Tag: college

  • 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

  • 12% of college students won’t participate in an internship

    12% of college students won’t participate in an internship

    The value of internships for students’ career navigation and future employment opportunities is clear for colleges and many employers. But what do students think of internship experiences, and how do they benefit them in their future planning?

    A new report from Handshake, published Feb. 20, highlights trends across students who have and have not participated in internships, the impact on their goals beyond college, and the barriers that hinder engagement.

    Among the trends present: More interns are participating in paid internships and earning above minimum wage while doing so, and company culture can influence students’ willingness to return for a full-time position.

    Methodology

    Handshake’s Internship Index was assembled with data from a November 2024 survey of more than 5,605 students and 834 recent graduates, as well as job posting and application data from the platform. Recent graduates are those who completed their degree in 2022, 2023 or 2024.

    Why intern? A majority of students said they pursue internships to build valuable skills (87 percent), to identify possible career opportunities (72 percent), to make professional connections (70 percent) or to get a leg up in their future job hunt (70 percent). About 59 percent say participating in an internship is an essential step toward clarifying their career goals.

    Only one-third of students identified fulfilling a degree requirement as a primary factor for pursuing an internship, and just over half indicated financial motivation for interning.

    Among students who have completed an internship, more than 80 percent say the experience shaped their preferences for industries and job roles. Around 54 percent of students said their internship made them more confident in their career goals, and 56 percent said it was essential for making progress toward career goals. One-quarter said it inspired them to set new career goals, which can be similarly valuable.

    A winter 2023 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse found 10 percent of students identified an internship as a top influence on their career decisions for after college.

    What hinders internships: Around 12 percent of students in the Handshake study have not participated in an internship and do not expect to do so prior to finishing their degree. The greatest share of these students say they’re limited by time (33 percent)—overwhelmed by coursework and other commitments—or they’ve applied for roles and haven’t been selected (33 percent).

    “Students may feel shut out of internships for a variety of reasons, ranging from packed schedules to financial and geographic constraints,” the report says. “Even for students who have ample time and resources, landing an opportunity has become more difficult as hiring contracts and competition increases, and the application process may feel overwhelming given the variation in hiring timelines across employers and industries.”

    Internal data shows demand for opportunities among students that is outpacing the supply. The number of internship postings on Handshake declined 15 percent from January 2023 to January 2025, but applications surged, with 41 percent of the Class of 2025 having applied to at least one internship through Handshake, compared to 34 percent of the Class of 2023.

    Only half of recent college graduates participated in an internship while enrolled in an undergraduate program. Even among students who do land an internship, time continues to be limited, with 56 percent of interns simultaneously taking classes and 36 percent working a part-time job. Around one in eight students said that their internship required them to work 40 hours a week or more.

    First-generation students were more likely to say they completed an internship while taking classes or working (80 percent) compared to their continuing-generation peers (70 percent).

    Pay day: As colleges and employers consider the importance of experiential learning for student career outcomes, more attention has been placed on the value of fair compensation to reduce equity gaps in who is able to participate in internships. Some colleges will provide stipends or scholarships for learners who take on an unpaid or underpaid internship, allowing them to still receive financial support for their work.

    Almost all internships (95 percent) posted on Handshake in the past year were paid, which students say is important to them in selecting an internship role.

    A majority of students who participated in an internship had an hourly wage (57 percent) or a fixed salary or stipend (24 percent). The highest average rate was for student interns working in professional services ($35 an hour) or financial services ($31 per hour). Students working in hospitality or education received the lowest average rate of $17.50 an hour.

    A talent pipeline: Internships can be a great way for a student to get a foot in the door of a company and for the employer to offer training and a career pathway for early talent. Handshake’s data shows that the interpersonal experiences students have while in their internships can influence their desire to hold a full-time role in that company.

    Three in five interns said the mentorship they received or didn’t receive had a major impact on their level of interest in working full-time for their internship employer. About 89 percent of students said team culture at least somewhat impacted on their interest in working full-time for their internship employer, and 90 percent said the same of their interactions with colleagues.

    Similarly, pay was a factor that impacted students’ consideration of a full-time role at their employer. Eighty-two percent of interns who had a fairly compensated role would likely accept a full-time offer from their internship employer, compared to 63 percent of those who didn’t feel their pay was fair.

    After finishing their internship, 59 percent of students said their experience impacted their interest in working for their employer at least moderately, but only 30 percent said they would definitely accept a full-time offer from their employer.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • College English classrooms should be slow (opinion)

    College English classrooms should be slow (opinion)

    In a minorly famous letter to the duchess of Sutherland, Henry James advises that The Ambassadors should be read “very easily and gently,” specifying that his correspondent should ideally “read five pages a day.” At this pace, the duchess would have taken almost exactly 13 weeks to finish the book if she read every day of the week. One imagines that the novel would be tucked into otherwise inaccessibly glamorous, luxurious days for the duchess, days filled with, among other comforts, corresponding with James about how to read his latest novel.

    Five pages a day is very slow reading, but most of us would love to approach our reading at a more leisurely pace, if not a pace determined so prescriptively. On the other side of the spectrum of reading experiences, one finds the average student in college English classes—both undergraduate and graduate. To use my experience as an example, I was at the nadir of my reading life as an undergraduate English major; as someone who naturally reads quite slowly, I spent many nights of my undergraduate career standing at my dresser so I wouldn’t fall asleep while reading. (I couldn’t afford, and doubt I had ever heard of, a standing desk at that point in my life, and my dresser was the tallest piece of furniture in my room.)

    While doing this, I often took notes blindly in a notebook with my right hand while I held whatever book I was reading in my left. I would reread my notes the next morning to help me remember what I had read the night before. I loved the books I was reading, and I wanted to succeed in the classes I took, but I was also, by trying to read upward of 500 pages a week, making myself miserable.

    I don’t blame the professors who assigned the reading—all of them were gifted pedagogues, and not all of them assigned too much reading. They, too, inhabited a culture in which they were expected to work quickly and fulfill numerous demanding institutional roles (years later, I still remember one of my undergraduate professors saying she worked around 70 hours a week).

    Now that I’m on the other side of the academic experience, however, I’ve come to realize that each of us is responsible for resisting a culture that is, by all accounts, making students anxious, depressed and—dare I say it—unproductive at unprecedented rates. Students in undergraduate classes are primed to work quickly. Almost every part of their life—their experience on social media, their online shopping, their use of ChatGPT to complete assignments and their selection of a route on Apple Maps—is designed to help them reach tangible and intangible destinations as quickly as possible. Most students, meanwhile, are terrible at working slowly.

    As academicians, we’re constricted, of course, by all the reasonable and unreasonable demands placed on us by work, family and the other important parts of life, and when we read—especially when we read for professional, critical purposes—we read and work as quickly as possible, that “possible” being an ever-nebulous boundary toward which we strain and suffer while still trying to produce quality work. As professors, if we read books like The Ambassadors, we’re likely to read them in bursts and chunks—butcherly words that sound as unappealing as the process of reading a dense, beautiful novel in such a manner actually is.

    While we cannot, in the immediate future, totally alter the institutional structures of postsecondary liberal arts education, there are still things that English professors can do to resist the pressure for speed. Chief among them is to design a classroom that encourages our students to go slow.

    In their 2016 book, The Slow Professor, Maggie Berg and Barbara K. Seeber challenged the culture of speed in academia by advising faculty to work more slowly, a laudable goal, but one that critics pointed out was a luxury that untenured faculty simply couldn’t enjoy. The problem, of course, is that the people who design a job decide how much work ought to be accomplished in a given time frame, and untenured faculty have little control over the amount of work they are expected to produce to attain job security. However, what almost all professors, regardless of contract status, do have control over is how much work we require within a given time frame from the students we teach. In other words, we should design classes that treat our students in a way that we’d like our institutions to treat us.

    As English professors, our job is not to encourage quick thinking but to foster thorough, imaginative and critical thinking. To do this, we must design our courses to foster and prompt slow work that breaks students out of the habits of expediency they have developed throughout their time in school. Designing classes that foster intentional slowness takes effort, but it also means that we can craft the kinds of spaces that make literature enjoyable and show students the value and beauty of literary texts when they are encountered in an environment suitable for literary consumption.

    A slow classroom can take several forms. In the slow classes I’ve taught, it means requiring students to purchase paper copies of the texts we read and to keep a real, physical journal in which they respond to prompts weekly outside of class. I also do something in these classes that I wish someone had done for me when I was a student: I make it clear that they should spend a certain amount of time on work for my class outside the classroom but that they should also give themselves a cutoff time, especially when it comes to reading for class. I tell them that I take around two or three minutes to read a page of a novel well, sometimes more if the prose is dense, and that they should plan for each page of reading to take three to four minutes. I also tell them that if they make time to read and don’t finish, they shouldn’t panic; they should move on with their day and enjoy the nonacademic parts of their life.

    Most importantly, I assign less reading. Of course, I’d love to live in a world where my students have thoroughly read the English literary canon (whatever that means), but more than anything, I want them to have read something and to have read it well. To this end, I try to assign between 20 and 30 pages of reading per class meeting, which amounts to around 10 to 15 pages per day, not too far from James’s edict. Rather than just assigning this reading and hoping for the best, I explain to my students about why I assign this number of pages, talk to them about creating and choosing a time and space to read in their daily lives, and describe the process of reading in my class as one they should understand as a reprieve from the time-pressured demands of other courses.

    In class, I designate much of our time together as technology-free in order to make space for the rich and meaningful conversations that occur most fruitfully when we aren’t distracted by notifications from our phones and laptops. Students engage in small group and classwide discussions, and I challenge them with daily questions that push them out of their comfort zones. I task them with coming up with steel man arguments in support of cultural and fictional villains, I ask them to articulate what makes a good life by finding evidence for and theories of good lives in their reading, and I frequently make them dwell with a given scene until we’ve extracted every last bit of sense (and often a bit of senselessness) from it.

    We tackle around one question a day, if we’re lucky. But the answers and questions we walk away with are finer and fuller than the formulaic answers that students give when they’re in a hurry. In return for designing my class in a way that allows students to work slowly, I expect around the same amount of essayistic output in terms of page numbers, but I design essays to be completed slowly, too, by scaffolding the work and requiring creative responses to prompts to encourage the slow, critical thinking and writing that English professors long to read and rarely encounter. I’ve received work that was thoughtful and occasionally even beautiful, work that couldn’t have been written by AI.

    In many ways, my experience of earnestly trying to read around 500 pages of fiction a week as an undergraduate might seem anachronistic. Professors across disciplines have noted the apparent inability of students to engage with any extended reading, whether this means they’re not reading at all or that they just ask ChatGPT to do the “reading” for them. The irony of worrying—as many academics seem to be doing these days—that students will use artificial intelligence to read or write for them is that many undergraduate classes require students to work like machines, to read and write at a breakneck pace, a demand that prompts the ridiculous phenomenon of classes on speed reading, which many universities advertise and which are also available online (the one I’ve linked here is accompanied by the terrifying motto “Reading at the Speed of Thought™”).

    In a discipline for which the core method is close reading, the idea of students reading a novel as quickly as possible ought to make English professors shudder, and while it’s not necessary to dedicate an entire semester to a single novel, we ought to see course design as part of the solution to students rushing through their work. In an age that privileges fast work, near-constant availability and answers on demand, the slow English classroom is a reprieve, a space where deep, creative and inspired thought is given the time it needs to blossom.

    While our students will likely never occupy the rarefied spaces that the duchess of Sutherland enjoyed when James wrote to her in 1903, with our guidance and course design, they can experience the joy, power and, yes, the luxury of reading and writing slowly. We just have to give them the time.

    Luke Vines is a sixth-year Ph.D. candidate in the Department of English at Vanderbilt University. He recently began serving as the assistant director for academic support at Berry College.

    Source link

  • College presidents stay mostly silent on Trump

    College presidents stay mostly silent on Trump

    In his first month, President Donald Trump has upended federal research funding and taken aim at race-conscious programs amid a flurry of executive orders and other actions.

    While some higher ed associations and universities have responded with lawsuits, college presidents, for the most part, have watched in relative silence. Some have released statements on changes to their institutions’ federal funding or diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, but those announcements have mostly been vague, with little mention of the political forces driving the changes. Few college leaders have publicly criticized the president’s efforts to overhaul the sector to match his vision.

    The muted or mostly nonexistent response comes as campuses have increasingly grappled with how to navigate political events since last spring’s pro-Palestinian protests, when students demanded their leaders speak up about the war between Israel and Hamas. That seems to have quelled interest in taking institutional positions. Any pushback college leaders voiced during Trump’s first term has been largely replaced by silence.

    The Presidents Speaking Up

    Still, there have been some notable exceptions to the trend.

    Michael Roth at Wesleyan University and Patricia McGuire at Trinity Washington University—two notoriously outspoken presidents—are among those who have voiced alarm about Trump’s attacks on the sector.

    Roth has written op-eds calling on his fellow college presidents to “weigh in when they see the missions of their institutions” and the health of their campus communities “compromised.” He also shared his thoughts on speaking up at the American Council on Education conference last week, noting that he tries “not to speak about the president directly” but rather the need to stand up for institutional values when they are threatened by external forces, such as Trump.

    McGuire remains an outspoken presence on social media and in interviews.

    Other leaders have spoken forcefully to their constituents about Trump’s interference.

    Following a recent and widely panned Dear Colleague letter that declared race-conscious programming, resources and financial aid illegal, Case Western Reserve University president Eric Kaler wrote in a message to campus that “this expansion to include all aspects of campus life appears to be a gross overreach of the Supreme Court decision and may be challenged in the legal system.” He added that the university “will remain firmly committed to our core values.”

    Some presidents at minority-serving institutions have added their voices to the mix.

    David Thomas, president of Morehouse College, a historically Black institution, told CNBC last month that Trump’s attempted freeze on federal funding represents an “existential threat.” He also called out an executive order targeting diversity, equity and inclusion, telling MSNBC that “we must be a point of resistance to that effort to essentially teach untruths.”

    Thomas, who is retiring in June, suggested a second Jim Crow era was coming, which he called “a reaction to the progress of people of color and others who have been disenfranchised.”

    Presidential Silence

    But as most presidents have remained silent, some critics have blamed institutional neutrality, the concept that universities should refrain from making statements on social or political issues. The movement seemed to boom last year as pro-Palestinian protests spread nationally and students often called on presidents to make public statements.

    Roth, speaking at ACE, cast institutional neutrality as “a vehicle for staying out of trouble.”

    The American Association of University Professors has also taken a critical view of institutional neutrality, writing in a lengthy statement earlier this month that it “conceals more than it reveals.”

    Joan Scott, professor emerita at the Institute for Advanced Study who was part of the AAUP group that crafted the statement on institutional neutrality, is also critical of presidential silence in the face of what she described as an attack by the Trump administration on higher education.

    “I think there is no question that the target is the university mission as we’ve known it, and that very few people are speaking up,” Scott said. “And in fact, I would say that institutional neutrality is being used as a kind of protective stance for those administrators who are not speaking up.”

    A frequent refrain from campus leaders who have adopted institutional neutrality is that they would speak up when the core institutional mission is threatened, which experts argue is happening. However, most presidents are not speaking up despite perceived threats to the core mission.

    Inside Higher Ed contacted 10 universities with institutional neutrality policies, all among the wealthiest in the nation, with multibillion-dollar endowments. Only Yale University provided a statement, though some others shared prior messages from their presidents to the campus communities regarding the federal funding freeze and Trump attacks on DEI. Of those messages, none directly connected their concerns to the Trump administration or said what was driving federal actions.

    “The university is working to understand the scope and implications of the recent [Dear Colleague] letter and remains committed to the mission, to the principles of free expression and academic excellence, and to supporting the community,” Yale spokesperson Karen Peart wrote by email. “President [Maurie] McInnis and Provost [Scott] Strobel sent a message to the Yale community that addresses recent developments from the federal government. President McInnis has also shared a message to the community about the university’s commitment to the research mission.”

    Yale did not answer specific questions sent by Inside Higher Ed.

    Scott believes presidents are conducting a balancing act—one she views as cowardly. She argues that many are more concerned about “short-term risks,” such as an increase to the endowment tax or the loss of federal funding, than “the long-term risk” that “higher education as we’ve known it disappears or is put on hold” through the remainder of Trump’s four-year term.

    “What we’re watching is a struggle on the part of university administrators to balance some commitment to the mission—the attacked mission of the university—and some anxiety about the funding that keeps the mission going, even as the mission is being undermined,” Scott said.

    Jeremy Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, a free expression group, takes a more charitable view of college presidents remaining mum on Trump’s actions.

    Speaking up is fraught with risks, Young argues, ranging from punitive actions by the Trump administration to pushback from trustees. Instead, he thinks leaders should organize a unified sector response.

    “If you’re looking to individual presidents to face off against the power of the U.S. government, you’re looking in the wrong place,” Young said.

    He believes associations are leading the fight and urges them to collaborate more, arguing that organizations need to stick together to flex collective strength. That’s the only way “higher ed will be strong enough to be able to respond effectively,” he said.

    But just because presidents aren’t speaking up doesn’t mean they have to cower, he said.

    “I think the one thing that’s easy is that presidents shouldn’t overinterpret the law,” Young emphasized. “They shouldn’t comply in advance. You look at the Dear Colleague letter—it’s very clear in the letter that it does not have the force of law. There is an attempt here to scare presidents, and they should avoid being scared into doing things that aren’t required.”

    He stressed the importance of maintaining normalcy and core values on campus. One area where college presidents could improve is on their internal messaging, he said. As political pressures mount on higher ed, it’s vital that administrators communicate with constituents “to reassure them that they have their backs.”

    Source link

  • Understanding College Safety Concerns | RNL

    Understanding College Safety Concerns | RNL

    “I’m scared to walk alone at night.”

    “What if someone targets me because I’m Muslim?”

    “Will I be safe being openly gay on campus?”

    These aren’t just random comments—they’re real voices from our latest research, and they stopped me cold.

    For the past three years, RNL and ZeeMee have been diving deep into the emotional landscape of college planning. Our latest pulse survey (our third round!) reached over 2,600 high school seniors through the ZeeMee app, and their responses about safety concerns left me genuinely shaken.

    Last year, we added a crucial question: we asked students who expressed worry about their safety in college to tell us, in their own words, what specifically scared them. Their candid responses paint a vivid— and sometimes heartbreaking—picture of what’s keeping our future college students up at night.

    Here’s what they told us, unfiltered and unvarnished.

    Understanding college safety concerns

    Every night, a high school senior lies awake somewhere in America, staring at their college acceptance letter. But instead of dreaming about new friends and future possibilities, they’re wrestling with darker questions: “Will I be safe there? Will I belong? Will someone hurt me because of who I am?”

    These aren’t just passing worries. They’re the heavy weight on students’ hearts as they contemplate their next big step. Through hundreds of candid conversations with students, we’ve uncovered the raw, unfiltered truth about what keeps them up at night. Their voices—brave, vulnerable, and achingly honest—paint a picture of what safety means to Generation Z and why traditional campus security measures are just the beginning of what they need to feel truly secure.

    After analyzing hundreds of student comments about their safety concerns, 10 clear themes emerged, revealing how identity, background, and lived experience shape their fears. Understanding these concerns is crucial for colleges aiming to create safer, more supportive environments.

    1. Personal safety and physical harm

    Across all groups, students expressed anxiety about their physical safety on campus and in surrounding areas. Random attacks, mugging, and the general unpredictability of urban environments were frequent concerns.

    • “I’m worried about approximate safety, like the area’s crime rate or state. There’s always going to be dangers.” – First-Generation Male
    • “Being alone at night or generally in an open area with few people.” – First-Generation Female
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Provide real-time crime alerts and transparent reporting about campus safety statistics.
    • Partner with local authorities to increase security presence around campus.
    • Encourage students to use campus safety apps for safe travel between locations.

    2. Sexual assault and gender-based violence

    Female and non-binary students, regardless of generation status, are consistently worried about sexual assault, harassment, and gender-based violence. Parties, walking alone at night, and navigating unfamiliar environments amplified these fears.

    • “Rape culture is real. Parties can be dangerous, and not knowing who to trust makes it worse.” – Continuing-Generation Female
    • “I’m suicidal and afraid of being raped.” – First-Generation Non-Binary
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Expand bystander intervention training for all students.
    • Ensure that Title IX resources and reporting processes are well-publicized and easily accessible.
    • Provide self-defense classes and safe-ride programs for students traveling after dark.

    3. Safety in new and urban environments

    Moving to a new city or a high-crime area was a significant concern, particularly among first-generation students unfamiliar with city living.

    • “The area of the college I chose is notoriously dangerous.” – Continuing-Generation Female
    • “Since I’m out of state, I won’t know who to trust, especially in a big city.” – First-Generation Female
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Offer city orientation programs to help students identify safe routes, neighborhoods, and resources.
    • Highlight partnerships with local authorities and emergency services.
    • Make campus safety maps available, showing emergency call boxes and security patrol zones.

    4. Racial and ethnic discrimination

    Concerns about racism, hate crimes, and bias were prominent among students of color, especially first-generation and male students. Black, Muslim, and international students frequently mentioned fears of being targeted because of their identity.

    • “Since I’m African, racism and all that.” – First-Generation Male
    • “I’m a Black Muslim woman. Being assaulted, being hate-crimed, Islamophobia.” – First-Generation Female
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Create visible reporting channels for bias-related incidents.
    • Provide diversity and inclusion training for campus staff and students.
    • Ensure campus police and security are trained in cultural sensitivity.

    5. Isolation and being alone

    Being away from family and trusted support systems was a significant source of anxiety, especially for first-generation students. Women were more likely to express concerns about being alone while navigating new environments.

    • “I would be alone away from home. Just knowing that anything could happen and I wouldn’t have that support system to call on.” – First-Generation Female
    • “I’ve never lived away from home and don’t know if I’m ready to make safe decisions all the time.” – Continuing-Generation Male
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Establish peer mentorship programs to help new students build connections.
    • Promote campus counseling services, emphasizing their accessibility.
    • Encourage students to join student organizations for community-building.

    6. Campus safety and security measures

    Many students, regardless of gender or generation status, questioned whether campus safety protocols were robust enough to protect them.

    • “What if someone sneaks onto campus or tries to harm me?” – First-Generation Female
    • “Sometimes the safety measures that are there aren’t enough.” – Continuing-Generation Male
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Regularly assess and update campus security protocols.
    • Provide students with clear information about emergency procedures.
    • Ensure dormitories and common areas have secure access systems.

    7. Substance use and peer pressure

    Students were wary of the prevalence of drugs and alcohol on campus, especially in social settings where peer pressure could lead to unsafe situations.

    • “Narcotics float around campus daily, causing self-harm to other students.” – Continuing-Generation Male
    • “I’ve heard some college guys spike drinks, and it isn’t safe to go places alone.” – First-Generation Female
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Promote alcohol and drug education programs during orientation and throughout the year.
    • Partner with student organizations to create substance-free social events.
    • Ensure campus safety staff are trained to handle substance-related emergencies.

    8. Mental health and well-being

    Many students expressed worries about managing their mental health while adjusting to college life, especially those from first-generation backgrounds.

    • “I struggle with anxiety, and being in unpredictable places worries me.” – First-Generation Female
    • “Just any fighting or being depressed.” – Continuing-Generation Male
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Expand mental health resources, including counseling and peer support groups.
    • Train faculty and staff to recognize signs of mental health struggles.
    • Promote mindfulness and stress-relief programs on campus.

    9. LGBTQ+ safety and acceptance

    LGBTQ+ students are worried about harassment, discrimination, and feeling unsafe in gendered spaces.

    • “I’m trans and nowhere really feels safe to be trans.” – First-Generation Non-Binary
    • “I look like a cis male even though I am AFAB. I’m worried about my safety using the women’s bathroom.” – Continuing-Generation Non-Binary
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Ensure that gender-neutral restrooms are available across campus.
    • Promote LGBTQ+ resource centers and support groups.
    • Train campus staff on LGBTQ+ inclusivity and safety.

    10. Gun violence and mass shootings

    With the rise in school shootings, concerns about gun violence were prevalent across all demographics.

    • “The reality of increasing school shootings really scares me.” – First-Generation Female
    • “How easily accessible and concealable guns are.” – Continuing-Generation Male
    Takeaway for institutions:
    • Conduct regular active shooter drills and safety trainings.
    • Ensure campus police are equipped to handle potential threats.
    • Promote anonymous reporting systems for suspicious activity.

    Building safer campuses: Where do we go from here?

    While each student’s experience is unique, the themes that emerge highlight common anxieties that colleges and universities must address. Institutions can make campuses feel safer by:

    1. Improving transparency: Regularly update students on campus safety protocols and crime statistics.
    2. Strengthening support systems: Expand counseling, mentorship, and peer support programs.
    3. Enhancing security: Invest in access-controlled dorms, safe-ride programs, and emergency call boxes.
    4. Promoting inclusivity: Ensure students from marginalized communities feel protected and respected.
    5. Empowering students: Provide self-defense classes, bystander training, and safety resources.

    Behind every statistic in this report is a student’s story – a first-generation student wondering if they’ll make it home safely from their late-night library sessions, a transgender student searching for a bathroom where they won’t be harassed, a young woman calculating the safest route back to her dorm. Their fears are real, their concerns valid, and their hopes for a safe campus environment are deeply personal.

    The path forward isn’t just about adding more security cameras or emergency phones, though those matter. It’s about creating spaces where every student can exhale fully, knowing they’re physically safe and emotionally secure. Where belonging isn’t just a buzzword in a campus brochure but a lived experience. Safety means being free to focus on learning, growing, and becoming—without constantly looking over your shoulder.

    This isn’t just a challenge for institutions—it’s a sacred responsibility. Because when we promise students a college education, we promise them a chance to transform their lives. And that transformation can only happen when they feel truly safe being themselves. The students have spoken. They’ve shared their fears, hopes, and dreams for safer campuses. Now it’s our turn to listen—and, more importantly, to act.

    Read Enrollment and the Emotional Well-Being of Prospective Students

    2024 Enrollment and the Emotional Well-Being of Prospective Students2024 Enrollment and the Emotional Well-Being of Prospective Students

    RNL and ZeeMee surveyed 8,600 12th-grade students to understand their anxieties and worries of students during the college search process. Download your free copy to learn:

    • The greatest challenges for 12th graders about the college planning process
    • The barriers keeping students from applying to college
    • The social fears of college that keep prospective students up at night
    • The top safety concerns of students
    • What excites and encourages students about the college journey
    • How students describe these anxieties, stresses, and fears in their own words

    Read Now

    Source link

  • The Hidden Crisis in College Planning

    The Hidden Crisis in College Planning

    Millions of students and families are caught in a middle-class crunch for affording college.

    Approximately 7-8 million families with school-age children are in the middle-income bracket ($60,000-$200,000). That’s not just a statistic—it’s a massive segment of your potential student population caught in a precarious position.

    According to recent Census data, these families make up about 40% of all U.S. households, with 39% of family households including children under 18. They’re too “wealthy” for significant financial aid but not wealthy enough to write a check without breaking a sweat. Understanding this demographic isn’t just important—it’s crucial for the future of higher education.

    Data from the 2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report from RNL and CampusESP reveals critical insights about this demographic that could reshape how we approach recruitment, financial aid packaging, and communication strategies.

    The data that should change your strategy

    Let’s start with the numbers that matter. Among middle-income families:

    • 71% report loan concerns actively impacting college selection.
    • 69% eliminate institutions based on sticker price before engaging.
    • 60% find financing “difficult” or “very difficult.”
    • 87% rank financial aid among their top five decision factors.

    For enrollment managers, these statistics represent more than just data points—they signal significant leakage in our recruitment funnels before we even have a chance to present our value proposition.

    Decision drivers: Reframing our approach

    The research reveals three primary decision factors for middle-income families:

    • Final cost after aid (71%)
    • Academic program availability (66%)
    • Academic scholarships (51%)

    For those of us in enrollment management, this hierarchy suggests we must lead with net price messaging earlier in the funnel rather than waiting for admitted student communications.

    Communication channels: What’s actually working

    Here’s where we need to check our assumptions. While many institutions are investing heavily in custom apps and elaborate communication plans, the data shows:

    • 88% prefer email communication.
    • 31% would use a parent/family portal.
    • 30% are open to text messages.
    • Only 7% would use institution-specific apps.

    Translation? We might be overcomplicating our outreach strategies and underutilizing our most effective channel.

    Campus visit insights for admissions teams

    Despite our digital transformation efforts, traditional visit experiences still dominate:

    • 68% participate in guided group tours.
    • 40% opt for guided individual tours.
    • 46% conduct self-guided tours.
    • 37% engage with virtual tours.

    This suggests we must reimagine our visit programs to integrate financial conversations earlier in the campus experience, not just at admitted student events.

    2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report

    2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report2024 Prospective Family Engagement ReportThe 2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report dives into the experiences, expectations, and challenges of families during the college planning process. RNL, CampusESP, and Ardeo surveyed more than 11,000 families of prospective college students about:

    • College planning: How many families consider out-of-state institutions? What are their college planning experiences? Do they value and participate in campus visits?
    • Communicating with institutions: Which channels to families prefer? How often do they want to hear from you? Which college planning topics do they value the most?
    • College financing plans: How many families expect paying for college to be difficult? How many plan to borrow? Do they think college is a worthwhile investment?

    Read Now

    Five strategic imperatives for enrollment leaders

    1. Revolutionize financial transparency

    • Move EFC conversations earlier in the recruitment cycle.
    • Implement targeted financial planning workshops.

    2. Optimize communication flow

    • Leverage the strong preference for email with segmented campaigns.
    • Develop parent portals that prioritize financial planning tools.
    • Create clear timelines for aid and scholarship processes.
    • Integrate financial counseling throughout the admission funnel.

    3. Transform campus visits

    • Embed financial aid counselors in regular tour programs.
    • Design value proposition messaging for tour guides.
    • Create flexible scheduling for working parents.
    • Include aid discussions in standard visit protocols.

    4. Strengthen value messaging

    • Focus on ROI metrics that resonate with middle-income families.
    • Showcase relevant alumni success stories.
    • Highlight internship-to-career pathways.
    • Emphasize four-year graduation rates’ impact on total cost.

    5. Reimagine merit strategy

    • Expand mid-range merit band opportunities.
    • Develop clear scholarship retention criteria.
    • Create post-enrollment scholarship opportunities.
    • Consider guaranteed merit aid programs.

    The AI opportunity: Next-generation enrollment tools

    1. AI financial planning assistant

    Implement systems that:

    • Generate dynamic cost projections.
    • Automate scholarship matching.
    • Model various enrollment scenarios.
    • Provide proactive deadline management.
    • Adapt to changing family circumstances.

    2. Smart visit management

    Deploy tools that:

    • Create personalized visit experiences.
    • Coordinate key stakeholder meetings.
    • Offer virtual preview capabilities.
    • Optimize multi-college visit planning.
    • Align visits with aid events.

    3. Financial aid navigation system

    Develop platforms that:

    • Provide 24/7 form completion support.
    • Flag application enhancement opportunities.
    • Compare aid packages systematically.
    • Project career-based loan scenarios.
    • Identify special circumstances early.

    Moving forward: Implementation priorities

    The data presents clear imperatives for enrollment management teams:

    1. Restructure communication flows: Lead with affordability messaging earlier in the funnel.
    2. Integrate technology thoughtfully: Focus on high-impact tools that address specific pain points.
    3. Realign resources: Ensure financial aid counseling is embedded throughout the recruitment process.

    Success in serving middle-income families isn’t just about having the right aid packages—it’s about creating transparent pathways to enrollment that address financial concerns proactively rather than reactively.

    For enrollment managers, this means rethinking how we allocate resources, structure our communication flows, and leverage technology to support our goals. The institutions that will thrive in this environment won’t necessarily be those with the largest aid budgets but those that best understand and address the unique needs of middle-income families throughout the enrollment journey.

    Creating clear pathways for middle-income families

    Let’s put this in perspective: with 7-8 million families with school-age children in the middle-income bracket and 77% believing college is worth the investment, we’re looking at millions of families who need our help to make higher education work for them. The old system of navigating college planning isn’t cutting it anymore.

    The good news? Colleges are starting to get it. The best institutions create clear pathways for these middle-income families, combining high-tech tools with high-touch personal support. Considering that these families represent about 40% of all U.S. households, it becomes clear that serving this demographic isn’t just an option—it’s an imperative for institutional sustainability.

    What your institution can do right now

    1. Develop targeted financial planning tools for this specific demographic.
    2. Create communication strategies that address middle-income concerns directly.
    3. Redesign campus visits to include meaningful financial conversations.
    4. Invest in AI tools that can help these families navigate the complexity.

    Remember: These families aren’t just looking for a college—they’re looking for a partner in making college affordable. The right approach isn’t necessarily about having the lowest sticker price or the biggest name. It’s about understanding and actively helping this crucial demographic bridge the gap between sticker price and reality. The college planning maze might be complex, but with these insights and tools, your institution can lead in serving this vital segment of American families. The future of higher education may well depend on how effectively we serve these 7-8 million families caught in the middle.

    Engage families throughout the college planning process

    Parents and family members can be your biggest enrollment champions. They are the number-one influencers for prospective students. That’s why RNL Student Search to Enrollment makes parent engagement a major part of search campaigns.

    Ask for a for a free walkthrough and see how you can engage students and parents at every stage of the enrollment journey.

    Request walkthrough

    Source link