls to public forums and nearby neighborhoods.

    The Limits of Traditional Campus Safety Models

    HEI’s recent analysis of U.S. campus safety emphasized a central tension: colleges and universities rely heavily on reactive security measures — armed campus police, surveillance infrastructure, emergency alerts — while underinvesting in prevention, mental-health care, and community-based risk reduction.

    The events of 2025 highlight the limitations of these approaches. Even well-resourced institutions cannot fully secure campus perimeters or prevent violence originating beyond institutional control. Nor can security infrastructure alone address the social isolation, untreated mental illness, ideological extremism, and easy access to firearms that underlie many of these incidents.

    Federal compliance frameworks such as the Clery Act prioritize disclosure and reporting rather than prevention. Meanwhile, the expansion of campus policing has often mirrored broader trends in U.S. law enforcement, raising concerns about militarization without clear evidence of improved safety outcomes.

    Violence Beyond Active Shooters

    While mass shootings and assassinations draw national attention, they represent only one part of a wider landscape of harm in higher education. HEI has documented other persistent threats, including hazing deaths, sexual violence, domestic abuse, stalking, false threats that provoke armed responses, and institutional failures to protect vulnerable populations.

    Mental health remains a critical and often neglected dimension. Many acts of campus-related violence intersect with untreated mental illness, financial stress, academic pressure, and inadequate access to care — conditions exacerbated by rising tuition, housing insecurity, and uneven campus support systems.

    For international students in particular, exposure to U.S. gun violence and emergency lockdowns can be deeply destabilizing, challenging assumptions about safety that differ sharply from conditions in other countries.

    An Urgent Moment for Higher Education

    The deaths of individuals such as Professor Loureiro and Charlie Kirk, alongside students at Brown, Florida State, and Kentucky State, underscore a central truth: American campuses do not exist apart from the society around them. No amount of prestige, branding, or technology can fully insulate higher education from national patterns of violence.

    For administrators and policymakers, the lesson is not simply to harden security, but to rethink safety holistically — integrating physical protection with mental-health infrastructure, transparent accountability, community engagement, and policies that address deeper cultural and structural drivers of violence.

    As Higher Education Inquirer has argued, campus safety is inseparable from broader questions of public health, social policy, and institutional responsibility. Without sustained attention to these connections, tragedies across U.S. campuses will continue to be framed as shocking exceptions rather than symptoms of a deeper and ongoing crisis.

    Sources

    Associated Press reporting on the MIT professor killing

    Reuters coverage of campus shootings in 2025

    Reporting on the Brown University shooting

    Coverage of the Florida State University shooting

    Reporting on the Kentucky State University residence hall shooting

    PBS NewsHour and national reporting on the Charlie Kirk assassination at Utah Valley University

    Higher Education Inquirer – Understanding U.S. Campus Safety and Mental Health: Guidance for International Students

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Understanding U.S. Campus Safety and Mental Health: Guidance for International Students

    Higher Education Inquirer : Understanding U.S. Campus Safety and Mental Health: Guidance for International Students

    The tragic shooting at Brown University in December 2025, which claimed two lives and left nine students wounded, is a stark reminder that even elite U.S. campuses are not immune to violence. For international students, understanding this incident requires placing it in the broader context of the United States’ history of social dangers, treatment of mental illness, and policies affecting foreigners.

    The United States has historically had higher rates of violent crime, including gun-related incidents, than many other developed nations. While campus shootings remain statistically rare, they reflect deeper societal issues: widespread gun access, social inequality, and a culture that often prioritizes armed self-protection over preventative public safety measures. Universities, traditionally viewed as open spaces for learning and discussion, are increasingly sites of surveillance and armed response, reshaping the student experience.

    Foreign students and immigrants may face additional vulnerabilities. Throughout U.S. history, immigrants have often been subject to discrimination, harassment, or violence based on nationality, race, or religion. Universities are not insulated from these pressures, and international students can be particularly susceptible to microaggressions, exclusion, or even targeted hostility. These risks were heightened under the Trump administration, when rhetoric and policies frequently cast foreigners as suspicious or undesirable. Visa restrictions, heightened scrutiny of foreign scholars, and public statements fostering distrust created an environment in which international students might feel unsafe or isolated.

    Mental illness plays a critical role in understanding campus violence, but its treatment in the United States is inconsistent. While many universities provide counseling centers, therapy services, and crisis hotlines, the broader mental health system in the U.S. remains fragmented and under-resourced. Access often depends on insurance coverage, ability to pay, and proximity to care, leaving some individuals untreated or inadequately supported. Cultural stigmas and underdiagnosis can exacerbate the problem, particularly among minority and immigrant populations. International students, unfamiliar with local mental health norms or hesitant to seek care due to cost or cultural barriers, may be less likely to access help until crises arise.

    U.S. universities deploy extensive surveillance systems, emergency protocols, and campus police to respond to threats. These measures aim to mitigate harm once an incident occurs but focus less on prevention of violence or addressing underlying causes, including untreated mental illness. Students are required to participate in drills and safety training, creating a reactive rather than preventative model.

    Compared to other countries, the U.S. approach is distinct. Canadian universities emphasize mental health support and unarmed security. European campuses often maintain open environments with minimal surveillance and preventive intervention strategies. Many Asian universities operate in low-crime contexts with community-based safety measures rather than extensive surveillance. The U.S. approach emphasizes rapid law enforcement response and monitoring, reflecting a society with higher firearm prevalence and less coordinated mental health infrastructure.

    The Brown University tragedy underscores a sobering reality for international students: while the U.S. offers world-class education, it is a nation with elevated risks of violent crime, inconsistent mental health care, and historical and ongoing challenges for foreigners. Awareness, preparedness, community engagement, and proactive mental health support are essential tools for international students navigating higher education in this environment.

    Sources

    The Guardian: Brown University shooting: police release more videos of person of interest as FBI offers reward

    Reuters: Manhunt for Brown University shooter stretches into fourth day

    Washington Post: Hunt for Brown University gunman starts anew as tension rises

    AP News: Brown University shooting victims identified

    People: Brown University shooting victim Kendall Turner

    WUSF: Brown University shooting victims update

    Wikipedia: 2025 Brown University shooting

    Pew Research Center: International Students in the United States

    Brookings Institution: Immigrant Vulnerability and Safety in the U.S.

    National Alliance on Mental Illness: Mental Health in Higher Education

    Journal of American College Health: Mental Health Services Utilization Among College Students

    Source link

  • Transparency about AI should be a sector-wide principle

    Transparency about AI should be a sector-wide principle

    Josh Thorpe’s recent Wonkhe article – What should the higher education sector do about AI fatigue? – captured how many are feeling about artificial intelligence. The sector is tired of hype, uncertainty, and trying to keep up with a technology that seems to evolve faster than our capacity to respond. But AI fatigue, as that article suggests, is not failure. It’s a signal that we need to pause, reflect, and respond with human-centred coherence.

    One of the most accessible and powerful responses to AI uncertainty is transparency. By taking a consistent approach to declaring AI use in work or assessment, many educators are taking a first step by simply declaring: “no AI is used in…”

    The statement alone supports development of trust between educators and students, and it can create space for dialogue. It’s not about rushing into AI adoption, it’s about being honest and intentional, whatever the current practice. From there, we can begin to explore what small, discipline-relevant, and appropriate uses of AI might look like.

    The journey starts with transparency, not technology. We need to support staff in engaging with AI in ways that feel ethical, manageable, and empowering. We mustn’t begin with technical training or institutional mandates. We must begin with a simple request to communicate clearly about AI use (or non-use) in our teaching, learning and assessment practices.

    Sheffield Hallam University has implemented an AI Transparency Scale as a communication tool that helps educators consider how they disclose AI use to students, and supports how they can clarify expectations for students in assessment. It’s a conversation starter which prompts educators to reflect on whether AI tools are used in their practice, how this use is communicated with students, and how transparency supports academic integrity and student trust. The scale is helping move from uncertainty to clarity. Not by simplifying AI, but by humanising and clarifying how we engage with it.

    Moving to transparency

    For educators wondering where to start, confident transparency begins with making AI clear and understandable within its specific context. Transparency builds trust and sets clear expectations for staff and students. A simple statement, even a neutral one such as “AI tools were not used in the development of this module,” provides clarity and signals openness. You might adopt a tool like the AI Transparency Scale where prompts can scaffold your communication of AI use or create your own local language. Even short discussions in course or programme team meetings can surface valuable insights and lead to shared practices. The goal is not just to disclose, but to create a shared understanding and practice.

    Engaging students in the conversation about AI and inviting them to share how they are using AI tools helps educators understand emerging practices and co-create ethical boundaries. As Naima Rahman and Gunter Saunders noted in their Wonkhe article, students want AI integrated into their learning – but they want it to be fair, transparent, and ethical.

    Listening and responding transparently reinforces trust. Together, explore questions such as: “what does responsible AI use look like in our subject area?” Consider where automation or analysis might add value, and where human judgment remains essential.

    Transparency here means being explicit about why certain tasks should remain human-led and where AI might play a supportive role. Positioning students as co-leaders in these discussions builds a stronger, more transparent foundation for responsible AI use.

    From individual burden to institutional strategy

    Josh Thorpe’s article rightly calls out the lack of institutional coordination and fragmented AI discourse. The burden of response has fallen largely on individuals, with limited support from policy, leadership, or infrastructure.

    To move forward, we need coherent institutional leadership that frames AI not just as a technical challenge, but as a support, pedagogical, and ethical challenge. By sharing our experiences, resources, and approaches openly, we can develop shared principles that can guide diverse practices across the sector. Finally, we need alignment with the changing nature of authorship, assessment, and professional competence in an AI-enabled world. Simon Sneddon goes into the need to prepare students for the world of (artificial intelligence-enabled) work in another recent Wonkhe article.

    Transparency offers a bridge between policy and practice. It’s a principle that can be embedded in institutional guidance, supported through professional development, and aligned with sector-wide values.

    As the Office for Students, Jisc, and other bodies continue to shape the AI landscape and how we navigate it, institutions must find ways to empower their staff, not just inform them. That means creating space for reflection, dialogue, and ethical experimentation.

    Transparency alone will not solve the challenges of AI in education, but it is a good place to start. The sector can begin to move from fatigue to fluency, one transparent step at a time.

    AI transparency statement: In developing this article, I used Microsoft Copilot to support the writing process. I provided original textual inputs, guided the reference of relevant existing materials, added additional sources, and critically reviewed and refined generated outputs to produce the final piece. This corresponds to level 3 of the AI Transparency Scale, indicating active human oversight, original content, and editorial control.

    Source link

  • How a Managed Meltdown Enables Unauthorized Asset Sales

    How a Managed Meltdown Enables Unauthorized Asset Sales

    The federal student loan portfolio, totaling roughly $1.6 to $1.7 trillion, is not merely an accounting entry. It is one of the largest consumer credit systems in the world and functions simultaneously as a public policy tool, a long-term revenue stream, a data infrastructure, and a political liability. It shapes who can access higher education, how risk is distributed across generations, and how the federal government exerts leverage over the postsecondary sector. Precisely because of its scale and visibility, the portfolio is uniquely vulnerable to narrative reframing.

    That vulnerability was not accidental. It was constructed over decades through a series of policy decisions that stripped borrowers of normal consumer protections while preserving the financial attractiveness of student debt as an asset. Chief among these decisions was the gradual removal of bankruptcy protections for student loans. By rendering student debt effectively nondischargeable except under the narrow and punitive “undue hardship” standard, lawmakers transformed education loans into a uniquely durable financial instrument. Unlike mortgages, credit cards, or medical debt, student loans could follow borrowers for life, enforced through wage garnishment, tax refund seizure, and Social Security offsets.

    This transformation made student loans exceptionally attractive for securitization. Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities, or SLABS, flourished precisely because the underlying loans were shielded from traditional credit risk. Investors could rely not on educational outcomes or borrower prosperity, but on the legal certainty that the debt would remain collectible. Even during economic downturns, SLABS were marketed as relatively stable instruments, insulated from the discharge risks that plagued other forms of consumer credit.

    Private banks once dominated this market. Sallie Mae, originally a government-sponsored enterprise, became a central player in both originating and securitizing student loans, while Navient emerged as a major servicer and asset manager. Yet as Higher Education Inquirer documented in early 2025, banks ultimately lost control of student lending. Rising defaults, public outrage, state enforcement actions, and mounting evidence of predatory practices made the sector politically radioactive. The federal government stepped in not as a reformer, but as a backstop, absorbing the portfolio and stabilizing a system private finance could no longer manage without reputational and regulatory risk.

    That history reveals a recurring pattern. When student lending fails in private hands, it becomes public. When the public system is allowed to fail, it becomes ripe for re-privatization.

    A portfolio does not need to collapse to be declared unmanageable. It only needs to appear dysfunctional enough to justify extraordinary intervention.

    The post-pandemic repayment restart, persistent servicing failures, legal challenges to income-driven repayment plans, and widespread borrower confusion have all contributed to a growing narrative of systemic breakdown. Servicers such as Maximus, operating under the Aidvantage brand, MOHELA, and others have struggled to process payments accurately, manage forgiveness programs, and provide reliable customer service. These failures are often framed as bureaucratic incompetence rather than as predictable consequences of outsourcing public functions to private contractors whose incentives are misaligned with borrower welfare.

    Navient’s exit from federal servicing did not mark a retreat from the student loan ecosystem so much as a repositioning, as it continued to benefit from private loan portfolios and legacy SLABS exposure. Sallie Mae, rebranded and fully privatized, remains deeply embedded in the private student loan market, which continues to rely on the same nondischargeability framework that props up federal lending.

    Crucially, these servicing failures cannot be separated from the earlier elimination of bankruptcy as a safety valve. In normal credit markets, distress is resolved through restructuring or discharge. In student lending, distress accumulates. Borrowers remain trapped, servicers remain paid, and policymakers are confronted with a swelling mass of unresolved debt that can be labeled a crisis at any politically convenient moment.

    Under pyrrhic defeat theory, such a crisis is not merely tolerated. It is useful.

    Once the federal portfolio is framed as broken beyond repair, the range of acceptable solutions expands. What would be politically impossible in a stable system becomes plausible in an emergency. Asset transfers, securitization of federal loans, expansion of SLABS-like instruments backed by government guarantees, or long-term conveyance of servicing and collection rights can be presented as pragmatic fixes rather than ideological choices.

    A Trump administration would be particularly well positioned to exploit this dynamic. Skeptical of debt relief, hostile to administrative governance, and ideologically aligned with privatization, such an administration could recast the portfolio as a failed public experiment inherited from predecessors. In that framing, selling or offloading the portfolio is not an abdication of responsibility but an act of fiscal discipline.

    Importantly, this need not take the form of an explicit, congressionally authorized sale. Risk can be shifted through securitization. Revenue streams can be monetized. Servicing authority can be extended indefinitely to private firms. Data control can migrate outside public oversight. Over time, these steps amount to de facto privatization, even if the loans remain nominally federal. The infrastructure, incentives, and profits move outward, while the political blame remains with the state.

    This is where earlier McKinsey & Company studies reenter the conversation. Long before the current turmoil, McKinsey analyses identified high servicing costs, fragmented contractor oversight, weak borrower segmentation, and low political returns on administrative complexity. While framed as efficiency critiques, these studies implicitly favored market-oriented restructuring. In a crisis environment, such recommendations become blueprints for divestment.

    The danger of a pyrrhic defeat strategy is that it delivers a short-term political win at the cost of long-term public capacity. Selling or functionally privatizing the student loan portfolio may improve fiscal optics, but it permanently weakens democratic control over higher education finance. Borrowers, already stripped of bankruptcy protections, lose what remains of public accountability. Policymakers lose leverage over tuition inflation and institutional behavior. The federal government relinquishes a powerful counter-cyclical tool. What remains is a debt regime optimized for extraction, enforced by servicers, securitized for investors, and detached from educational outcomes.

    The defeat is real. It is borne by students, families, and future generations. The victory belongs to those who acquire distressed public assets and those who benefit ideologically from shrinking the public sphere.

    Pyrrhic defeat theory reminds us that collapse is not always accidental. In the case of the federal student loan portfolio, what appears to be dysfunction or incompetence may instead be strategic surrender: a willingness to let a public system deteriorate so that it can be sold off, securitized, or outsourced under the banner of necessity. If that happens, it will not be remembered as a policy error, but as a deliberate transfer of public wealth and power—made possible by decades of legal engineering that began when bankruptcy protection was taken away and ended with student debt transformed into a permanent financial asset.

    Sources

    Higher Education Inquirer. “When Banks Lost Control of Student Loan Lending.” January 2025.

    https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/01/when-banks-lost-control-of-student-loan.html

    U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid. FY 2024 Annual Agency Performance Report. January 13, 2025.

    U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid. Federal Student Loan Portfolio Data and Statistics, various years.

    Government Accountability Office. Student Loans: Key Weaknesses in Servicing and Oversight, multiple reports.

    Congressional Budget Office. The Federal Student Loan Portfolio: Budgetary Costs and Policy Options.

    U.S. Congress. Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 and prior amendments affecting student loan dischargeability.

    Pardo, Rafael I., and Michelle R. Lacey. “The Real Student-Loan Scandal: Undue Hardship Discharge Litigation.” American Bankruptcy Law Journal.

    Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission materials on asset-backed securities and consumer credit markets.

    McKinsey & Company. Student Loan Servicing, Portfolio Optimization, and Risk Management Analyses, prepared for federal agencies and financial institutions, 2010s–early 2020s.

    Higher Education Inquirer archives on SLABS, servicers, privatization, deregulation, and student loan policy.

    Source link

  • DePaul University cuts nearly 8% of staff

    DePaul University cuts nearly 8% of staff

    Dive Brief:

    • DePaul University on Friday laid off 114 staff members, senior leaders of the Catholic nonprofit said Monday.
    • The reductions, representing just under 8% of the Chicago university’s staff, come as DePaul tries to resolve a $12.6 million shortfall in its fiscal 2026 budget, driven in part by declines in international enrollment.  
    • “Supporting our students and providing an excellent education remain our top priority,” the senior leaders said Monday. “We want to emphasize that university leaders worked to minimize cuts to the student experience, including on-campus employment.”

    Dive Insight:

    In late September, the same group of leaders — President Robert Manuel, Provost Salma Ghanem and CFO Sherri Sidler — warned the DePaul community that budget cuts loomed. 

    They described “massive disruptions to our enrollments” that the university had not forecast, including a precipitous 62% year-over-year drop in enrollment of new international graduate students. Officials attributed the decrease to “challenges to the visa system” and “declining desire for international students to study in the U.S.”

    The loss came amid nationwide drops in fall 2025 international student enrollment following the Trump administration’s aggressive policies around immigration and foreign students. 

    On top of the international enrollment collapse, DePaul’s continuing fall undergraduate enrollment declined by about 300 students compared to last year, according to institutional data. Students’ financial need has simultaneously increased, adding roughly $7 million in unexpected institutional aid to the budget. 

    In October, the officials said that the university was coming up short of its planned budget by nearly $13 million. That gap, plus the 2.5% operating margin the university is targeting in the short term, meant the university would need to cut $27.4 million from its budget, according to the leaders. Long-term, DePaul aims for a 4% margin to maintain financial health and be able to reinvest in the university. 

    To find savings, DePaul officials froze hiring, trimmed executive pay, reduced retirement contributions for senior administrators and skipped merit pay increases for faculty and staff. But those measures still left a $16 million gap. The senior leaders warned that the remaining shortfall would be filled through “operating expense reductions and staff eliminations.” 

    For staff let go last week, DePaul is providing them with severance packages based on years of service, as well as career counseling, health insurance subsidies and other resources, the leaders said. 

    “The last several weeks have been some of the most difficult our community has ever experienced,” the leaders said. “These decisions were extraordinarily difficult, and leaders across the university did not make them lightly.”

    DePaul’s enrollment has declined in recent years, though not as significantly as many of its peers in the private nonprofit world. Between 2018 and 2023, fall headcount declined by 4.9% to 21,348 students, according to federal data.

    Source link

  • NJ Teachers, Don’t Quit Your Jobs

    NJ Teachers, Don’t Quit Your Jobs

    What is going on in this graph at the bottom that juxtaposes the number of New Jersey educators with the number of students enrolled in NJ school districts?

    This: Over the last decade, staffing is up while enrollment is down, according to data collected by Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab. New Jersey isn’t an outlier here because the trend of increased staffing and decreased student population is happening across the country, fueled by outsized federal grants (called ESSER) to each state after the pandemic. That money was intended to ameliorate learning loss suffered by students locked out of school, a short-term infusion never intended to be baked into district payrolls.

    During 2021-2024, the time period when the federal government distributed that ESSER money (total: about $2.6 billion to NJ), NJ school districts hired about 10,000 additional staff members, represented by the red line on the graph. By 2024 we employed over 249,000 educators.

    But here’s the rub or, rather, two: first, we have what analysts call “the fiscal cliff” because the federal infusions dried up last year, leaving districts cash-strapped. Second, over the last decade enrollment across NJ schools is down by over 100,000 students. Since enrollment factors into our state funding formula, many districts take another budgetary hit.

    Edunomics leaders Marguerite Roza and Katherine Silberstein write in the 74, “districts are paying for more employees than they can afford. ​​To make matters worse, during the same time period, districts have been losing students. That means that state and local dollars (which tend to be driven by enrollment counts) are unlikely to make up the gap.”

    What’s next?

    “Right-sizing,” i.e., districts across the country will be laying off staff members because fewer students need fewer teachers and less money means less to spend on payroll.

    The bad news? Some teachers will lose their jobs and districts will be facing tough math to balance budgets.

    The good news? With the exception of fields STEM, special education, and multilingual learners, the teacher shortage is over.

    Source link

  • FTC Robot Build: Starter Kit and Drive Base Kit Upgrade Ideas

    FTC Robot Build: Starter Kit and Drive Base Kit Upgrade Ideas

    Quick Summary: Building a reliable, high-performing robot for the 2025-2026 DECODE Season is one of the most rewarding parts of the FTC robot build process. Whether your team is using the Studica Robotics FTC Starter Kit or the FTC Drive Base Kit, both systems provide a strong mechanical foundation. However, the real power lies in following an iterative design approach, where you prototype, test, analyze, and refine your robot over time.

    This article guides teams through practical, beginner-friendly methods to upgrade both kits while enhancing their engineering skills.

    Why Iteration Matters for Your FTC Robot Build

    One of the most valuable lessons in FTC is understanding that robots are not built once; they’re built over time. Every test, every failure, every small adjustment moves your team closer to a stable, high-scoring machine.

    Both Studica Robotics kits are designed to support that iterative design process:

    Iterating early and often helps teams:

    ➡️ Improve driving performance

    ➡️ Test mechanisms in real-world conditions

    ➡️ Make informed upgrades instead of guessing

    ➡️ Build confidence with hardware and mechanical systems

    The Engineering Cycle Behind FTC Iteration

    Iterative design in FTC is not a random trial and error process. It is a structured engineering cycle that mirrors professional engineering practices. Every improvement your team makes follows the same core steps found in professional engineering:

    Define → Ask → Imagine → Plan → Prototype → Test → Iterate

    Engineering Design ProcessThis cycle helps teams:

    ➡️ Identify what needs to change or improve

    ➡️ Explore constraints, rules, and existing solutions

    ➡️ Brainstorm multiple ways to solve the problem

    ➡️ Select an approach that fits strategy and resources

    ➡️ Build quick prototypes to try ideas early

    ➡️ Test designs on the field to gather real performance data

    ➡️ Refine based on what the tests reveal

    Using these steps gives teams a clear, repeatable method for refining mechanisms, improving scoring consistency, and strengthening overall robot reliability throughout the season. Review the full breakdown of the Engineering Design Process.

    How to Iterate Effectively During Your FTC Robot Build

    No matter which kit your team uses, these principles ensure smarter, safer iteration.

    ➡️ Make one change at a time to isolate what works and what does not

    ➡️ Test early and test often to see real performance in the field

    ➡️ Take pictures and document changes to save time during troubleshooting

    ➡️ Keep wiring organized to reduce disconnects and simplify servicing

    ➡️ Build with symmetry when possible to make balancing and reinforcement easier

    Iterating with the Studica Robotics Building System

    The Studica Robotics building system is designed for easy reconfiguration, ideal for rapid prototyping and refinement during an FTC robot build.

    The Studica Robotics Structure AdvantageThe Studica Robotics Structure AdvantageKey Advantages:

    ✅ Radial Hole Pattern:
    The unique hole pattern makes most structural pieces universally compatible, allowing parts to be easily repositioned or swapped.

    ✅ Versatile Structural Components:
     Available in multiple lengths and colors for refined prototyping:

    ✅Easy to Swap and Adjust:
    Consistent hole spacing allows teams to:

        • Reinforce weak points
        • Add bracing
        • Change wheel types
        • Adjust motor layout
        • Mount sensors cleanly

    This flexibility is exactly what teams need when refining their robot design.

    Upgrading the Starter Kit for Your FTC Robot Build

    The FTC Starter Kit provides the baseline components for this season’s DECODE Starter Bot. It is designed to help teams:

    • Begin programming both autonomous and tele-op
    • Drive-test early
    • Understand drivetrain behavior
    • Work with OMS components
    • Add prototype mechanisms to the FTC Starter Bot to evaluate ideas early in the season.

    Once the Starter Bot is assembled and tested, teams can begin upgrading it.

    FTC Starter Kit Upgrade Ideas

    1. Add Low-Profile U-Channel Wheel Guards:
      Prevents field elements or other robots from catching on the drivetrain.
    2. Experiment with Different Flex Wheels:
      Different durometer (hardness) ratings affect how flex wheels compress and interact with game pieces, helping teams fine-tune intake behavior.
    3. Explore Motor Options:
      Studica Robotics offers Maverick HEX shaft motors with multiple planetary gearbox options available.
      Teams frequently choose between higher torque options and higher RPM options, depending on their drive strategy or mechanism needs.
    4. Reinforce the Chassis:
      Extra brackets or beams help maintain rigidity as mechanisms are added.
    5. Transition to a Mechanism-Ready Chassis:
      Many teams take the FTC Starter Bot’s scoring mechanism concepts and move them onto a more competition-ready Mecanum chassis. This helps teams learn:
      🔹 How to mount mechanisms cleanly
      🔹 How to maintain access to wiring
      🔹 How to improve scoring consistency

    FTC Starter Bot: Shooter on Mecanum Chassis

    This example takes the scoring system from the Studica Robotics FTC Starter Bot and places it onto a refined, competition ready Mecanum chassis. It’s a great starting point for teams looking to practice drivetrain control, get comfortable with strafing, and improve scoring efficiency.

    FTC Starter Bot: Wheel Guard Configuration

    This variation keeps the core Starter Bot design but adds wheel guards to boost durability and protect the drivetrain. The guards help prevent walls, other robots, and game elements from catching on the wheels or interfering with rotation.
    FTC Starter Bot Shooter with Mecanum WheelsFTC Starter Bot Shooter with Mecanum Wheels FTC Starter Bot with Wheel Guard blogFTC Starter Bot with Wheel Guard blog
    What it demonstrates:
     How teams can reuse a proven mechanism while upgrading mobility for smoother alignment, better field positioning, and more consistent scoring.    		 What it demonstrates:
    A simple, low-effort upgrade that improves reliability without significant structural changes.

    Upgrading the FTC Drive Base Kit

    The FTC Drive Base Kit provides a complete mecanum drivetrain with omnidirectional movement, giving teams flexibility when designing mechanisms. Unlike the FTC Starter Kit, the FTC Drive Base Kit only provides the materials needed to create a drivetrain, giving teams total creative freedom to design their own scoring mechanisms.

    FTC Drive Base Kit Upgrade Ideas

    1.  Reinforced Mecanum Wheel Guards – Helps protect rollers during contact-heavy gameplay using:
      🔹 Standoffs
      🔹 T Brackets
      🔹 End Piece Plates
      🔹 Low-Profile U-Channels
    2. Vertical Motor Mounting – Some teams choose to mount motors vertically to create a clean underside with space for:
      🔹 Odometry
      🔹 Sensors
      🔹 Cable routing
    3. Leave Room for Sensors and Expansion – The area under the 288 mm U-Channels is ideal for:
      🔹 Odometry pods
      🔹 Distance sensors
      🔹 IMU stabilization mounts
      🔹 Future scoring mechanisms
    4. Improve Structural Rigidity – As teams add mechanisms, reinforcing the drivetrain with additional brackets or cross-members helps maintain frame strength.

    FTC Drive Base Kit: Protected Drivetrain with Odometry Support

    This version doesn’t include scoring mechanisms, but it features reinforced wheel guards designed to shield the Mecanum rollers and support the drivetrain during high-contact DECODE gameplay and space for odometry pods.

    FTC Drive Base Kit: Vertical Motor Mount for Under-Channel Odometry Space

    This design is a more competition-focused refinement of the FTC Drive Base Kit v2. The motors are mounted vertically, leaving a clean channel beneath the 288 mm U-Channels—perfect for odometry pods, sensors, or future add-ons. It also includes reinforced Mecanum wheel guards built using standoffs, T-brackets, end plates, and low-profile U-Channels to help protect the wheels from hard impacts.
    FTC Drivebase Kit with Wheel Guards and Odometry Kit Top ViewFTC Drivebase Kit with Wheel Guards and Odometry Kit Top View FTC Drivebase Kit vertical motor mount drivebaseFTC Drivebase Kit vertical motor mount drivebase
    What it demonstrates:
    Wheel guards and integrated odometry pods for more accurate autonomous tracking and movement.    		 What it demonstrates:
     A clean, expandable layout optimized for sensors and autonomous performance.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What’s the main difference between the FTC Starter Kit and the FTC Drive Base Kit?
    The FTC Starter Kit includes everything needed for a baseline Starter Bot. The FTC Drive Base Kit is drivetrain-only, giving teams full freedom to design.

    Do I need special tools to upgrade the FTC Starter Bot?
    No. The unique Studica Robotics hole pattern allows parts, motors, gears, and other components to connect easily without special equipment.

    Can I use the FTC Starter Bot for prototyping?
    Yes. Many teams test early mechanisms or scoring ideas on the FTC Starter Bot.

    Can the FTC Drive Base Kit support advanced mechanisms?
    Absolutely. Its open layout is designed for sensors, scoring systems, and expansion structures.

    Should I choose torque or high-RPM motors?
    It depends on your design. Many teams prototype with different planetary gearbox ratios on their motor to determine their preferred performance.

    Why is iteration so important in FTC?
    Each change helps teams improve reliability, score faster, and understand how mechanical decisions affect robot behavior.

    Where can I learn more about the engineering design process?
    Learn more here: Dive into Robotics with the Engineering Design Process

    Closing Thoughts

    Both the FTC Starter Kit and FTC Drive Base Kit give teams a reliable starting point for their FTC robot build. Most teams improve performance by using the design-test-refine process reinforcing structure and refining layouts throughout the season. These adjustments help teams understand mechanical behavior while gradually developing a more consistent robot.

    Source link