Blog

  • College Park President Cleared of Plagiarism Claims

    College Park President Cleared of Plagiarism Claims

    An investigation cleared Pines of academic misconduct.

    University of Maryland, College Park

    University of Maryland College Park President Darryll Pines did not commit academic misconduct, an investigation determined, clearing him of plagiarism allegations that emerged last September.

    A joint investigation that involved both the campus and the University System of Maryland but was led by an outside law firm “found no evidence of misconduct on the part of President Pines,” according to an emailed announcement from College Park and system officials sent on Friday.

    Last fall, Pines was accused of lifting 1,500 words from a tutorial website for a 5,000-word paper that he co-authored in 2002, and of later reusing that same text for a 2006 publication, according to the initial allegations against him that first broke in The Daily Wire, a conservative website.

    Pines disputed the claims from the start, stating that they had no merit.

    However, Joshua Altmann, who wrote the text that Pines was accused of lifting, told Inside Higher Ed last year that “I do consider it to be plagiarism, and not worthy of an academic.”

    The investigation, which concluded after more than a year, included three rounds of external reviews and was extended to other articles Pines wrote. While it found no evidence of misconduct, investigators noted attribution errors in some works.

    “The committee did determine that the two works highlighted last year contained select portions of text previously published by another author in the introductory sections. In a separate text, a discrepancy in assignment of authorship was made. However, President Pines was not found responsible for the inclusion of such text in any of the three works, nor was he found responsible for scholarly misconduct of any kind,” College Park and system officials announced last week.

    Officials also expressed confidence in Pines’s leadership going forward.

    Source link

  • Education Dept. $15M Fund to Support Talent Marketplaces

    Education Dept. $15M Fund to Support Talent Marketplaces

    The statewide talent marketplaces should include credential registries, learning and employment records, and skills-based job description generators.

    ATHVisions/E+/Getty Images

    The Department of Education launched a new $15 million grant competition to promote the development of what it calls statewide “Talent Marketplaces,” or digital systems that track the credentials, employment records and skills of students and graduates.

    “Talent Marketplaces give learners, earners, and employers a clearer way to validate skills, opening doors to stackable credentials and stronger recognition of prior learning and work experience,” Nick Moore, the acting assistant secretary for the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education said in a Friday news release about the program. “As we expand these systems, we open more pathways into good jobs, support broader participation in the workforce, and help strengthen our Nation’s economy.”

    The announcement came just days after the House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing about expanding access to similar Learning and Employment Records. The goal, according to Republicans in both Congress and the Education Department, is to help institutions better match talent to opportunity and expand access to career pathways with a positive return on investment.

    In this first competition, the department will identify up to 10 award winners, each of whom will receive a portion of the $15 million as well as technical assistance in refining and implementing their development plans. It is unclear based on the news release where the funding for this program will come from.

    The application will open in January, according to the release.

    Source link

  • Sick of Doomscrolling? Join This New Research Paper Collective Instead

    Sick of Doomscrolling? Join This New Research Paper Collective Instead

    Anuja Uppuluri used to spend a lot of time scrolling social media apps dictated by algorithms designed to keep users glued to their screens no matter how mind-numbing the content.

    “I always had something else that I could be doing or wanted to be doing, but I was choosing to watch TikTok videos for five hours,” said Uppuluri, who completed a bachelor’s degree in information systems at Carnegie Mellon University in May. “And then by the end of it I couldn’t remember anything that I had watched.”

    Uppuluri, who now works as a machine learning engineer for Anthropic, sought to become more intentional about the information she consumes and has since scaled back her social media usage. Rather than scroll aimlessly, she wanted to fill her time digesting more research related to her career field, especially about the inner workings and implications of increasingly prevalent generative artificial intelligence tools.

    She discovered all types of academic papers, articles and blog posts she wanted to read, but it wasn’t easy to keep organized. “I didn’t know where to put all of this stuff, because there’s no central location for it,” Uppuluri told Inside Higher Ed. “I started thinking about how I want to use my research and what I want to see from other people’s research.”

    So Uppuluri developed Paper Trails, which she described as “Goodreads for academic papers” in an X post announcing the website’s launch last week. “I built it because I wanted a place where engaging with research felt fun, beautiful, and personal to you.”

    Similar to the book-focused website Goodreads, Paper Trails is designed to help users discover new research and ideas, though it’s not powered by an AI algorithm. It’s a crowd-sourced platform where users can post links to papers from any field, peruse summaries of those papers, create shelves (public reading lists), and comment, review or rate papers.

    In the week since its public debut, Paper Trails has grown its users from 10 to 2,200; the number of articles available on the site has increased from 20 to 3,100.

    Inside Higher Ed spoke with Uppuluri to hear more about her vision for Paper Trails.

    (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

    Q: What sparked your interest in reading more academic research, especially about computer science and AI?

    A: I always thought of a computer scientist as someone who writes code, builds infrastructure and makes sure systems are built to scale. But AI is blurring the line between research and engineering. Every new discovery that comes out of a large language model (LLM) lab is research-oriented.

    Understanding why the technology is the way it is can be done by reading papers and understanding the research about large language models. These models are like black boxes—you can’t entirely understand what’s going on inside it—and that’s created all of the research subfields. For example, a subfield called interpretability is about trying to interpret what the models are doing. The more you do with these models, the more you have to read to understand how they work to gain context on how to build things better.

    Q: How did your previous experiences reading and writing research papers inform the creation of Paper Trails?

    A: A research paper to me used to mean something related to medicine, chemistry or biology. I didn’t understand or realize that it had a place in computer science until a few months before I wrote the only research paper I did in college. For that paper, I wrote the methodology and code, but my co-author, who was doing his Ph.D., helped me structure the paper, write the references and get it through the formatting process. It felt like a high barrier to entry for doing and reading research, which I associated with work instead of fun.

    I thought having some type of casual thing like [Paper Trails] to organize research papers would maybe help me read more. But other existing websites I experimented with looked so dated and used software I had to learn. It looked complicated and didn’t seem fun. I also didn’t want to organize my research in a big Google Doc that has 50 links on it that I’m never going to touch again—that looks ugly.

    So, I knew I could probably make my own site that looks nice and is easy to use.

    At its core, Paper Trails is a tool to put papers and other reading material together in a way that’s pretty and fun. Sometimes that’s what you need to make something feel more like a hobby rather than more work you have to do.

    Q: What went into developing the Paper Trails website and how does it work?

    A: I coded most of it from scratch, with the exception of pasting in a few codes to fix some bugs.

    When I first launched, there were only around 20 papers on the site. Now, there’s around 3,000 just from more people being on the site and adding the things that they want to read.

    I chose not to mass import a bunch of stuff at the outset because if people look at it and it’s not something they’re interested in, it’s still there. It’s kind of cool to look at every single paper and know that it’s there because it’s something on someone else’s reading list.

    Everything on the main page is organized by publication date. You can also use keywords to search or just click some buttons to see what people are logging. There is no personalized algorithm for users. While there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with a recommendation assistant, it’s also nice when there’s nothing telling you what to look at.

    Q: What is the value of Paper Trails for its users?

    A: There’s a lot of people who would like to get into research or just reading more. And if you want to spend your time in that way, having a tool to help you do it and encourage you to do makes it a lot easier to follow through on.

    There’s also value coming from all the people that make it a collaborative thing. It allows people to explore, kind of like going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole. You can just keep clicking on random links and reading. You don’t know what you’re going to learn at the start of your session but, if you’re interested in it, you can read it.

    Q: Now that people are showing interest, what are the next steps for Paper Trails?

    A: I was thinking about sending it to some of my old professors, especially if they have Ph.D. students who may be interested in working on it.

    There are even more elements that I could add that would improve the user experience. A lot of people have papers that are already saved on another site, so being able to bulk import would be helpful. Or allowing a few people to edit a shelf rather than just one person could make collaboration a little bit better. Or being able to clone somebody’s shelf so that another user can add some of their own stuff to it.

    I don’t know exactly what growth looks like. But to me, success means the people using it are happy.

    Source link

  • Colleges Don’t “Over-Accommodate” Disabilities (opinion)

    Colleges Don’t “Over-Accommodate” Disabilities (opinion)

    In the current climate, one might question whether academic accommodations are the most urgent avenue for discourse. Yet a pattern of uncontested opinion pieces in spaces like The Atlantic (the newly published “Accommodation Nation”), The Chronicle of Higher Education (“Are Colleges Getting Disability Accommodations All Wrong?), The Wall Street Journal (“Colleges Bend the Rules for More Students, Give Them Extra Help”) and, indeed, Inside Higher Ed itself (“How Accommodating Can (Should) I Be?”) speaks to the enduring cultural conflict around how the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are actualized in higher education.

    As members of the executive board of the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) in Virginia—a professional organization for staff of disability service offices—It is our intention to define and defuse the recurring arguments of this specific “type” of opinion article, which for convenience we will call the “Do Colleges Over-Accommodate?” piece.

    Setting the Table With Statistics

    It is common to see these claims begin from an assumption that disability accommodations “are skyrocketing”—a claim that sensationalizes statistics. One author cites the large volume of accommodation letters sent by a university per semester. Such a claim is rooted in either misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of accommodations. At any institution, the total count of all accommodation letters sent appears disproportionately large, because each student is enrolled in multiple courses.

    A better accounting would come from data on the representation of disabled students within the institution. Recent National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) data shows that among public, 4-year institutions, 10.1 percent of them report that students with disabilities make up 10 percent or more of their student population. This is an increase from the 1.5 percent of institutions in 2010–2011, but why is it shocking that disabled students also want to go to universities that their nondisabled peers attend?

    The NCES data do suggest that disabled students are more likely to enroll in private institutions (more than 23 percent of private nonprofit colleges report that students with disabilities make up 10 percent or more of their student population). While this is supportive of a claim that students from privileged backgrounds have higher access to accommodations (and indeed, research supports this) it is telling that authors who put elite institutions in the spotlight are more focused on reducing accommodations available to these students than on increasing the support available to students at less elite institutions.

    It is also important to view these figures in the context of the post-ADA era. The ADA is only 35 years old, and its amendments passed in 2008. Today’s students come from an environment where they are more likely to expect accessibility, which is reflected in these “skyrocketing”—or “breathtaking”—numbers.

    Categorizing the Case Against Accommodations

    In our review of the “Do Colleges Over-Accommodate” archetype, we saw a clear pattern of essential recurring arguments:

    1. Academic accommodations unfairly advantage disabled students.
    2. Disabled students “game the system.”
    3. More rigid documentation standards are needed to “create equity.”

    In these arguments, we see unfortunate parallels to other attacks on civil rights playing out in our public discourse. Each individual claim requires a full-throated counterargument—which we will provide below.

    Claim: Accommodations Convey Advantage

    This is the most prevalent claim within these articles, and we will spend the greatest effort defusing it. This claim suggests that all accommodations create advantages for students with disabilities—that we should fear for “fairness,” or that accommodations will compromise rigor. In this piece, the author asserts that additional testing time for students with disabilities “is as unfair to other students as a head start would be to other runners.”

    This metaphor reveals a flawed assumption—that education is inherently a place of competition, with a fixed number of winners and losers. A zero-sum game. But universities are not limited in their capacity to provide degrees, nor is there a fixed number of A’s available.

    Still, there is value in ensuring fairness. Disability services officers (DSOs) develop rigorous criteria for assessing and analyzing cases where academic accommodations would “fundamentally alter” key aspects of courses. DSOs also seek to apply a measured approach to approval of accommodations, consistent with professional guidance. The purpose of accommodations—to return to the metaphor—is ensuring that students run in the same race.

    Research such as this 2022 U.K.-based study, which found that accommodations in most cases “worked as intended and helped [with] leveling the playing field,” challenges this narrative further.

    The work of DSOs relies on an interactive process at the individual level. A student who is dyslexic may benefit from a dictation tool for writing essays in a way that another would not. A student who has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder may benefit from a quiet testing environment—but not all students with the same diagnosis would have the same needs. The individualized identification and selection of supports to address disability-specific barriers is the cornerstone of DSO work, and it is work that our offices conduct effectively.

    Claim: Disabled Students ‘Game the System’

    Running through these articles is an implicit—at times explicit—assumption that DSOs are either tricked by students and their medical providers into approving accommodations inappropriately, or that students deliberately misuse even appropriate accommodations. Implicitly, this assumption is communicated to readers through less-than-subtle reliance on words like “claim” for how students communicate their disability, rather than “disclose.” Explicitly, this line of argument appeals to scholarship debating the ways in which individual disabilities are defined.

    Some of the most-cited sources in support of this claim are of questionable reliability. For example, this article from the Canadian Journal Psychological Injury and Law has been held as “sobering” evidence that DSOs are insufficiently rigorous in approving accommodations. In the study, researchers asked DSO staff if they would accommodate a fictitious prospective student based solely on what the researchers deemed insufficient documentation.

    Setting aside gaps in context between Canada and the U.S., what a DSO professional would hypothetically do and what they would do when presented with a live student are different. Our professional guidelines encourage the use of self-report, triangulated with other forms of information. Without following a student through the interactive process, the authors project bias and incorrect assumptions onto the work of DSO professionals—just as asking a doctor to suggest treatment without an exam would likely produce similarly “sobering” results.

    Claim: Rigid Documentation Requirements Create Equity

    The inaccuracy of this claim is likely to be apparent to anyone involved in accommodations review. Moreover, some of the sources cited by proponents of this claim directly contradict it. For example, Ashley Yull’s 2015 article about the intersection of race class, and disability notes:

    “Premising access to accommodations in post-secondary education on receipt of a psychiatric diagnosis magnifies the negative impact of childhood poverty.”

    And Bea Waterfield and Emma Whelan observed in their 2017 article:

    “SES [socioeconomic status] contributes to the experience of disadvantage for learning disabled students when they lack the financial means to obtain required diagnoses.”

    It is no wonder that scholars would dispute that documentation is a lever for equity, given the staggering cost of psychological assessments. There is variance in the pricing of these assessments, but in some areas they can cost between $1,000 and $5,000. While some university-operated assessment centers can be less costly, they typically have very long waiting lists. Meanwhile, 1 in 5 dependent undergraduate students come from families below the poverty line—and nearly half of independent students (those without financial support from family) met this criterion.

    Financial cost is not the only barrier to accessing rigorous documentation. Mental health providers experience significant demand, stretching wait times and disproportionately impacting rural and marginalized communities.

    If DSOs demanded that each student claiming a learning disability or ADHD diagnosis supply such a document, accommodations would be unavailable to poorer students and to many students from rural areas. For all students, the provision of accommodations would be delayed. This is why those working as DSOs are often so willing to work with students when they can articulate an access barrier. To claim otherwise can be understood as either a statement of ignorance about disability services or, perhaps, as reflective of a desire for accommodation requests to diminish.

    Conclusion

    As we noted, our goal is to present a measured response to these opinion essays. Having done so, we will do our readers the service of stating our own view:

    • Disability services professionals are thoughtful and effective in discharging their responsibilities in the interactive process.
    • Disabled students belong on college campuses, and accommodations serve to enable access to higher education.
    • Accommodations level the playing field for students within environments that were built without considering their very existence.
    • Rigidity in the interactive process burdens the student, and these burdens disproportionately impact marginalized communities.

    We encourage readers to draw their own conclusions—however, in doing so, we encourage you to listen to the voices of the disabled community, disability services professionals, and those with stakes and experience in navigating the accommodations process.

    In the current climate, where we are asked to consider whether empathy might be a sin, and whether disability might be incongruent with merit in the workplace, it is important to uplift these voices. It is important to stand firm in the knowledge of the expertise and value of those in helping professions. It is important to affirm that all means all, and that includes students with disabilities.

    Chris Parthemos and Martina Svyantek are the president-elect and president, respectively, of the Association on Higher Education and Disability in Virginia.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for U-M Suzanne Dove

    3 Questions for U-M Suzanne Dove

    The last time we caught up with Suzanne Dove in September of 2024, she was serving as the assistant vice president, strategy and innovation at Bentley University. This past May, Suzanne started a new role as Chief Education Solutions Officer in the Center for Academic Innovation (CAI) at the University of Michigan (U-M). Now, a few months in her new role, I thought this would be a good time to check in with Suzanne.

    Q1: Tell us about your new job. What does a Chief Education Solutions Office do? Where does your role fit in with CAI and U-M as a whole?

    A: At the Center for Academic Innovation, my role as the inaugural Chief Education Solutions Officer (or CESO) is to open a new learning innovation horizon for the Center and help U-M achieve its next tier of educational impact. I do this by creating sustainable strategic partnerships that enable us to serve workforce and talent development needs of external organizations. 

    CAI has long been known for offering well-designed, U-M faculty-led online courses to millions of learners and thousands of organizations. This breadth gives us an advantage: Our teams have developed tacit knowledge as well as processes to stand up and scale successful programs ranging from MOOCs on platforms, like Coursera, to U-M online degree programs to innovative short-form offerings and integration of advanced technology into hybrid, online and residential learning. 

    With Michigan Online giving us even more flexibility, we can go further. We are positioned to partner directly with organizations that need high-quality workforce and talent development and offering features that both learning and development leaders and adult learners value, such as cohort-based learning, live sessions with U-M faculty, and customized content.

    Like any new leadership role, a big part of my job is setting strategic priorities and putting the right operational structures in place. Equally important, if not more so, is building strong, collaborative relationships across three overlapping circles.

    The first is CAI itself, a community of experts in online learning, project management, marketing, media production, ed tech and more who make it possible as I build the Education Solutions team to engage with external partners and craft relevant offerings that fit their needs. The second is leaders and faculty across U-M, many of whom are excited about expanding the university’s reach to nondegree learners and appreciate how our team brings market insights and industry relationships. The third circle is external organizations that are serious about upskilling their employees and are challenging the status quo around professional development and work-based learning.  The partnerships I’m most energized by are those that challenge us to design innovative learning solutions that benefit learners, their organizations and the university. For a thriving workforce in a rapidly shifting landscape, we need to move boldly.

    Right now, my day-to-day focus is on three things, in collaboration with other teams within CAI: building a strong partnership pipeline, making sure there’s a good fit between partners’ needs and CAI’s offerings, and ensuring we can deliver these solutions efficiently through Michigan Online. There’s a considerable operational component with any new endeavor and I’m really excited about that right now—it’s what gets me going in the morning! For example, how can we enhance traditional partnership development practices using generative AI? What new insights can we draw by digging into our existing data with an organizational lens? etc.

    Q2: Knowing you for a good number of years now, I know that you’ve worked hard to develop as an academic innovation leader. What was it about this particular role at U-M that inspired you to make this big professional (and personal) move?

    A: The University of Michigan’s Center for Academic Innovation (CAI) has earned a reputation as a national leader in shaping the future of lifelong learning. I could not imagine a better place to take this next step in my career. I feel grateful to have the support of my family and friends—they have been an invaluable source of encouragement and have been almost as excited as I am about the move! From the beginning of the interview process, I could tell that my new colleagues at CAI take organizational culture seriously and, as I have been onboarding, the CAI team has gone out of their way to extend a warm welcome, offering concrete guidance to help me succeed and just being incredibly helpful as I navigate the move to Ann Arbor.     

    I’ve always relished the challenges of sharpening an impactful idea, taking it from conception to development and experimentation to scale and sustainability. As I’ve settled into this role, I have found that CAI “on the inside” matches the external image I had formed before I joined the organization. I’m impressed by the strong leadership vision and strategic mindset of my colleagues on the Center’s senior leadership team as well as the interest in ideation and experimentation, the deep expertise and operational excellence at every level on the various teams that make up the Center.

    Creating the CESO role came from a clear commitment to an idea that has taken root at many U.S. universities in the past several years: that higher education institutions should serve not just degree-seeking students but also workforce development demands of our regions and talent development needs of external organizations more broadly. Trouble is, universities tend to be decentralized, and it can be a struggle to coordinate across different units with overlapping missions. So, when it comes time to execute on this vision, success may occur in pockets, but scaled solutions can hover out of reach. I was energized by the opportunity to step into the CESO role at CAI, where scale and global reach are part of our core value proposition.

    Q3: What career advice do you have for other non-faculty educators interested in growing into a leadership role? What skills, experiences and networks have been most valuable to you across your higher education career?

    A: We already talked about the importance of mentors and sponsors in our last conversation, so I won’t repeat myself on that topic. Another important lesson is to tend your network. I know the term “networking” often carries a transactional connotation that can be off-putting to mission-driven folks who value community. But in fact, I think of the network of academic innovators I’ve been lucky enough to work with as a community or web, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Here are a few strategies I’ve found helpful when investing in that network:

    • Is there a former colleague you’ve fallen out of touch with? Set a monthly or quarterly reminder to reach out to three people you’ve worked with in the past (holidays are a great opportunity to reach out and let someone know you’re thinking of them!). Share an article or a joke that reminded you of them, ask for their help in a small way and offer your help in return, ask about something important in their lives, or just let them know you thought of them.
    • Cross-functional committees or cross-institutional organizations or conferences can be a great way to meet people and hear perspectives you wouldn’t ordinarily encounter. Sometimes, a few people discover a mutual interest and want to continue the conversation outside the committee or conference. Can you make a move that will help make this happen? Maybe you offer to compile email addresses of those who’d like to continue the conversation, maybe you’re even willing to organize a few virtual meetings so the group can come together. These types of small but visible investments will be valued by your peers and help you build your network.

    This year, two of my most treasured academic innovation colleagues passed away suddenly. They were two of the people I would call on to help me sharpen an idea, to offer support when I was feeling discouraged, or to share in the excitement of a successful experiment. I miss them every day, and it reminds me about the importance of community, not just for learners but for learning innovators. So I guess my best career advice today is, keep nurturing your network.

    Source link

  • College Search Help: 5 Ways to Find Your Perfect College Fit without Stress

    College Search Help: 5 Ways to Find Your Perfect College Fit without Stress

    If you’ve been scrolling “best colleges” lists and feeling more stressed than inspired, you’re not doing it wrong—you’re just starting in a place that’s designed to overwhelm you. Rankings can be interesting later, but they’re not a significant first step because they’re not personal. Your best match is the school that fits your life, learning style, and goals.

    Begin with a short list of non-negotiables. Think of these as the filters that keep you from wasting time on campuses that look impressive but don’t actually work for you.

    Here are common non-negotiables to choose from:

    • Distance from home: Staying in San Diego, somewhere in California, or open to out of state

    • Setting: big city, beach town, suburb, college town, rural

    • Campus size: small and intimate vs large and energetic

    • Budget range: realistic yearly cost after aid, not sticker price

    • Academic direction: undecided, specific major, pre-health, engineering, arts

    • Support needs: tutoring, advising, mental health resources, disability services

    • Culture: social scene, Greek life presence, faith-based options, commuter-friendly

    San Diego students often have a unique set of priorities—maybe you want to stay close to family, keep a part-time job, or find a campus that feels similar to the Southern California vibe. That’s not “limiting yourself.” That’s being strategic.

    Once you have your non-negotiables, add 3–5 “nice to haves.” Examples: study abroad strength, ocean access, strong internships in LA, guaranteed housing, smaller class sizes, or a campus with a big sports atmosphere.

    Your goal in this step is clarity. When you know what you need, the search gets calmer because you’re not trying to make every college work.

    Build a balanced list with a simple three-bucket system

    A lot of stress comes from an unbalanced list—either everything feels like a reach, or everything feels too safe, or you have 25 schools and no idea how to narrow it. A better approach is a list that’s intentionally built to give you strong options no matter what.

    Use a three-bucket system:

    • Likely: you’re confidently in range for admission, and you’d genuinely attend

    • Target: you’re competitive, and it’s a realistic match

    • Reach: admission is more selective or unpredictable, but it’s still worth a shot

    Try this ratio for a first draft:

    • 3–4 likely

    • 4–6 target

    • 2–3 reach

    If you’re applying in California, remember that some schools can be unpredictable even for strong students. That’s normal. The point of a balanced list is that you’re not placing your entire future on a few outcomes.

    To keep this step grounded, base your buckets on real indicators:

    • Recent admitted student averages (GPA ranges, course rigor, test policy if relevant)

    • Major-specific selectivity (some programs are more challenging to get into than the school overall)

    • Your transcript strength over time (upward trends matter)

    Then add one more filter: Would I actually be excited to attend if it’s the only option I get? If the answer is no, it doesn’t belong on the list.

    Research like a detective: look for proof, not vibes

    College fit scorecard and campus research materials used to compare schools and reduce stress during the college decision process.College fit scorecard and campus research materials used to compare schools and reduce stress during the college decision process.

    College marketing is excellent at making every campus feel perfect. Your job is to look for evidence that a school will support the life you want.

    Think of research in three layers:

    1: the basics

    • Majors and concentrations

    • Typical class sizes in your intended department

    • First-year requirements and flexibility to change majors

    • Housing policies and meal plans

    • Cost and financial aid clarity

    2: the student experience

    • Clubs and communities related to your interests

    • Support programs (first gen, transfer support, cultural centers)

    • Career services and internship pipelines

    • Safety and transportation, especially if you won’t have a car

    3: outcomes

    • Internship participation and where students intern

    • Job placement support, career fairs, and alumni networks

    • Graduate school acceptance support if that’s your path

    If you’re in San Diego or elsewhere in Southern California, you can also research a school through a local lens:

    • Does it connect to opportunities in San Diego, Orange County, or LA?

    • Are there strong relationships with regional employers?

    • Is it easy to travel home without stress?

    A practical tip: for each college, create a simple note with three headings:

    • Why it fits me

    • What I’m unsure about

    • What I need to confirm

    That turns “research” into a decision tool instead of endless scrolling.

    Make your campus visits smarter, even if you can’t travel far

    Not everyone can fly across the country to tour schools. The good news is you can get a clear sense of fit without spending a fortune.

    If you can visit in person, go in with a short plan:

    • Take a student-led tour

    • Sit in one class if possible

    • Walk through the neighborhood just off campus

    • Eat where students eat

    • Visit the department you care about (or attend an info session)

    Pay attention to things students rarely say out loud:

    • Are students staying on campus between classes or escaping to their cars?

    • Do people look comfortable, rushed, social, or stressed?

    • Does the campus feel navigable and safe for you?

    If you can’t visit, use “virtual proof”:

    • Student vlogs that show ordinary days (not the perfect highlight reel)

    • Online campus maps and walking tours

    • Department events or webinars

    • Student panels where you can ask questions live

    Southern California students sometimes underestimate how different campus life can feel outside the region. If you’re considering out-of-state, ask about the weather, housing during breaks, and travel logistics. Those details matter more than people admit, especially your first year.

    Compare colleges with a scorecard so decisions feel obvious

    Students walking on a palm tree lined campus walkway in Southern California, representing the college environment and campus life.Students walking on a palm tree lined campus walkway in Southern California, representing the college environment and campus life.

    When everything starts blending, stress spikes. A scorecard brings things back to reality.

    Create a simple rating system from 1 to 5 for categories that actually matter to you. Here are good categories:

    • Academic strength for your interests

    • Flexibility if you change your mind

    • Cost after aid and scholarship opportunities

    • Campus culture and community

    • Support and advising quality

    • Housing and day-to-day comfort

    • Career support and internships

    • Location fit (distance, vibe, weather, transportation)

    Then add two written prompts for each school:

    This is where you’ll notice patterns. One school might score slightly lower academically but feel far more supportive. Another might be impressive on paper but doesn’t offer the environment you need to do your best work.

    If you’re feeling torn between two schools, do a “real life week” test:
    Picture a typical Tuesday. What time do you wake up? How far do you walk? Where do you study? Who helps when you’re stuck? What happens when you’re homesick? The right fit usually becomes clearer when you stop imagining the highlight moments and start imagining the routine.

    Reduce stress with a simple timeline and decision plan

    The final stress trigger is not the search itself—it’s the feeling that you’re behind, or that one wrong decision will ruin everything. You can calm that down with an easy-to-follow plan.

    Here’s a simple structure that works well:

    1: Two weeks to build your list

    • Set your non-negotiables

    • Draft your likely, target, and reach buckets

    • Remove any school you wouldn’t attend

    2: Two to four weeks to research deeply

    • Fill in your notes for each school

    • Attend a webinar or student panel for your top choices

    • Confirm costs using net price calculators when possible

    3: Finalize and prepare

    • Lock your final list

    • Track requirements in one place (deadlines, essays, letters, portfolios)

    • Start essays with stories, not speeches—small moments that show who you are

    For San Diego and Southern California students juggling sports, jobs, family responsibilities, or multiple activities, the key is consistency over intensity. A calm college search is usually built with small weekly steps, not last-minute marathons.

    One more mindset shift that helps: you’re not searching for one “perfect” school. You’re building a set of great options where you can succeed in different ways. That’s what takes the pressure off.

    At College Planning Source, we help students and families navigate every step of the college admissions process. Get direct one-on-one guidance with a complimentary virtual college planning assessment—call 858-676-0700 or schedule online at collegeplanningsource.com/assessments. 

    Source link

  • Global lessons for the UK: how Singapore and India are embedding AI in education

    Global lessons for the UK: how Singapore and India are embedding AI in education

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Karryl Kim Sagun Trajano (Research Fellow, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Dr Gayatri Devi Pillai (Assistant Professor, HHMSPB NSS College for Women, Trivandrum), Professor Mohanan Pillai (Pondicherry University), Dr Hillary Briffa (Senior Lecturer, Department of War Studies, KCL), Dr Anna Plunkett (Lecturer, Department of War Studies, KCL), Dr Ksenia Kirkham (Senior Lecturer, Department of War Studies, KCL),  Dr Özge Söylemez (Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, KCL), Dr Lucas Knotter (Lecturer, Department of Politics, Languages, and International Studies University of Bath), and Dr Chris Featherstone (Associate Lecturer, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of York).

    This blog draws on insights from the 2025 BISA-ISA joint Workshop on AI Pedagogies: Practice, Prompts and Problems in Contemporary Higher Education, sponsored by the ASPIRE (Academic Scholarship in Politics and International Relations Education) Network.

    As the UK continues to work out how best to regulate and support the use of AI in higher education, other countries have already begun to put their ideas into practice. Singapore and India, in particular, offer useful contrasts. Both link technological innovation to questions of social inclusion, though they do so in different ways: Singapore focuses on resilience and lifelong learning, while India emphasises access and the use of vernacular languages. Comparatively, their experiences show how education policy can harness AI to advance both innovation and inclusion, making technological progress a driver of social cohesion. British tertiary education institutions have, for a long time, drawn international lessons mainly from their close western neighbours, but it would be wise to broaden their horizons.

    Singapore: AI for resilience and lifelong learning

    Singapore’s approach to AI in education is rooted in its Smart Nation 2.0 vision, which emphasises the three goals of “Growth, Community and Trust”. The government aims to develop a digitally skilled workforce of 15,000 AI practitioners by 2027, linking education reform to national capability-building. Within this framework, AI pedagogy is closely tied to the idea of social resilience, which is understood in Singaporean policy as the capacity of society to remain cohesive, adaptable, and functional in the face of disruption.

    This vision is implemented through a coordinated ecosystem connecting local universities, AI Singapore (AISG), and the SkillsFuture programme. SkillsFuture uses AI-driven analytics to personalise re-skilling courses, design decision-making simulations, and encourage collaboration between government, industry, and academia. The Centre for Strategic Futures extends this agenda by promoting “AI for personal resilience”, framing digital competence as part of civic participation and collective preparedness.

    Even so, workshop discussions highlighted persistent challenges. Access to elite universities remains uneven, and foreign workers are largely excluded from many lifelong-learning initiatives. Participants also noted that AI training tends to focus on technical ability, leaving less room for ethical debate or critical reflection. To some extent, the drive to innovate has moved faster than efforts to make AI education fully inclusive or reflective.

    Singapore’s experience nonetheless illustrates how AI can be built into the wider social purpose of education. For the UK, it offers a reminder that digital innovation and civic responsibility can reinforce one another when universities treat learning as a public good. Graduates who understand both the capabilities and the limits of AI are better equipped to navigate complex socio-political, and technological environments. When built into lifelong-learning systems, AI education helps create the networks of knowledge and trust that make societies more adaptable and resilient.

    India: AI for inclusivity and vernacular access

    If Singapore shows what is possible through tight coordination in a small, centralised system, India demonstrates how the same principles are tested when applied across a country of continental scale and diversity. India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 sets out a comprehensive vision for transforming the education system to meet the demands of a rapidly changing global economy. It aims to raise the higher education gross enrolment ratio to 50% by 2035 and introduces flexible, learner-centred degree structures designed to encourage creativity and critical thinking. Artificial intelligence is central to this reform, “catalysing” both curricular innovation and system-wide modernisation.

    The National Digital Education Architecture (NDEAR) and the AI for All initiative embed AI within educational design and delivery. The University of Kerala’s Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP), implemented under the NEP in 2024-25, is demonstrative of how these reforms are taking shape. AI tools now support continuous assessment, effectively and efficiently enabling educators to tailor material to individual learning needs and diverse assessment methods. These developments signal a wider shift in pedagogy, from one-off examinations toward continuous and formative evaluation that prioritises understanding and reflection.

    At the heart of the strategy lies India’s focus on linguistic and cultural inclusion. NEP 2020 mandates the use of regional languages in instruction and assessment, aligning with government programmes that promote vernacular content and accessible digital platforms. This multilingual approach helps extend higher education to students previously marginalised by linguistic barriers, while AI-assisted translation and adaptive interfaces further improve access for learners with disabilities.

    As with Singapore’s efforts, however, India’s reform agenda is not without its shortcomings. The NEP reflects the aspirations of a growing middle class and the logic of global competitiveness, raising concerns about commercialisation and uneven implementation, particularly at scale. Still, it represents one of the most ambitious efforts worldwide to connect digital innovation with social justice through deliberate policy design. For the UK, the lesson is clear: technological efficiency must be matched by cultural understanding and genuine inclusion, ensuring that advances in AI expand participation in higher education rather than deepen existing divides.

    Comparative insights for the UK

    Singapore and India approach AI in education from very different starting points, and each offers lessons worth considering. Singapore demonstrates the impact of close coordination between government and universities, supported by steady investment in applied research. India, meanwhile, is emblematic of how digital inclusion can extend beyond elite institutions when policy design takes account of linguistic diversity and regional inequality.

    For the UK, these examples point to a shared message: progress depends on coherence. Many initiatives already exist, from Joint Information Systems Committee Jisc’s advancement of the digital capabilities framework to Advance HE’s support to prepare for an AI-enabled future and the Russell Group’s guidance on generative AI, but they remain generally disconnected to date.

    Learning from Singapore and India could help the UK move towards a more consistent approach. That might involve:

    • developing a national framework for AI in higher education that sets clear expectations around ethics and inclusion;
    • funding staff training and digital literacy programmes inspired by Singapore’s emphasis on lifelong learning;
    • supporting multilingual and accessible AI tools that mirror India’s focus on linguistic and regional diversity;
    • building evaluation mechanisms to understand how AI adoption affects equality of opportunity.

    In the end, the challenge is less about technology, and more about governance. The UK has the capacity to lead in responsible AI education if policy connects local innovation to a national vision grounded in fairness and public trust.

    Source link

  • OPINION: Workforce Pell can lead to good jobs for students if they get the support needed for long-term success

    OPINION: Workforce Pell can lead to good jobs for students if they get the support needed for long-term success

    by Alexander Mayer, The Hechinger Report
    December 16, 2025

    Ohio resident Megan Cutright lost her hospitality job during the pandemic. At her daughter’s urging, she found her way to Lorain County Community College in Ohio and onto a new career path.  

    Community colleges will soon have a new opportunity to help more students like Megan achieve their career goals. Starting next summer, federal funds will be available through a program known as Workforce Pell, which extends federal aid to career-focused education and training programs that last between eight and 15 weeks. 

    Members of Congress advocating for Pell Grants to cover shorter programs have consistently highlighted Workforce Pell’s potential, noting that the extension will lead to “good-paying jobs.”  

    That could happen. But it will only happen if states and colleges thoughtfully consider the supports students need for success.  

    This is important, because helping students pay for workforce programs is not enough. They also need support and wraparound services, much like the kind Megan was offered at Lorain, where her program followed an evidence-based model known as ASAP that assigns each student a career adviser. 

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    Megan’s adviser “helped me from day one,” she said, in a story posted on the college’s website. “I told her I was interested in the radiologic technology program but that I had no idea where to start. We just did everything together.”  

    Megan went on to secure a job as an assistant in the radiology department at her local hospital, where she had interned as a student. She knew what steps she needed to take because her community college supported and advised her, using an evidence-backed practice, illustrating something we have learned from the experience of the community colleges that use the ASAP model: Support is invaluable.  

    Megan also knew that her path to a full-time position in radiologic technology required her to pass a licensure test — scheduled for four days after graduation.  

    The students who will enroll in Workforce Pell programs deserve the same careful attention. To ensure that Workforce Pell is effective for students, we should follow the same three critical steps that helped drive the expansion of ASAP and brought it to Megan’s college: (1) experiment to see what works, (2) collect and follow the data and (3) ensure that colleges learn from each other to apply what works. 

    Before ASAP was developed, the higher education community had some ideas about what might work to help students complete their degrees and get good jobs. When colleges and researchers worked together to test these ideas and gathered reliable data, though, they learned that those strategies only helped students at the margins. 

    There was no solid evidence about what worked to make big, lasting improvements in college completion until the City University of New York (CUNY) worked with researchers at MDRC to test ASAP and its combination of longer-lasting strategies. They kept a close eye on the data and learned that while some strategies didn’t produce big effects on their own, the combined ASAP approach resulted in significant improvements in student outcomes, nearly doubling the three-year college completion rate.  

    CUNY and MDRC shared what they learned with higher education leaders and policymakers, inspiring other community colleges to try out the model. Those colleges started seeing results too, and the model kept spreading. Today, ASAP is used in more than 50 colleges in seven states. And it’s paying off — in Ohio, for example, students who received ASAP services ended up earning significantly more than those who did not. 

    That same experimentation and learning mindset will be needed for Workforce Pell, because while short-term training can lead to good careers, it’s far from guaranteed.  

    For example, phlebotomy technician programs are popular, but without additional training or credentials they often don’t lead to jobs that pay well. Similarly, students who complete short-term programs in information technology, welding and construction-related skills can continue to acquire stackable credentials that substantially increase their earning potential, although that also doesn’t happen automatically. The complexity of the credentialing marketplace can make it impossible for students and families to assess programs and make good decisions without help.  

    Related: OPINION: Too many college graduates are stranded before their careers can even begin. We can’t let that happen 

    A big question for Workforce Pell will be how to make sure students understand how to get onto a career path and continue advancing their wider career aspirations. Workforce Pell grants are designed to help students with low incomes overcome financial barriers, but these same students often face other barriers.  

    That’s why colleges should experiment with supports like career advising to help students identify stepping-stones to a good career, along with placement services to help them navigate the job market. In addition, states must expand their data collection efforts to formally include noncredit programs. Some, including Iowa, Louisiana and Virginia, have already made considerable progress linking their education and workforce systems.  

    Offering student support services and setting up data systems requires resources, but Workforce Pell will bring new funds to states and colleges that are currently financing job training programs. Philanthropy can also help by providing resources to test out what works best to get students through short-term programs and onto solid career paths.  

    Sharing what works — and what doesn’t — will be critical to the success of Workforce Pell in the long-term. The same spirit of learning that fueled innovation around the ASAP model should be embedded in Workforce Pell from the start.  

    Alexander Mayer is director of postsecondary education at MDRC, the nonprofit research association. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about Workforce Pell was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-workforce-pell-can-lead-to-good-jobs-for-students-if-they-get-the-support-needed-for-long-term-success/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113877&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-workforce-pell-can-lead-to-good-jobs-for-students-if-they-get-the-support-needed-for-long-term-success/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Teenage Problems with Parents: 3 Types of Conflicts Parents MUST Learn to Resolve

    Teenage Problems with Parents: 3 Types of Conflicts Parents MUST Learn to Resolve

    Parenting teens is a rollercoaster.

    The highs can be incredibly rewarding. You feel pride and joy in seeing them learn new things, reach new milestones, and grow more confident in their identity.

    But the lows can also hit very hard. Conflicts become more intense, and misunderstandings last longer. Sometimes, your teen’s desire for independence can feel like rejection.

    Many changes happen during the teenage years, so tension at home is bound to rise.

    Common teenage problems with parents include communication issues, power struggles, and emotional distance.

    In this article, we’ll look at three common problems teenagers face in family relationships, especially with their parents. We’ll also explore ways you can rebuild trust, improve communication, and strengthen your bond with your teens.

    (Make sure to download your free quick action guide below.)

    Problem #1: Communication breakdown

    As your teenagers grow older, you may notice a shift in how they communicate with you.

    Conversations now feel shorter, and arguments happen more often. When you do talk, your teen might sound distant, dismissive, or impatient. Instead of proper replies, you might be met with a one-word answer, an exasperated sigh, or a dramatic eye roll.

    What it seems like to you

    When your teens stop talking, it’s easy to see it as disrespect or defiance.

    When your once-chatty child no longer seems interested in your company, it’s understandable to feel hurt or frustrated.

    Why this happens

    There are a few reasons why your teens might withdraw or avoid conversations with you, including the following:

    • They’re craving independence and privacy. Adolescence brings major changes—physical, emotional, mental, and social. Your teens may keep more to themselves, especially if they think you might try to fix their problems.
    • They’re juggling many new expectations and responsibilities. When they’re stressed or tired, they don’t have the energy for long talks.
    • They fear judgment or consequences. Teens won’t open up if they’re worried you’ll scold, judge, or punish them.
    • They want to protect you. Some teens keep their struggles to themselves because they don’t want to worry you.

    Try to understand why your teen is pulling away. Every teenager is different.

    How to foster healthy communication

    How to foster healthy communication

    Here’s how to communicate with your teens in a healthy way:

    • Listen without interrupting. Your teenagers need to feel heard and safe when talking to you, or they’re less likely to open up to you the next time. You don’t have to agree with everything they say. But give them your full attention without any interruptions, interrogations, or big reactions.
    • Keep your tone calm and your reactions measured. Teens are bound to make mistakes. When they do, it’s important to respond calmly. Avoid yelling, shaming, or name-calling. Stay firm but respectful. If you need time to cool down, let them know you’ll revisit the conversation once you’ve both had a chance to reflect.
    • Guide them instead of nagging. When your teens share something, acknowledge their perspective. Avoid jumping right into blame or criticism. Encourage reflection by asking questions such as, “What did you learn from this?” or “What might you do differently next time?” Then, offer your feedback calmly and constructively.
    • Find shared moments and interests. Meaningful conversations can happen in casual settings, such as during car rides, walks, or mealtimes. You can also explore new hobbies or activities together.
    • Model humility and honesty. If you’ve said or done something wrong, own up to it. This will help create a culture of respect and humility in your family.

    Over time, these small, consistent efforts can help rebuild trust and improve communication with your teens.

    Problem #2: Rebellion and struggles over rules and independence

    Your teens may stay out later, spend more time online or with friends, or want more privacy. They might refuse to follow the boundaries you’ve set and ignore consequences.

    Such disagreements can easily turn into power struggles. These will often leave your teens feeling controlled and you feeling disrespected.

    What it seems like to you

    From a parent’s perspective, these clashes can look like rebellion or defiance.

    You set boundaries because you care about their safety and well-being, but your teens might see them as signs of mistrust or control. Every time they break a rule, talk back, or test a boundary, it can feel like they’re challenging your authority.

    Why this happens

    During adolescence, teens naturally crave more freedom and independence. Even reasonable boundaries can feel restrictive to them; it’s part of growing up.

    This creates conflict, but it’s also an opportunity to guide them. Instead of controlling every decision, you can help your teens learn to make good choices on their own.

    Keep in mind that the parts of the brain that handle impulses and decision-making are still developing in teenagers. So your teens might not foresee the consequences of their actions.

    But your teens can still make mature choices. Research shows that adult support and a safe space to think help them make wise decisions.

    How to set effective rules and boundaries

    How to set effective rules and boundaries

    You play a vital role in teaching and guiding your teen, but it’s important to do so in a way that doesn’t strain your relationship.

    Try these strategies:

    • Set and negotiate the house rules. Involve your teens in setting boundaries and deciding on consequences for breaking them. Be open to hearing their opinions. When they feel heard, they’re more likely to cooperate.
    • Set boundaries around health and safety, not control. Too many rules can feel like micromanaging and may push your teen to rebel.
    • Explain the “why.” When teens understand the reason behind a rule, like finishing homework before video games, they’re more likely to respect it.
    • Set reasonable consequences. Connect consequences to the broken rule. For example, if your teen plays video games before finishing homework, they might lose their gaming privileges the next day. Stay consistent so they take the rules seriously.
    • Show trust when it’s earned. Your teens may prove that they can handle responsibility over time. If so, gradually loosen certain rules and reward them with more independence.

    Discipline and rules are important, but pick your battles wisely. Step in when safety or values are at stake, but allow your teenagers space to learn from their own choices. Sometimes, natural consequences can also teach good lessons.

    Problem #3: Emotional distance and mood swings

    Your teens may seem distant and no longer eager to spend time with the family.

    They might retreat to their rooms, spend hours on their phones, or respond to simple questions with short, snappy answers. Sometimes, it feels like your teenagers are shutting you out.

    Their moods can also change in an instant. One moment they’re cheerful and affectionate, the next they’re cold, withdrawn, or defiant.

    What it seems like to you

    As a parent, this emotional distance is heartbreaking. You might feel helpless, frustrated, or even rejected when your attempts to connect are met with silence.

    It can seem like the bond you once had is slipping away, or that your teen no longer values your guidance and reassurance.

    Why this happens

    Emotional ups and downs are a regular part of adolescence. Your teen’s brain is still developing, and hormonal changes can trigger sudden shifts in mood. Add in peer pressure, academic stress, and self-image struggles. No wonder teenagers get overwhelmed by emotions.

    Because teens are still learning to manage their emotions, they may cope by withdrawing, shutting down, or lashing out at others. Their need for independence and their desire to fit in can drive them to spend more time online or with friends rather than with family.

    The truth is, they still need your support and assurance. They just struggle to show it.

    How to support your teens

    How to support your teens

    Parents play a huge role in helping their teens feel emotionally safe and supported. In fact, research shows that a strong parent-teen bond can help teens build better emotional regulatory skills.

    Here’s what you can do:

    • Show consistent support, even when it’s hard. Empathy goes a long way. Remind your teens that they can talk to you about anything. When they do, give them your full attention.
    • Validate their feelings. You won’t always agree with your teenagers. Even so, avoid dismissing or minimizing their opinions and emotions. Let them know it’s normal to feel upset, frustrated, or sad sometimes. What matters most is how they manage and respond to those feelings.
    • Encourage healthy coping habits. Help your teens develop a stress-management routine. You can suggest activities such as journaling, drawing, or playing music. Encourage physical self-care, too. For example, exercise together, prepare healthy meals, and teach them good sleep habits.
    • Normalize seeking help. Many teens view getting professional help as a sign of weakness. Reassure them that reaching out for support takes courage and strength. Offer to help them find a supportive professional when they’re ready to seek help.

    Supporting your teenagers through emotional ups and downs takes patience, empathy, and consistency. They might not admit it, but your support will help them feel more secure and confident.

    Conclusion

    Parenting teenagers is no easy task. But every disagreement or challenge is also an opportunity to understand each other better and to strengthen your bond.

    The key is to listen with empathy, set fair boundaries, and offer consistent support. By doing so, you create a safe and loving space your teens can always return to while they learn to navigate the outside world.

    Teens can also benefit from extra guidance from a coach or mentor. Through my coaching program, I’ve helped teens around the world build strong values and improve their communication. This empowers them to form healthier relationships with family and friends.

    So check out the coaching program today!

    (And if you haven’t already done so, download your free quick action guide below.)

    Source link

  • A Critical Tool for Understanding U.S. Intervention in Latin America

    A Critical Tool for Understanding U.S. Intervention in Latin America

    Barbara Trent’s 1992 documentary The Panama Deception remains an essential work for comprehending the nature and impact of U.S. military interventions in Latin America. Winner of the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, the film offers a critical examination of the December 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama—Operation Just Cause—and challenges official narratives about that intervention.

    Reframing the Official Narrative

    The Panama Deception scrutinizes the publicly stated justifications for the 1989 invasion, including protecting U.S. citizens, defending democracy, and combating drug trafficking. In doing so, it highlights stark discrepancies between government claims and on‑the‑ground realities, arguing that the invasion served broader strategic interests rather than solely humanitarian or legal objectives.

    The film foregrounds how the U.S. government and mainstream media shaped public perceptions, often downplaying civilian casualties and simplifying complex political dynamics to justify military action. By exposing this media bias, the documentary encourages viewers to question official accounts and consider how information is framed in service of policy goals. 

    Human Cost and Civilian Impact

    A central contribution of the documentary is its focus on the human toll of the invasion. Using firsthand testimonies, footage of destruction, and accounts of displacement, the film documents the suffering of Panamanian civilians—particularly in impoverished neighborhoods such as El Chorrillo—which received limited attention in U.S. media coverage. 

    These portrayals deepen our understanding of how military interventions affect everyday lives beyond abstract geopolitical objectives. For students and scholars of international relations, human rights, and media studies, this emphasis provides a critical counterpoint to sanitized official histories.

    Historical and Geopolitical Context

    The Panama Deception situates the Panama invasion within a longer history of U.S. influence in the region. It suggests that long‑standing strategic interests—including control over the Panama Canal and hemispheric dominance—shaped U.S. policy long before the invasion’s official rationales were publicly articulated.

    While the Torrijos‑Carter Treaties mandated transfer of canal control to Panama by 1999, the film and many independent observers argue that U.S. policymakers were intent on maintaining influence and minimizing threats to American strategic goals. 

    Media Critique and Public Perception

    One of the documentary’s most enduring contributions lies in its examination of media complicity. The Panama Deception demonstrates how mainstream outlets often uncritically echoed government talking points, marginalizing dissenting voices from Panamanian civilians, independent journalists, and human rights advocates. 

    This critique remains relevant for students exploring how propaganda, framing, and selective reporting can influence public support for foreign policy decisions. The film thus serves as a case study for media literacy alongside political critique.

    Conclusion: Educational and Analytical Value

    The Panama Deception offers a multifaceted analysis of U.S. interventionism that transcends a single historical event. By combining archival evidence, eyewitness accounts, and critical commentary, it provides learners with a structured means to examine the intersections of power, narrative, and human consequence. For educators and researchers in Latin American studies, political science, and media studies, the film underscores the importance of questioning official narratives and exploring the lived effects of foreign policy decisions.

    Selected Sources

    • The Panama Deception (1992 documentary overview and details). 

    • Analysis of the film’s critique of U.S. media and government narratives. 

    • Historical context on media bias and human impact. 

    • Wider context on the invasion and implications related to Panama Canal treaty issues. 

    Source link