Tag: Career

  • Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

    Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

    Federal officials are accusing Duke University’s law journal and medical school of racial discrimination.

    Duke University file photo

    The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services are investigating Duke University and the Duke Law Journal for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race and national origin, the agencies announced Monday.

    The New York Times reported Tuesday night that the Trump administration froze $108 million in federal grants and contracts at Duke’s medical school and health system.

    On Monday, ED and HHS sent a letter detailing their concerns about potentially discriminatory practices at Duke Health and threatening the medical school’s federal funding.

    “These practices allegedly include illegal and wrongful racial preferences and discriminatory activity in recruitment, student admissions, scholarships and financial aid, mentoring and enrichment programs, hiring, promotion, and more,” the letter states, though officials didn’t offer specifics.

    The departments want Duke to “review all policies and practices at Duke Health for the illegal use of race preferences, take immediate action to reform all of those that unlawfully take account of race or ethnicity to bestow benefits or advantages, and provide clear and verifiable assurances to the government that Duke’s new policies will be implemented faithfully going forward—including by making all necessary organizational, leadership, and personnel changes to ensure the necessary reforms will be durable.”

    Additionally, the agencies want Duke to convene a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” that can negotiate with the federal government on behalf of university leaders and “avoid invasive federal engagement,” according to the letter. This request appears to be a new ask for the Trump administration as officials work to expand their scrutiny of higher education, based on what’s publicly known about investigations at other colleges.

    “We hope this arrangement will enable the parties to move quickly toward a mutually agreeable resolution of outstanding concerns and complaints,” officials wrote in the letter. “If the alleged offending policies, practices, and programs are found to exist and remain unrectified after six months, or if at any time the Merit and Civil Rights Committee and federal government reach an impasse, the federal government will commence enforcement proceedings as appropriate.”

    Duke has 10 days to respond to the request to form the committee.

    Meanwhile, the Duke Law Journal investigation, led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, centers on allegations that the journal uses factors such as race or national origin to select editors. The department opened a similar investigation into the Harvard Law Review. 

    The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, reported last month that the Duke Law Journal prepared a special application packet for affinity groups that noted applicants could get a three- to five-point bump if they have “meaningfully advanced the interests of communities with diverse perspectives and experiences either at school or in their community.” 

    Source link

  • UCLA Settles Lawsuit With Jewish Students for $6.45M

    UCLA Settles Lawsuit With Jewish Students for $6.45M

    The University of California, Los Angeles, agreed to pay $6.45 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Jewish students, the Los Angeles Times reported. The agreement, which would be in effect for 15 years, now awaits approval from the judge overseeing the case.

    The lawsuit, brought by three Jewish students and a medical school professor in June 2024, alleged UCLA enabled pro-Palestinian activists to cut off Jewish students’ access to parts of campus, violating their civil rights.

    Violence broke out in and around an encampment established at UCLA in spring 2024 when pro-Israel counterprotesters attacked it with fireworks and other projectiles. Hours of chaos ensued between protesters and counterprotesters before campus police intervened. UCLA’s former chancellor Gene D. Block, named in the lawsuit alongside other UCLA officials, was among the higher ed leaders called before Congress for campus antisemitism hearings.

    As part of the settlement agreement, each plaintiff will receive $50,000. Another $320,000 will go toward a campus initiative to combat antisemitism. About $2.3 million will be donated to eight different Jewish community and advocacy groups, including Hillel at UCLA, the Academic Engagement Network, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federation Los Angeles Campus Impact Network and the Film Collaborative Inc., to produce a film related to the Holocaust.

    UCLA also agreed that it is “prohibited from knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students, faculty, and/or staff from ordinarily available portions of UCLA’s programs, activities, and/or campus areas,” which includes “exclusion … based on religious beliefs concerning the Jewish state of Israel.”

    Source link

  • Federal Actions Loom Large at NACUBO Conference

    Federal Actions Loom Large at NACUBO Conference

    NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Just outside of Washington, D.C., across the Potomac River, Capitol Hill cast a shadow over the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, where concerns over federal funding and policy changes were palpable among attendees.

    At panels and in side conversations during the three-day meeting, held at the sprawling Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, attendees swapped strategies, drilled into pressing issues and commiserated over pressures on the sector wrought by both the political environment and a business model that is strained in many places. Representatives of a diverse mix of institutions from across the nation attended, but common challenges emerged: They worry about the impact of looming federal policy changes, which they expect to add pressure to institutions already grappling with financial challenges related to enrollment declines, high tuition discount rates and other issues.

    Here’s a recap of themes and moments that emerged from the conference.

    ‘Fear, Anxiety and Contempt’

    At a packed panel covering recent activity out of Washington, NACUBO vice president for policy and research Liz Clark noted the strains business officers are feeling amid a “tumultuous year” marked by a flurry of federal actions, including the passage of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, pushed by President Donald Trump, which included various provisions for higher education.

    The legislation, signed earlier this month, caps some student loans while eliminating the Grad PLUS program, limits repayment options and requires programs to pass an earnings test for attendees to access federal student loans, among other provisions, including changes to the endowment tax. Passed on a partisan line with Republicans under pressure to deliver Trump’s signature legislation, Clark noted it is just one action—albeit a significant one—that has reshaped higher education this year.

    Clark added that 2025 has “brought a lot of fear, anxiety and contempt” as colleges navigate restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion programs; cancellation of federal grants and contracts; and various state laws that have “created a challenging environment” for the sector.

    “I feel like we have, this year, been dealing with everything, everywhere, all at once,” Clark said.

    Clark noted that despite the concerns she highlighted, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which she abbreviated “Bubba,” and other policies that were proposed could have hit higher education much harder. One example she offered was the endowment tax, which in the final bill fell far short of what House Republicans initially proposed.

    But in another panel on tax reform, Clark suggested that the endowment tax could still be revised in ways that resemble earlier proposals and would have affected more universities and at higher rates.

    “Don’t forget that ideas never die in Washington,” Clark warned.

    Legal Perspectives

    A panel of higher education lawyers also weighed in on current challenges for the sector.

    Kate Hudson, deputy vice president and counsel for government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities, warned at the start that the session would not have “a whole lot of good news.” Given the rapid pace of changes from the federal government, she also offered a caveat: “Anything I say today could be out of date in 72 hours.”

    Hudson noted that campus attorneys are dealing with multiple actions from the federal government, such as federal funding freezes and far-reaching executive orders, as the Trump administration seeks to reshape everything from academic research to college admissions.

    “I don’t think it is too dramatic to say that this is a wholesale renegotiation by force of the government-academia partnership,” Hudson said. “I don’t think that’s an overstatement.”

    Jen Gartner, deputy general counsel at the University of Maryland, argued that the relationship between the federal government and research institutions shifted from “extremely collaborative and collegial” to a suddenly “adversarial approach” that has left universities flummoxed. That strain has particularly been felt around grants, which she said have often been terminated for unclear reasons. She also said the federal government has provided unclear information on such cancellations, sometimes providing contradictory statements in the same termination notice.

    And as higher education attorneys have sought answers, she said, they’ve reviewed few.

    “It’s not just that universities don’t know what to do—agencies don’t know what to do, either, and [staff are] not picking up the phone or responding to emails if they’re even still there,” Gartner said.

    Related to research, Hudson also warned that Trump administration’s scrutiny of international students, which includes now vetting their social media posts for evidence of hostility toward the U.S. government and culture, also has the potential to harm the sector.

    “It’s not an overestimation to say that threats … to legal immigration, to your campuses, do present an existential threat to the academic research enterprise itself at a time when [research and development] budgets and graduates from STEM degrees in our competitors, such as China, are off the charts and reaching new heights,” she said. “International students will go elsewhere.”

    Hudson added that the AAU has not historically focused on immigration law, but that has suddenly shifted amid the threats to international students and faculty.

    A Hard Year Ahead?

    Inside Higher Ed also hosted a panel at this year’s conference to discuss the results of the 15th annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, released last week. That survey, conducted in partnership with Hanover Research, found college business officers confident in the long-term outlook but worried about their financial situation in the near future.

    Most respondents believe their institutions will be in worse financial shape next year. Only 43 percent expressed the belief that their institution would be in better shape next year. But Rick Mills, president and CEO of United Educators, was skeptical about the sentiment that financial situations will improve by next year given the various challenges discussed at the conference.

    “At one level, I take heart in the optimism,” Mills remarked. “I think it’s what keeps all of us going, and what gets you to work in the morning, and perhaps, in the end, helps us solve the problem. On the other hand, it strikes me as slightly fantastical thinking in the current environment.”

    Source link

  • More Campuses Earn “Green Light” Free Speech Ratings From FIRE

    More Campuses Earn “Green Light” Free Speech Ratings From FIRE

    The number of colleges and universities with written policies that do not seriously threaten student expression are on the rise this year, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 19th annual “Spotlight on Speech Codes” report, published Tuesday.

    Since 2006, FIRE has grouped hundreds of public and private higher education institutions into three overall categories based on their campus speech policies: green, yellow and red lights. This year, 73 of the 490 (14.9 percent) colleges and universities surveyed received a green light ranking—meaning their policies don’t threaten free expression—compared to 63 last year. It’s the highest share since 2012, when just 3.6 percent of institutions earned green-light ratings. 

    For the first time in 19 years, the number of green-light colleges outnumbered those in the red-light category (14.7 percent), reserved for institutions with policies that “clearly and substantially restrict free speech,” according to the report. Last year, 20 percent of institutions received a red-light rating.

    Although political and institutional responses to campus protests related to the Israel-Hamas war reignited debate over free expression last year, the report attributed the decrease in red-light ratings to colleges and universities revising their policies related to harassment, hate speech and bias-reporting systems. Specifically, the report said that while bias-reporting systems have become popular over the past decade, they “have invited students to report protected speech simply because it offends them,” turned academic institutions into “referees of political and academic speech,” and created a “chilling effect on campus expression.”

    Lawsuits, free speech advocacy—from students, alumni and groups like FIRE—and lawmaker scrutiny have all spurred changes in recent years.

    “Over a dozen institutions have either substantially revised or eliminated entirely their bias reporting systems,” the report said. “Others have significantly reduced the prominence of their bias reporting teams, either by reducing the number of places on their website the team is mentioned or by requiring students enter their credentials to access the policy information.”

    FIRE rated the majority of institutions—337, or 68.8 percent—as yellow, meaning they “maintain policies that impose vague regulations on expression.” And eight colleges—including Baylor University, Brigham Young University and Hillsdale College—received a warning rating for “clearly and consistently stat[ing] that they hold a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech.”

    Over all, private colleges have more restrictive policies than public colleges. Just 10.6 percent of public colleges earned red lights compared to 28 percent of private colleges—and only 7.1 percent of private colleges earned a green-light rating, compared to 17 percent of public ones.

    Source link

  • Preparing Grad Students to Defend Academic Freedom (opinion)

    Preparing Grad Students to Defend Academic Freedom (opinion)

    Defending academic freedom is an all-hands-on-deck emergency. From the current administration’s scrutiny of (and executive orders related to) higher education, to state legislative overreach and on-campus bad actors, threats to academic freedom are myriad and dire.

    As leader of a program focused on free expression and academic freedom, I see faculty and campus leaders who are flummoxed about how to respond: Where to begin? What can be done to make a difference in defending academic freedom?

    I have an answer, at least if you’re graduate faculty, a dean or director of graduate studies, or a provost: Make a plan to prepare graduate students—tomorrow’s professors—to defend academic freedom.

    Graduate students often feel too pressed to focus on anything other than their coursework or dissertation and so are unlikely to study academic freedom on their own, even if they know where to find solid information. It is incumbent on faculty to put academic freedom in front of graduate students as a serious and approachable topic. If their professors and directors of graduate study do not teach them about academic freedom, they will be ill prepared to confront academic freedom issues when they arise, as they surely will, especially in today’s climate.

    An example: When I met with advanced graduate students at an R-1 university, one student recounted an experience as a junior team member reviewing submissions for a journal. He reported that another team member argued for rejecting a manuscript because its findings could be used to advance a public policy position favored by some politicians that this colleague opposed. The student was rightly troubled about political factors being weighed along with methodology and scholarship but reported he didn’t have the knowledge or confidence to respond effectively. Bottom line: His graduate school preparation had incompletely prepared him to understand and act on academic freedom principles.

    Here is a summer action plan for graduate faculty, deans and provosts to ensure we don’t leave the next generation of scholars uncertain about academic freedom principles and how they apply in teaching, scholarship and extracurricular settings.

    Add an academic freedom session to orientation. Orientation for matriculating graduate students is a can’t-miss chance to begin education about academic freedom.

    Patrick Kain, associate professor of philosophy at Purdue University, provides a primer on graduate students’ academic freedom rights and responsibilities during his department’s graduate student orientation. His session covers the First Amendment, state law and campus policies. He provides written guidance about what to do, especially in their roles as teaching assistants (“pay attention to the effects of your expression on others”); what not to do (“don’t compel speech”); and what they should expect (“students’ experiences and sensitivity to others’ expression will vary”).

    Reflecting on his experiences leading these orientation sessions, Kain said, “Graduate students, especially those joining us from quite different cultures and institutions, really appreciate a clear explanation of the ground rules of academic freedom and free expression on campus.” He added, “It puts them at ease to be able to imagine how they can pursue their own work with integrity in these trying times, and what they can expect from others when disagreements arise.”

    However, orientation cannot be a “one and done” for a topic as complex as academic freedom. Additional steps to take this summer include:

    Revisit the professional development seminar. Most graduate students take a professional development seminar before preliminary exams. When I took that seminar three decades ago, academic freedom wasn’t a topic—and my inquiries suggest academic freedom hasn’t been added to many professional development seminars since. This must change. In addition to sessions on writing a publishable article and giving a job talk, include sessions on the history and norms of academic freedom and free inquiry. Assign foundational academic freedom documents, such as the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement on the Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure and the 1967 Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, alongside a text offering an overview of academic freedom principles, such as Henry Reichman’s Understanding Academic Freedom (Johns Hopkins Press, 2025).

    Schedule an academic freedom workshop. Graduate students at all stages—and your faculty colleagues, too!—can benefit from stand-alone workshops. Include tabletop exercises that allow students to appreciate nuances of academic freedom principles. For example, tabletop exercises let students test possible responses to a peer who is putting a thumb on the scale against publishing a manuscript submission on nonacademic grounds, to department colleagues who are exerting pressure on them to sign a joint statement with which they disagree or to administrators bowing inappropriately to donor wishes or political pressures. The reports of the Council of Independent Colleges’ Academic Leaders Task Force on Campus Free Expression include ready-for-use tabletop exercises.

    Bolster classroom training for teaching assistants. Professors with teaching assistants can provide an insider’s look into their process for designing a course and planning class meetings, with a focus on how they build trust and incorporate divergent viewpoints, and their approach to teaching potentially controversial topics. In weekly TA meetings, professors and TAs can debrief about what worked to foster robust discussion and what didn’t. Centers for teaching and learning can equip graduate students with strategies that build their confidence for leading discussions, including strategies to uphold free expression and inclusive values when a student speaks in ways that others think is objectionable or violates inclusion norms. The University of Michigan’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching offers programs tailored to graduate students and postdocs, including a teaching orientation program.

    Look for opportunities to provide mentorship. An academic career isn’t only about teaching and scholarship but also entails serving on department and university committees, providing—and being subject to—peer review, and planning conferences. Academic freedom questions come up with regularity during these activities. Graduate faculty serve as mentors and should be alert to opportunities to discuss these questions. One idea: Take a “ripped from the headlines” controversy about journal retractions, viral faculty social media posts or how universities are responding to Trump administration pressures and plan a brown-bag lunch discussion with graduate students.

    Take the next step in rethinking graduate student preparation. While the steps above can be taken this summer, with a longer planning horizon, it is possible to rethink graduate preparation for a changed higher education landscape. Morgan State University, a public HBCU in Maryland, offers Morgan’s Structured Teaching Assistant Program (MSTAP), an award-winning course series to prepare graduate students as teachers. Mark Garrison, who as dean of the School of Graduate Studies led the development of MSTAP, explained, “In our required coursework for teaching assistants, we are intensely focused on establishing ground rules for TAs” around how to guide “student engagement that is accepting and encouraging without the intrusion of the TA’s personal views.”

    Garrison added, “This makes free expression a component of instruction that must be cherished and nourished. We cannot assume that the novice instructor will come to this view naturally, and we do our best to embrace a reflective teaching model.”

    Academic freedom is under threat. As Mary Clark, provost and executive vice chancellor at the University of Denver, observed, “Graduate students are developing identities as scholars, learning what academic freedom means in their research and in the classroom—and how their scholarly identity intersects with their extracurricular speech as citizens and community members. It is critical that we support them in developing these understandings.” This summer is the time to plan to do exactly that.

    Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill is senior director of the Civic Learning and Free Expression Projects at the Council of Independent Colleges.

    Source link

  • Right-Leaning Faculty Likelier to Be “Hostile” to Jews

    Right-Leaning Faculty Likelier to Be “Hostile” to Jews

    A new report from Brandeis University researchers concluded that 7 percent of non-Jewish faculty polled during the spring semester at “very high research activity” universities showed “a pattern of explicitly hostile views toward Jews as a people.”

    The “Ideology in the Classroom” report, released last week, says an additional 3 percent of non-Jewish faculty “had a pattern of views about Israel that are generally described as antisemitic” by Jewish organizations and Jewish students. And while 11 percent of non-Jewish faculty who self-identified as extremely liberal were “hostile to Israel”—a view “virtually non-existent among all other political identities, including other liberals”—the faculty “with more conservative political views, including those who were the most critical of DEI, were the most likely to be hostile to Jews.”

    Over all, though, the report says 90 percent of non-Jewish faculty were hostile to neither Jews nor Israel.

    “The results confirm our earlier research findings that Jewish students are more likely to experience hostility from their peers than from faculty,” the authors wrote. They added that “government efforts to punish universities as a whole for their lack of viewpoint diversity and failure to address antisemitism are not well targeted to address these challenges. For example, STEM faculty, who are less likely to teach about contentious political issues, are the most likely to be profoundly harmed by the government’s cancellation of federal research grants.”

    Leonard Saxe, one of the authors and the Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies and Social Policy at Brandeis, told Inside Higher Ed that faculty “don’t appear to express any interest in imposing their own political or ideological views on students.” Saxe said, “Faculty need to be seen as allies” in resolving the problems underlying the conflict between the government and universities regarding antisemitism and diversity more broadly.

    “They want the same thing,” Saxe said. “They want to teach students how to understand diverse perspectives, multiple perspectives. They don’t want to make every single issue political.”

    Graham Wright, another author and an associate research scientist at Brandeis’s Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, said that to the extent antisemitism is an issue on some campuses, it’s “not necessarily due to the actions of large numbers of faculty, but a smaller group.”

    The report found that almost half of Jewish faculty were somewhat or very much concerned about antisemitism on their campuses, and they were “more concerned about antisemitism emanating from the political right than the political left.” This “can be attributed in part to the political makeup of Jewish faculty,” the authors wrote, noting that more than 80 percent of Jewish faculty identified as liberal and about a quarter as extremely liberal.

    Using a statistical model, the researchers also sought to predict hostility from non-Jewish faculty based on their holding certain beliefs. They concluded that “faculty who more strongly agreed that Israel was an apartheid state” were likelier to be hostile to both Israel and Jews. And they found no statistically significant difference between academic areas in levels of faculty hostility after controlling for other factors.

    The study grouped faculty into these categories of “hostile to Jews,” “hostile to Israel” or hostile to neither based on their pattern of agreeing or disagreeing with seven statements.

    The statements were:

    • “Jews in America have too much power,”
    • “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind,”
    • “Jewish people talk about the Holocaust just to further their political agenda,”
    • “Jews should be held accountable for Israel’s actions,”
    • “Israel does not have the right to exist,”
    • “I wouldn’t want to collaborate with a scholar who supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state,” and
    • “All Israeli civilians should be considered legitimate targets for Hamas.”

    The report says “virtually no non-Jewish faculty expressed agreement” with that last claim.

    The researchers also wrote that “more than three-quarters of the faculty in our sample reported that, over the past academic year, the Israel-Palestine conflict never came up in class discussions, and less than 10 percent reported actively teaching about it.” Saxe said there’s not much evidence that a faculty member’s negative attitudes toward a group “seep into” their classroom.

    The researchers surveyed 2,335 faculty across 146 R-1 Carnegie classification universities from Feb. 3 to May 5. About 11 percent of the sample was Jewish. The online survey also polled faculty on other current political issues, such as immigration.

    “More than two-thirds of faculty identified as liberal, while one-third identified as moderate or conservative,” the report says, but “there was overwhelming agreement among faculty that climate change is a crisis requiring immediate action and that President Trump is a threat to democracy.”

    The report also says that “half of liberal faculty members and 70 percent of extremely liberal faculty members expressed serious concerns about being targeted by the federal government for their political views.”

    But Saxe said that “as a faculty member on campuses most of my life, I believe we’re not going to address the current issues unless faculty themselves get more engaged—and that it’s recognized by policymakers that we need faculty if we’re going to solve these issues.”

    Source link

  • Digital learning in a new age

    Digital learning in a new age

    Key points:

    Digital learning–in the form of online, hybrid, and blended schools and courses–is growing steadily in U.S. schools. These learning options can transform education because they allow for learning, teaching, and student engagement outside the confines of traditional physical schools.

    Students no longer have to show up at a school building every morning, and millions of students and families are demonstrating their preference for more flexible learning options by choosing their district’s online schools, charter schools, and private schools.

    Digital learning meets the needs of today’s students, who are seeking flexibility in their scheduling. Many high school students want to pursue sports, arts, and career interests in the form os jobs, internships, and other program. Others simply crave the control an innovative school gives them over the time, place, and pace at which they learn. Digital learning also meets the needs of teachers, who, just like knowledge workers around the world, are interested in employment that allows them to choose their schedules.

    Online and hybrid learning is becoming easier to implement as technology grows and improves. Unlike just a few years ago, when teachers were concerned about using multiple technology tools, much-improved integration and interoperability between platforms is making adoption of multiple tools far easier.

    While relatively few students and families prefer their education to be 100 percent online, many students are selecting hybrid options that combine online and face-to-face interactions. Much like young knowledge workers who are increasingly blending home offices with corporate headquarters, digital learning is showing up in unexpected places as well. Let’s take a closer look at two examples: career and technical education (CTE) and physical education (PE).

    CTE is often perceived as being “hands on” in ways that casual observers might expect would not align well with digital learning–but the truth is exactly the opposite.

    Digital learning is broadening the world of CTE for students. Online and hybrid schools provide CTE programs by offering a combination of online career courses and by partnering with businesses, state and regional training centers, and other
    organizations to combine online learning with on-the-ground, real-world jobs, internships, and learning opportunities.

    Hybrid schools and programs, including those run by mainstream districts, provide academic scheduling flexibility to students who seek to prioritize their time in jobs, internships, or career training. No longer do these students have to fit in their career interests after regular school hours or on weekends–when many companies and high-value jobs are not open or available.

    For example, a student interested in a veterinary career can work at a vet’s office during the regular week and school hours, completing some of their online coursework after normal work hours.

    Virtual Arkansas, a state-supported course provider supporting districts across Arkansas, has made digital CTE a central element of its offerings.

    “CTE is a key part of our value to students and schools across Arkansas. Students, teachers, counselors, and the business community, all appreciate that we are providing flexible options for students to gain real-world expertise and experience via our online and hybrid programs,” said John Ashworth, the programs’ executive director.

    Perhaps even more surprising than CTE shifting to digital is the idea that next generation physical education is based on online tools, adept teachers, and student voice and choice.

    Today’s students are accustomed to going into a coffee shop and ordering their drink with a dozen customized features. And yet, in traditional PE classes, we expect students to all want to learn the same sport, activity, or exercise, at the same time and pace. That’s how too many traditional gym classes operate–based on the factory model of education in which all students do the same thing at the same time.

    There’s a better way, which is being embraced by online schools, hybrid schools, and traditional districts. Online and hybrid PE classes shift exercise, activity, and wellness to match student interests and timing. A student chooses from hundreds of detailed instructional videos in dozens of categories, from aquatics to basketball to yoga, trains using the videos combined with instruction provided by a teacher, and tracks her progress.

    This doesn’t sound like a traditional gym class; instead, it mimics the ways that young adults are active in gyms, yoga studios, and sports leagues all around the country. Consider fitness clubs from the local YMCA to the most high-end club–they are all offering a wide variety of classes, on varied schedules to fit busy lifestyles, and at different levels of expertise. No school can match this, of course, by the traditional approach to gym class. But Joe Titus, founder and CEO of Hiveclass, which offers online physical education courses, points out that student agency to
    choose from a wide variety of PE options is possible–when schools are ready to make the leap.

    Online schools and district programs are already doing so, with fantastic outcomes as students lean into their choices and options. As futurist William Gibson said decades ago, “the future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed.”

    Online and hybrid CTE, physical education, and other options prove the point. The next step is to make these options widely available to all the students who are seeking a better alternative.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • In Defense of Gladwell and “Revenge of the Tipping Point”

    In Defense of Gladwell and “Revenge of the Tipping Point”

    Revenge of the Tipping Point: Overstories, Superspreaders, and the Rise of Social Engineering by Malcolm Gladwell

    Published in October 2024

    Praising a Malcolm Gladwell book may not be the No. 1 way to seem helplessly uncool with your academic colleagues, but it is close. Share with any random social scientist—my people—that you are reading Gladwell, and you are likely to hear a long lecture detailing the flaws and shortcomings of Gladwell’s writing.

    Ignore the skeptics. Reading a Gladwell book is like listening to a well-crafted song: You can enjoy the experience without agreeing with the lyrics.

    Gladwell’s most recent book is Revenge of the Tipping Point. As with all Gladwell books, the audiobook experience will be your best reading bet. Gladwell is a fantastic writer. His narration style is conversational, intimate and energizing. Revenge of the Tipping Point is an all-new book, taking as its starting place the 2000 Tipping Point publication that launched Gladwell into the nonfiction stratosphere. Like the original, Revenge of the Tipping Point seeks to uncover the hidden forces that drive social trends. The book uses stories and a mix of academic research and data to explain phenomena as diverse as the COVID epidemic, the spread of opiate addiction and the rapid cultural and legal embrace of gay marriage.

    For critics of Gladwell (likely a large proportion of Inside Higher Ed readers), Revenge of the Tipping Point will generate a familiar set of objections. We academics will complain that Gladwell cherry-picks data to support a narrative and fails to include information that may complicate the story. Gladwell’s approach is to structure his stories about social phenomena like a murder mystery, with Gladwell playing the role of Sherlock Holmes. Piecing together the clues, Gladwell reveals the guilty culprit (the policy or cultural phenomenon) responsible for the crime (the trend or social outcome in question). As academics, we know that various variables, forces, structures and random causes drive most social trends. Gladwell’s books are satisfying precisely because he is a master of filtering out complexity. You feel smarter after reading Gladwell, even if you aren’t.

    Knowing all this going into reading Gladwell, including Revenge of the Tipping Point, can help ensure that reading his books is enjoyable and productive. For those of us in higher education, Gladwell has a good deal to say about how universities (well, elite universities) work. I found his explanation as to why highly selective schools field a multitude of sports teams across every conceivable athletic endeavor—from squash to Nordic skiing to equestrian to rugby—reason enough to invest time in Gladwell’s latest book.

    We should not confuse Gladwell’s critiques of elite higher education with the ongoing attacks many universities are navigating from the executive branch. One hopes, however, that Gladwell might be rethinking his history of drawing stark moral absolutes when condemning elite institutions while largely ignoring societal positives and complexity. I suspect that the Ivy League is easier to attack when it is cast as Goliath, as opposed to the defender of academic freedom and bulwark against government overreach that recent events have so clearly revealed our universities to be.

    What are you reading?

    Source link

  • Cost Remains Primary Barrier to Study Abroad

    Cost Remains Primary Barrier to Study Abroad

    Three in four U.S. students say they hope or plan to study abroad, but a lack of financial resources may hinder those dreams, according to a 2025 Terra Dotta survey.

    The survey, which included responses from 275 college students, found that 80 percent of students said insufficient funds would prevent them from studying abroad. Of respondents who have studied abroad or committed to a program abroad, two in five students said they expect to pay over $10,000 for their experiences.

    Terra Dotta’s report also noted students want more clarity from their institution about financial aid opportunities to address study abroad expenses.

    Methodology

    Terra Dotta’s survey included 275 respondents from two- and four-year colleges and universities, both public and private. The study was fielded in February. A majority of respondents had plans to study abroad or had studied abroad previously.

    Barriers to access: Study abroad is linked to personal and professional development for participants. A 2024 survey of students from Terra Dotta found that those who studied abroad said the experience helped them identify adaptability and resilience, cross-cultural communication, and problem-solving in new situations as the benefits most useful for their future careers.

    However, not every student is able to participate due to financial burdens; among students who don’t plan to study abroad, 48 percent attributed their decision to financial concerns. Cost of attendance is one of the top reasons college students leave higher education, and it can also be a barrier to student participation in on-campus events. A 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 17 percent of students would get more involved in campus activities and events if attendance or participation were less expensive.

    Other reasons a student might choose not to study abroad include safety concerns (40 percent), geopolitical issues (28 percent) and worried parents (25 percent). Three-quarters of respondents indicated the wars in Ukraine and Gaza impacted their interest in going abroad.

    Academic requirements and a lack of alignment are other challenges for students. Eighteen percent of students said they wouldn’t study abroad due to their major program requirements, and 16 percent think greater alignment between their field of study and study abroad would make the experience more accessible.

    Seventeen percent of respondents said they don’t know anything about study abroad or haven’t heard of opportunities, “indicating an opportunity for [colleges] to reach more students,” according to the report.

    Footing the bill: When asked to add up tuition, housing, airfare and other expenses, 83 percent of respondents said they plan to spend or spent more than $5,000 on study abroad, and 11 percent said the experience costs roughly $15,000.

    Twelve percent of respondents said study abroad experiences were included in their tuition, so they expect to pay nothing additional. Approximately one in five students said they’d pay for study abroad experiences themselves, a 20 percent change from the previous year, according to the report.

    Student respondents indicated they want their institution to take on a larger role in addressing the cost of study abroad; one-third of respondents said colleges could make study abroad experiences more accessible by providing more education on financial aid for such programs. If respondents could give their campus advice on improving study abroad experiences, two-thirds said they’d like easier access to financial aid.

    Other trends: In addition to the barriers to study abroad, Terra Dotta’s report explored student interests and development related to the experience.

    The U.K. is the most popular study abroad destination for respondents (41 percent), mirroring an emerging trend among U.S. students indicating interest in U.K. undergraduate education. Australia (32 percent), Spain (26 percent), Italy (21 percent) and Ireland (21 percent) were other popular destinations. Only 1 percent of students said they planned to travel to China to study.

    Three in five respondents said they think study abroad is at least somewhat important for their personal growth, and about a third said experiencing personal growth is one of the top reasons they plan to study abroad.

    Of students who had completed a study abroad experience (n=170), a majority said it impacted their worldview by exposing them to new ideas. Students said they were most surprised by social norms and etiquette (47 percent), as well as dining and food customs (24 percent) and the local educational system and values (24 percent).

    Source link

  • They Attack Because Higher Ed Is Strong, Not Weak (opinion)

    They Attack Because Higher Ed Is Strong, Not Weak (opinion)

    Academics are cynics. We have to be. We critique our students, our peers and ourselves. It’s how we were trained. It’s how we write and publish and secure grants. But sometimes you have to know when to declare victory.

    There is a lot that is troubling higher education. The Trump administration is canceling research grants, changing indirect cost rates, proposing cuts to future federal research funding and reductions in the size of need-based Pell Grants, and raising taxes on some university endowments. States are banning critical race theory or other “divisive concepts”; dissolving diversity, equity and inclusion programs; attacking faculty unions; and undermining tenure. In many parts of the country, enrollment is down. It is easy to focus on the moment. It is easy to focus on problems within our departments, within the dean’s office or within the university.

    If instead of looking at President Trump’s first 100-plus days, we look at higher education as an institution over the past 100-plus years, it becomes clear we should be celebrating higher education’s triumph and not bemoaning its demise. A century ago, U.S. universities lagged their European counterparts. In fact, many universities that are household names today were still teachers’ colleges (San Diego State University was San Diego State Teachers College) or had yet to be founded (the University of California, San Diego). Ivy League campuses like Harvard, Princeton and Yale Universities actively excluded Jewish and Black applicants. The concepts of academic freedom and tenure were nascent. The National Science Foundation did not exist.

    Universities did great things during the 20th century. Presidents and faculty found strength and legitimacy through relevance. They helped in the all-out effort to win the Second World War. Universities anticipated the needs of the Cold War. Research labs produced products that improved people’s daily lives. The University of Minnesota patented Honeycrisp apples. The University of Wisconsin patented fortifying milk with vitamin D.

    Universities not only solved practical problems, but they also helped us understand ourselves. Faculty explored and legitimized new areas of study: women’s studies, ethnic studies, area studies. They fused disciplines to create fields to understand our bodies and our minds, such as neuroscience and biotechnology.

    As universities expanded graduate education, they trained cadres of researchers and professionals who populated state, federal and international agencies. For instance, the rise of the global environmental movement has been traced to the emergence of communities of actors with similar scientific understanding and motivations to identify and address hazards. The almost exponential increase in university training and science production was not limited to our shores; it was global. Over the 20th century, the rapid expansion of mass schooling, up to and through higher education, sparked the education revolution and created a “schooled society.”

    The Challenge

    Many faculty talk about higher education as though it is weak, when arguably it has been the most successful and influential social institution over the past 100 years. If we take a longer-term view, higher education has not lost. Higher education won. But the game is being reset.

    Higher education’s victories were hard fought. They were political. They were negotiated. They required collective action. Through decades of fighting, universities moved past excluding applicants based on race and sex. Then for decades they used affirmative action, followed by holistic review, to more equitably admit students. They established norms for academic freedom and tenure. They became sites for open debate and social and political protest.

    These types of wins are not easy to come by. They require common principles and interests and a shared sense of what counts as knowledge and how the world works. It is hard to mobilize if everything is socially constructed and morally relative and if we look for ways to critique rather than concur.

    Our challenge in this new era is primarily one of legitimacy. Too many politicians and voters see us as illegitimate because too much of what we do is irrelevant. I have had my work on voter turnout criticized for not correctly guessing which of the following was the reviewer’s preferred term: Chicano, Chicana/o, Chicano/a, Chicanx, Hispanic, Latina and Latino, Latina/o, Latino/a, Latin@, Latinx, Latine. Though there is a place for thinking about names and their usage, the point of the paper was: How do we get more Hispanic students to vote?

    The Good News

    Some of the most direct efforts to limit the influence of higher education are occurring on our own turf. Moneyed interests and Trump acolytes have sought to create conservative centers at Ohio State University, the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Florida. When centers like these are founded, we should recognize that we have the home court advantage. We should engage with their leaders and faculty—we are not outnumbered. We should send our students to enroll in their courses and invite their students to dialogue with us. We have immense forms of cultural and social capital and vast networks. Our disciplines have rich traditions for ways of understanding the world and addressing its problems. We have insightful perspectives for understanding the human condition, thinking about natural law and questioning what the social contract should look like in the 21st century.

    We should look back to how faculty made such strong advances in the last century. For instance, in 1915, the American Association of University Professors adopted a Declaration of Principles. That document served as the foundation for the future 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which was jointly developed with the Association of American Colleges (now the American Association of Colleges and Universities). The 1940 document was so promising because it represented agreement between faculty and university leaders.

    Those documents are worth revisiting for both their substance and process. For example, we should remind our detractors that academic freedom comes with concomitant responsibilities. We are criticized for attempting to brainwash America’s youth, but the AAUP’s 1915 Declaration of Principles states,

    “The university teacher, in giving instruction upon controversial matters, while he is under no obligation to hide his own opinion under a mountain of equivocal verbiage, should … set forth justly, without suppression or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators; he should cause his students to become familiar with the best published expressions of the great historic types of doctrine upon the questions at issue; and he should, above all, remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves.”

    In the world of social media and generative artificial intelligence, training students to think for themselves may be more important than ever. As faculty, we should practice thinking like the early leaders of the AAUP and seek to build national solidarity and articulate a shared purpose for higher education.

    We should accept that conservative politicians are attacking higher education not because it is weak but because it is so strong. In this time, we must rededicate ourselves to a cause that will outlast our careers, a cause worthy of the collective efforts of generations of scholars. We must advance the public good. By improving the public good, we will be relevant, and by being relevant, we will reclaim legitimacy. We must show that we can do what Google and ChatGPT cannot: We can train students to think and to be good citizens.

    Frank Fernandez is an associate professor of educational leadership and policy analysis at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He writes about the role of higher education in society.

    Source link