Tag: college

  • How to use AI to advance the college

    How to use AI to advance the college

    The challenges are proliferating while funding is deteriorating. Fortunately, the AI options to accomplish more with less funding are expanding. As of the end of February, a number of awe-inspiring deep research tools have been released. More than half a dozen such tools are available from different providers at prices ranging from no cost to $200 a month. They are becoming the key to enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of administrators, including deans.

    Omar Santos, distinguished Cisco engineer, published on Feb. 21, 2025, “A Comparison of Deep Research AI Agents,” where he outlines some of the features of the five leading brands as of that date, noting, that “unlike simple question-answering bots, these agents perform multi-step reasoning: formulating search queries, browsing web content, analyzing data, and synthesizing findings into structured outputs with citations.” Santos goes on to describe that there are two primary architectural approaches to deep research agents:

    “Fully Autonomous Agents: Once given a prompt or topic, these agents operate independently end-to-end. For example, OpenAI’s Deep Research feature (launched in Feb 2025) allows ChatGPT to act like a ‘research analyst,’ working for several minutes without intervention to gather information from the web and compile a report with sources. It is powered by a specialized version of OpenAI’s upcoming o3 model optimized for reasoning and web browsing. The user simply provides the topic, answers a few additional questions, and the agent handles the rest autonomously. This fully-automated approach is convenient but requires a very robust agent to decide on research directions and verify information on its own.

    “Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Agents: These agents incorporate human feedback or approval at different steps of the research workflow. Rather than running to completion unquestioned, the AI will pause for guidance—typically after formulating a research plan or outline—so the user can review and adjust it before the agent proceeds.”

    Most Popular

    Santos compares and contrasts five different such tools, leading with the OpenAI and Google Gemini versions. I would add two more to the list. First is the outstanding Storm tool developed as a brainstorming device by the Open Virtual Assistant Lab at Stanford University. The other is the Grok 3 Beta recently released by X.ai.

    In all cases, these tools are capable of using advanced reasoning to develop a research plan, search the internet at large and other selected sites to which you provide access permissions, conduct probing research, compose a report with citations, revise the report and update as directed. Increasingly, the tools are offering options to ensure they do not use your inputs for training. Each of these tools will, no doubt, revise and improve in the coming months as new competitors enter the field. I expect that university IT departments will assist deans and other administrators as they select, train and become proficient at using the tool best suited to their needs.

    Here are ways these tools may assist deans in meeting the challenges of their positions this fall and moving forward.

    Personal Assistant

    • These very “smart” tools can manage calendars, set reminders, respond to routine correspondence and more. In these cases, deans may initially want to give individual approval of actions, but in time, just as with an experienced assistant, they may want to enable auto-processing while keeping copies for follow-ups.
    • One can share an email or notes of a conversation with any additional points that should be included in the response and ask the deep research tool to compose a response (including references it discovers that are relevant to the communication).
    • The deep research tools can automatically schedule meetings and prepare agendas for items that either the dean or the tool may identify as emerging issues for the college.

    College Research Projects

    • A continuing assignment may be to conduct a weekly search for new public and private funding of projects in which the faculty of the college have an interest.
    • Strategies for reducing indirect costs of projects can be researched and a report shared with project managers, department chairs and faculty conducting research.
    • Focused reports can be generated to propose extended funded research topics and opportunities in areas where the college faculty have conducted preliminary research.
    • Emerging markets for products of research can be identified and letters of introduction to businesses who might value the research can be drafted and sent.

    Curriculum Currency and Relevancy

    • The Deep Research tool can compare the college’s published curriculum with those of peer institutions and others for timeliness, utility and corporate demand.
    • A dynamic comparison of the top 10 competitor colleges’ curriculum and research agendas can be maintained with update alerts when a competitor makes changes. In such cases, the tool can automatically create a meeting of relevant faculty and staff, including an agenda with materials from the competition to focus the discussion.
    • Deep Research can conduct predictive analyses of current curriculum, identifying courses that obstruct the smooth flow of students through the curriculum (once identified, the tool can set up an agenda with data handouts to discuss the problem and suggest solutions). In such studies, learning outcome effectiveness can be assessed, and percentage and time to employment of graduates or certificate completers and retention of graduates by employers can be analyzed.

    Meeting and Leading the Competition

    • Deep Research is the ideal tool to identify new domestic and international markets for enrollments.
    • Professional certificates can be designed by the tool to meet emerging needs in the field. These can be matched to faculty backgrounds for potential staffing.
    • Deep Research can do an analysis of faculty workloads, identify those who may need more support and those who may be available for more activities, and make recommendations to the dean and department chairs.

    Analyzing and Assessing Productivity and Currency of Unit Work

    • Deep Research tools are able to extrapolate on the work of current projects and compare their objectives to emerging markets, technologies, and societal needs. Sharing such reports with the relevant units as well as preparing the agenda for discussion, keeping minutes of the meeting and codifying outcomes can all be accomplished with AI tools.
    • Full annual reviews and analysis of revenue generated, students enrolled, outcomes accomplished and other such data can be accomplished by Deep Research. These can help to guide strategic planning.

    These are just a few of the important tasks of the dean that can be assisted by Deep Research tools. There are many more tasks that can be tackled by these tools. I hope that this brief list will prompt readers to become comfortable with the range of work that can be done in order to identify their own tasks for which they could use assistance.

    Is your university preparing to implement these tools in support of deans and other administrators? Has training begun? It is important that your institution gets started so that you will not rapidly fall behind your peers in utilizing advanced AI tools to enhance effectiveness and efficiency.

    Source link

  • ensure college grads gain higher incomes

    ensure college grads gain higher incomes

    Seventeen years ago, the Lumina Foundation set out to try to raise the percentage of working-age U.S. adults with a college credential from 38 percent to 60 percent by 2025.

    It didn’t reach that goal, though it was only short a few percentage points; today, 55 percent of individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 have a college degree or short-term credential, an increase that Lumina CEO Jamie Merisotis called “one of the most significant but least recognized success stories of the past decade and a half.” 

    But times have changed since 2008, Lumina’s leaders said during a news briefing Monday, and in developing a new goal for the coming 15 years, they chose to focus not only on college attainment, but also on making sure that people’s college degrees help them find success and prosperity in their careers.

    That’s why the foundation’s new goal aims to increase the number of adults in the labor force who have a “credential of value”—meaning they have earned a college credential and now make an income at least 15 percent more than the national average for high school graduates—to 75 percent by 2040. That number lines up with various labor projections, such as a Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce report, released earlier this year, that anticipated that 72 percent of jobs will require postsecondary education or training by the year 2031.

    Lumina’s leaders decided to focus on earnings in large part because of Americans’ lack of confidence in the value of higher education. Polls by Gallup and Lumina have shown that a major reason people don’t think a degree is worth the high cost of attending college is because they don’t believe higher education sets people up well to be successful in the workforce.

    “Our view is that we’ve got to do more to transform higher education workforce systems in order to meet human talent needs, in order to expand economic prosperity for individuals and for families and for communities,” said Merisotis. “Today, we have to make sure higher education literally serves more people better.”

    Currently, only 44.1 percent of the U.S. labor force—which includes members of the military and those who are looking for work—has a college degree or certificate and earns at least 15 percent more than those with just a high school diploma, according to the foundation’s analysis of Census data. Those rates are significantly lower for Native American, Hispanic and Black people, and higher for white and Asian people.

    The foundation laid out four pillars it plans to prioritize to reach that 75 percent goal: continuing to expand access to college, promoting student success and retention, redesigning college and workforce readiness to better support today’s students, and ensuring the credentials students receive do, in fact, pay off.

    Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the education equity nonprofit EdTrust, lauded the foundation for turning its focus to college value—and for providing a definition of what a valuable credential actually is.

    “The return-on-investment piece is under serious scrutiny nationally,” he said. “Including a metric that measures outcome—that measures income as an outcome—pushes folks to think about the return on investment of higher education that I think is a much-needed data point”—though he noted that earning 15 percent more than high school graduates, who made an average of about $38,000 in 2023, seems like “a low bar.”

    (Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning, said at the media briefing that the 15 percent figure was determined in consultation with multiple labor economists.)

    Lumina’s quest to increase credentials of value will be a boon not only to graduates, but also to employers seeking to recruit talent they can trust will have the job skills to succeed in their role, according to Shawn VanDerziel, president and CEO of the National Association of Colleges and Employers. In an email to Inside Higher Ed, he called the project a “worthy goal” and a “win-win” for graduates and employers.

    “The education landscape is changing and how adults are consuming education is changing,” he wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed. “With Lumina’s assistance, I hope we can expand the speed at which our educational institutions can evolve to meet the changing needs of employers and their focus on skills-based hiring.”

    Charles Ansell, vice president for research, policy and advocacy at Complete College America, noted that while he appreciated the foundation’s focus on the value of credentials, he was also happy Lumina hadn’t shifted its focus away from attainment entirely.

    “College attainment is still the best predictor of the higher wage outcomes,” he said. “If you have full-time-student graduation rates hovering in the 20s at best in the community college space … it’s hard to get economic mobility. It’s still extremely important to put that attainment goal itself first and not to lose sight of quantifying that college completion.”

    As for whether the 75 percent goal seems achievable? That’s irrelevant, Ansel argued, because it’s simply what needs to happen to keep the country’s economy and democracy healthy.

    “We should never lie to ourselves about what we need to do,” he said. “I don’t find it unrealistic—it’s what we need to do.”

    Source link

  • Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Public confidence in higher education is declining. Even students, most of whom say they’re getting a quality education, question the value of a degree with respect to affordability. Such doubts increase higher education’s vulnerability to the threats it’s currently facing. All this evokes the long-running debate over whether higher education can be viewed as a public good. And when revisiting that debate, it’s instructive to know what students expect from their college or university—specifically, whether they consider themselves not just students but also customers.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s first-ever Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators, released last fall, 71 percent of administrators said that undergraduates at their institution consider themselves customers (most of these administrators also agreed that parents of students consider themselves customers).

    But what do undergraduates themselves say? According to a new analysis of IHE’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab, nearly the same share of students—65 percent—consider themselves customers of their institution in some capacity, defined in the survey as expecting to have their needs met and be empathized with because they are paying tuition and fees.

    Some 41 percent of the survey’s 5,025 two- and four-year student respondents say they see themselves as customers both in their classes and across campus. Another 13 percent consider themselves customers only in their classes, while 11 percent view themselves as customers only outside of class, when interacting with staff and administrators across campus.

    Methodology

    Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

    Respondents include over 3,500 four-year students and 1,400 two-year students. Sixteen percent are exclusively online learners, and 40 percent are first-generation students.

    Top-line findings from the full survey are here and the full data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. The main annual survey asked questions on academic success, health and wellness, the college experience, and preparing for life after college.

    How satisfied are students as customers of their institution? When those who do not identify as customers (n=1,744) are asked to wear that hat for a moment, nearly half (45 percent) say they’re somewhat satisfied with their institution. Another quarter (23 percent) are very satisfied. The rest are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (19 percent), somewhat unsatisfied (9 percent), or very unsatisfied (3 percent).

    What about students who do identify as customers (n=3,280)? The satisfaction numbers are very similar, but this group is slightly less likely to have high satisfaction; 45 percent, the plurality, are somewhat satisfied with their institution and an additional 18 percent are very satisfied. Twenty percent are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, some 13 percent are somewhat unsatisfied and very few (4 percent) are very unsatisfied.

    The results are relatively consistent across sector and a swath of student characteristics. However, two-year college students are less likely than four-year college students to say they consider themselves customers both in classes and when interacting with staff and administrators outside of class, at 35 percent versus 43 percent, respectively.

    The higher-education-as-public-good debate typically centers on whether higher education meets the common criteria for a public good: nonexcludability, meaning it’s accessible to everyone, and nonrivalry, meaning one person’s use of the good the doesn’t limit others’ ability to use it.

    In this sense, counting students as customers of higher education hurts the public good argument: How can one be a customer of a public good? And concerns about a creeping customer service dynamic in higher education have long worried scholars, including the authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal for Educational Integrity arguing that a facile customer service model of higher education undermines the instructor-learner relationship by reducing it to transactional, vendor-vendee connection—one in which the institution meets the student’s expressed needs in exchange for payment. (Think grade inflation and more.) The name of that paper kind of says it all: “The Customer Isn’t Always Right: Limitations of ‘Customer Service’ Approaches to Education, or Why Higher Ed Is Not Burger King.”

    But is thinking of students as customers—and students thinking of themselves as customers—a universally bad thing?

    Alternative Models

    Various scholars have proposed alternatives to the customer service model of higher education.

    Student as client: Scholar Keith B. Murray, for instance, proposed in a December Inside Higher Ed opinion piece that it’s better to think of students as clients. Whereas vendors need to appeal to customers via a product at an attractive price point, he wrote, in “client-type transactions, exchange of time, effort and money by the consumer is predicated on one party’s professional expertise and advice.” Typical client-based vendor examples include “physicians, dentists, financial advisers, tax preparers, accountants, veterinarians, therapists and professors,” he added.

    Faculty and staff as stewards: Scholar Jeffrey Vetrano, in responding to Murray’s piece, also in Inside Higher Ed, advocated for a stewardship framework.

    “Faculty and staff at institutions of higher education are stewards of both our students and their educations. As such, we take personal responsibility for granting them every opportunity to succeed, by maintaining strong ethics as identified in Murray’s article. As stewards, every action we take is for the care and development of our students, and we strive for much more than a client/vendor relationship.”

    Luke Hobson, an instructional design leader and online lecturer with his own education podcast and blog, actually encouraged institutions to think of students as customers last year, citing these five reasons:

    • Focus on quality
    • Responsiveness to needs
    • Enhanced accountability
    • Market competitiveness
    • Feedback loop for continuous improvements

    Summing up all these points, Hobson wrote in a blog post that the “most significant factor” here was to “emphasize caring. A business cares about their customers. Without them, they can’t survive.” Moreover, he said, “The greatest educators I can think of share this trait in that they cared. They were passionate. They were there for the students and to see them succeed. They could all have different styles of teaching, but at the end of the day, they served their students. It’s this mentality that will keep students engaged in the learning environment.” Indeed, existing research links instructor caring to student trust and sense of belonging, both of which are associated with student success. Quality nonclassroom student support services also promote student success.

    Hobson also wrote that it’s “crucial to maintain a balance. Education is not a typical consumer good, and the primary goal of a university should be to educate and foster intellectual development, not just to satisfy customer demands. Students are coming to learn because they don’t have all the answers. They want to get better and they are seeking the expertise from the institution. The focus should be on helping them to reach their goals.”

    ‘Polarizing’ Idea

    A year later, Hobson recalls that post being his most polarizing ever, based on the feedback he got (some loved it, others hated it). But while he acknowledges the concerns of his peers—that, for example, a customer-focused model could hurt student autonomy by shifting the responsibility for learning onto institutions—his own views haven’t changed.

    Reviewing the Student Voice data, Hobson imagines that students who describe themselves as customers believe they’re “paying for the ultimate learning experience,” defined by a “comprehensive blend of academic rigor, personalized support and opportunities for professional and personal growth.”

    In this light, students expect “the best the university has to offer, including engaging faculty interactions, meaningful assignments, timely feedback and an overall environment that fosters intellectual and practical development,” he continues. They also “anticipate that this education will serve as a pathway to their future goals and aspirations. The effort they invest in their learning, they hope, will directly correlate to the outcomes they receive,” in the form of knowledge, skills or career opportunities.

    This model has parallel benefits for institutions, Hobson adds, in that it encourages a focus on quality, including in online education; responsiveness to student feedback and a general feedback loop for continuous improvements to the learning environment; accountability for delivering “value for tuition and aligning institutional actions with expectations for academic rigor and integrity”; and market competitiveness by virtue of providing exceptional experiences.

    Jhenai W. Chandler, vice president for research and policy at NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, who also reviewed the Student Voice data, says she understands the impulse to think about students as customers or even clients. And she’s recently been on the student side of this conversation, helping two people close to her choose a college based on their very different needs and wants: Chandler’s own mother returned to community college to advance specific career goals, while her high school daughter is exploring colleges based on their ability to deliver a well-rounded education both in and outside the classroom.

    Still, Chandler worries that framing the student as customer can sometimes reinforce “harmful misconceptions about the nature of higher education, particularly in a time when our field is under political scrutiny.”

    Instead of using terms such as “client” or “customer,” “we need to focus on a more meaningful conversation about the value we provide and the outcomes we generate for students and society,” she says. Higher education’s value is “rooted in evidence that shows how students’ lives and communities improve after degree completion, whether it’s an associate, bachelor’s or graduate degree. We have a responsibility to communicate this impact effectively—through data, outcomes and success stories—to students, parents, industry leaders and policymakers.”

    Chandler adds this: “Language and terminology can often be our worst enemies in this conversation, as the terms we use are not always understood outside of the academic world. We need to be intentional about the way we communicate, especially as we navigate misconceptions about what students expect from us.”

    What do you think students who view themselves as customers—in classes or of their institution as a whole—expect from professors and/or administrators or staff across campus? Are the expectations typically reasonable ones? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Nassau Community College punishes students, but won’t tell them why

    Nassau Community College punishes students, but won’t tell them why

    Email Nassau Community College now and tell them due process is not optional

    If actions speak louder than words, then Nassau Community College has made its stance crystal clear: it is not a fan of the First Amendment. This New York institution has an astounding track record of disregarding the rights of students and faculty, but even FIRE was shocked by the brazen lawlessness of NCC’s recent actions against two student leaders.

    The students, NCC Board of Trustees student member Jordon Groom and Academic Senate student chair Grant Peterson, were punished for alleged discrimination and harassment. While these are serious charges, the college fatally undermined the credibility of its sanctions by violating the most basic tenets of due process in doling out its discipline. 

    Groom and Peterson both found themselves embroiled in NCC’s broken disciplinary system late last year. NCC administrators initially told them that other students filed complaints against them for “discrimination” and “harassment,” but did not provide any further information. Now both students are left with no recourse, as they wonder how their due process rights could have been so badly violated by their local community college. 

    Last November, Peterson received formal notification of two complaints against him from NCC. But “formal” doesn’t mean it gave him any idea of what he allegedly did wrong — NCC just told him that complaints existed.

    Peterson was left to use his imagination about the substance of the allegations until Dec. 2, when he met with an NCC administrator, who finally allowed him to see the complaints. The complaints cited a number of instances of Peterson using strong language — like telling another student, “You have no idea what you’re talking about, once again,” or calling an administrator an “idiot.” Doing so was alleged to have been discrimination and harassment.

    Importantly, however, the college forbade Peterson from obtaining a copy of the complaint. NCC expected him to review the complaint — one that cited numerous alleged instances and charged him with high-stakes policy violations — and provide a substantive response to those allegations in the same meeting. There was no opportunity to provide a written defense or conduct a substantial review of the complaint. This was the sum total of Peterson’s “hearing.”

    Due process protections, when properly followed, ensure fairness in proceedings and outcomes that can be trusted by all participants in the justice system. 

    Groom never received formal notification of any complaints. He got an inkling that something was amiss only when he was asked to leave a meeting of the Nassau Board of Trustees in December because of an active investigation—which was news to him.

    Days later, he met with the same administrator as Peterson. Only this time, the administrator told Groom the complaint against him had been found meritless and had been closed, without offering any specifics. Great news, right? Wrong.

    On Jan. 22, NCC informed both Peterson and Groom they had both been found responsible for discrimination and harassment. The college suspended Peterson from all club and organizational leadership roles for the remainder of the academic year — including from his role as student chair of the NCC Academic Senate. Whatever it was Groom did, he was required to complete a training module. There was no mention of an appeals process.

    Obvious and basic principles of due process include:

    • Timely and adequate written notice of charges
    • A hearing process that includes the right to present evidence in your defense
    • A right to appeal

    NCC’s failure to provide even these basic requirements doesn’t even pass the “laugh test.” Sitting Peterson down for the first time with a stack of allegations and demanding he defend himself, now, is manifestly unjust. Groom didn’t even get to see the allegations against him before being found guilty, and was given outright misleading information to boot.

    FIRE wrote NCC on Feb. 7, explaining how badly the college compromised its disciplinary process by neglecting the basic tenets of due process: 

    Simply put, NCC’s procedural abuses have now muddied the waters so severely that they have adversely affected everyone even peripherally involved in the case except NCC administrators. NCC subjected the complainants’ concerns to a broken process. It subjected Peterson and Groom to disciplinary measures without any chance to properly respond to the substance of the complaints — without any due process.

    Accusations of discrimination and harassment are supposed to be taken seriously. This kind of total neglect of basic standards screams that it’s not being taken seriously at NCC.

    The college responded to us two weeks later, effectively declining to substantively engage with our concerns. With no appeals process available, Peterson and Groom have no internal recourse for this discipline. 

    Due process protections, when properly followed, ensure fairness in proceedings and outcomes that can be trusted by all participants in the justice system. Someone needs to tell that to NCC. As we told the college in our letter, “NCC’s failure is comprehensive and total.” The damage this will do to the college and its students down the road still remains to be seen.

    Source link

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

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

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

    Background

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

    Curricula

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

    Strengths

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

    Weaknesses

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

    Economic Impact

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

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

    Enrollment Trends

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

    Degrees Awarded by Major

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

    Alumni

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

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

    Notable Alumni:

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

    Endowment and Financial Standing

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

    Why is The College of Wooster Important?

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

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

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

    Source link

  • Arizona bill to cut off state funding over college DEI courses gains traction

    Arizona bill to cut off state funding over college DEI courses gains traction

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

     Dive Brief:

    • An Arizona bill that would cut all state funding for public colleges offering classroom instruction related to diversity, equity and inclusion cleared a key legislative hurdle Thursday. State Senate lawmakers advanced the bill in a preliminary vote, and a final Senate vote on the measure could come as soon as Monday.
    • If enacted, the legislation would prohibit faculty at the state’s public universities and community colleges from relating “contemporary American society” to a wide range of social and economic topics, including whiteness, antiracism, unconscious bias and gender-based equity.
    • It would also ban colleges from teaching that racially neutral or color-blind policies or institutions “perpetuate oppression, injustice, race-based privilege, including white supremacy and white privilege, or inequity.”

    Dive Insight:

    State Sen. David Farnsworth introduced the bill earlier this month, saying in a recent press release that he was motivated to do so after taking a class at a nearby community college.

    “The course provided by the local community college represents the very ideology that is dividing America, teaching students to view white American men through a lens of privilege and oppression,” he said. 

    Farnsworth further described education about gender fluidity as “indoctrination” and said his proposal puts “students’ academic futures over political agendas.”

    If the bill is enacted, faculty would not be allowed to “relate contemporary American society to”:

    • Critical theory.
    • Whiteness.
    • Systemic racism.
    • Institutional racism.
    • Antiracism.
    • Microaggressions.
    • Systemic bias.
    • Implicit bias.
    • Unconscious bias.
    • Intersectionality.
    • Gender identity.
    • Social justice.
    • Cultural competence.
    • Allyship.
    • Race-based reparations.
    • Race-based privilege.
    • Race-based diversity.
    • Gender-based diversity.
    • Race-based equity.
    • Gender-based equity.
    • Race-based inclusion.
    • Gender-based inclusion.

    The bill would allow colleges to teach about subjects related to racial hatred or race-based discrimination, like slavery and Japanese-American internment in World War II — but only if instructors do not include any of the above subjects.

    The proposal faces an uncertain fate, as control of Arizona’s executive and legislative branches is split between parties, with a Democratic governor but Republican control of the House and Senate. 

    Despite growing more conservative through the 2024 election, the Republican party doesn’t have a veto-proof supermajority. And Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has voiced support for and spearheaded DEI initiatives, is unlikely to sign the bill.

    Even so, the bill threatens large pools of funding for Arizona’s higher education institutions, especially its three public universities.

    Arizona’s public four-year institutions receive 74% of their funding from state support, according to a 2024 report from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. 

    For example, the University of Arizona’s main campus got almost $303 million in state general funds in fiscal 2024.

    Farnsworth’s bill comes as Arizona colleges are already facing two powerful headwinds — a $96.9 million reduction in overall state funding for fiscal year 2025 and a wave of federal DEI restrictions.

    Since taking office Jan. 20, President Donald Trump has signed executive orders attempting to eliminate DEI in higher education and elsewhere, though a court order recently blocked major portions of two of those orders. And the U.S. Department of Education recently issued guidance giving colleges until the end of February to cut all DEI or risk losing federal funding.

    The University of Arizona recently took down the webpage for its Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The flagship also removed references to “diversity” and “inclusion” from its land acknowledgement — a statement recognizing the Indigenous tribal land the campus sits on — though the original version remains available on at least one department webpage.

    Protesters on the University of Arizona’s main campus called on the institution’s leaders Thursday to continue its DEI initiatives.

    As of Thursday evening, almost 2,500 University of Arizona students, employees, affiliates and others signed a letter calling for the institution to reverse the changes it made to its web presence.

    “We view your actions as preemptive and harmful over-compliance,” the letter reads, referencing the university’s response to the Education Department’s guidance and Trump’s executive orders. “Faculty, staff, and students should not have to fear political retaliation for upholding academic freedom, engaging in free speech, or advocating for their rights.”

    Source link

  • Study permit caps not to blame for Ontario college funding crisis

    Study permit caps not to blame for Ontario college funding crisis

    Educators in Ontario are setting the record straight about the cause of the province’s college funding crisis – the blame for which, they say, falls squarely on the Ontario provincial government.  

    “We currently see a wave of Ontario college program closures/suspensions sweeping across all of Ontario’s 24 colleges… This is just the tip of the iceberg and there will be many more to follow,” school educator and former college administrator David Deveau wrote in a letter to government officials.  

    “This letter aims to correct the media’s false assertion that these program suspensions are a direct result of the federal government’s restrictions on international student visa approvals and identify the actual reason for this alarming trend across the Ontario college system,” he continued.  

    The letter, which has been widely shared by sector stakeholders, lays the blame for Ontario’s college crisis on decades of underfunding from the provincial government, exacerbated by a 10% tuition fee reduction and freeze in 2019.  

    “Ontario’s higher education sector is in crisis due to chronic underfunding, tuition freezes, and a reliance on international student tuition as a financial lifeline,” said Chris Busch, senior international officer at the University of Windsor.  

    In 2001/02, Ontario’s colleges received 52.5% of their revenue from public funding, the second lowest of any province, according to Canada’s statistics agency.  

    By 2019/20, this figure had dropped to 32%, by far the lowest proportion across Canada’s provinces and territories, which, on average, provided 69% of college funding that year.   

    “Colleges and universities have had to attract talent from abroad, increasingly enrolling international student to help fill the funding gap,” said Vinitha Gengatharan, assistant VP of global engagement at York University.  

    This is particularly evident at the college level, where institutions have seen international student enrolment of 30-60%, compared to universities where it ranges from 10-20%, added Gengatharan.

    Educators across Ontario’s college and university sector have spoken out in support of Deveau’s letter, calling for a long-term commitment to stable and adequate funding from the provincial government.  

    In recent weeks, Ontario’s 24 public colleges have made the headlines for sweeping budget cuts, course closures and staff layoffs.  

    Stakeholders have raised additional concerns about increased class sizes and deferred maintenance and tech upgrades eroding the quality of education and the student experience for all learners, including Ontarians, Busch maintained.  

    This week, Algonquin College announced the closure of its campus in Perth, Ontario, alongside the cancellation of 10 programs and the suspension of 31, citing “unprecedented financial challenges”.  

    It follows Sheridan and St. Lawrence colleges announcing course suspensions with associated layoffs, and Mohawk College cutting 20% of admin jobs.  

    The ability of Ontario’s universities to fulfil their mission – providing high-quality education, driving research, and fuelling the economy with talent – is at significant risk under current conditions
    Chris Busch, University of Windsor

    “What is currently happening within our colleges is a downward spiral that will hurt Ontarians, the labour market, and our economies in the end,” wrote Deveau, adding that it was especially important to be strong in the face of externally imposed tariffs from the Trump administration.  

    In the letter, Deveau said the tuition freeze – which continues to this day – is akin to a “chokehold suffocating the life out of the college system” that is eliminating vital programs, restricting career choices of Ontarians and “jeopardising the province’s economic future”. 

    He raised attention to the “domino effect” of program closures impacting students’ career prospects, faculty layoffs and damaging local economies.  

    “The ability of Ontario’s universities to fulfil their mission – providing high-quality education, driving research, and fuelling the economy with talent – is at significant risk under current conditions,” said Busch.  

    In March 2023, the Ontario government itself published a Blue-Ribbon Report recognising the need to increase direct provincial support for colleges and universities, “providing for both more money per student and more students” and raising tuition fees.

    Last year, the Ontario government injected $1.3 billion into colleges and universities over three years to stabilise the sector’s finances, though critics are demanding systemic funding changes rather than “stop-gap” and “gimmicky” proposals, said Deveau.  

    Nationwide, Canada’s colleges were dealt another blow when the IRCC announced its new PGWP eligibility criteria, which stakeholders warned risked “decimating” Canada’s college sector.

    It is feared that more Ontario colleges will face cuts before the province’s 2025 budget, expected in April.  

    The PIE News reached out to the Ontario government but is yet to hear back.

    Source link

  • What college presidents are thinking about in 2025

    What college presidents are thinking about in 2025

    College presidents showed tepid support for tenure with a little more than a third agreeing that the pros outweigh the cons, according to Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents, conducted with Hanover Research and released in full today.

    That was just one of many findings across the annual survey, now in its 15th year.

    Presidents were optimistic in some areas, with most expressing confidence that their institutions will be financially stable over the next five to 10 years and positivity about the job itself. But campus leaders also expressed concerns about politicians trying to shape institutional strategies, which they see as an increasing risk, plus a seeming lack of improvement on undergraduate mental health, even as campuses make more investments in related services.

    Inside Higher Ed earlier this month released a portion of the survey findings that unpacked how presidents viewed the second Trump administration. The bulk of the survey’s political findings were covered in that initial release, with college presidents largely worried President Donald Trump will negatively affect higher education in this new term.

    This year’s survey included responses from 298 respondents across two- and four-year institutions, including public, private nonprofit and a small number of private for-profit colleges.

    More on the Survey

    Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents was conducted with Hanover Research starting in December and running through Jan. 3. The survey included 298 presidents of two- and four-year institutions, public and private, for a margin of error of 5 percent. Download a copy of the free report here.

    On Wednesday, March 26, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will present a webcast with campus leaders who will share their takes on the findings. Register for that discussion here.

    Faculty Tenure

    Tenure is often championed by professors and presidents alike for the protections it provides when it comes to issues of academic freedom. But just over a third of college presidents surveyed here—37 percent—indicated that the pros of tenure outweigh the cons.

    By institution type, presidents at public doctoral universities were most likely to support tenure, with 82 percent agreeing that the pros outweigh the cons.

    The overall finding came as a surprise to some observers, especially as politicians in some states are increasingly taking aim at tenure.

    Anne Harris, president of Grinnell College in Iowa, said she was surprised that presidential support was so low, adding that tenure plays an important role at liberal arts colleges, such as the one she leads.

    “For the small liberal arts college model, tenure is the continuity of mentorship, of advising, of those long-term relationships that we rely on … to see students through, to high graduation rates, to all those things,” she said. “From my perspective, the pros are very, very salient for what tenure does, not just for academic freedom and for the pursuit of research, but also for what it does for the continuity of advising and mentoring for students.”

    Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University (and no relation to the Grinnell College president), noted tenure can “be a thorn in the side of presidents and provosts” but that it can also serve as a buffer to political attacks on academic freedom.

    “It’s disappointing to me that presidents don’t have a better opinion of tenure, particularly in this current moment. I understand the challenges that tenure causes, and how it might limit the institution financially, or in decision-making—well-known areas where tenure can slow things down. But at this moment it’s just disappointing to me that there wasn’t more belief in tenure,” Harris said.

    Yet he believes that even the presidents who don’t like tenure will continue to protect it.

    “Presidents understand—even if tenure is a pain for them to deal with—the damage it would do to them in recruiting faculty [to lose tenure]. So there’s a self-interested argument on keeping tenure, even if they personally would like for the whole industry to get rid of it.”

    Campus Speech

    After pro-Palestinian student protests broke out on campuses nationwide over the bloodshed in the war between Israel and Hamas, many institutions changed their campus speech policies. Almost half of presidents surveyed—45 percent—noted that their institution updated its speech policies within the last 18 months, with public institution leaders most likely to say so.

    Additionally, almost a third of survey respondents (29 percent) indicated that their campus has an institutional neutrality policy, according to which college leaders should not comment on social or political matters that do not directly threaten the core mission. Such policies saw an uptick amid the fallout of the recent protests, which many congressional Republicans cast as antisemitic.

    Few respondents whose institution does not already have an institutional neutrality policy said it’s likely to adopt one.

    Despite recent student protests, presidents overwhelmingly blamed politicians for escalating tensions over campus speech concerns, versus other groups: Some 70 percent said politicians were primarily at fault, while just 18 percent blamed students.

    Presidents speaking on a panel about the survey findings at the American Council on Education’s annual meeting in Washington on Feb. 12 suggested campus speech concerns are overblown.

    “One incident goes viral, it gets all sorts of publicity,” Jon Alger, president of American University, said, while arguing that “99 percent of campus conversations” typically go well.

    Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, chancellor of the City University of New York, also speaking at ACE, said that social media often inflates speech issues with incomplete narratives for the sake of virality. He added that outside actors also weaponize such tensions to further their own political agendas.

    In a separate December survey of two- and four-year students by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab, nearly all respondents supported institutional efforts to promote civil dialogue, and 40 percent were at least somewhat concerned about the climate for civil dialogue and student free expression at their institution.

    Economic Confidence

    Presidents surveyed expressed strong financial confidence, despite difficult headwinds for the industry in recent years, which have seemingly been exacerbated by Trump’s recent executive actions threatening funding, prompting hiring freezes and more.

    Among respondents, 87 percent signaled that they expect their institution to be financially stable over the next five years, and 83 percent said the same over a 10-year timeline. But nearly half of presidents, 49 percent, believe their institution has too many academic programs and needs to close some. Some 19 percent responded that they had serious merger or acquisition talks recently, about the same as last year’s survey.

    This year, most of the presidents weighing mergers cited a desire to ensure their institution’s financial stability and sustainability, rather than risk of closure.

    Nine percent of all presidents said it’s somewhat or very likely that their institution will merge into or be acquired by another college within the next five years, with presidents of private nonprofit baccalaureate institutions especially likely to say so (21 percent).

    Presidents also saw risks beyond the business side. More than half—60 percent—believe politicians’ efforts to influence strategy are an increasing risk to their institution.

    However, some presidents at public institutions see that tension as inherent to the sector.

    “I think we’re a little bit naïve if we expect to be totally independent from the voices of our elected officials in helping to set the direction they think is important for the public investment that is being made in our institutions,” said Brad Mortensen, president of Weber State University in Utah.

    Presidents of public and private nonprofit institutions expressed similar levels of concern on this point.

    Being a President

    Most presidents like the job, even if they question how their time is spent. The overwhelming majority of respondents—89 percent—agreed, at least somewhat, that they enjoy being a college president.

    Additionally, 88 percent of respondents said that their own governing boards were supportive.

    However, more than half—56 percent—question whether the presidency can be capably handled by one person. Presidents also indicated they would prefer to focus on strategic planning, fundraising and community engagement but often find other pressing demands, such as dealing with personnel issues and managing institutional finances, eating into their time.

    A quarter of respondents said that the hardest part of the job was navigating financial constraints. Other areas of difficulty that emerged in the survey include too many responsibilities with too little time to do the job, enrollment challenges and external political pressures.

    Asked how long they expected to be in their job, a plurality (47 percent) answered five years.

    Harris, the SMU professor, is skeptical that most presidents will last that long. He said the finding that nearly half of presidents expected to be in their jobs over the next five years prompted him to “laugh out loud,” and he noted that data from ACE’s latest American College President Survey showed the tenure for college leaders has fallen to just over five years.

    “Either a whole bunch of first-year presidents filled out the survey and they’re going to stay another five years, or somebody is missing the boat on how long they’re actually going to serve,” he said. For reference, the plurality of survey respondents, 33 percent, have served as president of their current institution for five to 10 years. The rest were roughly split between less than three years, three to approaching five years and 10 or more years served.

    Last year saw numerous high-profile presidents abruptly resign, including from the nation’s wealthiest institutions—some of whom had only been in the job for a matter of months.

    Student Mental Health

    College presidents also expressed confidence about their institution’s approach to student mental health.

    The overwhelming majority reported that their institution has done a good or excellent job of promoting student health and wellness across multiple areas. On mental health, in particular, 81 percent said this. And 69 percent said that their institution has been effective in addressing the student mental health crisis, though only 37 percent felt the same was true of the sector as a whole.

    Despite the confidence in their institution’s efforts, only 44 percent of presidents somewhat or strongly agreed that undergraduate mental health is improving on their campus. Just 23 percent said the same of undergraduate mental health across higher education.

    Harris, the Grinnell College president, suggested that finding may not be cause for alarm but rather for deliberation. She noted that “more students accessing mental health resources, to me, is not necessarily a sign of a mental health crisis, it’s a sign of mental health self-advocacy.” Still, she said that colleges still need to develop a better understanding of student mental health issues.

    Other Findings

    Artificial intelligence is another category that prompted mixed feelings.

    About half of respondents—51 percent—believe their institution is responding adeptly and appropriately to the rise of AI, but only 29 percent said the same was true across the sector.

    About the same share over all (52 percent) said their institution had established a campuswide AI task force or strategy.

    Survey respondents noted that the most common uses for AI for their institutions included virtual chat assistants and chat bots, research and data analysis, predictive analytics to identify student performance and trends, learning management systems, and use in admissions processes.

    A third of presidents (32 percent) said their institution has set specific climate-related or environmental sustainability goals. Institutions in the Northeast and West appeared to lead here and on other sustainability-related questions, by region.

    The survey period ended Jan. 3, ahead of Trump taking office for a second term and ahead of his administration issuing a Dear Colleague letter attempting to dramatically widen the scope of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against affirmative action in admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

    At the time of the survey, nearly all presidents (88 percent) said their institution had been able to maintain or increase previous levels of student diversity since that Supreme Court decision. Looking only at presidents whose institutions previously practiced affirmative action (n=22), closer to half said they’d been able to maintain or increase previous levels of diversity.

    Separately, 10 percent of all presidents said their institution had curtailed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts beyond admissions since the decision, with presidents in the South and Midwest likeliest to say this, by region.

    Groups such as ACE have cautioned against anticipatory compliance to the Education Department’s Dear Colleague letter, which does not have the force and effect of law. Other legal experts note that the letter is not subject to the current preliminary injunction against parts of two White House executive orders that also seek to limit diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    Source link

  • Hendrix College – Edu Alliance Journal

    Hendrix College – Edu Alliance Journal

    February 23, 2025, by Dean Hoke: This profile of Hendrix College is the third in a series presenting small colleges throughout the United States.

    Background

    Hendrix College, founded in 1876, is a private liberal arts institution located in Conway, Arkansas. Its 175-acre campus has been affiliated with the United Methodist Church since 1884 and is nationally recognized for its academic excellence, student engagement, and commitment to innovation. Dr. Karen K. Petersen, the 13th President of Hendrix College, began her tenure in June 2023.

    The student-to-faculty ratio is 11:1, fostering close interactions between students and the 91 full-time faculty members, 89% of whom hold a Ph.D. or equivalent degree. For the 2025-2026 academic year, the total cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, room, and board, is $55,080. The average net price, according to the College Board, is $22,626. More than 90% of students live in college-owned housing.

    Curricula

    Hendrix offers 30 majors and 33 minors, encompassing a wide range of disciplines in the arts, humanities, sciences, and social sciences. Notable programs include Psychology, Health Science, Biology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Computer Science, and Economics & Business. A cornerstone of the Hendrix educational experience is the Odyssey Program, which encourages students to engage in hands-on learning through projects, internships, and global experiences, thereby fostering both personal and academic growth.

    Strengths

    • Engaged Learning: The Odyssey Program exemplifies Hendrix’s dedication to experiential learning, providing students with opportunities to apply classroom knowledge in real-world contexts.
    • High Graduation Rate: The four-year graduation rate stands at 67.3%, with 85% of 2022 graduates completing their degrees within four years.
    • Post-Graduation Success: About one-third of graduates pursue advanced studies immediately, with the majority gaining acceptance into graduate or professional programs before graduation.

    Weaknesses

    • Cost of Attendance: The total direct cost for the 2025-2026 academic year is $55,080, which may pose a financial challenge for some students. However, Hendrix offers merit scholarships ranging from $13,000 to $24,000 and meets a significant portion of demonstrated financial need.
    • International Enrollment Challenges: Hendrix has less than a handful of international students compared to the 5-6% national average.
    • Limited Graduate Programs: While Hendrix provides a Master of Arts in Accounting, its primary focus is on undergraduate education.

    Economic Impact

    Situated in Conway, Arkansas, a city with a population of approximately 66,000 and part of the Little Rock metropolitan area, Hendrix College contributes significantly to the local economy. In a report by the Conway city government, they state: “Over 100 years ago, Conway made the strategic decision to pursue institutions of higher learning as a means of growing the Conway economy. That choice has paid countless dividends ever since. As the colleges have grown, so has their economic impact. Perhaps more importantly, over time, they have laid the foundation for Conway’s modern workforce.”

    The presence of Hendrix College, the University of Central Arkansas, and Central Baptist College is, without a doubt, the reason Conway has such a remarkably young (median age 27.3) and educated (almost 40 percent with at least a bachelor’s degree) population. Those two qualities stand out nationally as the city competes for jobs in today’s economy. The result is a regional economy that has been recognized as one of the most diverse in the nation. Conway is among the nation’s top 20 percent of fastest growing cities with populations over 50,000.

    Enrollment Trends

    As of Fall 2023, Hendrix College has enrolled 1,120 students from 39 states and 17 countries. The student population is evenly split between male and female students, and more than 90% reside in college-owned housing, including residence halls, houses, and apartments. Approximately 44% of students are from Arkansas, while 56% come from out of state.

    Like many private colleges, Hendrix has experienced a slow, steady enrollment decline of 23% over the past decade

    Degrees Awarded by Major

    In the 2023-2024 academic year, Hendrix College awarded 227 Bachelor of Arts degrees in 28 different majors and eight Master of Arts degrees in Accounting.

    Alumni

    LinkedIn data shows that the college has nearly 9,000 alums. 60% live outside of Arkansas, 3,575 reside in Arkansas, 2,600 in the Little Rock Region, and 851 in the Conway area.

    Graduation Rates are 67.3% in four years and 68.5% in six years. Approximately 75% of graduates who apply to medical or dental school are accepted, and the law school acceptance rate is 78%.

    Notable Alumni:

    Dr. Margaret Pittman (Class of 1923): A pioneering bacteriologist, Dr. Pittman was the first woman to lead a National Institutes of Health (NIH) laboratory. Her groundbreaking research on vaccines for diseases such as typhoid, cholera, and whooping cough has had a lasting impact on public health.

    Craig Leipold (Class of 1974): A prominent businessman best known as the owner of the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Minnesota Wild.

    Douglas A. Blackmon (Class of 1986): A journalist and author, Blackmon won the Pulitzer Prize for his book “Slavery by Another Name,” which explores the re-enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II.

    Trenton Lee Stewart (Class of 1992): An author best known for the “Mysterious Benedict Society” series, Stewart’s work has captivated readers worldwide.

    Dr. Arthur Thomason (Class of 1997): Working at NASA’s Johnson Space Center with Barrios Technology, Dr. Thomason is an Extravehicular Activities (a.k.a. space walk) flight controller and instructor for NASA. 

    Ashlie Atkinson (Class of 2001): An actress recognized for her work in film, television, and theater, Atkinson has appeared in productions like BlacKkKlansman, The Gilded Age, and Mr. Robot.”

    Endowment and Financial Standing

    As of June 30, 2024, Hendrix College’s endowment stands at $206 million, bolstered by a successful $150 million fundraising campaign. The campaign, titled A Time to Lead, added $84 million to its endowment. These funds support scholarships, faculty positions, and institutional initiatives.

    Hendrix holds a 2.705 rating and a B- grade in the 2023 Forbes financial report.

    Why Hendrix Remains Relevant

    Hendrix College stands out in the following areas:

    1. Academic Excellence: Known for its strong liberal arts curriculum, Hendrix is frequently ranked among the top liberal arts colleges in the U.S., reflecting its strong academic programs, student satisfaction, and overall institutional quality.
    2. Odyssey Program: Hendrix stands out for its Odyssey Program, which emphasizes hands-on learning through internships, research, service, and global experiences, making education more experiential and practical.
    3. Economic Impact: Located in Conway, Arkansas, Hendrix contributes significantly to the local economy through employment, student spending, and cultural enrichment.
    4. Graduate Success: Hendrix has a strong track record of graduate success, underscoring its role in shaping well-rounded individuals equipped for personal and professional achievements. They have graduates who have excelled in various fields, including writing, film/arts, sciences, and business, adding to the institution’s prestige and influence.
    5. Endowment Growth: The college’s stable and growing endowment supports scholarships, faculty development, and campus improvements, ensuring long-term sustainability and competitiveness.

    With its commitment to liberal arts education, hands-on learning, and student success, Hendrix College remains a vital institution in higher education.

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

    Source link

  • Achieving the Dream Names 23 Colleges as Leaders in Student Success; Bellevue College Among Honorees

    Achieving the Dream Names 23 Colleges as Leaders in Student Success; Bellevue College Among Honorees

    Highlighting excellence in community college education, Achieving the Dream (ATD) has named 23 institutions as either Leader Colleges or Leader Colleges of Distinction for 2025, celebrating their commitment to student success and institutional reform. The announcement was made last week at the organization’s annual meeting in Philadelphia.

    Among the honorees is Bellevue College, which earned its first Leader College designation since joining the ATD Network in 2017.

    The honor recognizes institutions that have demonstrated measurable gains in student outcomes and fostered meaningful institutional change. Eight colleges achieved the prestigious Leader College of Distinction status, including three first-time recipients: College of Lake County (Illinois), Little Priest Tribal College (Nebraska), and Southwestern Oregon Community College.

    Bellevue College’s recognition as one of ten new Leader Colleges reflects its successful efforts to transform the student experience.

    “We are honored Achieving the Dream selected our institution as a Leader College,” said Bellevue College Provost Dr. Jess Clark. “Since joining ATD, Bellevue College has seen increased markers of student success and retention. We look forward to continuing our commitment to transforming the student experience so that all students will find success at Bellevue College.”

    The designation as a Leader College is particularly significant as these institutions play a crucial role in accelerating the adoption of effective practices across higher education. Leader Colleges are recognized for their work in whole-college reform and their innovative approaches to sharing knowledge about evidence-based reform strategies with other institutions.

    Dr. Karen A. Stout, president and CEO of Achieving the Dream, noted the importance of these recognitions.

    “These colleges exemplify excellence within the ATD Network, achieving measurable gains in student outcomes and fostering impactful change within their institutions and communities,” she said. “Their dedication to using data-informed approaches to create meaningful opportunities for students and their communities serves as a powerful example for all institutions of higher education.”

    The 2025 cohort also includes five colleges that have recertified their Leader College status: Community College of Beaver County (Pennsylvania), Highline College (Washington), Lone Star College System (Texas), Passaic County Community College (New Jersey), and Wallace State Community College (Alabama).

    ATD’s Leader College of Distinction award, created in 2018, sets an even higher bar for institutional achievement. Recipients must demonstrate improvement in three or more student outcome metrics, including completion or transfer rates, and show reduced equity gaps for at least two student groups. This year’s five returning Leader Colleges of Distinction include Chattanooga State Community College (Tennessee), Lemoore College (California), North Central State College (Ohio), Odessa College (Texas), and Pierce College (Washington).

    As a partner to more than 300 community colleges nationwide, Achieving the Dream focuses on what it calls “Whole College Transformation,” providing integrated support for everything from leadership and data analysis to equity initiatives and student support strategies. The organization’s vision centers on helping colleges become catalysts for equitable and economically vibrant communities, driving improvements in access, completion rates, and employment outcomes for all students.

    For institutions like Bellevue College, this recognition validates their ongoing commitment to student success and institutional improvement. As part of the ATD Network, these colleges continue to work toward creating meaningful opportunities that transform not just individual students’ lives, but entire communities through the power of education.

    Source link