Tag: college

  • Mass. College Launches Student-Led Basic Needs Center

    Mass. College Launches Student-Led Basic Needs Center

    An estimated 59 percent of all college students have experienced some form of housing or food insecurity in the past year, according to 2024 data from the Hope Center at Temple University. Closer to three in four students have lacked access to other basic needs, such as mental health care, childcare, transportation or technology.

    At Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, it was students who first noticed their peers needed additional resources.

    Spencer Moser, MCLA’s assistant dean for student growth and well-being, teaches a leadership capstone course in which students complete a community-based service project. “One group of students was aware that some of their peers were attending classes hungry,” he recalled.

    As part of their assignment, students researched available resources to address basic needs insecurity and identified the need for a campus pantry.

    “The program started as a drawer at my desk,” Moser said. “Then it grew to fill a shelving unit, a closet and eventually its own space on campus.”

    Now, MCLA hosts an Essential Needs Center (ENC) on campus for any student who may face financial barriers to acquiring food, housing or other necessary items.

    How it works: Located in the campus center, the Essential Needs Center is open 24 hours a day from Monday to Thursday, with more limited hours on Fridays. The center provides students with food, housing and transportation assistance, seasonal clothes, and more.

    Students can utilize a variety of resources to address food insecurity, including grab-and-go or instant meals and free meal swipes for the dining hall, as well as help with their SNAP applications. The center’s website also provides links to recipes using MCLA food pantry staples to help students with minimal cooking experience prepare nutritious meals.

    One of the unique offerings of MCLA’s center is a build-a-bundle initiative that allows students to request a variety of personal health, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom or cleaning items, as well as school supplies. Students can submit a form online requesting supplies ranging from a first-aid kit to baking supplies and a bath mat.

    The pantry has a small budget from the college, which is supplemented by grants, a partnership with the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts and donor support. Interested donors can give nonperishable food items, toiletries or monetary contributions.

    Student supported: The ENC first started with students looking to support their classmates, and student leadership continues to be at the heart of the center’s work.

    “Students manage the inventory, make sure their peers know about this resource, staff the center,” Moser said. “The center is student-run and -managed, designed to be student-centric due to the belief that students know best what students’ needs are.”

    The pantry sees 400 to 500 students use the pantry regularly, for a total of 1,313 visits between November 2023 and January 2025, Moser said.

    In fall 2024 alone, ENC logged 729 visits—including from 96 first-time visitors—and distributed over 2,600 items.

    Other Models of Success

    Basic needs insecurity impacts college students across the country, hindering their academic progress and forcing them to choose between educational pursuits and personal needs. Here are some examples of how other colleges and universities are promoting student well-being.

    • Anne Arundel Community College students in Maryland created a cookbook featuring items exclusively from the campus pantry, many reflecting their traditions and cultures.
    • Some colleges allow students to pay off their parking tickets by donating food pantry items.
    • Pace University offers a monthly mobile market for students, faculty and staff to receive free food items that cannot be stored for longer in the permanent campus pantry.
    • The University of California, Davis, piloted a discounted food truck on campus at lunchtime, allowing students to receive a hot meal at a pay-what-you-can price.
    • Virginia Commonwealth University established mini pantries across campus with grab-and-go food items, modeled off the concept of a little free library.

    Source link

  • The Urgency for Outreach to Shy College Students – Faculty Focus

    The Urgency for Outreach to Shy College Students – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Choosing the Right College as a Veteran: An Update for 2025

    Higher Education Inquirer : Choosing the Right College as a Veteran: An Update for 2025

    In 2018, Military Times published a guide titled “8 Tips to Help Vets Pick the Right College.” While the intent was good, the higher education landscape has shifted dramatically since then — and not for the better. For-profit colleges have collapsed and rebranded, public universities are raising tuition while cutting services, and predatory practices continue to target veterans with GI Bill benefits.

    Meanwhile, agencies like the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) — tasked with protecting veterans — have too often failed in their oversight. Investigations have revealed FOIA stonewalling, regulatory rollbacks, and a revolving door between government and industry. Veterans are left to navigate a minefield of deceptive recruiting, inflated job-placement claims, and programs that leave them indebted and underemployed.

    Here’s what veterans need to know in 2025.


    1. Don’t Trust the Branding

    Colleges love to advertise themselves as “military friendly.” This phrase is meaningless. It’s often nothing more than a marketing slogan used to lure GI Bill dollars. The fact that a school has a veterans’ center or flags on campus tells you little about program quality, affordability, or long-term value.


    2. Look at the Numbers, Not the Sales Pitch

    Use College Scorecard and IPEDS data to examine:

    • Graduation and completion rates

    • Typical debt after leaving school

    • Loan default and repayment statistics

    • Earnings of graduates in your intended field

    If a school avoids publishing these numbers or makes them hard to find, that’s a red flag.


    3. Understand the Limits of Oversight

    The VA’s GI Bill Comparison Tool and DOD “oversight” portals may look official, but they are incomplete and sometimes misleading. The VA has even restored access to schools after proven misconduct under political pressure. DOD contracts with shady for-profit providers continue despite documented abuse.

    Oversight agencies are not independent referees — too often, they are captured regulators.


    4. Seek Independent Evidence

    Avoid relying on large, national veteran nonprofits. Many of these organizations accept funding from schools, corporate partners, or government agencies with vested interests.

    Instead, veterans should:

    • Check state attorney general enforcement actions and FTC press releases.

    • Read independent investigative journalism (such as the Higher Education Inquirer or Project on Predatory Student Lending).

    • Ask tough questions of alumni — especially those who dropped out or ended up in debt.


    5. Watch Out for Job Placement Claims

    Schools often boast of “high job placement rates” without clarifying what that means. Some count temporary or part-time work unrelated to your field. If a program promises guaranteed employment, demand written proof.


    6. Don’t Chase Prestige

    Big-name universities are not automatically better. Some elite schools partner with for-profit online program managers (OPMs) that deliver low-quality, high-cost programs to veterans and working adults. Prestige branding doesn’t guarantee fair treatment.


    7. Weigh Community Colleges and Public Options

    Community colleges can be a safer starting point, offering affordable tuition, transferable credits, and practical programs. Some state universities provide strong veteran support at the local level, even when national oversight is weak.


    8. Build and Rely on Grassroots Networks

    Large veteran organizations at the national level often fail to protect veterans from predatory colleges. Veterans are better served by:

    • Local veteran groups that are independent and community-based

    • Direct peer networks of fellow veterans who have attended the schools you’re considering

    • Public libraries, grassroots councils, and smaller veteran meetups not tied to corporate or political funding

    • Sharing experiences through independent media when official channels fail


    Protect Yourself, Protect Others

    Veterans have long been targeted by predatory colleges because their GI Bill benefits represent guaranteed federal money. DOD, VA, and large national veteran groups have too often enabled this exploitation.

    The best defense is independent evidence, grassroots testimony, and investigative journalism. By asking hard questions, demanding transparency, and supporting one another at the local level, veterans can avoid the traps that continue to ensnare far too many.

    For those who have been targeted and preyed upon, please consider joining the Facebook group, Restore GI Bill for Veterans.  



    Sources:

    Source link

  • Report Details Community College Student Parents’ Struggles

    Report Details Community College Student Parents’ Struggles

    A new report from the Center for Community College Student Engagement found that even though parenting students are especially dedicated to their studies, they face significant obstacles in college.

    The report, based on a 2024 survey of students from 164 community colleges, found that parenting students were more engaged than nonparenting students across multiple benchmarks, including coming to class prepared and never skipping classes, despite their additional responsibilities. These students were also more likely than nonparents to have earned an associate degree or certificate or to mention changing careers as a goal.

    But even with such strong drive, 71 percent of student parents reported caring for dependents could cause them to withdraw from college; 73 percent said financial circumstances might make them stop out. Student parents were also more likely than nonparents to face food and housing insecurity, but only small fractions of students reported receiving food or housing support from their college in the last month. In a similar vein, a third of students with children say that their colleges don’t adequately support them as parents. Meanwhile, these students say underutilized supports that could help them, including campus childcare services, financial advising and career counseling, the report found.

    The report also offers examples of higher ed institutions that have put in place effective supports for student parents. For example, Lee College in Texas offers weekly financial assistance for childcare and family-friendly study areas. Monroe Community College in New York created a designated student success coach role to serve single mothers.

    “Parenting students are among the most engaged learners on our campuses, but they face barriers that too often derail their progress,” Linda García, CCCSE’s executive director, said in a news release. “But when colleges take intentional steps to support them, the impact is not only on students, but on their children and communities.”

    Source link

  • 2026 College Free Speech Rankings: America’s colleges get an ‘F’ for poor free speech climate

    2026 College Free Speech Rankings: America’s colleges get an ‘F’ for poor free speech climate

    • Claremont McKenna takes the top spot, while Barnard College, Columbia University, and Indiana University come in last.
    • 166 of the 257 schools surveyed got an F for their speech climate.
    • For the first time ever, a majority of students would prevent speakers from both the left and right who express controversial views, ranging from abortion to transgender issues, from stepping foot on campus.

    WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 9, 2025 – If America’s colleges could earn report cards for free speech friendliness, most would deserve an “F”— and conservative students are increasingly joining their liberal peers in supporting censorship.

    The sixth annual College Free Speech Rankings, released today by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and survey partner College Pulse, show a continued decline in support for free speech among all students, but particularly conservatives. Students of every political persuasion show a deep unwillingness to encounter controversial ideas. The survey, which is the most comprehensive look at campus expression in the country, ranked 257 schools based on 68,510 student responses to a wide array of free speech-related questions.

    The rankings come at a notable moment for free speech on college campuses: clashes over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a vigorous and aggressive culture of student activism, and the Trump administration’s persistent scrutiny of higher education. 

    “This year, students largely opposed allowing any controversial campus speaker, no matter that speaker’s politics,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “Rather than hearing out and then responding to an ideological opponent, both liberal and conservative college students are retreating from the encounter entirely. This will only harm students’ ability to think critically and create rifts between them. We must champion free speech on campus as a remedy to our culture’s deep polarization.”

    The best colleges for free speech

    1. Claremont McKenna College
    2. Purdue University
    3. University of Chicago
    4. Michigan Technological University
    5. University of Colorado, Boulder
    6. University of North Carolina, Greensboro
    7. Vanderbilt University
    8. Appalachian State University
    9. Eastern Kentucky University
    10. North Carolina State University

    The worst colleges for free speech

    1. Loyola University, Chicago

    2. Middlebury College

    3. New York University

    4. Boston College

    5. University of California, Davis

    6. Northeastern University

    7. University of Washington

    8. Indiana University

    9. Columbia University

    10. Barnard College

    EXPLORE THE RANKINGS

    For the second time, Claremont McKenna has claimed the top spot in the rankings. Speech controversies at the highest-rated schools are rare, and their administrations are more likely to support free speech. The schools that improved their score the most, including Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt University, worked to reform their policies and recently implemented new programs that support free speech and encourage open discourse. 

    The lowest-rated schools are home to restrictive speech policies and some of last year’s most shocking anti-free speech moments, including threats to press freedom, speaker cancellations, and the quashing of student protests.

    “Even one egregious anti-free speech incident can destroy students’ trust in their administration and cause a school to plummet in the rankings,” said FIRE Vice President of Research Angela C. Erickson. “If campus administrators, faculty, and students want to enjoy an atmosphere of trust on campus, they can start by protecting each other’s rights.”

    Other key findings from the report include:

    • 166 of the 257 schools surveyed got an F for their speech climate, while only 11 schools received a speech climate grade of C or higher.
    • Only 36% of students said that it was “extremely” or “very” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus.
    • A record 1 in 3 students now holds some level of acceptance – even if only “rarely” — for resorting to violence to stop a campus speech.
    • 53% of students say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss openly on campus. On 21 of the campuses surveyed, at least 75% of students said this — including 90% of students at Barnard.
    • For the first time ever, a majority of students oppose their school allowing any of the six controversial speakers they were asked about onto campus — three controversial conservative speakers and three controversial liberal ones.

    “More students than ever think violence and chaos are acceptable alternatives to peaceful protest,” said FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “This finding cuts across partisan lines. It is not a liberal or conservative problem — it’s an American problem. Students see speech that they oppose as threatening, and their overblown response contributes to a volatile political climate.” 

    Explore the full rankings here.


    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT 

    Katie Stalcup, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected] 

    Source link

  • Bringing Real Transparency to College Pricing

    Bringing Real Transparency to College Pricing

    In today’s unpredictable higher education marketplace, TuitionFit, created by Mark Salisbury, offers something that colleges and universities have refused to provide—clear and honest information about what students actually pay. By gathering and anonymizing financial aid offers that students submit voluntarily, TuitionFit makes visible the hidden world of tuition discounting, where sticker prices are inflated but rarely reflect reality.

    The statistics show just how broken and confusing the system has become. For the 2024–25 academic year, private nonprofit colleges awarded institutional grants that equaled 56.3 percent of the published sticker price for first-time, full-time undergraduates and 51.4 percent for all undergraduates. In other words, more than half of published tuition is an illusion. Despite average published tuition of $11,610 at public four-year in-state colleges and $43,350 at private nonprofit institutions, the real net tuition and fees that students pay is far lower. At public four-year schools, inflation-adjusted net tuition has fallen from $4,340 in 2012–13 to $2,480 in 2024–25, while net tuition at private nonprofits has gradually declined from $19,330 in 2006–07 to $16,510 in 2024–25. Families who see terrifying sticker prices often don’t realize that the average all-in, post-aid cost of a four-year degree is closer to $30,000.

    These numbers also reveal deep inequities. At very selective private institutions in 2019–20, low-income students paid about $13,410 after aid, while wealthier peers often paid nearly $39,250. Such disparities are rarely explained by colleges themselves, who prefer to mask their discounting practices with vague averages and opaque award letters.

    This is why TuitionFit is so important. Instead of navigating by distorted averages or marketing spin, students and families can see what peers with similar academic and financial profiles are actually paying. That knowledge provides leverage in negotiating aid offers and choosing institutions that will not leave them with crushing debt. In an era when sticker prices continue to climb while net prices quietly decline, TuitionFit brings clarity at the individual level.

    The Higher Education Inquirer commends Salisbury and TuitionFit for providing a measure of transparency in a system that thrives on opacity. While it cannot by itself resolve the structural inequities of American higher education finance, it arms students and families with something they desperately need: the truth.

    Source link

  • College Board Ends Tool to Share Geographic Context With Colleges

    College Board Ends Tool to Share Geographic Context With Colleges

    Landscape, a College Board tool for providing colleges with information about the educational environment of an applicant’s high school and neighborhood based on publicly available information, has been discontinued, the organization announced this week.

    “As federal and state policy continues to evolve around how institutions use demographic and geographic information in admissions, we are making a change to ensure our work continues to effectively serve students and institutions,” College Board wrote in the short announcement.

    Geographic recruitment has come under fire from the Trump administration. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, in a memo declaring various diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives unconstitutional, said that recruiting from specific areas or neighborhoods could be unlawful when it’s being done as a proxy for race. Experts have said that doing so is not a standard practice for universities.

    Jon Boeckenstedt, a longtime enrollment manager, criticized the decision to discontinue Landscape in a post on LinkedIn.

    “I’m no fan of College Board of course … but I thought Landscape was a good and thoughtful product,” he wrote. “Now, it’s going away. You don’t have to be Wile E. Coyote to figure out why. Someone in DC has suggested it’s too close to ‘race based admissions’ (a thing that does not exist) and ‘it’d be a shame if something happened to your company.’ Or their lawyers rolled over voluntarily.”

    Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, the group that successfully challenged affirmative action at the Supreme Court, lauded the decision.

    “Since the 2023 Supreme Court opinion in our Harvard and UNC cases, Students for Fair Admissions raised has concerns that Landscape was little more than a disguised proxy for race in the admissions process. We are gratified that this problematic tool will no longer be used to influence who is and who is not admitted to America’s colleges and universities,” he wrote in a statement. “This decision represents another important step toward ensuring that all students are treated as individuals, not as representatives of a racial or ethnic group.”

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Philip Stott College

    Higher education postcard: Philip Stott College

    We’ve seen before how, at the end of the nineteenth century, a college for the working classes was opened in Oxford. Ruskin College was strongly associated with the trade union movement, and the left of British politics. And in 1923 a Conservative equivalent opened – the Philip Stott College.

    Philip Stott (1858-1937) was, properly, Sir Philip Sidney Stott, and went, apparently, by Sidney Stott. Whichever first names he chose, he was an architect, who specialised in designing cotton mills. And so he became a wealthy and influential man, having designed 77 mills across Oldham and Lancashire more broadly, and having acquired shares in many of them. He had broad interests. He played rugby league for Oldham – the Athletic of 2 November 1881 records him playing at half-back, and making some “very strong runs” in Oldham’s comprehensive victory over Breightmet. He was president of the Oldham Lyceum.

    And, as soon as he could afford it, he moved to Gloucestershire, setting up home in Stanton Court, a Grade II listed Jacobean manor house. And here it seems he devoted his time and energy to the Conservative Party: he became president of the local Conservative Association. He was created a baronet in 1920, and in 1925 was High Sheriff of Gloucestershire.

    Stott wanted the Conservative Party to have a college of its own. The Conservative Party archives, held at the Bodleian library, record that:

    It having been decided to accept the generous offer of Sir Philip Stott, Bt., of the use of Overstone Park, Northampton, for the purposes of a permanent school for the study of Economics and Constitutional History, the first Session for Students commenced there on the 28th April last, and fortnightly courses have continued until the 29th September. During that period over 500 Students attended the College. They have been drawn from all classes, and from all parts of Great Britain, the majority being working men and Trade Unionists. Very encouraging reports have been received of the working of the College, and of the results achieved, the splendid efforts of the Lecturers and Tutors being greatly appreciated. Gifts of books from supporters of the Party and donations to be utilised in the purchase of books for the College Library have been thankfully received and acknowledged. The College was officially opened by the Prime Minister on the 27th September last.

    Gloriously, there is footage of the Prime Minister opening the college: this is from British Pathé in October 1923. The Prime Minister at the time was Stanley Baldwin – the first of his three periods in that office. And I defy you to find other footage of a Prime Minister being towed in a car by students acting as horses. This was a different age.

    The Spectator in June 1923 ran an account of the college’s early life. The college was initially aimed at working class conservatives, especially trade unionists, and it seems that the idea was to have intensive two-week courses, paid for by local associations and occasional bursaries. But it seems that this was insufficient to pay the college’s way, and its course were broadened to be open to Conservative party members more generally. There’s a good short account of the college (and a photograph from its early years) by Alastair Lexden, Lord Cooke, official historian to the Conservative Party.

    The college closed in 1929. By then a rival had been set up by the then Conservative Party chairman, J C C Davidson. Bonar Law Memorial College – later to become the Ashridge Business School – was opened by Stanley Baldwin in 1929. Philip Stott College’s programmes and assets were transferred to the Bonar Law Memorial College, but it seems that nobody consulted Philip Sott about this. Which must have been a little galling. He resigned from the Conservative Party in 1935.

    I’ll write more about the Bonar Law Memorial College another day; but for now, here’s a jigsaw of the card – hope you enjoy it.

    Source link

  • College Students With Kids More Likely to Lack Basic Needs

    College Students With Kids More Likely to Lack Basic Needs

    An estimated one in five college students is a parent, juggling coursework with caring for a dependent and, often, holding down a paid job. The competing priorities of working and caregiving students can put them at heightened risk for stopping out or quitting higher education, requiring additional investment from colleges and universities to help them succeed.

    A recent report from Trellis Strategies, using data from its Fall Financial Wellness Survey, identifies key trends among student caregivers, the role that time poverty can play in their academic pursuits and recommendations for additional supports.

    Who are caregiving students? Eighteen percent of respondents indicated they were a parent or guardian of a child, or approximately 9,500 of the survey’s 53,000-plus respondents. Seven percent of respondents said they were a caregiver to another individual, not a dependent, and 6 percent said they provided care for a child and another individual, identifying them as a double caregiver.

    Women were more likely to say they were caregivers (73 percent) than non-caregivers (55 percent), and more than twice as many Black students indicated they had caregiver (27 percent) or double-caregiver (34 percent) responsibilities, compared to non-caregivers (12 percent). Two-year students were more likely to report being a caregiver (25 percent) than their four-year peers (13 percent).

    A majority of non-caregivers in Trellis’s study were under 24 years old (84 percent), but caregivers were more evenly represented across age brackets from 18 to 45, representing a variety of identities and priorities. For example, younger caregivers were more likely to say they spent less than 20 hours per week providing care for their dependents, compared to their peers aged 25 to 40, but young parents were also more likely to say they missed at least one day of class due to a lack of childcare (32 percent), versus their peers in their early 30s (27 percent).

    Competing priorities: A high percentage of caregiving students are also employed; 71 percent worked while enrolled and 85 percent agreed it was important for them to support their family financially while in college. In addition to supporting themselves, caregiving students said they offered financial support to their spouse (34 percent), parents or guardians (24 percent), or other family members (22 percent).

    Affordability is a top barrier to student persistence nationally, but the cost of higher education can be an even greater burden for students with dependents. A 2014 report by EdTrust found that a student parent working a minimum-wage job would have to work 52 hours per week to afford both childcare and net tuition at a public four-year institution in the U.S.

    Caregiving students were also more likely to consider themselves a “worker that goes to school” (63 percent) than “a student who works” (37 percent)—the direct inverse of non-caregiving students, a majority of whom said they were a student who works (72 percent). Sixty-eight percent of student parents who were employed reported working more than 40 hours per week.

    “The time poverty caused by work and caregiving commitments can have a substantial impact on the student experience,” according to the report.

    The financial and personal pressures of being a caregiver can also impact a student’s academic performance; 24 percent of parenting students said they missed at least one day of class in the past semester due to a lack of childcare.

    Parenting students are more likely to report financial insecurity; 70 percent indicated they would have difficulty securing $500 in cash for an emergency expense. More than four in five caregivers said they’d run out of money at least once in the past year, and nearly 40 percent ran out of money eight or more times in the past year.

    Seventy-two percent of caregivers reported experiencing some level of basic needs insecurity, including food insecurity, housing insecurity or homelessness. Research from New America and the Princeton Eviction Lab published earlier this year found that student parents who faced eviction were 23 percent less likely to complete a bachelor’s degree and more likely to experience a lower quality of life.

    ED Cuts CCAMPIS for Some Colleges

    The Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program aims to provide campus-based childcare services for low-income student parents, but President Trump’s proposed 2026 budget would eliminate program funding.

    The Department of Education this week said it discontinued some grants for CCAMPIS because “they would have taught children about gender identity and racial justice and didn’t hire staff based on merit,” according to The Washington Post.

    Supporting success: Based on their findings, Trellis researchers believe institutional investment in caregivers could improve retention, academic success and degree completion for parenting students. They suggest collecting and disaggregating data on student enrollment to identify caregivers, including dependent-care expenses in students’ cost of attendance and providing priority registration for caregivers.

    Childcare remains a critical need, but institutions can help bridge the gap through on-campus facilities, sharing information about community childcare resources and referral services, and partnering with community organizations for support resources.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Guide Outlines Change Management for College Course Scheduling

    Guide Outlines Change Management for College Course Scheduling

    Timely college completion has benefits for both the student and the institution. Learners who graduate on time—within two or four years, depending on the degree program—hold less debt and have greater earnings potential because they’re able to enter the workforce sooner.

    National data reveals that only 17 percent of students at public two-year colleges complete a degree in two years, and 40 percent of students at public four-year institutions graduate on time. While a variety of personal challenges can limit students’ timely completion, institutional processes can also have an impact. According to the course scheduling software provider Ad Astra’s 2024 Benchmark Report, which included data from 1.3 million students, 26 percent of program requirement courses were not offered during the terms indicated in pathway guidance, leaving students without a clear road map to completion.

    A new resource from Ad Astra and Complete College America identifies ways institutions can reconsider class scheduling to maximize opportunities for student completion.

    What’s the need: Students report a need for additional support in scheduling and charting academic pathways; a 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 26 percent of respondents want their college to create or clarify academic program pathways. An additional 28 percent want their institution to introduce online platforms to help them plan out degree progress.

    Nontraditional students, including adult learners, parenting students and working students, are more likely to face scheduling challenges that can also impede their progress. A 2024 survey of online learners (who are primarily older, working and caregiving students) found that 68 percent of respondents considered time to degree completion a top factor in selecting their program and institution.

    But making the switch to a better system isn’t exactly a cakewalk for higher ed institutions, and establishing strong top-down policies can create its own hurdles. “Because leadership changes in organizations and institutions, because we get more and more students enrolling and registering, we still have to continue to reiterate this message about how important academic scheduling is,” said Complete College America president Yolanda Watson Spiva. “But we’re happy to do it because it still remains one of the best levers for helping students to persist and complete college.”

    Becoming a student-centered institution with predictable and flexible scheduling also benefits the institution because it means continuous enrollment, Watson Spiva said

    “Whether it’s Uber or Amazon, all these things are meant to make life easier, and yet for some reason, in higher ed, we haven’t caught up to that, that convenience is a major factor” in improving student enrollment and retention, Watson Spiva said. “Until we change our mindset in terms of embracing students as agents of change and having agency in and of themselves, I think we’re going to continue to grapple with this pervasive issue.”

    The new report is a playbook of sorts to help institutions prepare to make change, said Ad Astra’s president, Sarah Collins. “This is one of the next big things that institutions really need to get their arms around, I think, because it’s so culturally difficult and very big, very hairy and scary,” Collins said.

    How to make change: For institutions that want to do better and overhaul current practices, Ad Astra’s report provides starting points that administrators can consider, including:

    • Assessing the institution’s readiness for change, including current scheduling practices, faculty concerns and priorities, as well as the institution’s context, such as previous efforts and resource constraints. Administrators should identify existing inefficiencies, as well as resources and staff capacity, to implement and sustain change.
    • Being aware that making adjustments requires more than technical training; it also demands capabilities to engage in change leadership practices and sustained support to ensure changes are embedded into the institutional culture.
    • Celebrating and recognizing positive changes. Data and storytelling can measure impact as well as affirm how practices make a difference in student success.

    Evaluating the organizational structure of the institution is one key piece, Collins said, because colleges tend to be designed around a strategy rather than a student. Institutions should also prioritize data collection and distribution, because that’s a frequent sticking point in change-management practices.

    “Making sure that the data tells a story, convincing people to believe the data, making sure that the things you’re trying to measure are the things that actually matter and they actually map to the bigger thing you’re trying to accomplish,” Collins explained.

    Additionally, prioritizing the student voice in conversations about course scheduling can ensure that the institution is centered on learners’ needs. “It should not just be the traditional-age student,” Watson Spiva said. “It should also include post-traditional students—working learners, parenting learners—because their scheduling needs are going to be very, very diverse.”

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link