Tag: America

  • Small College America – Profile College of Wooster – Edu Alliance Journal

    Small College America – Profile College of Wooster – Edu Alliance Journal

    March 3, 2025, by Dean Hoke: This profile of the College of Wooster is the fourth in a series presenting small colleges throughout the United States.

    Background

    The College of Wooster, founded in 1866, is a private liberal arts institution located in Wooster, Ohio. Known for its commitment to mentored undergraduate research, Wooster offers a comprehensive liberal arts education in a residential setting. The college enrolls approximately 1,800 students representing diverse backgrounds from 47 U.S. states and 76 countries. The student-to-faculty ratio is 11:1, ensuring personalized attention and mentorship. For the 2022-2023 academic year, the total cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, room, and board, is $71,000. Notably, more than 85% of students receive financial aid, with an average award of $50,000.

    Curricula

    Wooster offers over 50 academic programs in the sciences, humanities, social sciences, and arts. A distinctive feature of the Wooster experience is the Independent Study program. In this program, students engage in a year-long research project under faculty mentorship, culminating in a thesis or creative work. This program fosters critical thinking, problem-solving, and effective communication skills.

    Strengths

    • Mentored Research: The Independent Study program exemplifies Wooster’s dedication to undergraduate research. It provides students with hands-on experience in their chosen fields.
    • Diverse Community: With 27% U.S. students of color and 14% international students, Wooster boasts a vibrant and inclusive campus environment.
    • High Graduate Success Rate: Within six months of graduation, 96% of alums are employed or enrolled in graduate programs, with 94% accepted into their top-choice graduate schools.

    Weaknesses

    • Cost of Attendance: Despite substantial financial aid offerings, the total cost may be a barrier for some prospective students.
    • Limited Graduate Programs: As an institution focused primarily on undergraduate education, Wooster offers limited opportunities for postgraduate studies.

    Economic Impact

    The College of Wooster significantly contributes to the local economy of Wooster, Ohio, which has a population of 27,012 and is the county seat of Wayne County, which has a population of 116,500. The college is a major employer in the region and attracts students, faculty, and visitors, bolstering local businesses and services. Additionally, cultural and academic events hosted by the college enrich the community’s cultural landscape. According to LeadIQ, approximately 1,200 people are employed by the college, and its annual operating expenses are over $88 million.

    LinkedIn data shows that the college has nearly 17,000 alums, 4,700 of whom reside in Ohio and 1,120 in the Wooster, Ohio, area.

    Enrollment Trends

    Over the past decade, Wooster’s enrollment has slightly declined, from 2,100 to 1875 over a 10-year period. The student base is 35% in-state and 65% out-of-state and international. The college consistently attracts a diverse student body from across the United States and around the world. 98% of the student population lives in campus housing, and the age range is 18-24. Wooster does not have any graduate degree programs.

    Degrees Awarded by Major

    In the most recent report, 18 majors had graduates Wooster Degrees Conferred.

    Alumni

    Employment and or attending graduate school is very high. In the class of 2023, 97% of Wooster graduates secured employment or enrolled in graduate programs within six months post-graduation. 78% entered the workforce, 15% are attending graduate or professional school, 4% were applying for graduate school, and only 3% are seeking employment. Also, an average over the past three years shows that 91% of the Wooster graduates were accepted into their top choice graduate school. (Source: College of Wooster Destination Report, Class of 2023)

    LinkedIn data shows the college has nearly 17,000 alumni. 28% live in Ohio, 18% in the greater Cleveland area, and 7% in the city of Wooster.

    Notable Alumni:

    • J.C. Chandor ‘96 Acclaimed filmmaker known for works such as “Margin Call” and “All Is Lost.” Nominated for the Academy Awards in 2011
    • Laurie Kosanovich ’94, general counsel for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
    • John Dean ’61 Former White House Counsel for President Richard Nixon, notable for his role in the Watergate scandal.
    • Duncan Jones, ‘95, award-winning filmmaker director of Source Code and Moon. He is the son of David Bowie.
    • Jennifer Haverkamp ’79, Professor of Practice Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy, the University of Michigan
    • Donald Kohn ’64, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve
    • Dr. Sangram Sisodia ’77, The Department of Neurobiology, specializing in Alzheimer’s disease. University of Chicago.

    Endowment and Financial Standing

    As of June 30, 2023, The College of Wooster’s endowment stands at $395.5 million, reflecting prudent financial management and generous alum support. This endowment supports scholarships, faculty positions, and various institutional initiatives, ensuring the college’s long-term financial health.  According to the 2023 Forbes financial report, The College of Wooster is rated 2.421 and a B- grade. Wooster has maintained a stable financial position. 

    Why is The College of Wooster Important?

    1. Commitment to Mentored Undergraduate Research – The College of Wooster is distinguished for its dedication to undergraduate research, providing students with personalized mentorship that fosters inquiry, intellectual growth, and academic excellence.
    2. Independent Study Program – A hallmark of Wooster’s education, the year-long Independent Study program requires every student to complete a rigorous research project, developing critical thinking, effective communication, and independent judgment skills.
    3. Diverse and Inclusive Community – Wooster attracts students from all 50 states and over 60 countries, creating a dynamic and inclusive environment where cross-cultural dialogue and global perspectives thrive.
    4. Strong Financial Foundation –Wooster maintains financial stability through prudent management and strategic investments, ensuring long-term institutional sustainability.
    5. Economic Impact – The College plays a vital role in the local economy, contributing to job creation, community development, and regional growth through its sustained presence and financial stewardship.
    6. Distinguished Alumni Network – Wooster graduates excel in various fields, including academia, business, public service, and the arts. The College’s alumni include Nobel laureates, influential public figures, and innovators who make significant contributions to society.

    This structured format highlights The College of Wooster’s key strengths, reinforcing its importance as a leading liberal arts institution.


    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, are co-hosts for the podcast series Small College America. Season two begins on March 11, 2025.

    Source link

  • The Fight for Democracy in America (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies)

    The Fight for Democracy in America (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies)

    Fri. March 7 — 12:00pm-1:30pm:

     

    “From Multiracial Democracy to Multiracial Fascism?: 

    What is the Future of the American Experiment?”

     

    Guest Speakers:

    Alexis McGill Johnson (she/her) – President and CEO,

    Planned Parenthood Federation; Planned Parenthood Action Fund

    Eric Ward (he/him) – Executive Vice President, Race Forward

    Dorian Warren (he/him) – Co-President, Center for Community Change; Community Change Action

     

    Moderator:

    Alethia Jones (she/her) – Director, Civic Engagement and Leadership Development, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies

    Source link

  • US Attorney Ed Martin’s bully tactics have no place in America

    US Attorney Ed Martin’s bully tactics have no place in America

    As the federal government’s chief prosecutors, United States attorneys wield significant power. The Constitution charges them with using that power to ensure “that the laws be faithfully executed.” And as any reasonable federal prosecutor would know, the First Amendment bars them from abusing their power to intimidate government critics.

    But one U.S. Attorney, Edward R. Martin Jr., doesn’t seem to have gotten the Constitution’s message or taken his oath seriously. Instead, Martin has emphasized political grandstanding and chilling dissent. Even though he’s been in office for only a few weeks, he’s unleashed the power of his office to go after speakers critical of Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk, and Supreme Court justices. And more troublingly, Martin has threatened to “chase” those critics “to the ends of the Earth,” sending a clear message: Shut up, or else. 

    So FIRE is here to remind Ed Martin — and any other prosecutor thinking about following Martin’s lead — that threatening government critics is not only inexcusable, it’s unconstitutional.

    Let’s start with a fundamental principle: Criticizing the government is not a crime. It’s free speech. And the First Amendment fiercely protects it. In fact, the First Amendment protects a lot of sharp-edged political rhetoric. That’s true whether you’re an elected official, a college student or faculty member, or just somebody posting on social media. 

    Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t protect true threats. But there’s a narrow legal definition of true threats, per the Supreme Court: statements intended “to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Only if speech meets that exacting standard — and the speaker knew or ignored a real risk their statement would be “viewed as threatening violence” — can prosecutors like Martin target it. If not, it’s protected by the First Amendment.

    No reasonable listener could conclude Garcia was donning brass knuckles and seriously expressing, over CNN’s airwaves, an intent to beat up Elon Musk.

    Above all, in no case does an American’s protected speech turn into a “threat” just because a prosecutor disagrees with it, doesn’t find it funny, or dislikes his political pals being criticized. Any other outcome would empower the government to intimidate or jail political opponents simply by labeling dissent a “threat.” Those authoritarian tactics call to mind places like China and North Korea, but they have no place in the United States of America. 

    That’s why two weeks ago, FIRE joined a letter to Martin penned by the Freedom of the Press Foundation and Demand Progress. We expressed concern over posts by Martin on the social media platform X that appeared to promise prosecution against DOGE critics. As the letter pointed out: “Threatening to file frivolous charges against Americans and vaguely insinuating that wide swaths of constitutionally-protected speech and activity could invite criminal investigations and prosecutions” defies both the First Amendment and Martin’s professional and ethical obligations.

    Rather than heed that letter, Martin has doubled down. Yesterday, he opened a federal investigation targeting two members of Congress — part of what Martin dubs “Operation Whirlwind” — for past public statements that Martin claims threatened fellow government officials. But none of the statements come close to an unprotected true threat.

    Martin’s inquiry into Sen. Charles Schumer of New York reportedly centers on a March 2020 remark the Democratic minority leader made at an abortion rights rally outside the Supreme Court: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” (Schumer’s remarks are the namesake of Martin’s “Operation Whirlwind.”)

    And Martin’s office is investigating Rep. Robert Garcia of California for a comment the Democratic congressman made last week during a CNN interview about Elon Musk. Garcia, who posted the letter he received from Martin on X, said: “What the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy.”

    It’s not a close call: Neither statement meets the definition of a true threat. Each is core political speech, fully protected by the First Amendment.

    Far from free speech savior, Elon Musk increasingly looks like a false prophet 

    News

    Twitter suspended the accounts of numerous journalists who Twitter owner Elon Musk accused of doxing him and his family.


    Read More

    Schumer’s remark is plain old political hyperbole. Sure, saying justices will “pay the price” and “won’t know what hit them” as a result of their decisions might be described by some as intemperate. The statement drew criticism from other members of Congress, and even condemnation from the bench: Chief Justice John Roberts chastised Schumer for the tenor of his remarks, and Schumer in turn apologized. But in no way was it “a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals,” let alone grounds for a federal investigation, nearly five years after the fact.

    The First Amendment also protects Garcia’s political rhetoric — and again, it’s not a close call. Garcia’s comparison of the current political moment to a “bar fight,” requiring “actual weapons” for “an actual fight for democracy,” is plainly metaphorical, not literal. This is especially clear from the context of Garcia’s remarks, made during a CNN interview about politics. No reasonable listener could conclude Garcia was donning brass knuckles and seriously expressing, over CNN’s airwaves, an intent to beat up Elon Musk.

    Simply put, there’s nothing to investigate.

    Neither Schumer’s nor Garcia’s remarks are true threats. If they really were actionable threats, our nation’s capital would be a far different place. From the top down, Washington is chock-full of politicians using charged language, allusions to fighting, and sometimes even explicit invitations to drop the gloves. That’s how it’s been since the beginning, as Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson would confirm.

    If Martin really wanted to prioritize officials’ safety, he’s got plenty of actual work to do. He could start with the real bomb threatsdeath threats, and swatting attacks federal lawmakers and officials have reported receiving over the past year. Instead, he’s targeting standard-issue political rhetoric from partisans on the other side of the aisle.

    It’s bad enough when a dean of students distorts the line between protected speech and true threats. But a federal prosecutor? That’s indefensible — and dangerous to a free society.

    That all leaves one conclusion. Martin’s “Operation Whirlwind” is a political stunt — and a dangerously unconstitutional one, threatening to blow a chilling wind across our nation’s political debate. Government investigations that target plainly protected expression violate the First Amendment. And any reasonable government official, especially a federal prosecutor, would know as much.

    To be sure, Martin’s not the first prosecutor to target protected political speech in recent months. Last November, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes launched an investigation into then-candidate Donald Trump’s sharp-but-protected comments about former Rep. Liz Cheney. Mayes was as wrong to do so then as Martin is now.

    “Whatever one might think of Trump’s rhetoric here, it’s not a true threat,” wrote FIRE’s Aaron Terr at the time. “It’s constitutionally protected political speech.” The partisan coordinates may have flipped, but the same conclusion holds.

    Other government officials have followed the same playbook. For instance, FIRE could fill a book with examples of campus administrators shutting down plainly protected student and faculty speech by claiming it was somehow “threatening.”

    Take student Hayden Barnes, expelled for a Facebook collage criticizing his university’s plan to spend $30 million on a new parking garage. Or Austin Tong, barred from campus for his anti-communist Instagram post commemorating the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. FIRE has defended faculty members disciplined for “threats” for caustic but protected criticism of both President Trump and Black Lives Matter protesters. We’ve even seen students and faculty punished for obvious jokes and political satire. The list goes on and on.

    Here’s the bottom line: When government officials cynically mislabel protected speech as a “threat” to silence speech with which they disagree, it’s classic censorship that the First Amendment forbids. It’s bad enough when a dean of students distorts the line between protected speech and true threats. But a federal prosecutor? That’s indefensible — and dangerous to a free society.

    Source link

  • Small College America – Profile Earlham College – Edu Alliance Journal

    Small College America – Profile Earlham College – Edu Alliance Journal

    February 17, 2025, by Dean Hoke: This profile of Earlham College is the second in a series presenting small colleges throughout the United States.

    Background

    Founded in 1847 in Richmond, Indiana, Earlham College is a private liberal arts institution with deep Quaker roots. The college maintains its commitment to principles such as integrity, peace, social justice, and community engagement, which shape both its academic and extracurricular life. Despite its modest size, Earlham has built a reputation for academic rigor, experiential learning, and global perspectives. Dr. Paul Sniegowski, a biologist and former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, has served as President since August 2024.

    For the 2023-24 academic year, U.S. News & World Report estimates Earlham’s total annual cost (including tuition, housing, and other expenses) at $53,930, with an average net price after aid of $25,496.

    Curricula

    Earlham College offers a diverse range of undergraduate programs, with popular majors including Biology, Environmental Science, International Studies, Business, and Psychology. The college places a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary learning, allowing students to engage in cross-disciplinary courses and independent research. The Epic Advantage Program provides students with up to $5,000 in funding for hands-on learning experiences, such as internships, field studies, and international travel.

    The college also offers a 3+2 Engineering Program, where students spend three years at Earlham before transferring to an affiliated university, such as Columbia or Case Western Reserve, to complete an engineering degree. This dual-degree approach combines the benefits of a liberal arts education with technical training, preparing students for careers in engineering, business, and technology fields.

    Strengths

    • Commitment to Experiential Learning – Programs like Epic Advantage provide students with real-world experience, enhancing their competitiveness in the job market.
    • Strong International Focus – Nearly 70% of Earlham students study abroad, and the college has partnerships with institutions worldwide.
    • Small Class Sizes – With a 9:1 student-faculty ratio, Earlham offers personalized attention and mentoring opportunities.
    • Values-Driven Education – Quaker principles of peace, social justice, and ethical leadership are embedded in the curriculum and campus culture.
    • Strong Science and Environmental Programs – The Joseph Moore Museum and expansive natural study areas provide unique hands-on research opportunities.

    Weaknesses

    • Financial Stability Challenges – Like many small liberal arts colleges, Earlham faces financial pressures, including declining enrollment and reliance on tuition revenue.
    • Leadership Continuity – Since 2011, Earlham has had four Presidents and one interim.
    • Limited Graduate Programs – Earlham focuses almost exclusively on undergraduate education, which may limit options for students seeking to continue their studies within the same institution.
    • Limited Name Recognition – Despite its strong academic reputation, Earlham struggles with brand recognition outside the Midwest and higher education circles.

    Economic Impact

    Earlham College is a major economic driver in Richmond, Indiana, and the surrounding region. The college employs hundreds of faculty and staff, supports local businesses, and contributes significantly to the local economy.

    According to the Independent Colleges of Indiana, Earlham College has a total economic impact of $76 million on the state and has created nearly 725 jobs in Indiana. LinkedIn data suggests the college has nearly 9,000 alumni, with 1,400 residing in Indiana and 366 in the Richmond area.

    Through programs like the Center for Social Justice and the Bonner Scholars Program, Earlham students engage in community service projects throughout Richmond. The college also frequently hosts cultural and educational events open to the public, further integrating itself into the civic life of the region.

    Enrollment Trends

    Earlham College has experienced a decline in full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment over the past decade. In the 2013-14 academic year, enrollment stood at 1,159 students, dropping to 677 students in 2022-23. In the 2024 academic year, undergraduate FTE enrollment was 691.33 in the fall and 620.33 in the spring, reflecting ongoing challenges in retention and recruitment.

    Degrees Awarded by Major

    In 2024, Earlham College awarded 123 undergraduate degrees, including 84 single majors, 18 double majors, and one triple major. The distribution by major category is as follows:

    Alumni

    According to Earlham’s First-Destination Survey Report (2019-23):

    • 28% of graduates continue their education within six months of graduation.
    • 57% are employed within six months.
    • The top five employment industries are Education, Healthcare, Internet & Software, and Research.
    • Nearly 50% of alumni pursue graduate or professional school within 10 years.

    Notable Alumni:

    • Michael C. Hall (1993) – Emmy-nominated actor (Dexter, Six Feet Under).
    • Margaret Hamilton (1958) – NASA software engineer, led Apollo Program flight software development.
    • Michael Shellenberger (1993) – Author and journalist on free speech and environmental policy.
    • Venus Williams (2015) – Former World No. 1 tennis player and Olympic gold medalist.
    • Wendell Meredith Stanley (1926) – Nobel Prize-winning chemist in virus research.

    Endowment and Financial Standing

    Earlham College’s current endowment is $419 million, down from $475 million in 2021. Financial challenges stem from declining enrollment and reduced tuition revenue. In FY 2023, the college reported a net loss of $11.1 million.

    Despite these challenges, Forbes (2024) rated Earlham A- with a 3.499 GPA, signaling relative financial resilience. The college is actively implementing strategic budget adjustments and seeking alternative revenue sources to ensure long-term sustainability.

    Why Earlham Remains Relevant

    In an era where liberal arts colleges must justify their value, Earlham College stands out for its values-driven, experiential education. Its commitment to academic excellence, social responsibility, and global engagement makes it an attractive option for students looking for more than just a degree.

    Earlham’s focus on sustainability, diversity, and international collaboration positions it as a model institution that integrates ethical leadership with practical learning. As higher education continues to evolve, Earlham demonstrates that a small college can have a big impact on both students and the world.


    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, are co-hosts for the podcast series Small College America. Season two begins February. 25, 2025

    Source link

  • Small College America – Profile Wabash College – Edu Alliance Journal

    Small College America – Profile Wabash College – Edu Alliance Journal

    Background

    Established in 1832, Wabash College is a private liberal arts institution dedicated exclusively to undergraduate education for men. As one of the nation’s few remaining all-male colleges, Wabash upholds a tradition of academic rigor, personal responsibility, and close-knit community engagement. The college’s mission emphasizes the development of critical thinking, effective communication, and responsible leadership. The current President is Dr. Scott Feller. He has been president since 2020, and he has been with Wabash as a professor of chemistry and administrator since 1998. Wabash College is in Crawfordsville, Indiana, a community of 16,100 located 45 miles northwest of Indianapolis and 150 miles southeast of Chicago.

    In 2022- 23, US News & World Report projects the total cost per year is $65,825 (tuition, housing, etc.) Net price after aid is $26,834

    Curricula

    Wabash offers a diverse array of academic programs across three divisions: Natural Sciences, Humanities and Arts, and Social Sciences. Students can choose from 27 majors, allowing for a tailored educational experience. The curriculum is designed to foster interdisciplinary learning, encouraging students to explore various fields and integrate knowledge.

    A distinctive feature of Wabash’s academic program is the comprehensive examination that seniors must pass to graduate. This rigorous assessment includes both written and oral components, ensuring that graduates have a deep and thorough understanding of their chosen fields.

    Strengths

    1. Strong Alumni Network—Wabash boasts a dedicated and active alumni base that provides current students with mentorship, networking opportunities, and career support. The Princeton Review ranks Wabash fourth in the nation for “Best Alumni Network.”
    2. Continuity of Leadership – Wabash has a history of stable and effective leadership, providing consistent direction and long-term strategic planning. This stability has contributed to the college’s strong institutional culture, financial health, and sustained commitment to academic excellence and student success.
    3. Academic Excellence—Wabash’s commitment to a rigorous liberal arts education is evident in its comprehensive curriculum and the requirement that seniors pass comprehensive exams.
    4. Financial Aid and Scholarships – Approximately 99% of Wabash students receive some form of financial assistance, making the college accessible to a diverse student body.
    5. Personalized Attention – With a favorable student-to-faculty ratio, Wabash provides an environment where students receive individualized attention, fostering strong mentorship relationships and personalized academic guidance.

    Weaknesses

    1. Declining Enrollment– Over the past ten years, Wabash has experienced a slow decline in enrollment of 11%.
    2. Geographic Isolation – Located in a small town in Indiana, Wabash may face challenges in providing students with access to urban amenities and opportunities that larger cities offer.
    3. Niche Appeal: The college’s all-male atmosphere deters potential applicants from seeking a coeducational experience, potentially limiting the applicant pool.

    Economic Impact

    Wabash College plays a significant role in the local economy of Crawfordsville and the surrounding Montgomery County. As a major employer, the college provides jobs to faculty, administrative staff, and support personnel. Additionally, the presence of students and visitors contributes to local businesses, including housing, dining, retail, and services. The college’s events and programs also attract visitors, further stimulating economic activity in the region.

    According to the Independent Colleges of Indiana, Wabash College has a total economic impact on the state of Indiana of $134 million and created nearly 1,000 jobs in the state. According to LinkedIn profiles, they have over 9,000 alumni, of which 4,500 live in Indiana, and 869 live in the Crawfordsville, Indiana area.

    Enrollment

    Wabash’s 822 male students come from 32 states and 16 foreign countries; 73% are from Indiana.  73% are White, 5% are international, 12% are Hispanic, and 10% are other minorities. President Feller stated: “Wabash in the future is going to draw more students from more different places,” We already have the highest number of international students in the history of the College. We’re going to draw our student body more nationally and more internationally. And our faculty and staff too. So we’ve got to make sure that when those folks come here, they find a welcoming community where they feel a sense of belonging. “This College is relational, not transactional.”

    Degree Awards by Major

    In 2023, Wabash College awarded a total of 175 degrees across various disciplines. The distribution of the disciplines is as follows:

    • This distribution reflects the college’s strong emphasis on the humanities and social sciences, aligning with its liberal arts mission.

    Alumni

    The majority of Wabash students enter graduate or professional school within five years of graduating. Each year, approximately 25-30 percent of Wabash graduates enroll in graduate and professional schools, including about 8-10 percent in medical and law schools and about 20 percent in other graduate arts and sciences programs. Among those entering the workforce, 31 percent begin careers in business, while nine percent work in government, social service, or teaching.

    When reviewing LinkedIn alumni data, we found that Wabash College alums’ primary areas of study were Economics, Psychology, Political Science, history, and biology.

    Wabash has produced numerous distinguished alumni who have made significant contributions across various fields:

    • Gov. Mike Braun is the current governor of Indiana, a former U.S. senator from Indiana, and a former businessman.
    • Jeremy Bird is the Executive Vice President of Driver Experience for Lyft.
    • Robert E. Allen is the former Chairman and CEO of AT&T.
    • Robert Dirks was a Renowned chemist and researcher in molecular sciences.
    • Dan Simmons is an Award-winning science fiction and horror writer best known for the Hyperion Cantos series.

    Endowment and Financial Grade

    Wabash College’s endowment has maintained its endowment size over the past decade, reflecting successful fundraising efforts and prudent financial management. As of December 31, 2023, the endowment was valued at approximately $379 million, compared to $371 million in 2014. This growth demonstrates the institution’s ability to sustain financial stability while continuing to invest in its academic programs and student success.

    Forbes, in 2023, gave Wabash a top 100 grade of an A+ and a GPA of 4.27. The top grade was Harvard A+ and a GPA of 4.50.

    Why is Wabash College Relevant Today

    In today’s rapidly changing educational landscape, Wabash College remains steadfast in its dedication to a liberal arts education tailored for men. The college’s emphasis on critical thinking, effective communication, and ethical leadership prepares graduates to navigate and contribute meaningfully to a complex world. Wabash’s strong alumni network and commitment to personalized education continue to offer students unique opportunities for personal and professional growth.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities.

    Source link

  • Small College America Podcast Returns for a New Season – Edu Alliance Journal

    Small College America Podcast Returns for a New Season – Edu Alliance Journal

    Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds Relaunch Acclaimed Series to Explore the Future of Small Colleges

    Bloomington, Indiana – February 3, 2025 – Small College America, the podcast dedicated to exploring the strengths, challenges, and future of small colleges, is officially relaunching with a new season. The series is co-hosted by Dean Hoke, Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group and former President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators, and Kent Barnds, Executive Vice President for Strategy and Innovation at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois.

    Both Hoke and Barnds are passionate advocates for small colleges, having graduated from Urbana University (OH) and Gettysburg College (PA), respectively. Their personal experiences and professional expertise have shaped their commitment to highlighting the vital role these institutions play in American higher education.

    “The landscape for small colleges is shifting rapidly, and we believe now is the time to amplify the conversation about their future,” said Kent Barnds. ” Dean and I are both passionate advocates for these institutions because we’ve experienced firsthand the impact of a small college education.”  Dean Hoke stated, “The first season of Small College America confirmed that there is a deep need for dialogue about the opportunities and challenges facing these schools. With this new season, we aim to engage with higher education leaders to explore innovative strategies that will help small colleges not just survive but thrive in an evolving higher education environment.”

    The original four-part series first aired on January 10, 2023, and was hosted by Dean Hoke and Tom Davisson, who now serves as Charter Commissioner for the National Association for Academic Excellence (NAAE). The inaugural season featured insightful conversations with small college presidents, including:

    • Dr. Barry Ryan, Former President of Woodbury University (Burbank, California)
    • Stefanie Niles, President of Cottey College (Nevada, Missouri)
    • Ryan Smith, President of the University of Rio Grande and Rio Grande Community College (Rio Grande, Ohio)
    • Janelle Vanasse, President of Alaska Pacific University (Anchorage, Alaska)

    The new season of Small College America will continue its mission of bringing critical discussions to the forefront by interviewing higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast will delve into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience.

    Season Two will begin weekly on March 11th at 11AM Eastern. More details, including upcoming, will be announced soon.

    For updates, visit [Podcast Website] or follow Small College America on [Social Media Links].

    About the Hosts

    Kent Barnds is the Executive Vice President for Strategy and Innovation at Augustana College, where he has been a senior administrator since 2005. A recognized thought leader in enrollment management and institutional strategy, Barnds is deeply invested in the success of small colleges and the students they serve.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities.

    ### END ###

    Source link

  • Q&A with a student success dean, Soka University of America

    Q&A with a student success dean, Soka University of America

    As an undergraduate student, Lisa MacLeod wasn’t sure where her career path would take her. She majored in English literature and international relations with the aspirations of being a journalist or a State Department staffer and found herself back in academia not long after.

    Lisa MacLeod, assistant dean of student success at Soka University of America

    Lisa MacLeod/Soka University of America

    Now, as the inaugural assistant dean of student success at Soka University of America since last fall, MacLeod is charged with breaking institutional silos at the California institution to improve student outcomes after graduation, working collaboratively across campus.

    MacLeod spoke with Inside Higher Ed about her time thus far at the institution, a private liberal arts college, and her aspirations in the long-term.

    Inside Higher Ed: What is your new role at Soka and how does it fit into institutional goals for student success?

    MacLeod: One of the most important things [about my role] is that I am housed under the dean of faculty, so I’m not under the dean of students, which is very different from how a lot of schools have done this.

    My top priority, luckily, isn’t getting students to graduate—because we already are doing that very well as an institution … I’m not just new in the job, the position is new at the university—so there’s some room for me to define what the position is.

    I was asked to look specifically at advising. Right now, our program is all faculty individually advising students for academic advising. Career services and internships is the other side of the house, and historically, the two sides of the house don’t talk to each other very well. So looking at how we advise, but also thinking about, are there ways that we can integrate better, because we have lots of good things happening by different people. But do faculty know about that? Do they know enough about it to recommend it to students? Not so much.

    The other thing is starting to integrate career readiness skills into the curriculum. This year, we are rolling out RATE (Reflect, Articulate, Translate, Evaluate), which was developed by the University of Minnesota for their liberal arts students.

    We’re having our first cohort this coming semester—so beginning in February—of faculty fellows who have pledged to develop the RATE system into their existing course, and we’re supporting them with some training and other kinds of activities so that we’re very specific in the application. We’re not asking you to change your course. What we’re asking is that you make it more evident to students how they are developing career readiness skills in addition to academic and subject area knowledge.

    Inside Higher Ed: You were a double major in college. While interdisciplinary learning can be an asset to students, sometimes academic departments can be more focused on helping students on a specific path within their discipline. Do you have any insights based on your experience as a dual major and helping students find their own path?

    MacLeod: At Soka, we don’t have majors—everyone graduates with a major in liberal arts, and then within that, we have concentrations. Students here do have the opportunity to double concentrate, so they’re not taking as many courses as you would for a major, but there’s still some degree of specialty.

    I encourage them to look at the whole course catalog and say, “Take the classes that really attract you, that are interesting, and you’ll figure out how they connect to each other if you look for it,” and to not worry about double concentrations. Or, you know, force yourself to take courses you wouldn’t otherwise.

    Certainly, I encourage students, depending on what their interests are, if you’re going to go to graduate school, yes, take statistics, take a research methodology course. Do these kinds of courses that are skill building [so] you’ll have that [for] the next level of your education; they will have expected you to have that background.

    But beyond that, I’m really focused on having students maybe try something they wouldn’t otherwise. I wish as an undergraduate I had taken an anthropology class, but it never occurred to me; it just wasn’t on my radar. Explore, because you don’t know what you don’t know, and to really find something that drives them, that they’re really excited about doing the coursework and learning more about that area. Because they’ll put more into it, and as they put more into it, they’re going to develop the liberal arts skills in the process. Whereas, if they’re forcing themselves to take a course because they feel they should take this course, they’re not going to have the same level of motivation. They’re not going to get the same out of it.

    Inside Higher Ed: As you said, one of your priorities is advising, which is so important to the student journey. What does quality advising look like to you?

    MacLeod: I think that quality advising really requires time and listening.

    I always ask students to come in with kind of a worksheet: Where are you [in your progress] toward graduation? Where are you in terms of taking required courses? But I also ask them things like, “OK, this is a required course, but you have a selection of five different faculty members that might be teaching that course, and of course, they bring their skills and expertise and kind of personality in each course. Why did you choose that faculty member? If you’re interested in this, maybe this other faculty member—even though it’s the same requirement—might teach that course in a way that you would find appealing?” And directing them to resources, encouraging them to talk to faculty before they enrolled in the course if they have questions or concerns or if they’re not certain about something.

    Then also asking them very blatant questions that I wish someone had asked me when I was an undergraduate. What are your plans after you graduate? What are you doing to achieve that goal? What information do you need to know, and how are you going to get it moving forward?

    I took time off [after graduating] because I’d never had those conversations. Maybe people at the university thought I was having it with my family. My family may have thought I was having it with people at the university. I’m not sure where I lost the memo, but it just didn’t happen. Before, someone had always come along and said, “Apply for this,” and it was a very structured thing. That’s not how life after graduation works at all. So I ask those questions I wish someone had asked me.

    Inside Higher Ed: What is student success to you?

    MacLeod: It’s not for me to define for someone else what success looks like. I have my own ideas, but I think it’s wrong to impose that on other people, because success can look like so many different things.

    In general, I feel that student success is they graduate from the program, and they feel good about that. That there’s not regret that they should have gone someplace else, but also that we’ve equipped them with the skills in their personal and in their professional life to face the challenges that will inevitably come and to be able to surmount them.

    The first couple years after graduation for everyone is hard—that’s just kind of the nature of the beast—but that they are prepared for, that they can get through it, and know that there’s something on the other side. that they are confident in their skills, that they will figure it out and then end up on the other side in a career that they find fulfilling in some manner, being able to contribute to the community, if that’s their goal, in a way that is meaningful to them. And hopefully happy alumni that are talking to our current students that and sharing their experiences.

    Inside Higher Ed: What are your long-term goals in this new role?

    MacLeod: It feels like so much of academic life is keeping your head above water for now.

    I think that in the long term, I’d really like to see a more collaborative campus culture, where faculty members are supporting each other in their endeavors, maybe a bit more. It’s not that my colleagues are unsupportive, but we don’t always ask each other or are aware of the ways in which our research overlaps and we could actually be doing more—whether it’s with our teaching or where we could be drawing more on each other’s skills and knowledge base.

    I’m still really new at this … so I think right now my priority is still listening, rather than planning for the future.

    Seeking stories from campus leaders, faculty members and staff for our Student Success focus. Share here.

    Source link

  • Did the Ivy League really break America? (opinion)

    Did the Ivy League really break America? (opinion)

    Are many of the ills that plague American society caused by Ivy League admission policies?

    That is the premise of David Brooks’s cover story for the December issue of The Atlantic, “How the Ivy League Broke America.” Brooks blames the Ivies and “meritocracy” for a host of societal problems, including:

    • Overbearing parenting
    • Less time for recess (as well as art and shop) in schools
    • An economy that doesn’t provide opportunities for those without a college degree
    • The death of civic organizations like Elks Lodge and Kiwanis Club
    • The high percentage of Ivy League graduates who choose careers in finance and consulting
    • The rise of populism based on “crude exaggerations, gross generalizations, and bald-faced lies.”

    Brooks somehow left the decline of small-town mom-and-pop businesses and the popularity of reality television off his laundry list.

    You may be wondering how the Ivies contributed to or caused all these problems. The essence of Brooks’s argument is that “every coherent society has a social ideal—an image of what the superior person looks like.” His hypothesis is that America’s social ideals reflect and are determined by the qualities that Ivy League universities value in admission.

    One hundred years ago, the Ivy League social ideal was what Brooks terms the “Well-Bred Man”—white, male, aristocratic and preppy, athletic, good-looking, and personable. What was not part of the ideal was intellectual brilliance or academic prowess, and in fact those who cared about studying were social outcasts. Applying to the Ivies resembled applying for membership to elite social clubs.

    That changed starting in the 1930s when a group of educational leaders, the most prominent being Harvard president James Conant, worried that the United States was not producing leaders capable of dealing with the problems it would face in the future. Their solution was to move to an admission process that rewarded intelligence rather than family lineage. They believed that intelligence was the highest human trait, one that is innate and distributed randomly throughout the population. Conant and his peers believed the change would lead to a nation with greater opportunities for social mobility.

    Brooks seems far from sure that the change was positive for America. He acknowledges that “the amount of bigotry—against women, Black people, the LGBTQ community—has declined” (that might be debatable given the current political climate), but observes that the previous ideal produced the New Deal, victory in World War II, NATO and the postwar world led by America, while the products of the ideal pushed by Conant have produced “quagmires in Vietnam and Afghanistan, needless carnage in Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis, the toxic rise of social media, and our current age of political dysfunction.” Those examples seem cherry-picked.

    In the essay, Brooks cites a number of troubling societal problems and trends, all supported with extensive research, but the weakness of his argument is that he tries to find a single cause to explain all of them. That common denominator is what he calls “meritocracy.”

    Meritocracy, a society with opportunities based on merit, is an appealing concept in theory, but defining merit is where things get sticky. Merit may be similar to Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart’s description of pornography, in that you know it when you see it. Does merit consist of talent alone? Talent combined with work ethic? Talent, work ethic and character?

    Merit is in the eye of the beholder. If I was admitted to an Ivy League university, it was obviously because I had merit. If someone else, especially someone from an underrepresented population, got the acceptance instead of me, factors other than merit must have been at play. If two candidates have identical transcripts but different SAT scores, which one possesses more merit? Complicating the discussion is the fact that many things cited as measures of merit are in fact measures of privilege.

    For Brooks, Ivy League meritocracy involves an overreliance on intelligence and academic achievement, to the detriment of noncognitive skills that are more central to success and happiness in life. He argues that “success in school is not the same thing as success in life,” with success in school primarily being individual while success in life is team-based. He quotes Adam Grant’s argument that academic excellence is not a strong predictor of career excellence.

    Ultimately, he argues that “meritocracy” has spurred the creation of “an American caste system,” one in which “a chasm divides the educated from the less well-educated,” triggering “a populist backlash that is tearing society apart.” Yet Brooks’s beef is not so much with meritocracy as it is with a mindset that he attributes to Conant and his brethren. He equates meritocracy with a belief in rationalism and social engineering that assumes that anything of value can be measured and counted. What he is criticizing is something different from meritocracy, or at least reflects a narrow definition of meritocracy.

    Even if we don’t agree with Brooks’s definitions, or the implication that Ivy League admission policies are responsible for the ills of society, his article raises a number of important questions about the college admission process at elite colleges and universities.

    First, is the worship of standardized testing misplaced? The SAT became prominent in college admission at around the same time that Conant and others were changing the Ivy League admission paradigm. They believed that intelligence could be measured and latched onto the SAT as a “pure,” objective measure of aptitude. Today, of course, we recognize that test scores are correlated with family income and that scores can be manipulated through test preparation. And the “A” in SAT no longer stands for aptitude.

    Do we measure what we value or do we value what we can measure? Brooks criticizes the Ivies for focusing on academic achievement in school at the expense of “noncognitive skills” that might be more important to success in life after college, things like curiosity, relationship-building skills and work ethic. He’s right, but there are two reasons for the current emphasis. One is that going to college is going to school, so an admission process focused on scholastic academic achievement is defensible. The other is that we haven’t developed a good mechanism for measuring noncognitive skills.

    That raises a larger question. What do we want the admission process to accomplish? The SAT is intended to predict freshman year college GPA (in conjunction with high school grades). Is that a satisfactory goal? Shouldn’t we have a larger lens, aiming to identify those who will be most successful at the end of college, or after college? Should we admit those with the greatest potential, those who will grow the most from the college experience, or those who will make the greatest contribution to society after college?

    Brooks questions elite colleges’ preferences for “spiky” students over those who are well-rounded. Is a student body full of spiky students really better? An even more important question arises from a distinction Brooks made some years ago between “résumé virtues” and “eulogy virtues.”

    Does the elite college admission process as currently constituted reward and encourage students who are good at building résumés? A former student attending an elite university commented that almost every classmate had done independent academic research and started a nonprofit. Do students aspiring to the Ivies choose activities because they really care about them or because they think they will impress admission officers, and can admission officers tell the difference? What is the consequence of having a student body full of those who are good at playing the résumé-building game?

    There is one other issue raised by Brooks that I find particularly important. He argues that those who are successful in the elite admission process end up possessing greater “hubris,” in that they believe their success is the product of their talent and hard work rather than privilege and luck. Rather than appreciating their good fortune, they may believe they are entitled to it. That misconception may also fuel the populist backlash to elites that has increased the division within our country.

    I don’t buy Brooks’s definition of meritocracy or his contention that the Ivy League “broke” America, but his article nevertheless merits reading and discussion.

    Jim Jump recently retired after 33 years as the academic dean and director of college counseling at St. Christopher’s School in Richmond, Va. He previously served as an admissions officer, philosophy instructor and women’s basketball coach at the college level and is a past president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. He is the 2024 recipient of NACAC’s John B. Muir Excellence in Media Award.

    Source link

  • U.S. Department of Education’s Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

    U.S. Department of Education’s Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

    Rachel
    Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute’s Chief
    State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In
    this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom,
    create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide
    workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as
    well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy
    work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff
    for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation
    of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state
    government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy
    from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in
    philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

    Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

    Jonathan
    Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education
    Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that,
    he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of
    Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and
    general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education
    teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an
    associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from
    2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a
    bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

    Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

    Virginia
    “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at
    America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and
    execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy
    centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished
    speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the
    Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign
    , where she spearheaded all event
    operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second
    Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee
    during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for
    Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a
    bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and
    legal studies.

    Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

    Steve
    Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently
    serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT,
    he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee
    and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation
    Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican
    Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous
    local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of
    educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public
    Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

    Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

    Tom
    Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant
    Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a
    Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety,
    and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education
    . He has
    also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as
    Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime
    Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory
    Reform Task Force
    , and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus
    Task Force
    , where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines
    for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and
    jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom
    was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal,
    state, and local public entities including educational institutions and
    law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and
    appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent
    author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and
    Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

    Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

    Craig
    Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S.
    House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim
    Jordan (R-OH)
    , where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of
    the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division,
    the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community
    for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel
    on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
    Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and
    antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses
    , resulting in
    the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he
    served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy
    Institute
    under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel
    with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal
    defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating
    from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he
    clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court
    for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to
    practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the
    Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

    Madi
    Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications
    professional with experience spanning both federal and state government
    and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief
    Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an
    Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked
    as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office
    of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration.
    Madi
    received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from
    the University of Southern California. 

    Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

    Candice
    Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy
    General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as
    Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel,
    from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in
    Washington State and California and consulted with groups and
    individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of “gender
    identity” in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public
    accommodations.
    Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary,
    age 11. 

    Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

    Joshua
    Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and
    Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative
    State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and
    teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory
    interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are
    realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual,
    he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of
    Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has
    clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of
    Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar
    wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of
    homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at
    Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds
    a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
    Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale
    College. 

    Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

    Hannah
    Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where
    she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and
    local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as
    director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture
    Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion
    from Yale Divinity School.

    AFPI Reform Priorities

    AFPI’s higher education priorities are to:

     Related links:

    America First Policy Institute Team

    America First Policy Initiatives

    Source link