The university arguably leading the sector in its use of artificial intelligence (AI) in assessment tasks has received criticism from some students who have complained they lost marks for not using AI in a test.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III ordered Öztürk’s immediate release, stating she had raised “substantial claims” of both due process and First Amendment violations. The 30-year-old Turkish national, who was arrested on March 25 outside her Somerville, Massachusetts home by masked federal agents, had been detained at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana—more than 1,500 miles from her university.
“Continued detention potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens. Any one of them may now avoid exercising their First Amendment rights for fear of being whisked away to a detention center,” Judge Sessions stated during Friday’s hearing.
Öztürk’s legal team argued that her detention was directly connected to her co-authoring a campus newspaper op-ed critical of Tufts University’s response to the war in Gaza. During the hearing, Judge Sessions noted that “for multiple weeks, except for the op-ed, the government failed to produce any evidence to support Öztürk’s continued detention.”
The Trump administration had accused Öztürk of participating in activities supporting Hamas but presented no evidence of these alleged activities in court. Öztürk, who has a valid F-1 student visa, has not been charged with any crime.
Öztürk’s case is part of what appears to be a growing pattern of detentions targeting international students involved in pro-Palestinian activism. Her arrest by plainclothes officers, captured on video showing her being surrounded as she screamed in fear, sparked national outrage and campus protests.
“It’s a feeling of relief, and knowing that the case is not over, but at least she can fight the case while with her community and continuing the academic work that she loves at Tufts,” said Esha Bhandari, an attorney representing Öztürk.
The same day as Öztürk’s release, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York denied an administration appeal to re-arrest Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident Mohsen Mahdawi, another case involving a student detained after pro-Palestinian advocacy.
During her six weeks in detention, Öztürk, who suffers from asthma, experienced multiple attacks without adequate medical care, according to testimony. At Friday’s hearing, she briefly had to step away due to an asthma attack while a medical expert was testifying about her condition.
Judge Sessions cited these health concerns as part of his rationale for immediate release, noting Öztürk was “suffering as a result of her incarceration” and “may very well suffer additional damage to her health.”
In his ruling, Judge Sessions ordered Öztürk’s release without travel restrictions or ICE monitoring, finding she posed “no risk of flight and no danger to the community.” Despite this clear order, her attorneys reported that ICE initially attempted to delay her release by trying to force her to wear an ankle monitor.
“Despite the 11th hour attempt to delay her freedom by trying to force her to wear an ankle monitor, Rümeysa is now free and is excited to return home, free of monitoring or restriction,” said attorney Mahsa Khanbabai.
Republicans on the House’s education committee grilled three college presidents Wednesday about how they’ve handled alleged incidents of antisemitism in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war, expanding their probe beyond the Ivy League and other well-known research universities.
The leaders came from Haverford College, a small private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania; DePaul University, a private Catholic research university in Chicago; and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, a public institution in California.
All three institutions have been a hotbed of political activity for over a year. Pro-Palestinian protesters set up encampments at both Haverford and DePaul last year. Cal Poly also saw demonstrations, including a pro-Palestinian protest held around the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.
Republicans on the House Committee on Education and Workforce said they sought to crack down on campus antisemitism and uphold Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin in federally funded programs.
However, some Democrats accused the panel’s GOP members of using antisemitism concerns to quell free speech. They also blasted the Trump administration for detaining international students involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and for its heavy cuts to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which investigates antisemitism and other discrimination allegations at colleges and schools.
Wednesday’s hearing was the first the House education committee has held on campus antisemitism since President Donald Trump retook office. Since then, his administration has frozen funding at several high-profile institutions that have been probed by the committee, claiming the colleges haven’t done enough to protect students from antisemitism.
“The Trump administration has taken a sledgehammer to due process rights of institutions,” said Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top Democrat on the committee. “The public has seen a barrage of reports of this administration taking action without any investigation, such as taking away federal funding.”
Haverford President Wendy Raymond and DePaul President Robert Manuel struck a conciliatory tone in their opening remarks, and all three leaders outlined steps they have recently taken to protect Jewish students from discrimination, including setting up an antisemitism task force and tightening protest rules.
“I recognize that we haven’t always succeeded in living up to our ideals,” Raymond said. “I remain committed to addressing antisemitism and all issues that harm our community members. I am committed to getting this right.”
Last year, a group of Haverford students sued the college over allegations it had denied Jewish students the ability to participate in classes and educational activities “without fear of harassment if they express beliefs about Israel that are anything less than eliminationist.”
The lawsuit contains accounts of several incidents and comments it says are antisemitic, including one professor sharing a social media post on Oct. 11, 2023. The post included an image the lawsuit described as Hamas breaking through the border between Gaza and Israel and stating, “We should never have to apologize for celebrating these scenes of an imprisoned people breaking free from their chains.”
A federal judge dismissed the case in January but allowed plaintiffs to file an amended lawsuit, which they did that month.
Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, asked Raymond whether the professor who shared the post had faced disciplinary action, but the Haverford president declined throughout the hearing to talk about individual cases or share specific figures on disciplinary actions. The professor, Tarik Aougab, is listed on Haverford’s website as a faculty member.
“Many people have sat in this position who are no longer in the positions as president of universities for their failure to answer straightforward questions,” Stefanik replied.
The U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday it will eliminate the rigorous review process previously required for colleges and universities seeking to change accreditors, a move critics warn could undermine educational quality standards.
The announcement, which implements parts of President Trump’s Executive Order on “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” simultaneously lifts a moratorium on reviewing applications for new accrediting bodies.
In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the policy change as promoting competition.
“We must foster a competitive marketplace both amongst accreditors and colleges and universities in order to lower college costs and refocus postsecondary education on improving academic and workforce outcomes for students and families.” she said.
However, higher education policy experts expressed concerns that the streamlined process could enable institutions to evade accountability by shopping for less stringent accreditors.
The Department’s new Dear Colleague Letter revokes guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 that had established a pre-clearance process for institutional accreditor changes. The new guidance explicitly allows institutions to change accreditors for reasons including finding one that “better aligns with a religious mission,” accommodating shifts in academic programs, complying with state law requirements, or avoiding accreditors that impose “discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices and principles.”
Education advocates worry the policy shift prioritizes institutional freedom over student protections.
“When we make it easier for colleges to switch accreditors without thorough vetting, we risk creating a race to the bottom where standards are compromised,” said one higher education researcher. “The students who will suffer most are often those from historically underrepresented groups who depend on accreditation as an assurance of quality.”
The Department characterized its previous approach as overreaching, stating in the new guidance.
“It is not the Department’s prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation. This guidance re-establishes a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.”
The policy change also rescinds the October 2024 pause on reviewing applications for new accrediting agencies. At least one prospective accreditor that had its application temporarily paused has now been notified that its review will proceed.
Critics contend that enabling more accreditors with potentially varying standards could fragment the higher education quality assurance landscape in ways that confuse students and employers.
“The fundamental question is whether reducing oversight will actually improve educational outcomes or simply make it easier for underperforming institutions to avoid consequences,” said a public university president, who asked to remain anonymous, for fear of retaliation. “History suggests the latter is more likely.”
The Department has not announced specific metrics to evaluate whether the policy changes lead to improved outcomes for students or institutions.
In his order on accreditation, Trump decried the quality-control bodies as “the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year.”
He accused the organizations of having “failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers,” and also of having “abused their enormous authority.”
In the order, Trump launched into a 350-word castigation of accreditors’ diversity, equity and inclusion criteria.
He specifically named the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical programs, and the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, which accredits law schools.
The ABA is suing the U.S. Department of Justice over allegations the department canceled federal grants as retaliation for the association “taking positions the current Administration disfavors,” including its diversity requirements.
“Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law,” Trump said in the order, without specifying which DEI criteria and laws may come in conflict.
Trump also directed McMahon to hold accreditors “accountable” by denying, monitoring, suspending or terminating of accreditation powers for those who “fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law.”
His order specifically mandates that accreditors require institutions to use program data on student outcomes “without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.”
Other elements of the order would smooth the path for federal recognition of new accreditors.
The order also includes a provision directing McMahon to ensure “institutions support and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”
Trump also issued executive orders Wednesday on workforce development, artificial intelligence, foreign funding reporting requirements for colleges, and historically Black colleges and universities.
Trump’s accreditation order drew a fierce rebuke from the American Association of University Professors, among others.
Accreditors have been “important mechanisms for ensuring that academic institutions are accessible and inclusive, and provide high-quality education for all students,” the faculty group said in a statement Wednesday.
It added, “This executive order, however, uses the administration’s cruel and absurdist weaponization of antidiscrimination and civil rights law to prevent accrediting agencies from requiring that institutions take basic steps to ensure they are accessible to and inclusive of all students.”
AAUP President Todd Wolfson described the order’s call for “intellectual diversity” as “code for a partisan agenda that will muzzle faculty who do not espouse Trump’s ideological agenda.”
Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, similarly condemned the order, saying that it “undermines the aspects of the accreditation process that are designed to protect classroom instruction from political interference.”
Gadkaree also panned the order’s ban on using demographic data to evaluate programs, warning that without that option “accreditors — along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers — will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.”
Responses from the accreditation sector were quieter, but they defended the work of accreditors.
Accreditor’s DEI standards are “predicated on institutions implementing such requirements in accordance with applicable state and federal laws,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions said in a statement Wednesday.
C-RAC called for the order’s required changes to be worked out through the Education Department’s negotiated rulemaking process, which brings together higher education representatives to hash out policy details. The organization also pointed to the regulated process for removing accreditor recognition, noting, “Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.”
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation, an industry group that both vets and advocates for accrediting bodies, issued a statement Wednesday largely describing the work, standards and innovation already in place at accreditors and institutions.
“Our focus is and always will be academic assurances,” said Cynthia Jackson Hammond, the organization’s president. “CHEA-recognized accreditation organizations meet those standards.”
She closed by saying, “The independence of the accreditation process is essential in order to preserve and protect the integrity of quality assurance in higher education.”
Some college students struggle with body image, negatively impacting their academic performance and physical wellness.
stockvisual/E+/Getty Images
Food and campus dining are important elements of the college experience for many students, whether that’s grabbing a quick coffee on the way to an 8 a.m. class or sharing a meal with friends at the end of a long day. Some learners, however, experience challenges with their eating habits due to negative body image or disordered thinking about food, which can be detrimental to their physical and mental health.
Colleges and universities can create greater awareness for students and staff by supplying resources for physical health and wellness to support student well-being and thriving.
What’s the need: Students with poor body image may feel ashamed, anxious or awkward, which could result in a lack of engagement in social events or classes, or unhealthy dieting and exercise behaviors, according to a study from the University of Alabama.
Social media can increase students’ exposure to negative body images, which can damage mental and physical health. And students who experience food insecurity are more likely to report disordered eating habits.
Addressing harmful eating habits can take place in the classroom or in the dining hall. Some colleges and universities, such as Northwestern University, have made strides to improve the student experience when utilizing campus food services by removing calorie counts next to food items. Read more here.
Healthy body image can also be tied to student retention and graduation. A 2023 survey by United Healthcare Services found that college students who have experienced an eating disorder are more likely to have doubts about graduating on time (81 percent), compared to their peers who didn’t report an eating disorder (19 percent).
While women are more likely to experience negative body perceptions, men also experience disordered eating. Male student athletes, in particular, experience higher rates of eating disorders than their nonathlete peers but are less likely than their female peers to receive support for disordered eating.
Campuswide interventions: Disseminating information across campus can be one way to reach students who may be unaware of offerings or unable to identify their own harmful habits.
Working with students: As an individual faculty or staff member, practitioners can encourage positive body image with a student by:
Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
The bill, which was one of Gov. Pritzker’s top legislative priorities announced in his February State of the State address, failed to advance from the House Higher Education Committee before Friday’s deadline for most non-spending bills.
Rep. Katie Stuart, who chairs the committee, declined to call House Bill 3717 for a vote, though she indicated the legislation may still have a path forward this session.
“I don’t think around here anything’s really ever dead, and I think there’s a path forward,” Stuart told reporters following last Wednesday’s committee hearing.
Stuart, whose district includes Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, expressed specific concerns about how the proposed expansion might affect institutions that primarily serve minority students, such as Northeastern Illinois University and Chicago State University.
“If we’re not careful about what programs are allowed, that it could collapse the existing programs in those institutions, collapse their student base, and just make them not able to be operational,” Stuart explained. “And then we wouldn’t have a four-year institution serving those communities.”
This sentiment reflects growing concerns in higher education about maintaining equitable access while expanding educational options, particularly when considering the vital role that historically minority-serving institutions play in providing educational pathways for underrepresented populations.
The governor’s proposal, introduced as House Bill 3717 by Rep. Tracy Katz Muhl, aims to make bachelor’s degrees more affordable and accessible, particularly in rural areas where four-year universities may not have a significant presence.
“With lower tuition rates and a greater presence across the state — especially in rural areas — community colleges provide the flexibility and affordability students need,” Pritzker said when introducing the initiative. “This is a consumer-driven, student-centered proposal that will help fill the needs of regional employers in high-need sectors and create a pathway to stable, quality jobs for more Illinoisans.”
The bill would allow community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees in select fields, provided the college’s board of trustees demonstrates the program would address an “unmet workforce need” in their service area and that the institution possesses adequate resources and expertise to sustain the program.
Following last week’s committee hearing, a coalition of presidents from several public and private universities in Illinois, including Chicago State and Northeastern Illinois University, released a statement acknowledging their concerns while expressing willingness to find a compromise.
The university leaders noted they were concerned about “duplicating efforts and increasing costs at a time of limited resources,” but added they are “encouraged by negotiations and remain committed to working collaboratively to build a higher education ecosystem that serves all of our students and employers.”
Despite missing the committee deadline, both Rep. Stuart and the governor’s office expressed optimism about reaching a compromise that addresses the concerns of all stakeholders.
.
The task force described the cuts as a consequence of Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students” and warned that this represents only the “first round of action,” with “additional cancellations” to follow.
This announcement comes just four days after the task force revealed it would consider stop work orders for $51.4 million in contracts between Columbia and the federal government and conduct a “comprehensive review” of more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments to the institution.
In her communication to the Columbia community, Armstrong acknowledged that the cuts would have an immediate impact on research and critical university functions, affecting “students, faculty, staff, research, and patient care.” Federal funding constituted approximately $1.3 billion of Columbia’s annual operating revenue in the 2024 fiscal year.
“There is no question that the cancellation of these funds will immediately impact research and other critical functions of the University,” Armstrong wrote in en email to the campus community, while emphasizing that Columbia’s mission as “a great research university does not waver.”
The situation at Columbia highlights the increasing tensions between academic institutions and the Trump administration, particularly regarding how universities respond to claims of antisemitism on campus. Since October 2023, Columbia has been at the center of pro-Palestinian student protests, drawing federal scrutiny, especially from the Trump administration.
President Trump recently stated on Truth Social that “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests.”
Armstrong, who assumed her interim position following former University President Minouche Shafik’s resignation in August 2024, described Columbia as needing a “reset” from the “chaos of encampments and protests.” She emphasized that the university “needed to acknowledge and repair the damage to our Jewish students.”
Armstrong affirmed the university’s commitment to working with the federal government on addressing antisemitism concerns, stating: “Columbia can, and will, continue to take serious action toward combatting antisemitism on our campus. This is our number one priority.”
Armstrong, however, did not outline specific plans for how Columbia would adapt to the significant loss of federal funding, instead focusing on the university’s broader mission and values.
“Antisemitism, violence, discrimination, harassment, and other behaviors that violate our values or disrupt teaching, learning, or research are antithetical to our mission,” Armstrong noted. “We must continue to work to address any instances of these unacceptable behaviors on our campus. We must work every day to do better.”
The situation at Columbia raises important questions for higher education institutions nationwide about balancing free speech, campus safety, and federal compliance in the age of the Trump presidency. As universities increasingly face scrutiny over their handling of contentious social and political issues, the consequences—both financial and reputational—can be severe.
Armstrong called unity within the Columbia community to maintain the university’s standing and continue its contributions to society.
“A unified Columbia, one that remains focused on our mission and our values, will succeed in making the uncommonly valuable contributions to society that have distinguished this great university from its peers over the last 270 years,” she said.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Moving to a new city or a high-crime area was a significant concern, particularly among first-generation students unfamiliar with city living.
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.
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.
Many students, regardless of gender or generation status, questioned whether campus safety protocols were robust enough to protect them.
Students were wary of the prevalence of drugs and alcohol on campus, especially in social settings where peer pressure could lead to unsafe situations.
Many students expressed worries about managing their mental health while adjusting to college life, especially those from first-generation backgrounds.
LGBTQ+ students are worried about harassment, discrimination, and feeling unsafe in gendered spaces.
With the rise in school shootings, concerns about gun violence were prevalent across all demographics.
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:
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.
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:
College administrators know that technology can be a powerful tool for improving operations and boosting student success. However, given the rapid pace of technological change and the shrinking pool of qualified IT professionals, getting a real return on IT investments can be a major challenge.
One way to deal with these challenges is to outsource IT management and operations, and explore managed IT services for higher education.
While change can seem daunting, IT outsourcing can significantly improve overall IT management and strategic focus while mitigating risk and reducing cost. It’s about more than just maintaining IT infrastructure and operations –– it’s about using technology strategically to create better student experiences and drive institutional success.
One of the primary concerns I hear from administrators is the perceived complexity of moving to an outsourced IT model. Such a move impacts people, processes, and technology – so if not managed thoughtfully, unintended consequences could occur.
However, a well-structured transition plan significantly simplifies the process and minimizes risk to business operations during the transition. At Collegis, we employ a phased approach, starting with a thorough assessment of an institution’s current IT ecosystem, including resources, processes, financials, systems, infrastructure, projects, operations, etc. This assessment forms the foundation of a customized transition plan designed around the institution’s unique needs, outlining each step – from stabilization and standardization to technology optimization and, finally, transformation.
A key element of our approach is the stabilization phase, where we address immediate pain points and ensure that systems are secure and able to support day-to-day operations with no disruptions. This initial phase creates the foundation from which to build on and, ultimately, a level of confidence that sets the stage for longer-term improvements.
By breaking the transition into manageable phases and providing clear communication throughout the process, we alleviate much of the anxiety associated with change. Instead of a big “lift and shift,” the multi-year transition plan means current systems and processes continue to be supported. Administrators often express relief once they understand our structured approach and how it addresses their specific needs.
For example, our managed IT services solution for Saint Francis University involved stabilizing the core technology and infrastructure, standardizing expectations through strong IT governance (including installing a virtual CIO), and optimizing business processes and infrastructure for increased efficiency. This identified $200,000 in budgetary waste that was able to be reallocated toward technology upgrades.
Cost is, of course, a major factor in any IT outsourcing decision. Administrators are understandably concerned about the financial implications of outsourcing.
Studies show that many higher education institutions spend more than 75% of their IT budgets on basic support and technology maintenance. This is partially due to the technology debt that accrues after years of neglect and a lack of the precise skill sets needed to address deficiencies and create more efficient and effective operations. Just think of the impact technology could make if schools could reduce this amount by 25%+ and reallocate these dollars to improving student experiences or driving institutional cost savings.
Outsourcing can free up these valuable financial resources, enabling institutions to focus on projects that drive growth and enhance the student experience. Collegis partners typically experience:
Most schools find that an IT managed services partnership with Collegis either saves them money or is cost-neutral. Our economies of scale enable us to provide expert services at a lower cost than most institutions could achieve in-house. Plus, we provide clear service level agreements (SLAs) to ensure accountability.
Beyond cost savings, outsourcing can also improve ROI by ensuring technology investments deliver their intended value. By leveraging the expertise of a dedicated IT partner, institutions can optimize their systems and ensure they are getting the most out of their technology investments.
Some administrators worry about losing control when they outsource IT. They’re concerned about relinquishing oversight of critical systems and data. However, a well-designed outsourcing agreement includes clear governance structures and communication channels, ensuring they retain control.
One way we’ve addressed this concern is by establishing a steering committee for IT governance that includes representatives from the institution’s leadership and fosters collaboration and shared decision-making.
Data security is paramount, and we understand the sensitivity of institutional data. We are a SOC 2-compliant organization that undergoes regular external audits to ensure the security and integrity of the data we manage.
Our dedicated information security officers (CISOs) work closely with each institution to implement best practices and address any security concerns. We also proactively monitor systems for potential threats, leveraging our experience working with multiple institutions to identify and mitigate risks before they escalate.
Outsourcing IT management in higher education can be a game-changer for institutions looking to navigate the complexities of the evolving IT landscape. Working with a partner that focuses on open communication, a phased approach to transitioning, a stronger cybersecurity posture, and leveraging your technology’s true potential can eliminate concerns about complexity, cost, and control while enabling schools to achieve strategic goals.
Finally, when considering IT outsourcing, institutions cannot underestimate the importance and value of cultural fit. Finding a partner who shares your values and can be trusted to run a critical function for your institution is just as important as any of the other considerations I’ve highlighted above.
— Kim Fahey, CEO Collegis Education
Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.