Tag: Colleges

  • Tribal Colleges Brace for Shift to Interior Department

    Tribal Colleges Brace for Shift to Interior Department

    As the U.S. Department of the Interior prepares to take on a greater role in administering federal funding for tribal colleges, institutional leaders fear financial uncertainty and losing long-standing trust with the Education Department.

    The grant program is one of dozens the Education Department reshuffled to other federal agencies late last month in yet another effort by Secretary Linda McMahon to trim down its duties and ultimately dismantle the department. Through an interagency agreement, the Department of the Interior will now manage tribal colleges’ Title III funding, while ED retains oversight and policymaking responsibilities, according to an Education Department announcement.

    Trump administration officials argue the move makes sense. The Department of the Interior, home to the Bureau of Indian Education, already oversees tribal K–12 schools and two tribal higher ed institutions, Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in New Mexico. The Department of the Interior also already administers higher education scholarships for Native students and other grant funding for tribal colleges.

    Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in the announcement that his department will assume administrative responsibilities “for enhancing Indian education programs, streamlining operations, and refocusing efforts to better serve Native youth and adults across the nation.”

    The American Indian Higher Education Consortium said in a statement that it’s monitoring the policy shift and plans to work closely with the Department of the Interior “to ensure stability and continuity” for institutions and their students.

    “AIHEC will continue to advocate for approaches that uphold the federal government’s trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations and protect the vital role of TCUs in advancing Tribal sovereignty and student success,” the statement read.

    Concerns and Questions

    Despite reassurances, tribal college leaders are leery of the upcoming change.

    Stephen Schoonmaker, president of Tohono O’odham Community College in Arizona, said he understands the logic of the shift, given tribal colleges already have a strong relationship with the Bureau of Indian Education.

    But the department also proposed cutting more than 80 percent of tribal colleges’ funding earlier this year, from roughly $127 million last year to about $22 million this year.

    Congress didn’t approve the cut, but the proposal “was an existential threat to tribal colleges,” Schoonmaker said.

    He believes institutions like his are safest when they have grants coming from multiple federal agencies. That way, if one agency cuts funding, there are still federal dollars flowing in from elsewhere.

    “Putting everything under one basket that could be just cut all at once is not reassuring,” he said.

    Even though he’s had positive experiences working with the BIE, he said he’s jarred by the uncertainty.

    “With this administration, there is a propensity to shuffle things around and make a flurry of proposals, some of which get headway, some of which get dropped almost immediately,” Schoonmaker said, “and it makes it challenging to plan, to ensure for our students and for our employees and for our communities that we serve that the way we’ve been structured, the way that the trust and treaty obligations work … will continue to be honored.”

    The administration hasn’t shared a transition plan with tribal college leaders, adding to their worries, said Chris Caldwell, president of the College of Menominee Nation in Wisconsin.

    According to Caldwell, tribal college leaders are most concerned about the future of the funding mechanisms and support that has historically come from the Department of Education. “We want to make sure that those are retained or even increased,” Caldwell said.

    He also questions how much the BIE will listen to tribal college leaders in its decision-making. For example, its proposal to slash tribal college funding came shortly after a listening session with institutional leaders, he said.

    At the same time, he’s buoyed by the fact that bipartisan support not only saved colleges from proposed cuts, but it increased their funding; the Education Department funneled a historic one-time tranche of funds to tribal colleges, redirected from grants for other minority-serving institutions, earlier this year. Contributions from philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, including a $10 million gift to the College of Menominee Nation, have also offered some extra stability.

    “I have been on roller coasters, but never a roller coaster like this,” Caldwell said. But “I think that strong bipartisan support bodes well for us, even in the midst of this restructuring.”

    Twyla Baker, president of Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College in North Dakota, said what’s most concerning to her is that the interagency agreement came as a “total surprise.”

    “Tribes, tribal nations, tribal educators should have known about this,” she said. They “should have had input on this well before any type of moves should have been made, before any type of interagency agreements should have been signed … Consultation should have happened and needs to happen quickly if we’re going to continue on this path.”

    She also has her doubts about ED shifting responsibilities over to the Department of the Interior. She said tribal college leaders have worked to develop expertise within the Education Department about their institutions and now it feels like that effort was for naught.

    “You’re kind of pulling the rug out from under us,” she said. “And that structure, the regularity of how business is done, is going to be dismantled. You can’t just shove it over to somebody else’s responsibility and expect it to work well.”

    She worries the transition could affect students if services and resource allocation are interrupted.

    “That type of interruption can be pretty untenable for small schools in rural areas, which is what a lot of us are.”

    Whatever happens, Baker said the transition is “a diversion of energy that didn’t necessarily have to happen where we could have been just focusing on our missions.”

    A Fraught Past

    The Bureau of Indian Education has come under fire in the past for its negligent oversight of K–12 schools and the two higher ed institutions in its care.

    Members of Congress held a heated hearing last year in which many accused the Bureau of Indian Education of responding slowly or inadequately to student and employee complaints at Haskell Indian Nations University, including reports of sexual assault. Some Kansas lawmakers even proposed removing Haskell from federal control.

    The BIE has also historically drawn criticism for poor academic outcomes, limited reporting, inadequate technology and deferred maintenance backlogs at its K–12 schools, ProPublica reported. A 2014 report by Sally Jewell, interior secretary under President Barack Obama, and former Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the BIE a “stain on our Nation’s history.” The report denounced the agency for producing “generations of American Indians who are poorly educated” and promised to undertake reforms.

    (Tony Dearman, director of the Bureau of Indian Education since 2016, told ProPublica that the BIE has undergone changes since then, including a more direct process to inspect school buildings, make major purchases and enter into contracts.)

    In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, the Department of the Interior described its new responsibilities toward tribal colleges as an “opportunity to better serve Native youth” and emphasized plans to solicit tribal college leaders’ input during the transition.

    “As we move forward with efforts to improve the coordination and delivery of Native American education programs, the Bureau of Indian Education will continue to engage closely with tribes and education partners to ensure their perspectives inform our work,” the statement read.

    “We value the input we receive from tribes and stakeholders, and we remain dedicated to building a future where Native students have the tools, support, and opportunities they need to thrive for generations to come.”

    Source link

  • More 4-year colleges offer 2-year degrees to reach new groups of students (PBS NewsHour)

    More 4-year colleges offer 2-year degrees to reach new groups of students (PBS NewsHour)

    About one in four college students is both first-generation and from low-income backgrounds, making the path to a college degree especially challenging. At Boston College’s Messina College, a new, two-year, fully residential associates degree program, a wide range of support is helping change that. John Yang visited the campus to learn more as part of our ongoing series, Rethinking College.

    Source link

  • Fewer New International Students Enroll at U.S. Colleges Amid Trump Restrictions – The 74

    Fewer New International Students Enroll at U.S. Colleges Amid Trump Restrictions – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    New international students enrolling at U.S. colleges declined sharply this fall, a concerning development for universities that rely on those students for research, tuition revenue and the diversity they bring to campus culture. It could, however, create more space for U.S. residents at those campuses.

    Enrollments of new international students were down 17% compared to fall 2024, according to a report released Monday by the Institute of International Education, which surveyed more than 800 colleges about their fall 2025 enrollments. The institute, a nonprofit organization based in New York, publishes an annual report that examines the enrollment of international students. 

    The fall data was not broken down by state, so the scale of decline in California is unclear. At USC, which enrolls more international students than any other California college, overall enrollment of international students is down 3% this fall, according to a campus spokesperson. That includes returning and first-time students, so the drop could be much higher for new arrivals. USC this fall enrolls about 12,000 international students, or 26% of its total student population, according to the college. About half of those students are from China. 

    The declines come amid a changing landscape for international students under the Trump administration, which has delayed visa processing, created travel restrictions and pressured some campuses to recruit and admit fewer students from other countries. The colleges surveyed this fall by the institute cited visa application concerns and travel restrictions as top factors in the decline. 

    “We are confronting major headwinds with what I would say are poor policy decisions that the administration is taking. And that is creating a climate for international students that signals that you’re not welcome here,” said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, a nonprofit for international education and exchange.

    President Donald Trump has said that he wants to lower the number of international students at U.S. colleges to leave more room at those campuses for U.S. students. “It’s too much because we have Americans that want to go there and to other places, and they can’t go there,” he said earlier this year, referencing the number of international students at Harvard and other universities.

    For the full 2024-25 academic year, new international student enrollments were down by 7%, driven by a 15% drop among new international graduate students, compared to 2023-24. However, the number of new undergraduates was up by 5%. Trump took office in January, just before the start of the spring semester at most colleges. 

    In the U.S., students from India were the largest group of international students, accounting for 30.8% of all international students, followed by students from China, with 22.6% of enrollments.

    In the 2024-25 academic year in California, the largest share of international students were from China, and they made up 35.4% of enrollments, followed by students from India at 20.9%. Overall enrollment of international students in California was down 1.1% in 2024-25. 

    USC enrolled the most international students of any California university, followed by four University of California campuses: Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Diego and Irvine. According to the report, the total number of enrolled international students were: 12,020 at Berkeley, 10,769 at UCLA, 10,545 at San Diego, and 7,638 at Irvine.

    Across the state, international students make up about 7% of enrollments at four-year colleges, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. They make up a large share of graduate students, accounting for 31% of graduate students at UC campuses, 15% at private nonprofit universities, and 12% at California State University campuses. 

    Freya Vijay, 20, a third-year student from Canada studying business administration at USC, said she always planned to come to the United States for college. 

    “In terms of business and just the economy, you have Wall Street, you have New York, Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco, all these big cities that dominate what’s going on in the world,” she said. “So immediately, in terms of opportunity, my mind was set on the States.” 

    In addition to visa and travel restrictions, the Trump administration has directly requested — or threatened, as some have called it — California campuses to limit enrollments of international students. The administration’s compact offer to USC last month would have forced the university to cap international enrollment at 15% for undergraduates and limit enrollment from any one country to 5%.

    USC has since rejected the compact, which also would have required the university to make a number of other changes, including committing to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” 

    Separately, in a settlement proposal to UCLA, the Trump administration calls on the campus to ensure that “foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions or harassment” are not admitted. UCLA is still in negotiations with the administration and has not yet reached a deal. The Trump administration has charged the campus with antisemitism and civil rights violations. 

    Even amid the turmoil, experts say they expect California universities to continue recruiting international students. Julie Posselt, a professor of education at USC’s Rossier School of Education, noted that at research universities, much of the research is being carried out by international graduate students. 

    “Especially in STEM fields, international students are really central to the research functions of universities,” Posselt said. “Enrolling international students is not optional. It is absolutely a part of the fabric of what makes universities great.” 

    On top of that, colleges have financial incentives to enroll international students. That’s especially true at UC campuses, which charge international students and students from other states much higher rates of tuition than California residents. In the 2026-27 academic year, new international and out-of-state undergraduates at UC will pay nearly $52,000 in tuition, more than triple what in-state students will be charged. Nonresidents in graduate programs also generally pay higher rates than residents.

    Facing pressure from the state Legislature to make more room for California residents, UC in 2017 passed a policy to cap nonresident enrollment at 18%, with a higher percentage allowed for campuses that were already above that mark. But the system still gets significant tuition revenue from nonresidents, including international students, which UC says supports the system’s core operations and helps to lower the cost of attendance for California residents.  

    In a Nov. 10 interview with Fox News, Trump seemed to acknowledge the importance of international students, saying colleges might “go out of business” without them.

    “You don’t want to cut half of the people, half of the students from all over the world that are coming into our country — destroy our entire university and college system — I don’t want to do that,” he said. 

    International students also bring diverse perspectives and “a richness to the campus culture,” said Stett Holbrook, a spokesperson for the University of California system. “That’s something we really appreciate and try to cultivate.”

    At USC, the presence of international students from more than 130 countries means there are “innumerable opportunities at USC to encounter different perspectives” and “experience new cultures,” a spokesperson said in a statement. 

    Vijay, the USC student from Canada, said she regularly boasts about USC to friends, adding that she hopes attending remains an option for other international students. 

    “I always think it’s just such a great opportunity and that no international student should ever take it for granted,” she said. “I wish other internationals could experience it.”

    This story was originally published on EdSource.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Colleges May Lose State Dept. Partnership in Anti-DEI Crusade

    Colleges May Lose State Dept. Partnership in Anti-DEI Crusade

    State is planning to oust 38 universities from a partnership, The Guardian reported.

    Drew Angerer/AFP/Getty Images | Lance King, Mario Tama and Justin Sullivan/Getty Images | Liz Albro Photography/iStock/Getty Images

    The State Department’s Diplomacy Lab program says it enables students to work on real policy issues, benefitting both their careers and American foreign policy through their research and perspectives. It’s meant to “broaden the State Department’s research base in response to a proliferation of complex global challenges,” according to the program website.

    But now the Trump administration’s domestic policy fight against diversity, equity and inclusion could upend this partnership between the State Department and universities. The Guardian reported last week that the department is planning to suspend 38 institutions from the program, effective Jan. 1, because they had what the department dubbed a “clear DEI hiring policy.” It’s unclear how the department defines that phrase or how it determined these institutions have such policies.

    On Tuesday, The Guardian—citing what it called an unfinalized “internal memo and spreadsheet”—published the list of institutions that State Department plans to kick out, keep in or add to the program. A State Department spokesperson didn’t confirm or deny the list to Inside Higher Ed or provide an interview, but sent an email reiterating the administration’s anti-DEI stance.

    “The Trump Administration is very clear about its stance on DEI,” the unnamed spokesperson wrote. “The State Department is reviewing all programs to ensure that they are in line with the President’s agenda.”

    The institutions to be ousted, per The Guardian’s list, range from selective institutions such as Northeastern, Stanford and Yale universities to relatively small institutions including Colorado College, Gettysburg College and Monmouth University. The 10 universities to be added include Gallaudet University, which specializes in educating deaf and hard-of-hearing students, Liberty University, a conservative Christian institution, and the St. Louis and Kansas City campuses of the University of Missouri system. In all, the list shows plans for 76 institutions.

    The shakeup appears to be yet another consequence of the Trump administration’s now nearly year-long campaign to pressure universities to end alleged affirmative action programs or policies. The day after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order mandating an end to “illegal DEI” and calling for restoring “merit-based opportunity.” But Trump’s order didn’t define DEI.

    Through cutting off federal research funding and other blunt means, the administration has tried to push universities to end alleged DEI practices. A few have settled with the administration to restore funding; Columbia University agreed this summer to pay a $221 million fine and to not, among other things, “promote unlawful DEI goals” or “promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotas, diversity targets, or similar efforts.” Columbia is among the institutions that the State Department intends to keep in the program, according to The Guardian’s list.

    Inside Higher Ed reached out Tuesday to the institutions listed to be ousted. Those who responded suggested the program didn’t provide much, or any, funding, and said they didn’t engage in any illegal hiring practices.

    The University of Southern California said in a statement that it “appreciated travel funding provided by the Diplomacy Lab program to two USC students in 2017 and looks forward to future opportunities to collaborate.” The university said that was the last time it received funding, and said it “complies with all applicable federal nondiscrimination laws and does not engage in any unlawful DEI hiring practices.”

    Oakland University political science department chair and Diplomacy Lab campus coordinator Peter F. Trumbore said through a spokesperson that he hasn’t received notice of a change in status as a partner institution. He also said his university received no funding from the State Department for the program, though “our students have had invaluable experiences conducting research on behalf of State, and working with State Department stakeholders in producing and presenting their work.”

    Georgia Institute of Technology spokesperson Blair Meeks said his university also never received funding from the State Department for the program. He also said “Georgia Tech does not discriminate in any of its functions including admissions, educational, and employment programs. We have taken extensive actions over time to eliminate any programs, positions, or activities that could be perceived as DEI in nature.”

    Meeks further wrote that the State Department “communicated that cuts or halts to the program were associated with the federal government shutdown” that ended earlier this month. Sarah Voigt, a spokesperson for St. Catherine University, said in an email that the State Department told her university back on Jan. 31 that it was pausing Diplomacy Lab activities, so the institution didn’t apply for research opportunities this semester. Then, last week, the State Department told the university that “‘due to the delays caused by the shutdown,’ they were again pausing Diplomacy Lab activities.”

    “Our understanding is that the program was shut down due to a lack of government funding,” she wrote.

    “The University had been participating as a Diplomacy Lab Partner Institution since early 2020, and we appreciated the opportunities to offer our students and faculty members very timely research topics through this program,” she added. “If the Department of State were to resume Diplomacy Lab activities, we would review what opportunities were available.”

    Source link

  • Some Colleges Cut Diversity Essays, But They Remain Popular

    Some Colleges Cut Diversity Essays, But They Remain Popular

    Two years after the Supreme Court banned the use of race in college admissions decisions and in the wake of the Trump administration’s attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion, colleges’ use of diversity- and identity-related supplemental essay prompts is patchy.

    After a boom in prompts about applicant’s identities, several universities have scrapped the essays entirely for the 2025–2026 admission cycle. Still others, especially selective universities, have kept the prompts, saying they are the best way to get to know their applicants.

    Kelsea Conlin, who oversees the college essay counseling team for College Transitions, an admissions consulting firm, identified 19 colleges with optional or required diversity essays last admission cycle that either had dropped or reworded those prompts this year.

    “I’ve seen very few colleges that still require students to write about diversity; the prompt may still be on their application and students have the opportunity to write about it, but it’s an optional essay,” she said.

    Diversity-related essays often ask students to describe how they’ve been shaped by their community, culture or background, sometimes prompting them to describe how those identities will bring something new to a campus. Others ask students to discuss or reflect on issues like diversity, social justice or antiracism more broadly.

    In the majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Chief Justice John Roberts said it was acceptable for students to continue discussing race in their essays: “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

    The following application cycle, several colleges introduced diversity-related essay prompts to their applications, according to research by Sonja Starr, a law professor at the University of Chicago; Conlin also said she observed a surge in these essays in the 2023–2024 application cycle.

    But this year, the Department of Justice issued guidance warning institutions against using “proxies” for race in admissions and hiring, and described requirements for applicants to “describe ‘obstacles they have overcome’ or submit a ‘diversity statement’ in a manner that advantages those who discuss experiences intrinsically tied to protected characteristics” as examples.

    “The administration basically says, … ‘if you are letting the desire for a diverse campus influence your policies in any way, that is just as unconstitutional as taking the individual applicant’s race into account,’” Starr said. “I think that’s a wrong reading of the law.”

    Still, she said she’s not surprised institutions may be wary of maintaining essay questions overtly related to identity, considering the harsh actions the administration has taken against colleges it disagrees with.

    “There’s all kinds of ways the federal government can really make it difficult for universities,” she said, pointing out the slew of funding the administration has cut or frozen over the past ten months. “[Some institutions], I think, are just trying to at least stay out of the administration’s way.”

    Simplifying the Process

    Several institutions told Inside Higher Ed that they cycle out their essay prompts regularly, so the change from last year’s diversity question was par for the course. Others said they eliminated their supplemental essay requirements altogether, in an effort to make the application process less strenuous.

    The University of Washington, which removed a supplemental essay asking prospective students to describe how their background and the communities they are involved in would contribute to the campus’s diversity, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that they hope the removal of the essay will make the admissions process less strenuous for applicants.

    “During the annual review of our application process, we determined that an additional essay did not provide sufficient value when reviewing students for admission. We discovered that some applicants, like those interested in our honors program, were previously seeing up to four essay prompts. This change simplifies the process for all our applicants,” wrote David Rey, associate director of strategic communications.

    A University of Virginia spokesperson gave a similar statement to the campus student newspaper, The Cavalier Daily, about its decision to remove a diversity essay prompt introduced in the 2025–2026 application cycle, saying that its removal aimed to “lighten the load and reduce stress and anxiety around the college application process.” UVA did not respond to Inside Higher Ed‘s request for comment.

    Does that mean supplemental essays are falling out of vogue? Not necessarily, Conlin said; a significant number of selective universities still require them, and the students she works with are generally writing just as many supplemental essays as they have in previous years.

    Despite some institutions opting to change or remove their diversity prompts, though, Ethan Sawyer, the founder of the admissions consulting firm College Essay Guy, said that a review of 300 institutions’ prompts for the 2025–2026 admission season showed that questions about what a student’s identity will bring to the institution are the most popular for the second year in a row.

    He said in an email to Inside Higher Ed that these prompts have proven to be particularly effective at providing colleges with the key information they’re looking for out of an admissions essay. The identity prompt acts as the new “Why Us” essay, but avoids the pitfall of students focusing exclusively on the college’s attributes rather than their own.

    “It lets colleges learn what they’ve always wanted to know—how will this student engage with our community? What qualities will they bring?—but through a framing that encourages students to reflect on who they are (as opposed to how awesome the college is). In other words, colleges are still trying to understand fit; they’re just using a lens that better centers the student,” he said.

    Students Still Write About Race

    While some colleges may be scrapping diversity prompts, many students want to write about their identities, Conlin and Sawyer said.

    “They don’t see themselves through just one lens. No student wants to be reduced to a single label or experience. They understand they’re complex people shaped by many different identities, roles, and life moments,” Sawyer wrote. “Part of our job as counselors is to help them express that complexity—to choose which pieces of their story to spotlight in each essay, and to show how those pieces translate into contributions they’ll make on a college campus.”

    Many of the new or reworded essay prompts that have replaced diversity-related questions are broad enough that students can still talk about their identities and experience if they choose to, Conlin noted. In her experience, students are often interested in discussing their race or first-generation student status in essays. But students are more reluctant to write about being LGBTQ+ or having mental health struggles.

    Diversity essays aside, Conlin also noted two burgeoning categories of essay topics this year: prompts asking students to talk about how they handle conflict and prompts offering students the chance to explain their relationship with AI.

    Source link

  • Where Colleges Meet Prospective Family Expectations in Recruitment

    Where Colleges Meet Prospective Family Expectations in Recruitment

    College recruitment is a bit like hosting a dinner party. You might set the table beautifully, prep your best dish, and send out invitations. But if you forget dessert or serve something your guests did not actually want, you will still leave people hungry.

    That is the story unfolding when we compare two recent sets of data: the 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report (RNL, 2025) and the 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Report (RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP, 2025). Together, they show where colleges are feeding families exactly what they want, and where they are still serving mystery meat.

    Email is king, but do not ignore texts and portals

    Email is still king, and on this, families and colleges are totally in sync. Nearly all institutions rely on it to connect with prospective students and their families (98–100%), and approximately 90% of families consider it their top way to receive college updates (RNL, 2025; RNL et al., 2025). But that is not the end of the story: lower-income and first-generation families are more likely to prefer text messages, with about 30% say getting updates on their phones suits them best. And when it comes to college portals? Most families are not shy about their feelings. Seventy-seven percent call these hubs “invaluable” for keeping track of deadlines and details.

    Here is the practical takeaway. If your family portal is still in beta, you are late. The portal is the digital front porch. Families want to step in. They do not want to just peer through a window.

    However, this is where institutions often fall short.

    • Lower-income families: They may not have unlimited data plans or reliable Wi-Fi. For them, text updates are not just convenient. They are a lifeline. Use SMS for deadlines, aid reminders, and quick check-ins.
    • Multilingual families: A portal that exists only in English is a locked door. Translation tools, multilingual FAQs, or videos with subtitles are not extras. They are necessities.
    • Busy working families: They may read email at odd hours. Keep messages concise. Make them mobile-friendly. Pack them with links that get families directly to what they need. No scavenger hunt.

    Email may be the king, but texts and portals are the court. Together, they make families feel included, informed, and respected. Income, language, and schedule should not become barriers to access.

    Cost clarity: The non-negotiable

    Families shout this from the rooftops. Show me the money.

    Ninety-nine percent say tuition and cost details are essential. Seventy-two percent have already ruled out institutions based on the sticker shock (RNL et al., 2025).

    Meanwhile, many institutions are still burying their net price calculators three clicks deep or waiting until after application to share the real numbers (RNL, 2025). That delay does not just frustrate. It eliminates your campus from consideration.

    Here is the practical takeaway. Put cost and aid at the forefront. Homepage, emails, campus events. If families cannot find your numbers, they will assume they are bad.

    Widen the lens for a moment.

    • Lower-income families: They do not just compare sticker prices. They seek reassurance that aid is real, accessible, and does not come with hidden strings.
    • First-generation families: Jargon like “COA” and “EFC” confuses them. Use plain explanations, visuals, or short videos to demystify the process.
    • Multilingual families: Cost info in English-only PDFs will not cut it. Translations, bilingual webinars, and multiple-language calculators build trust.
    • Busy working families: Parents reading on a break or late at night do not want to hunt. Make your cost breakdowns mobile-friendly. Spell it out: “Here is the average monthly payment after aid.” No guesswork.

    Clarity is equity. Make costs easy to find, easy to understand, and easy to compare. If you do, you keep your institution in the game.

    Portals: High demand, low supply

    Only 45% of private and 38% of public institutions offer family portals (RNL, 2025). Seventy-seven percent of families consider portals “invaluable” during the planning process (RNL et al., 2025). That is not a gap. It is a canyon.

    Here is the practical takeaway. Stop debating whether you need a portal. You do. Build one. Promote it. Keep it fresh. A portal is not just another login. It is a family’s command center.

    Here is why the design matters:

    • Lower-income families: If they juggle multiple jobs or devices, the portal must be mobile-first. No exceptions.
    • First-generation families: Use the portal as a step-by-step guide through the admissions maze. Clear checklists and “what comes next” nudges make all the difference.
    • Multilingual families: A portal only in English is a locked gate. Multilingual menus, downloadable resources, and translated FAQs turn it into a real access point.
    • Busy working families: On-demand matters. Record sessions, post how-to videos, and archive key communications. Parents can catch up after a late shift.

    Think of your family portal as the ultimate cheat sheet. If it answers questions before families even think to ask them, you have built trust.

    Campus visits still rule the court

    Institutions know visits are powerful. Families confirm it. Ninety-seven percent say seeing campus in person shapes their decision (RNL, 2025; RNL et al., 2025). First-generation families value them even more.

    Here is the practical takeaway. Do not just host cookie-cutter tours. Offer tailored experiences for first-generation families, local students, or academic interest groups. If your best tour story is still “this is the library,” you are missing the emotional connection.

    And do not forget the families outside the “traditional tour” box.

    • Commuter students: Show them where they will spend their days. Lounges, commuter lockers, meal plan hacks, parking solutions. These matter.
    • Students working 20 hours a week to pay tuition: Highlight flexible scheduling, evening classes, and campus jobs.
    • Busy working families: Are you offering evening and weekend options? Can families join virtual sessions during a lunch break? If not, you are leaving them out.

    The real question: Are your campus experiences built for everyone, or just for the students who can spend a sunny Thursday afternoon strolling through your quad?

    Families want in, not just students

    Three out of four families want at least weekly updates or timely news when it matters (RNL et al., 2025). Institutions are trying, but too often, communication still feels like a one-size-fits-all t-shirt. Technically wearable. Not flattering.

    Here is the practical takeaway. Treat families as partners, not sidekicks. Share updates in plain language. Offer Spanish-language options. Spotlight ways families can support their students. Yield is not just about students. It is about family buy-in.

    And remember:

    • Lower-income families: They may not have time to comb through long emails. Keep communication concise. Highlight financial deadlines.
    • First-generation families: Spell out key milestones. Provide clear “what comes next” instructions.
    • Multilingual families: Translate emails, texts, and portal content.
    • Busy working families: Send reminders multiple times of day. Record webinars. Make resources on demand.

    When communication feels clear, inclusive, and personal, families lean in. When it does not, they check out. Sometimes, they cross your institution off the list.

    Mind the gaps: Equity and information access

    Families across the board say cost, aid, program details, and outcomes are critical. Lower-income and first-generation families face significantly larger “information deserts” when searching for them (RNL et al., 2025). Yet institutions often double down on generic email campaigns or broad digital ads. They assume everyone is starting from the same place (RNL, 2025).

    Here is the practical takeaway. Equity in outreach is not just a value statement. It is a recruitment strategy. Translate materials. Send proactive aid guides. Partner with community groups to get info where it is needed most.

    And remember:

    • Lower-income families: Scholarships and payment plan info should not be three clicks deep. Put them front and center.
    • First-generation families: A one-page roadmap with plain-language admissions and aid steps can level the field.
    • Multilingual families: One brochure in Spanish is not enough. Provide translated FAQs, videos, and multilingual staff at info sessions.
    • Busy working families: Host virtual Q&As in the evenings. Record them. Make sure materials are mobile-friendly.

    If families cannot find or understand what they need, they will assume you do not have it. Or worse, that you do not care.

    Digital tools are only as good as the content behind them

    Institutions love their toys. Chatbots, SEO, and retargeted ads. These tools can be powerful (RNL, 2025). But families are not impressed by bells and whistles if the basics are missing. They want clear, easily accessible information about costs, aid, programs, and outcomes. Too often, they click into a chatbot or portal and leave frustrated because the answers are not there (RNL et al., 2025).

    Here is the practical takeaway. Do not let technology become window dressing. Audit your site from a family’s perspective. Can they find costs, aid, majors, and career outcomes in under two clicks? If not, no chatbot in the world can fix it. No amount of flash will.

    Think beyond the default user.

    • Lower-income families: Spotty internet access means your site needs to be mobile-first, fast-loading, and crystal clear.
    • First-generation families: Chatbots must speak plain language, not acronym soup.
    • Multilingual families: Add multilingual chatbot capabilities or direct them quickly to translated resources.
    • Busy working families: On-demand support matters. Chatbots at midnight. Video explainers that can be paused and replayed. Not just a nine-to-five phone line.

    Digital tools are not about looking modern. They are about making life easier. If your tech feels like another hoop to jump through, families will bounce. If it feels like a helpful hand, families will lean in.

    The big picture

    The alignment is clear on some fronts. Families want email, visits, and cost clarity, and institutions largely deliver. But the gaps, portals, aid communication, and equity in outreach are where recruitment wins or loses.

    Families are not just support systems. They are decision-makers. Right now, they are asking colleges to meet them with transparency, respect, and practical tools that make a complicated journey a little simpler.

    In other words, if institutions want families to stay at the table, they will need to stop serving what is easiest to cook and start serving what families ordered.

    Talk with our marketing and recruitment experts

    RNL works with colleges and universities across the country to ensure their marketing and recruitment efforts are optimized and aligned with how student search for colleges.  Reach out today for a complimentary consultation to discuss:

    • Student search strategies
    • Omnichannel communication campaigns
    • Personalization and engagement at scale

    Request now

    References
    • RNL. (2025a). 2025 Undergraduate Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report. Ruffalo Noel Levitz. https://www.ruffalonl.com/practices2025
    • RNL, Ardeo, & CampusESP. (2025b). 2025 Prospective Family Engagement Study. Ruffalo Noel Levitz.

    Source link

  • Why Small Private Colleges Matter More Than Ever – Edu Alliance Journal

    Why Small Private Colleges Matter More Than Ever – Edu Alliance Journal

    Opinion Piece by Dean Hoke — Small College America and Senior Fellow, The Sagamore Institute

    A Personal Concern About the Future of Public Education

    It’s impossible to ignore the rising level of criticism directed at our nation’s public schools. On cable news, social media channels, political stages, and in school board meetings, teachers and administrators have become easy targets. Public schools are accused of being ineffective, mismanaged, outdated, or, in some corners, ideologically dangerous. Some commentators openly champion the idea of a fully privatized K–12 system, sidelining the public institutions that have educated the vast majority of Americans for generations.

    For those of us who have spent our lives in and around education, this rhetoric feels deeply personal. Public schools aren’t an abstraction. They are the places where many of us began our education, where our children discovered their strengths, where immigrants found belonging, where students with disabilities received support, and where caring adults changed the trajectory of young lives.

    Behind every one of those moments stood a teacher.

    Amid this turbulence, there is one group of institutions still quietly doing the hard work of preparing teachers: small private nonprofit colleges.

    Small Private Colleges: An Overlooked Cornerstone of Teacher Preparation

    Despite the noise surrounding public education, small private colleges remain committed to the one resource every school depends on: well-prepared, community-rooted teachers.

    They rarely make national headlines. They don’t enroll tens of thousands of students. But they are woven into the civic and human infrastructure of their regions—especially in the Midwest, South, and rural America.

    This reality became even clearer during a recent episode of Small College America, in which I interviewed Dr. Michael Scarlett, Professor of Education at Augustana College. His insights provide an insider’s view into the challenges—and the opportunities—facing teacher preparation today. Note to hear the entire interview click here https://smallcollegeamerica.transistor.fm/28

    I. The Teacher Shortage: A Structural Crisis

    Much has been written about the teacher shortage, but too often the conversation focuses on symptoms rather than causes. Here are the forces shaping the crisis.

    1. Young people are turning away from teaching

    Data from the ACT show that only 4% of students express interest in becoming teachers—down from 11% in the late 1990s. Bachelor’s degrees in education have fallen nearly 50% since the 1970s. Surveys show that fewer than 1 in 5 adults would recommend teaching as a career.

    The message is clear: Teaching is meaningful, but many no longer see it as sustainable.

    As Dr. Scarlett told us: “The pipeline simply is not as wide as it needs to be.”

    Recent data offers a glimmer of hope: teacher preparation enrollment grew 12% nationally between 2018 and 2022. However, this modest rebound is almost entirely driven by alternative certification programs, which increased enrollment by 20%, while traditional college-based programs grew by only 4%. This disparity underscores a critical concern: the very programs that provide comprehensive, relationship-based preparation—including those at small colleges—are not recovering at the same rate as faster, less intensive alternatives.

    2. Burnout and attrition have overtaken new entrants

    The pandemic accelerated an already-existing national trend: teachers are leaving faster than new ones are entering.

    Reasons include:

    • Student behavior challenges
    • Standardized testing pressure
    • Emotional fatigue
    • Inequities across districts
    • Lack of respect
    • Political and social media hostility

    As Scarlett notes, these realities weigh heavily on early-career teachers: “What new teachers face today goes far beyond content knowledge. They face inequities, discipline issues, emotional exhaustion… and they’re expected to do it all.”

    3. Alternative certification can’t fill the gap

    Alternative routes help—but they cannot replace the traditional college-based pipeline. Many alt-cert teachers receive less pedagogical training and leave sooner.

    Scarlett captures the trend: “Teaching has always attracted people later in life… we’ve definitely seen an uptick.”

    And while alternative routes have seen growth in recent years—increasing 20% between 2018 and 2021—this expansion has not translated into solving the shortage. As of 2025, approximately 1 in 8 teaching positions nationwide remains either unfilled or filled by teachers not fully certified for their assignments. The shortcut approach cannot substitute for comprehensive preparation.

    “The national teacher shortage is real… and retention is just as big a challenge as recruitment.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

    II. The Quiet Backbone: How Small Private Colleges Sustain the Teacher Workforce

    Small private colleges graduate fewer teachers than large public institutions, but their impact is disproportionately large—especially in rural and suburban America.

    1. They prepare the teachers who stay

    About 786 private nonprofit colleges offer undergraduate education degrees—representing roughly 20% of all teacher preparation institutions in the United States. Together, they produce approximately 25,119 graduates per year, an average of 32 per institution.

    These numbers may seem modest, but these graduates disproportionately:

    • Student-teach locally
    • Earn licensure in their home state
    • Take jobs within 30 miles of campus
    • Stay in the profession longer

    Public schools desperately need these ‘homegrown’ teachers who understand the communities they serve.

    2. Small colleges excel at the one thing teaching requires most: mentoring

    Teacher preparation is not transactional. It is relational. And this is where private colleges excel. Scarlett put it plainly: “Close relationships with our students, small classes, a lot of direct supervision… we nurture them throughout the program.” In a profession that relies heavily on modeling and mentorship, this matters enormously.

    3. Faculty—not adjuncts—supervise student teachers

    One of the most striking differences: “Full professors… working with the students in the classrooms and out in field experiences. Other institutions outsource that.”

    This is not a trivial distinction. Faculty supervision affects:

    • Preparedness
    • Confidence
    • Classroom management
    • Retention

    Where larger institutions rely on external supervisors, small colleges invest the time and human capital to do it right.

    4. They serve the regions hit hardest by shortages

    Rural districts have the highest percentage of unfilled teaching positions. Many rural counties rely almost exclusively on a nearby private college to produce elementary teachers, special education teachers, and early childhood educators.

    When a small college stops offering education degrees, it often leaves entire counties without a sustainable teacher pipeline.

    5. They diversify the educator workforce

    Small colleges—especially faith-based, minority-serving, or mission-driven institutions—often enroll first-generation students, students of color, adult career-changers, and bilingual students. These educators disproportionately fill shortage fields.

    “What we have here is special… students understand the value of a small college experience.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

    III. Should Small Colleges Keep Offering Education Degrees? The Economic Question

    Let’s be direct: Teacher preparation is not a high-margin program.

    Costs include:

    • Intensive field supervision
    • CAEP or state accreditation
    • High-touch advising
    • Small cohort sizes

    Education majors also often have lower net tuition revenue compared to business or STEM.

    So why should a small college continue offering a program that is expensive and not highly profitable?

    Because the alternative is far worse—for the institution and for the region it serves.

    1. Cutting teacher-prep weakens a college’s identity and mission

    Many private colleges were founded to prepare teachers. Teacher education is often central to institutional mission, community trust, donor expectations, and alumni identity.

    Removing education programs sends the message that the college is stepping away from public service.

    2. Teacher-prep strengthens community partnerships

    Education programs open doors to:

    • District partnerships
    • Dual-credit pipelines
    • Grow Your Own initiatives
    • Nonprofit and state grants
    • Alumni involvement

    These relationships benefit the entire institution, not just the education department.

    3. Education majors support other academic areas

    Teacher-prep indirectly strengthens:

    • Psychology
    • English
    • Sciences
    • Social sciences
    • Music and arts

    When teacher education disappears, these majors often shrink too.

    4. The societal mission outweighs the limited revenue

    There are moments when institutional decisions must be driven by mission, not margins. Producing teachers is one of them.

    5. Addressing concerns about program quality and scale

    Some critics question whether small programs can match the resources and diversity of perspectives available at large universities. This is a fair concern—and the answer is that small colleges offer something different, not lesser.

    Graduation and licensure pass rates at small private colleges consistently match or exceed those of larger institutions. What smaller programs may lack in scale, they compensate for through personalized mentorship, faculty continuity, and deep community integration. These are not peripheral benefits—they are the very qualities that predict long-term teacher retention.

    IV. Why Students Still Choose Teaching—and Why Small Colleges Are Ideal for Them

    Despite all the challenges, students who pursue teaching are deeply motivated by purpose.

    Scarlett described his own journey: “I wanted to do something important… something that gives back to society.”

    Many education majors choose the field because:

    • A teacher changed their life
    • They want meaningful work
    • They value community and service
    • They thrive in supportive, intimate learning environments

    This makes small colleges the natural home for future teachers.

    V. What Small Colleges Can Do to Strengthen Their Programs

    Below are the strategies that are working across the country.

    1. Build Grow Your Own (GYO) teacher pipelines

    Districts increasingly partner to:

    • Co-fund tuition
    • Support paraeducator-to-teacher pathways
    • Provide paid residencies
    • Guarantee interviews for graduates

    2. Develop dual-credit and “teacher cadet” high school programs

    Scarlett sees this as a major reason for hope: “We’re seeing renewed interest in teaching through high school programs… This gives me hope.”

    3. Offer specialized certifications (ESL, special ed, early childhood, STEM)

    These areas attract students and meet district needs.

    4. Create 4+1 BA/M.Ed pathways

    Parents and students love the value.

    5. Provide flexible programs for career-changers

    The rise of adult learners presents a major opportunity for private colleges. “We prepare our students for the world that exists.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

    VI. Why Small Colleges Must Stay in the Teacher-Prep Business

    If small private colleges withdraw from teacher preparation, the consequences will be immediate and dramatic:

    • Rural and suburban schools will lose their primary source of new teachers.
    • Teacher diversity will shrink.
    • More underprepared teachers will enter classrooms.
    • Districts will become more dependent on high-turnover alternative routes.
    • Student learning will suffer.

    And the profession will lose something even more important: the human-centered preparation that small colleges provide so well.

    • The teacher shortage will not be solved by legislation alone.
    • It will not be solved by fast-track certification mills.
    • It will not be solved by online mega-universities.
    • It will not be solved by market forces.
    • It will be solved in the classrooms, hallways, and mentoring relationships of the small colleges that still believe in the promise of teaching.

    If we want public schools to remain strong, we must support the institutions that prepare the teachers who keep them alive. Small private colleges aren’t just participants in the teacher pipeline—they are its foundation.

    When these colleges thrive, they produce educators who stay, who care, and who transform communities. That’s not just good for education—it’s essential for American democracy.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy firm. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). Dean has worked with higher education institutions worldwide. With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America and a Senior Fellow at the Sagamore Institute based in Indianapolis, Indiana.

    Source link

  • Faith-Based Colleges Swept Up in Higher Ed Policy Changes

    Faith-Based Colleges Swept Up in Higher Ed Policy Changes

    Leaders of faith-based colleges and universities have spoken out on a slew of political issues in recent months, sometimes standing alongside secular universities and at other times differentiating themselves and defending their unique standing and missions.

    The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities signed on to an October statement from the American Council on Education opposing the administration’s higher education compact, for example. Over the summer, CCCU also came out with a statement on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that echoed those of secular associations and institutions, expressing concern that “it ultimately falls short in supporting student access and success.”

    ACE’s Commission on Faith-Based Colleges and Universities was among the higher ed groups that lobbied hard against Pell Grant cuts, later dropped from the bill. At the same time, the University of Notre Dame and other faith-based institutions fought for an exemption for religious institutions from the higher education endowment tax, ultimately left out of the legislation’s final version.

    Like their secular peers, faith-based colleges and universities have been buffeted by the rapid-fire policy changes roiling higher ed this year. Some leaders of religious colleges say their institutions are enjoying renewed support that they hope sets a precedent for future policymakers across party lines. At the same time, some advocates fear religious colleges—and their missions—are suffering collateral damage in Trump’s war against highly selective universities, and they’re making careful decisions about when and how to speak out.

    “I knew change would be coming,” said David Hoag, president of CCCU, “but I never expected the pace to be this fast.”

    Raising Concerns

    Under any administration, CCCU’s job is to “make it possible for our institutions to achieve their missions,” Hoag said. But some recent policy changes pose an obstacle to that.

    Christian colleges—which tend to be small, enrolling about 2,500 students on average—can’t afford to join Trump’s proposed compact for higher ed, he said. He believes some of the compact’s demands, such as freezing tuition for five years, are a tall order with campus expenses on the rise. He also opposes the compact’s standardized test mandate when so many Christian colleges offer broad access, and he’s concerned by the possibility that government could have some control over curriculum, though he said the compact was unclear on that score.

    “On the curriculum side, most of our institutions are conservative. We have a solid Christian mission,” Hoag said. “I’m fine with civics being a part of some of the work that we do, but it, to me, starts to … step over academic freedom.”

    Christian colleges are also balking at the new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas, which these institutions use to bring in visiting professors from other countries.

    “Our institutions can’t afford anything like that,” Hoag said. Such a fee might be more easily affordable for tech or other industries that use H-1B visas to hire foreign employees, he said, “but for nonprofit colleges and Christian colleges, that’s a big financial burden.”

    He’s also alarmed by some of the provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including the requirement that programs prove students will earn more than high school graduates in order to access federal loans. Hoag worries that won’t bode well for institutions where a significant portion of students go into ministry, social work or other public service jobs that don’t necessarily pay high wages. He said the end of the Grad PLUS program is also poised to hurt Christian colleges; graduate students borrowed about $460 million annually to attend CCCU institutions, he said. Now he expects many will struggle to pay. Caps on loans for professional school students are also going to affect those earning master’s degrees in divinity.

    Donna Carroll, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, said Catholic institutions are hardly “immune” to the challenges rocking the rest of higher ed. She said her nonpartisan organization has decided to speak up on a particular set of policy issues, including financial aid and supports for low-income students, autonomy for faith-based institutions, and immigration policy and access for international students. For example, the association signed on to a statement by U.S. bishops condemning “indiscriminate mass deportation” as an “affront to God-given human dignity.”

    “There are some issues and situations where there is consensus and a unity across Catholic institutions,” Carroll said. “There are other situations where different institutions have different perspectives.”

    In a similar vein, Clark G. Gilbert, commissioner of the church educational system for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and chair of the Commission on Faith-Based Colleges and Universities, said members of his coalition had mixed views on parts of the bill involving federal loans—he’d like to see colleges drop their prices—but they collectively pushed hard against proposed cuts to Pell Grants, which didn’t make it into the legislation.

    “We’re concerned about first-generation and low-income students. That’s not a partisan issue,” Gilbert said.

    ‘Not Like Some of These Ivies’

    A mounting frustration for some faith-based institution leaders is the blowback their campuses face from Trump administration policies targeting expensive, highly selective private universities, even though they view their missions as distinct.

    Hoag pointed out that, while some Christian colleges are pricier, the average tuition costs about $30,600 per year, not including room and board, and the average tuition discount rate is about 52 percent.

    “Christian schools are very affordable, and we’re not like some of these Ivies that have tuition from $80,000 to $100,000 a year,” Hoag said. Yet “I do feel that they’re … putting everybody in the same category.”

    Some faith-based institutions, led by the University of Notre Dame, sought to distinguish themselves from other higher ed institutions when they pushed for a religious exemption from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s endowment tax.

    Gilbert said Brigham Young University joined that effort because university leaders viewed the situation as a religious freedom issue.

    “We feel like there are public goods of faith-based schools that are often ignored,” such as research from faith-based perspectives, he said. “Without the internal funding at these schools, it wouldn’t happen. We feel like there is a religious liberty issue at stake there.”

    “I’m sure secular schools would feel their unique missions need that protection, too—that’s not my job to write and defend that,” he added.

    Gilbert said he feels a particular need to advocate on behalf of religious colleges, compared to higher ed as a whole, because he believes faith-based institutions are too often maligned. He said such institutions are doing research on topics ignored by their secular counterparts—like how family structures affect intergenerational poverty or how faith and religious community resources affect health outcomes—but these projects struggle to get federal funding or recognition from secular peers. He also stressed that these institutions provide a campus climate religious students can’t find elsewhere.

    “Many Jewish students do not feel safe at Columbia and at Harvard and at UCLA. Many LDS students do not feel welcome in certain programs,” he said. “Faith-based schools do feel like they need to preserve their rights.” He emphasized that doesn’t mean he wants to see any university lose out on cancer research funding, for example, but “faith-based scholars are doing things that no one else is doing, and why isn’t that getting the attention, the funding and the support, regardless of who the administration is?”

    Despite their policy disagreements, some leaders of faith-based institutions believe the Trump administration is offering them a warmer reception than they’ve perhaps received in the past. The president issued an executive order in February founding a task force on eradicating “anti-Christian bias” within government. In May, Trump’s Education Department also rescinded a $37.7 million fine levied by the Biden administration on Grand Canyon University, a private Christian institution, for allegedly misleading doctoral students about its cost. And the Trump administration recently partnered with Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian campus in Michigan, on a series of videos for the country’s 250th anniversary. The president of Yeshiva University, Rabbi Ari Berman, gave the benediction at Trump’s inauguration.

    Amid renewed outreach to faith-based institutions under Trump, Gilbert said he’s trying to walk a fine line, advocating for more attention and resources for faith-based institutions’ research but doing so in a way that remains apolitical.

    “We don’t care about party politics. We care about the American family. We care about alleviating poverty,” he said. “We’re going to continue to help shine a light on the contributions these schools make in the current climate, but not so overboard that when things may change, and they will, that we can’t make the same arguments using the same principles with a different administration.”

    Source link

  • What If We Ranked Colleges on Voting Rates?

    What If We Ranked Colleges on Voting Rates?

    Rating colleges against each other is a tricky enterprise on a good day. For community colleges it’s particularly vexed, given how intensely local they are and the simple fact that most of them don’t compete with each other. If, say, a community college in Illinois or Arizona does something terrific, I don’t feel threatened by it; our students in Pennsylvania aren’t going to move there in large numbers based on ratings.

    Still, the lure of lists is powerful. The new Carnegie classifications, as outlined by Inside Higher Ed, rate community colleges largely by the subsequent earnings of their students compared to local labor markets. The article outlines one key objection based on economic geography: In some parts of the country, the median wages and cost of living are so high that even students coming out of very successful vocational programs will struggle economically at first.

    It’s similar to the objection I noted a few years ago to the “social mobility” ratings that Washington Monthly offered, in which colleges were graded based on how many quartiles of income their students jumped. To score really well on that metric, you’d better have most of your students start in the bottom quartile. A college located in an area with more students in the second quartile simply couldn’t compete, no matter how well it did its job.

    The measurement error in this case is more well-meaning than in many others, but it’s still an error. And I’m still unconvinced that it adequately captures the value of students who transfer, whether with a degree or just with a bunch of classes.

    Presumably, those objections could be incorporated into a more refined effort. But even the objections implicitly concede that the only relevant scale on which to measure education is income. Postcollege income matters, of course, but it’s not the only thing that matters. If it were, we would stop training early-childhood teachers and social workers immediately.

    Part of the attraction of measuring income is that it’s quantifiable. Even I sometimes get twitchy when academics refer to the “ineffable” benefits of something; it can be hard to disentangle idealism from wishful thinking. But some noneconomic benefits of higher education are relatively easy to quantify in the short term.

    What if we measured colleges on the voting rates of new graduates?

    Voting is quantifiable, at least for now. It’s a basic form of adult civic engagement. It doesn’t rely on economic cycles that can wreak havoc with starting salaries. And we know from decades of political science that on average, people who vote are more knowledgeable about politics and social issues than people who don’t. (Contrary to popular myth, people who consistently vote a party line are more informed on average than ticket-splitters, but that’s another article.)

    Voting rates also wouldn’t be distorted by the low earnings of students who transferred and are in their junior or senior years of college when surveyed. Yes, voting rates are higher in presidential years, but presidential years happen at the same time for every college in the country, so they wouldn’t affect comparisons between institutions.

    If we took postgraduation voting rates seriously, colleges would be incentivized to improve the civic literacy and involvement of their students. That strikes me as an excellent outcome. That’s especially true for community colleges, given that their student bodies are much more representative of America than the elite selective universities.

    Community colleges train, yes, but they also educate. Why not educate for democracy? And why not support—with funding and publicity—the colleges that do a particularly good job of that?

    Source link

  • Open-Admission Colleges Won’t Have to Report Disaggregated Data

    Open-Admission Colleges Won’t Have to Report Disaggregated Data

    In August, the Trump administration issued an executive action ordering colleges and universities to submit disaggregated data about their applicants and prove they are following the letter of the law when it comes to race in admissions. But a new notice, published to the Federal Register Wednesday, clarifies that the mandate only applies to four-year institutions.

    “We posed a directed question to the public to seek their feedback … [and] based both upon our initial thinking and public comment, we propose limit[ing] eligibility of [the new IPEDS Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement] to the four-year sector,” the notice stated.

    Colleges that are obligated to comply must still submit six years’ worth of application and admissions data, disaggregated by student race and sex, during the next survey cycle, it said. But any college that admits 100 percent of its applicants and does not award merit or identity-based aid will be exempt.

    Since the action was first published, institutions across the sector have warned the Trump administration that collecting and reporting such data would be a difficult task and place an undue burden on admissions offices. But with smaller staff sizes and limited resources, community colleges were particularly adamant about the challenge the requirement posed. 

    “It’s not just as easy as collecting data,” Paul Schroeder, the executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, told Inside Higher Ed in August. “It’s not just asking a couple questions about the race and ethnicity of those who were admitted versus those who applied. It’s a lot of work. It’s a lot of hours. It’s not going to be fast.”

    Source link