Tag: Big

  • Canada bears the brunt of ‘big four’ woes

    Canada bears the brunt of ‘big four’ woes

    The study, conducted by ApplyBoard, highlighted the absence of consistent communication around policy shifts in Canada, the US, UK and Australia last year – a persistent issue that it said would likely drive subdued demand across the four in 2026. 

    Although a slowdown in Canada was widely expected, ApplyBoard CEO Meti Basiri said the projected 54% decline in new study permits this year was “stark”, setting Canada on track to issue the lowest total international study visas of the big four in 2025.  

    As per ApplyBoard estimates, Canada will see the sharpest drop in new international students, granting just 80,000 postsecondary study visas this year, while the US and Australia are set to see less dramatic drops.

    The UK – the only ‘big four’ destination without a projected decline – is on track to maintain 2024 study visa issuance levels, in line new Home Office data showing a 7% increase in applications this year, though this could be slightly tempered by pending changes proposed by the immigration white paper.

    Source: ApplyBoard.

    Basiri said Canada’s projected 80,000 new study permits would mark the lowest number of post-secondary approvals for the past decade, including during the pandemic. Elsewhere, stakeholders have raised concerns about the country’s plummeting study visa approval rate, which dropped below 40% this year.

    As the government pursues its goal of reducing Canada’s temporary resident population to below 5% by the end of 2027, the sector has been hit with two years of federal policy changes leading to lower application volumes, lower approval rates, and a higher proportion of onshore extensions.

    At the same time, in a recent student survey, Canada scored highly on welcomeness – with roughly 71% of students viewing it as open, safe and welcoming – but it also had one of the highest levels of disagreement for this metric. 

    “That polarisation suggests that international students are picking up on the tension between Canada’s long-standing reputation, and the current reality of caps, more limited work rights, and public debate that often links international students to housing and affordability pressures,” said Basiri.

    The report highlighted the impact of domestic political pressures around housing and net migration causing governments to tighten visa requirements, impose caps, reduce post-study work streams and raise compliance thresholds.  

    However, Basiri said the deciding factor for students increasingly came down to financial considerations, including the cost of study, cost of living and the ability to work during and after their studies.  

    “While political decisions set the rules of the game, affordability is often the filter through which students evaluate those rules – making it the more powerful force driving more students to consider more financially accessible destinations across Europe and the Asia-Pacific region,” he said.  

    “The speed at which alternative destinations are stepping up is remarkable,” Basiri added, highlighting the efforts of Germany, France, Spain, New Zealand, South Korea, and the UAE establishing clearer career pathways and expanding work rights, among other factors to boost internationalisation. 

    The speed at which alternative destinations are stepping up is remarkable

    Meti Basiri, ApplyBoard

    While traditional destinations are experiencing dips in demand, overall international student mobility continues to flourish, with more than 10 million students expected to study outside their home countries by the end of the decade, up from 6.9m in 2024.  

    The emergence of alternative destinations has not gone unnoticed, with another recent report tracking the rise of education “powerhouses” across Asia, fuelled by more English-taught programs, growing job opportunities and affordable study options.  

    Meanwhile, Europe is catching students’ attention, with European countries accounting for eight out of the top 10 destinations – outside the big four, Germany and Ireland – in ApplyBoard’s recent survey of student advisors.

    Basiri identified Germany and Spain as the destinations poised for the most growth next year: “Each offers a strong combination of affordability, workforce alignment, and clear post-study pathways that align with student priorities … Together, they are helping to shape the next wave of student mobility,” he said. 

    The rise of Germany in recent years has been widely reported on across the sector, with international enrolments on track to surpass 400,000 last year. What’s more, two-thirds of Germany’s international students say they intend to stay and work in the country after graduating.  

    Meanwhile, this summer the Spanish government authorised a policy to fast-track international students impacted by US visa restrictions, alongside authorising part-time work for students this academic year.  

    Coupled with previous measures relaxing visa requirements and new work and dependents rights, Spain is becoming “one of the most student-friendly destinations in Europe” said Basiri, noting its heightened appeal among Latin American students due to language and cultural affinities, as well as streamlined routes into the workforce.  

    Source link

  • When young people ask big questions and seek answers

    When young people ask big questions and seek answers

    Cliffrene Haffner attended the African Leadership Academy (ALA) in South Africa during the Covid-19 pandemic. Her university applications were stalling and she felt stressed and anxious.

    “Life felt unstable, as if I were hanging by a thin thread,” Haffner said. But it was at ALA that she discovered News Decoder.

    “Joining News Decoder helped me rebuild my voice,” she wrote. “It created a place to write honestly and with purpose whilst supporting others in telling their stories. At a time when the world felt numb and disconnected, we used storytelling to bring back hope on campus by sharing our fears, thoughts and expectations.”

    At News Decoder, students work with professional editors and news correspondents to explore complicated, global topics. They have the opportunity to report and write news stories, research and present findings in global webinars with students from other countries, produce podcasts and sit in on live video roundtables with experts and their peers across the globe.

    Many get their articles published on News Decoder’s global news site.

    A different way of seeing the world

    Out of these experiential learning activities, they take away important skills valuable in their later careers, whatever those careers might be: How to communicate clearly, how to recognize multiple perspectives, how to cut through jargon and propaganda and separate facts from opinion and speculation.

    One milestone for many of these is our Pitch, Report, Draft and Revise process, which we call PRDR. In it, students pitch a story topic to News Decoder with a plan on how to research and report it. We ask them to identify different perspectives on problems they want to explore and experts they can reach out to for information and context.

    Then we guide them through a process of introspection, if the story is a personal reflection on their own experience, or a process of reporting and interviewing. News Decoder doesn’t promise students that their stories will get published at the end of the process. They have to work for that — revising their drafts until the finished story is clear and relevant to a global audience.

    One student who went through the process was Joshua Glazer, now a student at Emory University in the United States. Glazer came to News Decoder in high school as an exchange student in Spain with School Year Abroad.

    “I think the skills that I got out of that went on to really change the course of my education and how I view the world,” Glazer said. “Because when you step into the world of journalism you learn a different way of seeing the world.”

    Recognizing our biases

    Glazer learned that for journalism, he had to be less opinionated. “You have to really approach things kind of as they are in the world,” Glazer said. “And that is hard to do. That is not an easy skill that we can do as humans because we inherently have biases.”

    He said it challenged him to look inwards and recognize his biases and counter them with evidence.

    “So I think those skills have really changed the course of how I view having an argument with somebody because all of a sudden, you know, when you have an argument with someone, it’s all opinion,” he said.

    For Haffner, who is now a business administration student at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Japan, News Decoder reshaped how she and her peers understood storytelling.

    “It taught us to let go of rigid biases and to make authenticity the centre of our work,” Haffner said. “Students from different backgrounds found a space where their voices were heard, respected and valued. Our stories formed a shared map, each one opening a new room to explore, each voice strengthening the collective journey we were on. In that chaotic period, we created something meaningful together. Something bigger than us.”

    Working through the complexity of a topic

    Marouane El Bahraoui, a research intern at The Carter Center in the U.S. state of Georgia, also discovered News Decoder at the African Leadership Academy. At the time, he was interested in writing about the effectiveness of the Arab Maghreb Union — an economic bloc of five North African countries. He grew up in Morocco but didn’t want to approach the topic from a purely Moroccan perspective.

    “It was like a very raw idea,” he said.

    He pitched the story and worked with both News Decoder Founder Nelson Graves and correspondent Tom Heneghan to refine the idea. They guided him in the reporting and writing process.

    “One aspect that I liked a lot from my research was the people that I had the chance to talk to,” he said. “It was during Covid and I was just at home and I’m talking to, you know, professors in U.S. universities, I’m talking to UN officials, experts working in think tanks in D.C. and I was thinking oh those people are just so far, you can’t even reach them. And then you have a conversation with them and they’re just normal people.”

    He also found writing the story daunting. “It was a little bit overwhelming for me at the time,” he said. “You know, you’re not writing like an academic essay.”

    Graves encouraged him to write in a straightforward manner. In school, he had been taught to write in a beautiful way to impress.

    “From News Decoder, something I learned is to always keep the audience in mind who you are speaking to, who are you writing to,” he said.

    He took away the importance of letting readers make their own conclusions. “You’re not writing to tell the reader what to think,” he said. “You are writing to give them ideas and arguments, facts and leave the thinking for them.”

    Source link

  • Is Canada Still Among the Big 4 Overseas Student Recruiters?

    Is Canada Still Among the Big 4 Overseas Student Recruiters?

    A dramatic decline in international student numbers in Canada shows how internationalization globally is “evolving,” with the concept of the “big four” recruitment destinations seen as increasingly outdated.

    The country is on track to issue about 80,000 new study permits this year, way below the cap of 437,000 its federal government set for 2025.

    This has not stopped the cap being reduced even more, with the budget announced earlier this month confirming that it will be set at 155,000 next year—although the country could struggle to reach even this revised figure on the latest projections.

    Although the other members of the “big four”—the U.S., the U.K. and Australia—have also enacted policies that have brought down numbers, the fall in Canada has far surpassed anything happening elsewhere.

    Lil Bremermann-Richard, chief executive of Oxford International, said it shows how the country has moved to an “evolving” strategy that is more focused on aligning with housing and labor market capacity.

    “The government is moving toward a more managed, sustainable approach to welcoming international students rather than the rapid growth of recent years,” Bremermann-Richard said. “We’ll likely see a shift away from a clearly defined big four toward a broader group of preferred destinations as more countries expand their international education capacity and appeal.”

    The vast majority (82 percent) of Canadian universities reported fewer overseas undergraduate students this year, according to a new survey from NAFSA, Oxford Test of English and Studyportals published on Nov. 19. This was significantly more than in the U.S. (48 percent) and the U.K. (39 percent).

    Restrictive government policies were the biggest obstacle for 90 percent of Canadian institutions—compared with 85 percent in the U.S., 51 percent in the U.K. and just 19 percent across Asia.

    This was clearly having a knock-on effect on the university finances, with 60 percent of institutions anticipating budget cuts and half expecting staffing reductions in the next year.

    Canada still had close to a million international students in total when data was published earlier this year, compared with just under 500,000 in Germany, a country that has been rapidly increasing its overseas enrollments and could one day challenge the big four.

    Vincenzo Raimo, an independent international higher education consultant and visiting fellow at the University of Reading, said Canada was not leaving the international student recruitment business but that the business itself was changing.

    The idea of a big four is increasingly outdated in a more multipolar world where intra-regional mobility in Asia continues to increase and countries such as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan expand, he added.

    “Global student mobility is becoming far more distributed, as students seek value, safety, poststudy opportunities and predictability.”

    Alex Usher, president of Higher Education Strategy Associates, said many international students were not coming to Canada for an education but for a chance to immigrate.

    “No other country will give them that opportunity, and so no other country will benefit,” Usher said. “That’s a market that’s just going to dry up and blow away.”

    Master’s and Ph.D. students at public universities in Canada have recently been exempted from the study permit cap, showing that the government could be open to making changes.

    Janet Ilieva, founder of the Education Insight consultancy, said the budget’s policies to attract international doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows indicated a “clear shift towards attracting top talent.”

    Globally, the restrictions being implemented by the larger anglophone markets are prompting a redistribution, rather than a shrinkage, of global demand for international education, she added.

    “Inward-looking policies, coupled with geopolitical instability, rising economic uncertainty and regional conflicts, are increasing duty-of-care concerns,” she said. “This is nudging students toward studying in safer, closer locations.”

    Recent figures also showed that Canadian universities have just seven international branch campuses abroad—fewer than Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands, and well behind the U.S. (97), the U.K. (51) and others.

    Usher said this indicated that Canadian universities, and the governments that fund them, were “not very adventurous.”

    “During the boom times when international students were falling over themselves to come to Canada, there was no need for institutions to seek out extra cost and extra risk to teach international students.

    “I suspect we will [see more branch campuses in the future], but we have little tradition of doing so and we’re starting from way behind. A switch like that takes time.”

    Source link

  • St. Augustine’s expresses interest in Trump compact — with big caveats

    St. Augustine’s expresses interest in Trump compact — with big caveats

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Saint Augustine’s University told the U.S. Department of Education that it wants to “participate in and help shape” the Trump administration’s proposed compact that seeks to control a range of academic and operational policies in exchange for preferential access to federal funding.
    • However, leaders from the historically Black institution caveated their support over concerns that aspects of the compact as written “risk unintended consequences that would impede our ability to serve students effectively.”
    • “Despite these concerns, Saint Augustine’s University remains eager to participate as a constructive partner and early-engagement institution,” the leaders of the private North Carolina university said in a letter obtained by Fox News. They requested “a dialogue process” with the Education Department to facilitate “mission-sensitive accommodations” for HBCUs.

    Dive Insight:

    Last month, the Trump administration offered nine high-profile research colleges a deal — priority for federal grants in exchange for enacting a wide range of policies aligning with the president’s higher education goals.

    Some of the compact’s terms, while unprecedented, are straightforward, such as freezing tuition rates for five years, requiring standardized testing for undergraduate applicants, and capping international students’ share of undergraduate enrollment at 15%. 

    Others go beyond cut-and-dry policy changes, such as publicly auditing the viewpoints of employees and students and potentially changing or ending campus units that purposefully “punish” or “belittle” conservative ideas.

    Seven of the initially invited colleges rejected the deal, and, as of Thursday afternoon, the remaining two have yet to publicly accept or decline the offer.

    But a few colleges have sought to take their place after President Donald Trump appeared to open the compact offer to all higher ed institutions. 

    Saint Augustine’s letter makes it the third college — and the first HBCU — to publicly express interest in the bargain.

    The New College of Florida — in a move in line with its conservative makeover under Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — became the first college to publicly volunteer to sign the compact on Oct. 27. The following day, Valley Forge Military College offered to accept the deal as well, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

    But unlike New College and the military college, Saint Augustine’s did not give the proposed compact a full-throated endorsement.

    Neither the Education Department nor the university responded to questions Thursday.

    Verjanis Peoples, the university’s newly appointed interim president, and Sophie Gibson, chair of its board of trustees, warned that the compact as written is “not compatible with the statutory mission and federal mandate under which HBCUs operate.”

    “Because our mission is not ornamental but foundational, we cannot implement requirements that would directly conflict with our identity as a Historically Black University or undermine our ability to serve the populations for whom we were created,” they wrote in their letter, which Fox News reported as being sent to the Education Department on Wednesday.

    Peoples and Gibson cited a handful of the compact’s provisions, including one requiring signatories to not consider race, sex, religion and other characteristics “explicitly or implicitly” in admissions or financial aid. 

    The pair said the restriction, “while well intentioned,” conflicts with Title III of the Higher Education Act, which in part provides colleges grant funding and establishes a program meant to strengthen HBCUs. The Trump administration’s proposed deal would also run contrary to “the explicit purpose of HBCUs to expand access for Black students and historically marginalized communities,” they said.

    The compact said it would grant exceptions for religious and single-sex institutions to limit admissions based on religious belief and sex, respectively, but did not address HBCUs.

    Other elements of the Trump administration’s proposal could also hinder HBCUs, Peoples and Gibson said. 

    These colleges typically maintain smaller endowments and would have a difficult time absorbing the costs of a tuition freeze. A cap on international enrollment would disproportionately hit HBCUs, which have “global partnerships across the African diaspora,” they said.

    Saint Augustine’s leaders also flagged a compact provision that would require colleges to adopt definitions of gender and sex in step with Trump’s executive order saying the federal government would only recognize two sexes, male and female, that cannot be changed. These definitions have been rebuked by the scientific and medical communities.

    HBCUs could face operational challenges if they adopt this language given their “inclusive campus policies shaped by both community needs and regulatory frameworks,” the letter said.

    “Such provisions would unintentionally force HBCUs to choose between compliance and survival, a position that is neither feasible nor consistent with congressional intent,” Peoples and Gibson said.

    Should the Trump administration take Saint Augustine’s up on its offer, the embattled university could gain a financial lifeline amidst ongoing operational turmoil.

    In recent years, Saint Augustine’s has had its accreditation revoked, then reinstated, then revoked again. The university is operating as an accredited institution this fall because of a preliminary court injunction temporarily reversing the latest revocation.

    The university’s accreditor, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, has raised concerns over its finances and governance.

    Saint Augustine’s has attempted different tactics to address its ongoing budget issues, including pursuing land lease deals, taking out loans and drastically cutting its workforce.

    Source link

  • Secretive Big Ten Deal Riles Trustees

    Secretive Big Ten Deal Riles Trustees

    Trustees at member institutions across the Big Ten are pushing back on a proposed $2.4 billion private equity deal that some argue has been too rushed, lacking transparency and proper vetting.

    Now, with trustee criticism mounting, the conference appears to be prolonging talks amid a push to finalize a plan to establish a for-profit arm of the Big Ten, which would control its media and sponsorship rights and sell a 10 percent stake of that entity to the investor. The deal would give members an immediate cash infusion, with a minimum $100 million disbursement across the league, while more prominent athletic programs would receive an even higher revenue share. That money is needed, even at wealthy institutions, as universities adjust to a changing world of college athletics, which includes direct payments for players that began earlier this year.

    The proposal would also maintain the current 18 universities as Big Ten members through 2046.

    Dissent among the Big Ten ranks seems to have prompted the potential investor—the University of California pension fund, or UC Investments—to slow down the deal.

    While UC Investments indicated in a Monday statement that it “remains very excited” about the offer, officials wrote they will work with members in the “coming months” to solidify the deal. (Prior reports indicated the conference hoped to put the deal to a league vote by mid-November.)

    “As we have continued to evaluate this opportunity over the past five months, we remain convinced that the unity of the 18 Big Ten university members is key to the success of Big Ten Enterprises,” Chief Investment Officer Jagdeep Singh Bachher wrote in the statement. “We also recognize that some member universities need more time to assess the benefits of their participation. UC Investments likewise requires some additional time to complete our due diligence as recent developments unfold and we continue to engage with the conference.”

    The CIO also lauded Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti and his team.

    “The process they have led has been rigorous, honest and fair—among the best we’ve seen. Recent misinformation has distorted some aspects of its effort,” Bachher wrote in the statement.

    But several trustees at Big Ten member institutions have raised concerns about a lack of transparency into the deal, saying they have received little information about the arrangement and yet been asked to rubber-stamp it on a compressed timeline.

    Trustee Dissent

    UC Investments announced a commitment to a unified process for making a deal just a few days after the American Council of Trustees and Alumni held an online meeting with individual board members representing five Big Ten institutions. The meeting, held Friday, included trustees from the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, the University System of Maryland, Pennsylvania State University and the University of Southern California, all of whom had concerns about the deal.

    Tom McMillen, a Maryland regent, said in the recorded meeting that “no trustee has been given a balanced view” of the pros and cons of the proposal, according to his conversations with other governing board members across the conference. He also called for third-party evaluations of the arrangement.

    “It’s shocking to me that a decision of this magnitude, there are no opposing views presented,” McMillen said.

    Michigan regent Sarah Hubbard echoed similar concerns on the ACTA call, arguing that there was a need for more oversight and for trustees to have a formal role in discussing the proposal. She also questioned the need to expedite the process with such limited information available.

    “This lack of transparency and information for the fiduciaries at our universities is unacceptable,” Hubbard said.

    Penn State trustee Jay Paterno questioned the need for secrecy around the potential investment. Given that the Big Ten is about to create “a for-profit company using what are essentially public dollars,” he argued, boards need to know more in order to be able to advise their institutions accordingly. Ultimately, Paterno said, he wanted to see the Big Ten put its cards on the table.

    “If it’s such a great deal, show us the deal and let’s go,” Paterno said.

    Outstanding Concerns

    UC Investments signaled it would work on the deal over the “coming months”—likely signaling a slowdown in the process—but it has offered no information about where things stand.

    A UC Investments spokesperson referred questions about trustee concerns to the Big Ten, which did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    But outside analysts echo many of the concerns raised by trustees. Armand Alacbay, chief of staff and senior vice president of strategy at ACTA, said the organization has no position on the proposal itself but got involved because of concerns about trustees being shut out of the deal.

    “Anyone we’ve heard from on this has said it’s not enough time, not enough information, not enough of anything to make this decision. Some have been told that it’s a nonvoting decision for them, that they don’t even have a right to make a decision because it’s the conference,” Alacbay said. “Well, I would say that the intellectual property and media rights of your athletic department are a significantly large asset of the institution and justify a level of board oversight.”

    Karen Weaver, an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, told Inside Higher Ed that while private equity has seeped into numerous areas of college athletics in recent years, the investment in a conference is a new approach. And what happens with the Big Ten will likely set the stage for other conferences.

    She said if the Big Ten can successfully navigate a maze of thorny legal and political concerns, then other athletic conferences will be more likely to follow in their footsteps. “But if they constantly get land mines and roadblocks thrown in the way,” others will be more hesitant, she said.

    Weaver also pointed to concerns lawmakers raised that could upend or complicate the deal.

    Last week U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, issued warnings about the proposal in a statement and individual letters to both university and conference leadership. She argued that such a deal “may be counter to your university’s academic goals, may require the sale of university assets to a private investor, and may affect the tax-exempt purpose of those assets.”

    Cantwell also emphasized the different priorities of universities and private equity investors.

    “The primary goal of these companies is to make money for the firm, which is unlikely to align with the academic goals of your university or its obligations as a not-for-profit organization,” Cantwell wrote. “These investors will be focused on maximizing their investment, not on preserving and growing athletic and academic opportunities for student athletes.”

    Source link

  • Big university endowments grew 11.5% in FY25, TIFF says

    Big university endowments grew 11.5% in FY25, TIFF says

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Amid volatile markets and shifting investment strategies, big U.S. university endowments posted their second straight year of double-digit gains, according to an analysis from TIFF Investment Management. 
    •  Endowments worth over $1 billion that have reported earnings so far made average returns of 11.5% in fiscal 2025, TIFF found. That’s on top of 11.2% average annual returns experienced sectorwide the previous year, according to the National Association of College and Business Officers-Commonfund endowment study. 
    • The strong earnings from college endowments come as Republicans aim to convert more of those funds into government revenue. “The Endowment Tax is coming,” the TIFF report noted.

    Dive Insight:

    Of the colleges that have reported their endowment earnings, the University of Wisconsin-Madison posted the highest return rate at 16.2%, followed by one of the University of California’s fund pools (15.8%) and the University of Michigan (15.5%).  

    For now, endowments have enjoyed strong returns and minimal, if any, federal taxes. The TIFF report attributed strong growth in fiscal 2025 — which ended in the summer for universities that recently reported — to outperforming private investments, such as in private equity and venture capital. Within private equity, investments in growth and pre-IPO companies in particular helped boost earnings. 

    For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s endowment — the top-performing among a group of elite colleges that also includes the Ivy League and Stanford University, with a return rate of 14.8% — had a little over a third of its assets in private equity, according to TIFF. University of Michigan had 9% in private equity and 28% in venture capital. 

    Endowment returns were also helped along by strong performances in both equities and bonds in what TIFF described as “an unusual year,” with both safer and higher-risk securities yielding returns amid broad economic concerns. International equities, artificial intelligence-related stocks, like Nvidia, and other diversifying investments such as gold also gave endowments a lift, TIFF said. 

    Endowment returns will face new pressure in 2026. The massive spending bill signed by President Donald Trump this summer is set to raise taxes next year on the richest private university endowments by multiple percentage points. 

    The current endowment tax — a flat rate of 1.4% enacted in 2017 — only applies to the wealthiest few dozen endowments in the country. 

    The spending bill creates a tiered tax system for colleges with 3,000 or more tuition-paying students that starts at 1.4% on returns for endowments valued at $500,000 to $749,999 per student. It then jumps to 4% and 8% based on endowment assets per student. 

    For the largest endowments, that translates into a tax bill of many millions of dollars per year. Harvard University, for example, anticipates it will pay $300 million a year to the government, CFO Ritu Kalra said in October. That compares to $44 million in taxes and other fees in fiscal 2024.

    “That means hundreds of millions of dollars that will not be available to support financial aid, research, and teaching,” Kalra said in an official Q&A following the release of the university’s annual financials. 

    Yale University President Maurie McInnis said in July the tax will cost the institution around $280 million in its first year and likely more after that. 

    Even universities with smaller tax bills are also anticipating financial pain. 

    In July, Washington University in St. Louis’ leader cited in part an estimated $37 million in additional costs from the new taxes in explaining the need for budget measures. WashU has laid off 316 staffers and eliminated another 198 unfilled positions since March.

    Source link

  • How One Big Beautiful Bill Act Threatens Student Success

    How One Big Beautiful Bill Act Threatens Student Success

    Nearly 60 percent of all college students in the U.S. experience at least one form of basic needs insecurity, lacking stable housing and/or consistent access to food, according to national surveys.

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress passed in July, creates sweeping changes to higher education—including a new tax rate for university endowments and accountability metrics for student income levels after graduation. It also directly impacts college students, threatening their access to food assistance programs and their ability to pay for college, which experts warn could hamper their persistence and completion.

    Policy and higher education leaders convened during an Oct. 28 webinar hosted by the Hope Center for Student Basic Needs at Temple University to discuss how the new legislation threatens student financial wellness and success.

    “We are very, very worried that student basic needs insecurity will be increasing dramatically over the next few years,” said Bryce McKibben, senior director of policy and advocacy at the Hope Center.

    For current students, experts outlined three major shifts in federal financial supports.

    1. Cuts to SNAP Funding

    OBBBA includes $186 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides support obtaining food for nearly three million young adults, according to U.S. Census data. The bill places more requirements on SNAP recipients; at present, all funding for SNAP is at risk due to the government shutdown. Some states expect to run out of SNAP dollars as early as Nov. 1.

    “[SNAP] is our first line of defense against hunger. It reduces health care–related issues and it bolsters local economies,” said Gina Plata-Nino, interim director of the SNAP, Food Research & Action Center. “It also provides jobs; it provides federal income taxes. And all of this is going to be threatened.”

    Under the bill, all adults ages 18 to 64 must demonstrate they work at least 20 hours per week to be eligible for SNAP, Plata-Nino said.

    Approximately one in four college students experience food insecurity. SNAP resources are largely underutilized by college students, in part because of complicated enrollment processes. Instead, many rely on campus pantries, which are mostly privately funded by individual donors or campus budgets. Plato-Nino anticipates the changes to SNAP will impact funding and capacity for higher education institutions to provide resources, “because now they have to focus on these issues,” she said.

    The federal cuts could cause further damage to an already fragile system.

    “We have a threadbare social safety net that really hits students when they can least afford to meet what are pretty acute and deep costs as they’re trying to get through their degree program,” said Mark Huelsman, director of policy and advocacy at the Hope Center.

    Many colleges and universities expanded emergency grant funding for students during the COVID-19 pandemic to address sudden expenses that could threaten a student’s ability to remain enrolled. While supplemental funding can help ease this gap, it’s not sufficient, Huelsman said.

    “Campuses don’t often have the resources to help students meet what can be an acute financial emergency,” Huelsman said.

    An August 2025 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 64 percent of respondents said they didn’t know whether their college provides emergency financial aid, and an additional 4 percent indicated that resource was not available at their institution. Only 12 percent of respondents said they knew how to apply for emergency aid at their college.

    2. Changes to Pell Grants

    The reconciliation bill also includes a variety of changes to student eligibility for the federal Pell Grant program, which provides financial aid to low-income students.

    Over one-third of Student Voice respondents indicated paying for college was a top source of stress while enrolled, second only to balancing family, academic, work and personal responsibilities.

    For the academic year 2026–27, those with a student aid index (SAI) over $14,790, as identified by the FAFSA, are no longer eligible for Pell Grants. Similarly, students who receive scholarships that meet the full cost of attendance (including books, housing, food, tuition and fees) are not eligible for Pell, regardless of their SAI.

    “We anticipate that this will affect a very small number of students,” said Jessica Thompson, senior vice president at the Institute for College Access and Success. “But this remains to be seen how this takes effect and what it looks like on the ground.”

    3. Limits on Graduate and Parent Borrowing

    OBBBA caps loans on professional degree programs (which include medical, law, veterinary and dentistry programs, among others) at $200,000, and other graduate programs at $100,000. It also eliminates Grad PLUS loans, which are unsubsidized federal loans with no borrowing limits. Students currently enrolled can borrow from Grad PLUS for three academic years or the remainder of their credential program, whichever is shorter.

    While these limits can be beneficial for keeping student borrowing down, there may be unintended consequences regarding who can access the programs, Thompson said. For example, students who enroll at historically Black colleges and universities or minority-serving institutions are more likely to utilize Parent PLUS loans to pay for college.

    “This has been a really big lifeline for accessing credit in order to cover college costs for people’s children, and there will be a disproportionate impact on these new caps on those types of institutions,” Thompson said.

    Thompson also noted that a lack of federal loan opportunities for graduate and professional students may cause a rise in private loan borrowing, which often has higher interest rates and fewer protections for borrowers.

    “We want to keep a really close eye on what it means for the availability of programs in general … but also access and looking at increasingly less diverse pipelines in terms of historically marginalized populations being able to access graduate and professional programs,” Thompson said.

    Similar to SNAP cuts, Thompson anticipates the loan caps will add significant financial pressure on colleges and universities due to loss of revenue and enrollment.

    Source link

  • Shut your app: How Uncle Sam jawboned Big Tech into silencing Americans

    Shut your app: How Uncle Sam jawboned Big Tech into silencing Americans

    This prepared statement was delivered before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Oct. 29, 2025.

    Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and honorable members of the Committee,

    Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Will Creeley, and I am the legal director of FIRE — the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, the essential qualities of liberty.

    I’ve spent nearly 20 years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it.

    Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech.

    FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley testifies before the Senate Commerce Committee on Oct. 29, 2025.

    Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression.

    What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?

    Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.


    Read More

    This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received.

    The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech.

    But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it.

    In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful.

    This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”

    A government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.

    To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.”

    So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics.

    Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced.

    That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression.

    Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear.

    Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. 

    That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.

    Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

    View FIRE’s full testimony with briefs before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on October 29, 2025

    Source link

  • Can you picture your story on a big screen?

    Can you picture your story on a big screen?

    Some people would rather watch movies than read news articles.

    The thing is, an awful lot of movies came out of news articles. Consider the entire Fast & Furious movie franchise, starring Vin Diesel and my personal movie favorite Michelle Rodriguez (shout out!). It revolves around people who race souped up cars on city streets.

    The idea of the first movie started with an article by journalist Ken Li, after he saw someone steal a car in New York and that spurred him to investigate the underground world of street racing. Someone at Universal Studios saw the article and bought the rights to it. 

    Or consider the Tom Cruise movie Top Gun, about a cocky U.S. Navy pilot. The idea for that came from a story in California magazine about Navy pilots.

    How can all this help an aspiring journalist? Well, thinking about your news story as the movie that might be commissioned from it is a way of seeing the story. So how do you go about doing that?

    Visualize your story

    First, think of the characters in your story. Who are the central actors involved? Who is the Vin Diesel or Tom Cruise in your story? 

    Who does the problem you are exploring affect? Who is causing it or standing in the way of solutions? Who are the people trying to solve or mitigate the problem? In journalism, the basic story structure is Who, What, Where, When and Why. The characters are the Who of the story. 

    The most compelling movies (and news stories) revolve around conflict: What are the stakes? In Fast & Furious, one of the main conflicts is the role of Brian O’Connor, who starts out as an FBI agent investigating the car racers and then becomes loyal to them. 

    Movie scripts revolve around turning points: What could change the course? What steps are being taken to solve or mitigate the problem you are exploring? What are people or corporations or governments or organizations doing that could worsen the situation? This is the What of the story. 

    Then think about the setting: Where is the crisis playing out? The original Fast & Furious took place in Los Angeles. Top Gun took place at a naval base in San Diego, California. This is the Where of the story. 

    Finally, what drives your story is the motivation of the characters: Why do they take the actions they do? 

    In Top Gun, Tom Cruise’s character is motivated by the death of his friend Goose to be the best pilot he can be. In Fast & Furious, Vin Diesel is motivated by the death of Michelle Rodriguez’s character to seek justice. 

    Actions and motivations

    Death is a common motivation in movies — the killing of John Wick’s dog triggered one of the most successful movie franchises out there. But for non-fiction news stories, there can be all kinds of motivations: parents wanting to get their kids into good schools, communities wanting to fight crime in their neighborhoods, governments wanting to end homelessness. 

    In news stories this is the Why of the story. Why does some corporation build a plant in your community? Why does some NGO oppose a development proposal? What’s their reason and motivation?

    So now try this: Think of a problem around you that you want to explore. It could be about anything from climate change, to mental health or inequities in sports or education. Start by noting down the Who (actors), What (what’s at stake), When, Where (setting) and Why (the motivations of the characters). Then turn this into a few paragraphs as if you’re writing for a news site. 

    Start with a hook: It should be something interesting or important. Why is this a big story? Why should people care? Then summarize in one paragraph the whole story. What’s the overall problem? Where is it happening and when, how did it start, what is causing it and who is it affecting? 

    Next, slowly work through each of those elements — the who, what, where, when, how and why. There is the meat of your story. Finally, talk about what’s next. What are the solutions or mitigations happening or proposed?

    Who knows? You might get your story published and down the line a Hollywood or Bollywood producer calls you up. Now, isn’t that motivation to write a news story? Just make sure you have a good agent.

    Questions to consider:

    1. How can seeing your story as a movie help you report and write it?

    2. If your life played out as a movie, what would be the central theme?

    3. Think about the most important thing you are doing these days. What motivates you to do it?

     

    Source link

  • Big 4 Becomes Big 14 in Dominating International Ed

    Big 4 Becomes Big 14 in Dominating International Ed

    The era of the “big four” international education destinations has passed, with at least a dozen rival nations jostling for primacy.

    Stephanie Smith, Shanghai-based trade commissioner with Austrade, said Chinese students heading overseas before the coronavirus pandemic mainly chose from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia or Canada. That has changed since COVID. “The agents talk about the ‘big 14,’” Smith told the Australian International Education Conference. “It puts us in a lot more of a competitive environment.”

    She said affordability issues are driving Chinese students to look at alternative destinations, as a global cost-of-living crisis coincided with a domestic economic slump. Options closer to home also offered linguistic familiarity, geographical proximity and—arguably—better employment and internship opportunities.

    Hong Kong had become a “massive new market” for mainland Chinese students, particularly after the territory allowed universities to increase the nonlocal share of subsidized enrollments to 50 percent. Government investment in higher education has been paying off in rankings success. “You can really count Hong Kong as a new key competitor for Australia,” Smith told the conference.

    Others included Ireland, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. Ireland in particular has done “a good job at destination marketing in China.” France and Germany were considered safe and welcoming with good employment opportunities and low tuition fees.

    “It’s no longer just teach and they will come,” Smith told Australian educators. “We have to defend and grow our position through marketing, promotion and showcasing.”

    Alternative destinations now collectively attract more prospective Chinese students than any of the big four members, according to the latest survey by IDP Education, with France under consideration by 30 percent and Germany by 19 percent.

    “The competition really is hotting up,” said Melissa Banks, senior partner with the consultancy The Lygon Group. She said the large Southeast Asian nations of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam were not only “setting themselves up” to host transnational education partnerships, such as foreign branch campuses, “but they are also attracting students in their own right.”

    France aims to enroll 500,000 international students by 2027 as part of its Bienvenue en France strategy. India reportedly has a goal of enrolling 500,000 foreign students by 2047, while Japan wants to host 400,000 by 2033.

    South Korea’s target of 300,000 international students by 2027 has reportedly been reached two years ahead of schedule. Turkey wants 500,000 by 2028. Kazakhstan’s target of 100,000 foreign students by 2028 has reportedly been increased by 50 percent. Other countries reportedly setting international enrollment targets include Azerbaijan, Finland, Iran and Taiwan.

    Jon Chew, chief insights officer at Navitas, said expressions like the “big four” belonged to the “market era,” when “winning” meant volume and growth.

    “Do we have the composition, the distribution, the integrity and the quality that we want? If we do, maybe it doesn’t matter that we’re losing market share. It is going to be competitive, but I think it’s a very different outlook that we’re going into.”

    Julian Hill, Australia’s assistant minister for international education, said geopolitics and demographic change have fueled a shift toward “a more multipolar sector.” This is a welcome development, he said.

    “This sector … allows young people at formative stages of their life to get to know other societies and get to know each other. I think it’s a very good thing that that occurs in a blended way across as much of the world as possible.”

    Larissa Bezo, CEO of the Canadian Bureau for International Education, said the tally of “top receiving countries” numbered somewhere between 15 and 20. “We’ve moved well beyond the big four,” she told the conference. “I see that as a positive.”

    Bezo highlighted the opportunities for “traditional receiving markets” like Canada to “work together” with emerging destinations. Canadian institutions, burned by Ottawa’s international student caps, are “very much leaning into partnerships and … new modes of transnational education.”

    The same applies Down Under, according to Phil Honeywood, CEO of the International Education Association of Australia. “There’s already such strong partnerships offshore in Dubai, in Malaysia and so on. There’s an opportunity to really be part of that new study hub progression, rather than be competing with it.”

    Fanta Aw, CEO of the Washington, D.C.–based NAFSA: Association of International Educators, said many of the competing institutions in the Middle East and Asia had been established by locals educated in American colleges. “These are graduates of U.S. institutions … going back and creating capacity at home. That’s part of what education is supposed to be about. I think this is healthy.”

    Source link