One of the stipulations was that colleges would provide them with the same access to resources that on-campus students have, including academic supports, career advising, tutoring, mental health resources and study halls. However, a recently published report from the University of Puget Sound finds that this provision has been difficult to fulfill, in part because of prison systems, but also because of the overly bureaucratic processes at higher ed institutions themselves.
The report identifies existing barriers, as well as opportunities to better serve incarcerated students.
What’s the need: Higher education programs in prisons can help incarcerated individuals improve their educational attainment and career opportunities upon release, as well as increase socioeconomic mobility for affected individuals and their families.
Providing education to incarcerated individuals, however, can be a challenge due to their lack of access to technology and learning materials, restrictions on when they can participate and policies like lockdowns that impede learning opportunities.
“Prison rules and staff often limit the ability to study, work together, possess books and supplies in cells, and meet outside the classroom,” according to the report. Students can also lack access to faculty outside of the classroom.
Students often are unaware of or unable to access traditional campus resources such as research databases, learning management systems, disability and mental health resources, and tutoring.
The findings: Puget Sound’s report includes survey data from alumni of higher education in prison (HEP) programs and faculty. Researchers also relied on in-depth interviews with 25 stakeholders involved in such programs, as well as any affiliated teaching and learning center staff members. Interviews were conducted between August and November 2024.
In conversations with faculty, researchers learned that silos often exist between teaching and learning centers and HEP programs, which can leave professors without sufficient resources or supports to be effective instructors. Even at the national level, pedagogical or student success–oriented conversations often don’t take into account incarcerated students.
For instructors, working with incarcerated students can be demanding because it’s not part of their regular teaching load, they have long commutes or they have to adapt their materials and syllabi to a low- or no-tech teaching environment, according to the report. Some professors reported feeling isolated from peers or unable to share or receive feedback about their teaching.
Keep Reading
The University of Puget Sound compiled resources from higher education in prison programs to improve teaching and learning, including trainings, sample faculty and student handbooks, models for mental health support, and more.
What can help: The researchers identified a variety of innovative programs to enhance incarcerated students’ learning and educational outcomes.
Some HEP programs, including those at Rutgers University and Scripps College, established peer tutoring opportunities among incarcerated students, in which graduates provide feedback on writing, research, time management and study skills.
“The implementation of peer-to-peer tutoring does not just help the students receiving support. It builds professional development skills, volunteer or employment histories, and confidence for the tutors themselves as they continue their learning journeys,” the report says.
The University of Utah Prison Education Program pays incarcerated students about $600 per month to provide peer support in a one-stop location. Student employees offer homework assistance, help organize events and educate their peers on health and wellness topics.
The report also advocates for developing college prep and student success courses for incoming incarcerated students to help them get familiar with resources and technology that they may not know about. Tufts University Prison Initiative of Tisch College offers a two-semester foundation of academic success course, for example.
Incarcerated students may also have mental health needs or disabilities that require extra intervention from the institution. Loyola University in Chicago’s HEP program employs a social worker who meets with students individually to understand their needs and connect them with support.
Administrators can also institutionalize support for instructors of these programs by counting teaching in prison settings as a part of a regular course load or providing training for such programs during new faculty orientations. Learning communities, course development stipends and certifications can also incentivize effective teaching practices among instructors who teach in prisons.
Connecting campus staff, particularly those in teaching and learning centers, with HEP faculty and students can also break down silos between campus and incarcerated students and ensure learners are being best served, according to the report.
In the future, researchers hope to establish a national learning community for pedagogy in prison and a convening of stakeholders in this space to share resources.
On Oct. 1, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is asking colleges to sign an agreement to secure preferential treatment for government funding. FIRE is working to obtain the full agreement, but initial reporting already indicates it raises threats to free speech and academic freedom.
The following statement can be attributed to Tyler Coward, FIRE lead counsel for government affairs.
Freedom thrives when the people, not bureaucrats, decide which ideas are worthy of discussion, debate, or support.
As FIRE has long argued, campus reform is necessary. But overreaching government coercion that tries to end-run around the First Amendment to impose an official orthodoxy is unacceptable. And the White House’s new Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education raises red flags.
The compact includes troubling language, such as calling on institutions to eliminate departments deemed to “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” Let’s be clear: Speech that offends or criticizes political views is not violence. Conflating words with violence undermines both free speech and efforts to combat real threats.
The compact also requires university employees to refrain from “actions or speech related to politics.” If the language merely barred high-ranking employees from engaging in partisan political activity on behalf of the university, it would reflect existing and generally permissible IRS restrictions. But the compact’s reported wording goes further by suggesting a blanket prohibition on all staff engaging in political speech. For public institutions, that is deeply problematic. Public university faculty have the First Amendment right to speak about politics in their teaching and scholarship. Outside of their official duties, faculty and non-faculty university employees retain full First Amendment rights to speak off-the-clock as private citizens on matters of public concern. Banning them from doing so would be flatly unconstitutional.
A government that can reward colleges and universities for speech it favors today can punish them for speech it dislikes tomorrow. That’s not reform. That’s government-funded orthodoxy.
Late last spring, something disturbing happened in my classroom. For the first time in 15 years of teaching, I opened by telling my students I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to speak. The class was an introduction to the philosophy of education, and months earlier I’d scheduled this day for our opening discussion on critical pedagogy. But in light of charged campus climates and broader legal threats facing institutions nationwide, I realized that as an academic staff member who engages in teaching and research, I was particularly vulnerable.
What followed was one of the more important classes I’ve taught, though not about the subject I’d planned. We spent the hour investigating our institution’s academic freedom policies, asking questions of whom those policies included and excluded. We discovered the troubling reality: Although I was expected to facilitate complex educational discussions, I lacked clear protections to do so safely.
My situation reflects a growing crisis in higher education that has received little attention. While much has been written about the vulnerabilities of contingent faculty, there has been almost no discussion of the academic freedom needs of one of higher education’s most rapidly growing workforces: third-space professionals.
The Rise of the Third Space
Over the past two decades, universities have dramatically expanded what researcher Celia Whitchurch terms “third-space” professionals: staff who blend academic and administrative functions but operate in the ambiguous territory between traditional faculty and staff roles.
These roles aren’t new or unprecedented. The American Association of University Professors has long recognized that librarians, despite often holding staff status, require academic freedom protections given their integral role in teaching and research. What’s new is the scale and diversity of academic work now performed by nonfaculty academic professionals.
This growth represents the contemporary evolution of a workforce shift that began in the 1970s, when academic support roles developed in response to diverse students entering colleges through open admissions policies. The 1990s brought expansion into new fields like faculty development and community-based learning, as colleges recognized these roles could enhance teaching practices institutionwide. Most recently, colleges have seen explosive growth in data-driven student success and enrollment management roles.
What unites these professionals is their expertise in designing and delivering on the academic mission of the university, with special emphasis on student success. They lead pedagogical and curricular initiatives, make decisions about learning interventions, analyze data that reveals uncomfortable truths about institutional performance, and advocate for evidence-based policy revisions. They also regularly teach college courses, write and receive major grants, and publish in peer-reviewed journals. In essence, they do academic work, but without academic protections.
Why Academic Freedom Matters for Third-Space Work
The problem is easy to name but difficult to address. Institutions have radically restructured how academic work gets done based on the shifting needs of students and priorities of institutions, without a reciprocal restructuring of how academic work gets supported or protected. Third-space professionals need academic freedom protections for four key reasons.
Educational decision-making: These professionals make pedagogical and curricular choices about student learning interventions, program design and educational strategies. Without academic freedom, they face pressure to implement approaches based on administrative convenience, pressure from faculty or donor preferences, rather than evidence-based best practices. What happens, for instance, when a faculty member feels the writing center’s approach to writing pedagogy conflicts with their own vision for writing in their classroom?
Data interpretation and reporting: Student success professionals analyze retention, graduation and achievement data that may reveal uncomfortable truths about institutional performance or equity gaps. They need protection when their findings challenge institutional narratives or suggest costly reforms. What happens when an institutional researcher’s analysis shows that a flagship retention program isn’t working, but the administration has just featured it in a major donor presentation?
Policy advocacy: Their direct work with students gives them insights into institutional policies and processes that harm student success. They should be able to advocate for necessary changes without fear of retaliation, even when those changes conflict with administrative priorities or departmental preferences. What happens when an academic adviser discovers that the prerequisite structure in a major is creating unnecessary barriers for students, but changing it would require difficult conversations with powerful department heads?
Research and assessment: Many third-space professionals conduct and publish research on student success interventions, learning outcomes and institutional effectiveness. This scholarship requires the same protections as traditional academic research. What happens when assessment reveals the ineffectiveness of first-year seminar teaching, but presenting findings could damage relationships with faculty colleagues?
The Problem of Selective Recognition
Universities have already recognized that faculty work has diversified and requires differentiated policy structures. Many institutions now distinguish between research professors (focused on scholarship and grant acquisition), teaching professors (emphasizing teaching practice) and professors of practice (bringing professional expertise into academic settings). Each category receives tailored policies for promotion, performance evaluation and professional development that align with their distinct contributions.
Yet on the staff side, institutions continue to operate as if all nonfaculty work is identical. A writing center director publishing on linguistic justice, an assistant dean of students developing crisis-intervention protocols for student mental health emergencies and a facilities director managing building maintenance are all governed by the same generic “staff” policies. This isn’t just administratively awkward: It’s a fundamental misalignment between how work actually happens and how institutions recognize and protect that work.
Applying Consistent Logic
The way forward isn’t revolutionary, but simply the application of the same logic that most universities already use for faculty. Rather than the outdated single “staff” category, colleges and universities need at least three distinct categories that reflect how staff work actually happens.
Academic staff: Professionals engaged in teaching, research, curriculum design and educational assessment, including learning center directors, faculty developers, institutional researchers, professional academic advisers and academic program directors. These roles require academic freedom protections, scholarly review processes and governance representation.
Student life staff: Professionals focused on co-curricular support, belonging and student life, including residence life coordinators, activities directors and counseling staff. These roles need specialized professional development and advancement pathways that recognize and support their expertise in student development.
Operational staff: Professionals handling business functions, facilities and administrative operations. These roles can continue with traditional staff policies and support structures.
This framework enables differentiated policy environments and support structures across multiple areas. Critically, academic freedom policies can be tailored to protect inquiry for staff who engage in this kind of work, while recognizing that other staff have different professional needs.
The expansion of third-space/academic staff roles represents higher education’s recognition that effective student success requires diverse forms of expertise working collaboratively. But without policy frameworks that acknowledge and protect this academic work, institutions risk undermining the very innovations they’ve created. When the professionals responsible for student success cannot engage in free inquiry, challenge ineffective practices or advocate for evidence-based approaches, everyone loses—especially students.
Aaron Stoller is associate vice president for student success and a lecturer in education at Colorado College.
Some students are more likely to use generative AI to find answers instead of learning.
Colleges and universities have sought to equip students with the skills to use generative artificial intelligence tools thoughtfully and ethically, but a recent study finds students often outsource thinking to chatbots.
Research from the University of Southern California Center for Generative AI and Society found that the average student who uses generative AI services does so to get a direct answer, not to learn. Students who feel less confident in a course or who do not engage with their peers are also more likely to turn to technology for help.
The findings point to a need for greater learning support for students, including teaching them improved internet search skills, providing more faculty assistance on how to use generative AI and instilling a sense of belonging in the classroom.
State of play: As generative AI tools become more common, a large share of students say they engage with AI regularly. Two-thirds of students say they use generative AI chatbots weekly, according to a 2025 study from Tyton Partners.
Faculty have expressed concern that students are circumventing thinking and learning by using artificial intelligence tools, but students claim they’re using AI to advance their educations. A recent survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 85 percent of students said they’d used generative AI for coursework in the past year; 55 percent said they used it for brainstorming, half asked it questions as if it were a tutor and 46 percent used it to study for quizzes or exams.
Nearly all students Inside Higher Ed surveyed said colleges and universities should respond to threats against academic integrity, with over half of students requesting clear, standardized policies about when and how to use AI or for colleges to provide additional flexibility around AI for transparent student use.
The study: USC researchers surveyed 1,000 U.S. college students to understand when and how they’re using generative AI, compared to other help sources. Researchers distinguished between instrumental help-seeking behaviors—such as getting clarification on a topic covered in class—versus executive help-seeking as a means to an end, like getting quick answers to complete an assignment.
Students said they were most likely to turn to the internet or an instructor for learning assistance, ranking tutors and peers below generative AI. For executive help, students similarly turned to the internet most often, but then looked to generative AI or a peer before instructors or tutors.
To researchers, the trend indicates that students feel more comfortable turning to technology than human sources for help.
National data on how and when students engage with technology versus human supports is mixed; one analysis from the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley, found that post-pandemic, fewer students reported helping their classmates. However, Tyton Partners found that 84 percent of students said they first turn to people, including a peer or instructor, when they need help in a course, and only 17 percent primarily use AI tools.
USC’s research also found that certain students were less likely to depend on AI; those who had better internet search skills or perceived themselves as competent in their courses were less likely to turn to generative AI tools for help.
Conversely, students who were averse to asking peers for support or perceived themselves as less competent were much more likely to engage with generative AI. Students who trusted generative AI, similarly, were more likely to use the tools to find answers.
A recent survey from WGU Labs found that students from marginalized backgrounds, including first-generation students and students of color, were more likely to say they’re open to AI tools for academic support. WGU Labs’ report theorized this trend could be tied to what they see as a lack of support in other traditional forms offered by institutions.
However, pedagogy can have an impact on how students interact with AI; if the professor encourages thoughtful generative AI use, students are more likely to engage in learning-oriented behaviors, rather than just ask for answers from chatbots. Researchers believe this speaks to the social impact professors can have on how students use AI.
Serving approximately 100,000 students each year, Maricopa County Community College District is one of the nation’s largest community college districts. Many bachelor’s-granting institutions seek to recruit Maricopa students, but these institutions often fall short in serving them effectively by not applying previously earned coursework, overlooking their specific needs or failing to accept credit for prior learning in transfer. After years of requesting changes from transfer partners without seeing adequate response, Maricopa Community Colleges determined it was time to take action by establishing clear criteria and an evaluation process.
A Legacy of Transfer
Since its establishment, university transfer has remained a central pillar of the mission of the MCCCD. Transfer preparation is a chief reason students enroll across the district’s 10 colleges. In fact, 38 percent of students districtwide indicate upon admission that their goal is to transfer to a university.
A significant portion of these students transition to Arizona’s three public universities under the framework of the Arizona Transfer System. Beyond that, Maricopa maintains formal articulation agreements with over 35 colleges and universities, both in state and across the nation, including private and public institutions.
Developing Strategic Transfer Partnerships
Each university partnership is formalized through a memorandum of understanding that outlines the roles, expectations and mutual responsibilities of Maricopa and the partner institution. Recognizing the need for a more strategic and data-informed approach, MCCCD developed a model years ago to ensure that both potential and existing transfer partnerships align with the district’s evolving strategic priorities. The model provides a structured framework for assessing new and continuing partnerships based on institutional relevance, resource capacity and student need.
A Point of Evolution
In 2022, the district overhauled its partnership model to better meet the needs of today’s learners, who increasingly seek flexible pathways to a degree. Many students now arrive with a mix of traditional coursework, transfer credit and prior learning assessment, including military service, industry certifications and on-the-job training, creating greater demand for clear, consistent and student-centered transfer pathways. The updated model ensures partner institutions complement, rather than counter, MCCCD’s efforts, particularly in recognizing learning that occurs outside the traditional classroom.
The new model sets out the following criteria as minimum requirements:
Accepts and applies credits earned through prior learning assessment: The integration of PLA and alternative credit was a central focus of the redesign, recognizing the unique advantages these offer transfer students. Many students move between institutions, accumulate credits in segments and work toward credential completion. While some follow the traditional route from a two-year college to a four-year university, others take different paths, transferring from one two-year institution to another, or returning from a four-year institution to a two-year college through reverse-transfer agreements. These varied journeys highlight the need to embed PLA fully into the transfer agenda so that all learning, regardless of where or how it was acquired, is recognized and applied toward students’ goals. By making PLA a built-in component of the revamped model, MCCCD and its university partners can better meet learners where they are in their educational journey.
Provides annual enrollment and achievement data: To support this renewed focus, MCCCD asked all university partners to update their MOUs through a new university partnership application. This process gathered key institutional data and ensured alignment with updated partnership criteria and made it mandatory.
Accredited with no adverse actions or existing sanctions against the institution: Partner institutions must hold accreditation in good standing, accept both nationally and regionally accredited coursework, and recognize Maricopa-awarded PLA credit.
Aims to accept and apply a minimum of 60 credits: They are expected to apply at least 60 applicable Maricopa credits, academic and occupational, and accept Maricopa’s general education core.
Has a minimum of 50 students who have transferred at least 12 Maricopa earned credits in the last three years: This requirement is intended to demonstrate need and gauge student interest.
Surveys Maricopa transfer students annually: Partners must commit to administering annual transfer surveys and tracking student outcomes using jointly defined metrics.
Institutions that do not meet this standard are not advanced in the partnership process but are welcome to reapply once they meet the baseline criteria. As a result, more partners are actively engaging and strengthening their policies and processes to gain or maintain eligibility.
Key Findings
Several themes emerged from the first year of implementation:
Since the revamp, MCCCD is seeing promising results. Current and prospective partners have demonstrated strong commitment to the revised partnership model by elevating transfer and PLA practices, expanding pathways that accept 75 to 90 credits and participating in on-campus student support initiatives through goal-oriented action plans. They are using the model to facilitate conversations within their institutions to further advance internal policies and practices.
Post-COVID, demand for online learning and support services remains strong, particularly among working students and those needing flexible schedules, as reflected in survey results. While participation in past transfer experience surveys was low, the district has made this requirement mandatory and introduced multiple survey options to better capture the student voice and experience. These insights enable MCCCD to collaborate with partners on targeted improvement plans.
New criteria MCCCD is considering, several of which some partners have already implemented, include reserving course seats for Maricopa transfer students, creating Maricopa-specific scholarships, offering internships and other work opportunities and waiving application fees.
MCCCD is currently assessing the impact of its revamped partnership model to measure the success of these efforts. Preliminary findings from the three-year review indicate that most, if not all, partner institutions are meeting or exceeding established metrics. These early results reflect a strong commitment to the agreements and reaffirm the value of the updated criteria in fostering more meaningful and impactful partnerships.
A Model for Intentional Partnerships
The Maricopa Community College District’s revamped university transfer partnership model is a strategic effort to keep partnerships active, student-centered and aligned with key institutional priorities. Through intentional collaboration, transparent policies and practices and shared responsibility, Maricopa and its university partners are building more effective, forward-thinking transfer pathways.
Eight in 10 students rate the quality of education they’re getting as good or excellent, according to the first round of results from Inside Higher Ed’s main annual Student Voice survey of more than 5,000 two- and four-year undergraduates with Generation Lab. That’s up from closer to seven in 10 students in last year’s main Student Voice survey, results that are affirming for higher education at a turbulent economic, technological and political moment.
Still, students point to room for improvement when it comes to their classroom experience—and flag outside issues that are impacting their academic success. Case in point: 42 percent of all students, and 50 percent of first-generation students, cite financial constraints as a top barrier to their success. This can include tuition but also living and other indirect expenses. Balancing outside work with coursework and mental health issues are other commonly cited challenges. Taken as a whole, the findings underscore the need for comprehensive wraparound supports and a focus on high-touch approaches in an ever more high-tech world.
About the Survey
Student Voice is an ongoing survey and reporting series that seeks to elevate the student perspective in institutional student success efforts and in broader conversations about college.
Look out for future reporting on the main annual survey of our 2025–26 Student cycle, Student Voice: Amplified. Future reports will cover cost of attendance, health and wellness, college involvement, career readiness, and the relationship of all those to students’ sense of success. And check out what students have already said about trust—including its relationship to affordability—and about how artificial intelligence is reshaping the college experience.
Some 5,065 students from 260 two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to this main annual survey about student success, conducted in August. Explore the data from the academic life portion of the survey, captured by our survey partner Generation Lab, here. The margin of error is plus or minus 1 percentage point.
Here’s more on what respondents to our main annual Student Voice survey had to say about academic success.
Students across institution types rate their educational experience highly.
Some 80 percent of students rate the quality of their college education thus far as good (50 percent) or excellent (30 percent), compared to last year’s 73 percent of students who rated it good (46 percent) or excellent (27 percent). This is relatively consistent across student characteristics and institution types—though, like last year, private nonprofit institutions have a slight edge over public ones, especially in terms of perceived excellence: In 2025, 47 percent of private nonprofit students rate their education excellent versus 27 percent of public institution students. This can’t be explained by two-year institutions being included in the public category, as community college students are slightly more likely than four-year students to describe their education as excellent (32 percent versus 29 percent, respectively). On community college excellence, one recent analysis by the Burning Glass Institute found that two-year institutions have dramatically improved their completion rates in recent years due in part to a concerted student success effort.
What about four-year college excellence? The Student Voice survey didn’t define quality specifically, but existing data (including prior Student Voice data) shows that students value connections with faculty. And with private nonprofit institutions having lower average faculty-to-student ratios than publics, one possible explanation is that students at private nonprofits may have extra opportunities to connect with their professors. But as other recent analyses demonstrate, private nonprofit institutions, even highly selective ones, do not have a monopoly on delivering life-changing educational experiences for students. Nearly 500 institutions—including community colleges, public universities, religious colleges and specialized colleges—this year achieved a new “opportunity” designation from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, for example, signifying both high levels of access and strong economic outcomes for students.
2.Students want fewer high-stakes exams and more relevant course content, indicating this would boost their academic success.
Like last year’s survey, the top classroom-based action that students say would boost their academic success is faculty members limiting high-stakes exams, such as those counting for 40 percent or more of a course grade: 45 percent of students say this would help. Also like last year, the No. 2 action from a longer list of options is professors better connecting what they teach in class to issues outside of class and/or students’ career interests (40 percent). In Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers, just 20 percent of provosts said their institution has encouraged faulty members to limit high-stakes exams. But artificial intelligence is forcing a broader campus-assessment reckoning—and how to engage students and authentically assess their learning are questions central to those ongoing conversations. Relatedly, 10 percent of Student Voice respondents say promoting AI literacy would most boost their academic success.
3.Most students know how and when to use AI for coursework, but there are knowledge gaps between groups.
Upward of eight in 10 students indicate they know how, when and whether to use generative AI for help with coursework. In 2024’s survey, the plurality of students said this was because their professors had addressed the issue in class. This year, the plurality (41 percent) attributes this knowledge to professors including policies in their syllabi (up from 29 percent last year).
Like last year, relatively few students credit a college- or universitywide policy or other information or training from the broader institution. Across higher education, many institutions have held off on adopting broad AI use policies, instead deferring to faculty autonomy and expertise: Just 14 percent of provosts in Inside Higher Ed’s survey said their institution has adopted comprehensive AI governance policies and/or an AI strategy—though more said it has adopted specific policies for academic integrity, teaching and/or research (45 percent).
While classroom-based approaches are clearly evolving, two-year Student Voice respondents report being unclear on how, when and whether to use AI for coursework at double the rate of four-year peers (20 percent versus 10 percent). Perhaps relatedly, community college provosts were most likely to report significant faculty resistance to AI on their campuses, by institution type, at 49 percent versus 38 percent over all. Another difference: 23 percent of adult learners (25 and older) report being unclear, compared to just 10 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds. Both of these gaps merit further research.
4.Students say their institution’s course delivery methods and scheduling fit their needs—with some caveats.
Asked to what extent their institution offers course delivery methods/modalities that meet their learning needs and schedules, about four in 10 students each say very well or somewhat well. Adult learners (50 percent), community college students (49 percent) and students working 30 or more hours per week (45 percent) are especially likely to say their college is meeting their needs here very well—evidence that many nontraditional learners are finding the flexibility they need to balance college with busy lives.
However, students who say they’ve seriously considered stopping out of college at some point are especially unlikely to say their college is serving them very well here (33 percent). Risk factors for stopping out are varied and complex. But this may be one more reason for institutions to prioritize flexible course options. On the other hand, 48 percent of students who have stopped out for a semester or more but then re-enrolled say they’re being very well served by their current institution in this way.
5.Students’ biggest reported barriers to academic success aren’t academic.
From a long list of possible challenges, students are most likely to say that financial constraints (such as tuition and living expenses), needing to work while attending college, and mental health issues are impeding their academic success. None of these is explicitly academic, underscoring the need for holistic supports in student success efforts. Adult learners (51 percent), students working 30 hours or more per week (52 percent), first-generation students (50 percent) and students who have previously stopped out of college (55 percent) all report financial constraints at elevated rates. Racial differences emerge, as well: Black (46 percent) and Hispanic (49 percent) students are more likely to flag financial constraints as a barrier to academic success than their white (38 percent) and Asian American and Pacific Islander (37 percent) peers.
On mental health, women (37 percent) and nonbinary students (64 percent, n=209) flag this as a barrier at higher rates than men (26 percent). Same for students who have seriously considered stopping out of college relative to those who have not: 41 percent versus 30 percent, respectively.
Some of these issues are interconnected, as well: Other research has found a relationship between basic needs insecurity and mental health challenges that is pronounced among specific student populations, including first-generation and LGBTQIA+ students. Another recent study by the National College Attainment Network found that a majority of two- and four-year colleges cost more than the average student can pay, sometimes by as much as $8,000 a year. And prior Student Voice surveys have found that students link affordability to both their academic performance and to trust in higher education.
6. Colleges are meeting students’ expectations for responding to changing needs and circumstances—with some exceptions.
With so many different factors influencing students’ academic success, how are colleges doing when it comes to responding to students’ needs and changing circumstances, such as with deadline extensions, crisis support and work or family accommodations? Seven in 10 students say their college or university is meeting (57 percent) or exceeding (12 percent) their expectations. Most of the remainder say their institution is falling slightly short of expectations. This is relatively consistent across student groups and institution types—though students who have seriously considered stopping out of college are more likely than those who haven’t to say their institution is falling at least slightly short of their expectations (33 percent versus 19 percent, respectively). This again underscores the importance of comprehensive student support systems.
The Connection Factor
While it’s clear that AI and other outside variables are reshaping the academic experience, one mitigating influence may be human connection.
Jack Baretz, a senior studying math and data science at the University of North Dakota, is currently working with peers to develop an AI-powered tool called Kned that can answer students’ and advisers’ basic academic advising questions (think course sequencing, availability and prerequisites). The idea isn’t to replace advisers but rather counteract high adviser caseloads and turnover and—most importantly—maximize students’ time with their adviser so it’s a meaningful interaction.
“There’s a lot of anxiety kids have at this point in their life, where it’s like, ‘I don’t know what I’m going to do next. What would be a good major to make sure I get a job? I don’t want to be jobless.’ Just those conversations—I think that’s where advisers are most effective and probably most content, helping people,” Baretz said.
From left: University of North Dakota students and advising chatbot collaborators Michael Gross, Owen Reilly and Jack Baretz.
Zoom
A prior Student Voice survey found that nearly half of students lack key academic guidance. In this year’s survey, 19 percent of students say channeling more resources to academic advising so they can get more help from their adviser would most boost their academic success. Some 28 percent say the same of new and/or clearer program maps and pathways.
This ethos extends to what Kned collaborator Michael Gross, a junior majoring in finance, said keeps him academically engaged: connection. His most motivating online classes, for example, have had breakout rooms for peer-to-peer discussions. Why? “When you have more than one person working on something, you’re way more likely to contribute and do your best work on it, because there’s other people’s grades at stake, too,” he said. “It’s not just yours.”
Gross added, “One thing I would say is for institutions to encourage discussion on college campuses. The main thing that we’re kind of losing, especially with all this technology, is people are becoming so separated from each other. College is meant to be a place where you can engage your social skills and just learn about other people—because this is one of the last times you can be surrounded by so many people your age, and so many people from different walks of life with so many different ideas, too.”
To this point, 19 percent of Student Voice respondents cite social isolation or lack of belonging as a top barrier to their academic success. Tyton Partners’ 2025 “Time for Class” report also found a jump in both instructor and student preference for face-to-classes, “showing renewed demand for classroom connection.” In the same report, nearly half of instructors cited academic anxiety as a top concern among students, and students themselves reported low motivation and weak study habits as persistent barriers to learning.
Terry McGlynn, professor of biology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and author The Chicago Guide to College Science Teaching, agreed that “learning is inherently a social endeavor.” And educators have for the past five years noticed “it’s a lot harder to get students to interact with one another and to show some vulnerability when experiencing intellectual growth.”
Many have attributed this to the effects of the pandemic, McGlynn said. But if higher education is now “heading into this era of AI in the classroom without reintegrating quality social interactions, I’m worried for us.”
He added, “I hope we develop approaches that bring people together rather than providing expectations that we work in isolation from one another.”
This independent editorial project is produced with the Generation Lab and supported by the Gates Foundation.
As policymakers look ahead to the bigger party conferences and students and staff ready themselves for the new academic year*, HEPI Director Nick Hillman takes a look ahead. [* Except in Scotland, where it has already begun.]
Information on HEPI’s own party conference events is available here.
Money’s Too Tight (to Mention)
When the Coalition Government for which I worked tripled tuition fees for undergraduate study to £9,000 back in 2012, it was a big and unpopular change. But it represented a real increase in support for higher education that led to real increases in the quality of the student experience, with improvements to staffing, facilities and student support services.
Because the fee rise shifted costs from taxpayers to graduates via progressive student loans, it enabled another fundamental change: the removal of student number caps in England. No longer would universities be forced to turn away ambitious applicants that they wanted to recruit. It was the final realisation of the principle that underlined the Robbins report of 1963: ‘courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.’ A higher proportion of students enrolled on their first-choice place. (It never ceases to amaze me how many people wish to return to a world in which your children and mine have unwarranted obstacles reimposed between them and attaining the degree they want.)
But back in 2012, no one in their wildest dreams thought the new fee level would be frozen for most of the next decade and more. After all, the fee rise was implemented using the Higher Education Act (2004), which had enabled Tony Blair to introduce the current model of tuition fees, and the Blair / Brown Governments to raise fees each year without any fuss.
Yet the political ructions caused by introducing £9,000 fees in 2012 made policymakers timid. Towards the end of the Conservatives’ time in office, Ministers bizarrely sought to make a virtue of their pusillanimity. Even as inflation was biting, the Minister for Higher Education (Rob Halfon) said raising fees was ‘not going to happen, not in a million years’.
The result has been a crisis in funding for higher education institutions that has changed their priorities. Top-end universities have looked to increase their income via more and higher (uncapped) fees from international students – hardly surprising, when an international student taking a three-year degree is worth £69,000 a year more than a home student! They have also sought to tempt UK students away from slightly less prestigious institutions.
Meanwhile, newer universities have been even more entrepreneurial. Limited in their ability to recruit lots of international students, they have instead shifted towards franchising, whereby other organisations pay them for the privilege of teaching their degrees.
Universities in the middle have had a particularly tough time. Most notably, many universities originally founded in the expansionary post-Robbins environment are struggling today. (It has been suggested that the tie-up between Kent and Greenwich is partly borne of necessity.) Plus with no fees for home students, Scottish universities have been hurting even more than those elsewhere.
Even though recruiting more people from overseas and large-scale franchising have helped some institutions to keep the wolf from the door, Ministers have condemned both. The UK Home Office want fewer international students and England’s Department for Education have promised new legislation to tackle the growth in franchising. (Six months ago, Bridget Phillipson wrote in the Sunday Times, ‘I will also bring forward new legislation at the first available opportunity to ensure the Office for Students has tough new powers to intervene quickly and robustly to protect public money’.)
No British university has ever gone bust but, as financial advisers know, the past can be a sorry guide to the future. When asked, Ministers say they would accept the closure of a university or two. But a university is usually a big local employer, a big supporter of local civic life and a source of local pride – and money. Most have been built up from public funds.
Closing a university would not just risk local upset. It would reduce confidence, including among those who lend to universities, and could even risk a domino effect, as people lose faith in the system as a whole, thereby putting the reputation of UK education at risk. So there are good reasons why, for example, Dundee University is currently being bailed out, even if it comes with a distinct whiff of moral hazard.
Bills, Bills, Bills
Students are hurting just as much as institutions. Contrary to the expectations of years gone by, the proportion of school leavers proceeding to higher education is barely rising. There is likely more than one cause, including negative rhetoric about universities from across the political spectrum and a false sense that degree apprenticeships for school leavers are plentiful.
The standard maximum maintenance support in England is now worth a little over £10,000, which is just half the amount students need.
Parents are expected to support their student offspring but they are not officially told how much they should contribute.
England’s household income threshold at which state-based maintenance support begins to be reduced has not increased for over 15 years. At £25,000, it is lower than the income of a single-earner household on the minimum wage.
As a result, according to the HEPI / Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey, over two-thirds of students now undertake paid employment during term time, often at a number of hours that negatively affects their studies. These students are limited in their ability to take part in extra-curricular activities, for they are time poor as well as strapped for cash.
An increase in maintenance support is long overdue, just as an increase in tuition fees for home students is long overdue. But we could also perhaps help students help themselves by providing better information in advance about student life. In particular, given the epidemic of loneliness among young people, we should remind them that you are more likely to be lonely if your room is plush but you do not have enough money left over for a social life than if your living arrangements are basic but your social life is lively.
The Masterplan
The Government came to office claiming to have a plan for tackling the country’s challenges. But more than a year on, the fog has not cleared on their plans for higher education. Patience is now wearing gossamer thin. As Chris Parr of Research Professional put it on Friday, ‘Still we wait.’ As far as we can discern from what we know, it seems universities will be expected to do more for less – on civic engagement, access and economic growth.
Higher education institutions have made it clear, including through Universities UK’s Blueprint, that they are keen to play their part in national renewal. But it is not only the financial squeeze that limits their room for manoeuvre. Political chaos as well as the geography of Whitehall threaten the institutional autonomy that has been the key ingredient of UK universities’ success.
Unlike in the past, there are different regulators, Ministers and Departments for the teaching and learning functions of universities on the one hand and their research functions on the other, meaning coordinated oversight is missing. The latest machinery of government changes risk another dog’s dinner, as ‘skills’ continue to bounce around Whitehall, newly residing for now (but who knows for how long) in the Department for Work and Pensions. Meanwhile, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is thought to have less regard for university-based research than for research conducted elsewhere, at least in contrast to the past.
Moreover, each of the two Ministers with oversight of higher education institutions (Baroness Smith and Lord Vallance) are newly split across two Whitehall departments, with one foot in each. This sort of approach tends to be a recipe for chaos. (As I saw close up during my own time in Whitehall, split Ministers usually reside primarily in just one of their two departments, the one where their main Private Office is situated.)
The choice now is clear. If Ministers want to direct universities more than their predecessors, then they need to fund them accordingly. But if Ministers want universities to play to their own self-defined strategies in these fast-changing times, then they should reduce the barriers limiting their capacity to behave more entrepreneurially.
Texas A&M University President Dr. Mark A. Welsh III announced his resignation Thursday following intense political pressure from state Republican leaders over a viral confrontation involving gender content in a children’s literature course—the latest in a series of incidents that underscore the mounting challenges facing academic freedom and diversity efforts at public universities across Texas.
Welsh’s departure came just over a week after state Rep. Brian Harrison amplified a video on social media showing a student confronting Professor Melissa McCoul about course content. Despite initially defending McCoul’s academic freedom, Welsh terminated the professor the following day under pressure from Harrison and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.
The incident represents part of a broader Republican-led campaign to exert political control over university curricula, faculty hiring, and campus speech—efforts that education advocates warn are undermining the foundational principles of higher education.
Welsh’s tenure, which began in 2023, was marked by repeated clashes with state political leaders over diversity and inclusion initiatives. In January, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened Welsh’s position after the university’s business school planned to participate in a conference aimed at recruiting Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous graduate students. Under pressure, Welsh withdrew the university from the conference entirely.
The pattern reflects what faculty and higher education experts describe as an escalating assault on academic autonomy.
Despite strong support from faculty and students, Welsh’s position became untenable under sustained political attack. On last Wednesday, the university’s Executive Committee of Distinguished Professors—composed of 12 faculty members holding the institution’s highest academic honor—sent a letter urging regents to retain Welsh.
“All members of this Committee write this letter collectively to strongly urge you to retain President Mark Welsh in the wake of recent events,” the faculty letter stated.
Student leaders also rallied behind Welsh, with dozens of current and former student government representatives praising his “steadfast love and stewardship for our University” and expressing “faith and confidence in his leadership.”
However, these expressions of campus support proved insufficient against external political pressure.
Welch’s predecessor, M. Katherine Banks, had resigned following the botched hiring of journalism professor Kathleen McElroy, whose employment offer was undermined after regents expressed concerns about her work on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The HEPI blog was kindly authored by Fiona Ellison, Co-Director, Unite Foundation
University is often described as a transformative experience, full of growth, challenge, and discovery. But for care-experienced and estranged students, the journey through higher education is often shaped by the absence of family support, financial insecurity, and a lack of belonging. The Unite Foundation has taken a deep dive into the latest findings from the HEPI and Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey 2025 (SAES), offering a clear picture of these students’ realities and developing a call to action.
The cost of insecurity
Care-experienced & estranged students are much more likely to drop out of university but we also know from the findings from the SAES that they’re much more likely to consider dropping out as well:
43% of care–experienced students and 44% of estranged students have considered withdrawing from university, compared to 28% of their peers.
Whilst the survey doesn’t give us insight into the reasons why, it does provide clues. For example, care-experienced students are experienced and estranged students work significantly more hours in paid employment:
Care–experienced students work on average 11.3 hours/week, and estranged students work 11.1 hours/week, compared to 8.8 hours/week for other students.
This extra workload often stems from limited access to family financial support and a student finance system that doesn’t fully meet the needs of independent students. As HEPI highlighted in their work on minimum income standards those studying without financial support, even with the full maintenance loan, would still need to work over 20 hours at minimum wage to achieve the minimum income standard needed to survive at university.
We see this increased workload play out in students’ ability to attend lectures and complete academic work:
44% of care experienced students requested deadline extensions, compared to 29% of non-care experienced students.
It’s no wonder that only 79% of care-experienced students complete their undergraduate degrees compared to 89% of non-care-experienced students, and just 64% achieve a good honours degree compared to 77% of their non-care-experienced peers. We don’t have reliable data on estranged students – but that’s for another blog! If students are having to work longer hours just to afford to live, then it’s no wonder academic studies will often take a back seat.
However, there is a shining light. Housing is more than shelter – it’s a foundation for success. The Unite Foundation has, over the last 14 years, provided free, year-round accommodation to care-experienced and estranged students, removing a major barrier to continuity and wellbeing. Data published to celebrate our 10th birthday found that there is ‘strong evidence that the scholarship improves educational outcomes of the students we support, specifically in year-to-year progression and completion’.
These figures highlight how housing insecurity and financial pressure can directly impact academic persistence and performance – but whilst there is a simple answer, not enough institutions are truly looking at the evidence-based solution to address the inequality this group of students face.
Loneliness and the need for community
One of the most striking findings within the report is the prevalence of loneliness:
45% of estranged students and 36% of care experienced students feel lonely “all or most of the time,” compared to 27% of other students.
Loneliness affects mental health, engagement, and retention. While it’s encouraging that loneliness among care-experienced students has decreased from 48% in 2023, the rise among estranged students signals a need for targeted support.
For this group of students, studying without the support network of family means the lack of ready-made networks needed when times are hard. The All of Us community was designed by and for care-experienced and estranged students to connect with peers – whether online or in real life. The handy guide #AllOfUsLocal is a practical toolkit that institutions can take to help create a community in your institution to create ways to support care experienced and estranged students to avoid isolation.
A mixed picture on wellbeing
Encouragingly, care-experienced students report similar levels of wellbeing to their non-care-experienced peers:
Life satisfaction: 6.7 vs. 6.6
Happiness yesterday: 6.2 for both groups
Anxiety yesterday: 4.6 for both groups
However, estranged students consistently report lower scores:
Happiness yesterday: 5.9
These differences underscore the emotional toll of estrangement and the importance of tailored support that ensures estranged students can access at any point – given we know for many students estrangement happens through their academic journey.
What next?
The Student Academic Experience Survey continues gives us the evidence about what this group of students thinks and feels about their time in higher education – it makes for some pretty tough reading. However, there isn’t anything new or surprising in the report for those of us that work in this space.
We now need to move beyond data and turn these insights into action. Universities, policymakers, and sector leaders must work together to ensure that care-experienced and estranged students are a target for activity. To do this, we need:
Universities to prioritise year-round, affordable accommodation – Institutions should commit to providing or partnering on secure, year-round housing options for care-experienced and estranged students, recognising housing as a foundation for academic success.
Targeted financial support and flexible funding models – Review and adapt bursary and hardship funding to reflect the true cost of living for independent students, especially those without family support.
Better data collection and visibility – Universities and sector bodies must improve the identification and tracking of estranged students to ensure their needs are recognised and met.
Embedding community-building initiatives – Adopt and promote tools like #AllOfUsLocal to reduce loneliness and foster belonging on campus. You can join our HE Peer Professionals network to share your challenges, celebrate successes and learn from others about how to support community-building activities.
At the Unite Foundation, we’ll shortly launch our new strategy, which will include practical steps that higher education institutions can take to ensure a focus on housing plays a key role in driving equality for care-experienced and estranged students. If you want to be the first to know about what we’re up to, do sign up to our newsletter.
Provosts remain committed to their institutions’ academic mission but face growing pressures that make the job more reactive than strategic, according to Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers with Hanover Research, out today. While 91 percent of respondents say they’re glad to have pursued administrative work, only 29 percent report consistently having the resources to implement initiatives.
Other findings further reveal how leaders are responding to a shifting landscape within and outside higher education: Nearly a third of institutions represented have begun updating curricula to prepare students for artificial intelligence in the workplace, and more than half of provosts report declines in federal funding under the second Trump administration. Some 47 percent cite a “strategic compliance” approach to this new policy environment and 41 percent a “wait and see” approach. Many institutions are also trying out new ways to support research funding.
On Wednesday, Oct. 22, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will host a free live webcast on the findings with expert panelists who will share their reasons for optimism in higher education in 2025, along with their concerns about the sector and being a campus leader. Register for that here.
Even amid these challenges, provosts’ confidence in academic quality remains high. Seventy-nine percent rate their institution’s academic health as good or excellent, and 87 percent say their college’s innovative programs are serving students well. Yet, a majority of provosts note uneven support across disciplines and limited resources for certain student populations, namely those with disabilities. Some doubts about scaling online education for quality are also present.
Download the full survey report, produced with support from Coursedog, Honorlock and Watermark, here.
Mental health and well-being are other pressing concerns: Most provosts say their campus has responded effectively to the student mental health crisis, but fewer see overall student health improving. Community college leaders, in particular, highlight food and housing insecurity as a top challenge.
Read more about what provosts have to say about campus speech and other topics—including the federal policy environment and artificial intelligence, here and here.
