Tag: Education

  • China “Will Blow Us Away” if Trump Destroys U.S. Universities

    China “Will Blow Us Away” if Trump Destroys U.S. Universities

    The first Nobel Prize–winning scientist to join a White House cabinet, Steven Chu made history when he became Barack Obama’s energy secretary in 2009. But his move to Washington cost him an incredible $300 million.

    “I joined the Nvidia board in 2004, before the company took off, but I had to sell my shares in 2009 when I joined government,” Chu said about his early involvement in the microchip firm that recently became the world’s most valuable company with a $4 trillion capitalization.

    “At the time Nvidia was a small graphics company, but there were rules about conflict of interest so I had to sell,” he told Times Higher Education. With Nvidia’s stock rising 22,000 percent in the past decade alone, Chu’s stake would be worth $300 million, he said.

    Nvidia’s astonishing rise has amazed the stock market in recent years, but Chu, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1997, felt the company had huge promise when he joined.

    “When Jenson Huang [Nvidia’s founder] told me about developing this high-level chip, I said, ‘If you do that, this computer will be at the heart of every supercomputer in the world.’ And he did it,” recalled Chu.

    Sanguine about his lost wealth, Chu’s main takeaway from Nvidia is not his own misfortune. Instead, he worries that this American success story—co-created by a Taiwanese-born Stanford graduate, employing foreign-born engineering talent—might not have been able to happen today given the double whammy faced by U.S. academia: massive cuts to federal science budgets and an immigration crackdown deterring many students, particularly from China, from applying to U.S. institutions.

    “Trump wants to cut science budgets by half or more and reduce the number of foreign postdocs—particularly from China,” explained Chu, speaking earlier this month at the annual Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in southern Germany.

    “That’s a problem because if you go to any major research university, you’ll find about a third of researchers are East Asian.”

    Chu’s own parents—born and educated in China before moving to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1940s—are a good example of how this brain gain has worked in America’s favor. “When the Communists took over, they couldn’t go back, but this is how America got many of its best scientists and engineers—as refugees from Germany, Italy and China.”

    “That’s true for business, too—many of America’s captains of industry, from Jenson Huang to [ex-Intel boss] Andy Grove and Alexander Graham Bell, were immigrants,” he said.

    Reflecting on how America “didn’t become a scientific superpower until World War II,” Chu said he believes the 1930s are instructive in other ways. “In this era America took what was innovative and applied it to industry. That allowed places like Ford to take what Volkswagen and Peugeot was doing but do it cheaper, but good enough to work,” he said.

    “That is what China is doing to America now—for instance, taking the electric car and making it cheaper and now better. What we did to Europe, China and now Korea are doing to us,” he said.

    Traditionally, the U.S. has been able to stay ahead thanks to its education system, in particular its generously funded world-leading research universities. With that system under attack, however, that advantage is weaker, he said. “Something magical happens at Ph.D. level in U.S. universities—we teach creativity. China is trying to learn this … and then apply it to their industrial sector. When they do, they will blow us away.”

    Without America’s outstanding universities and with its foreign talent pool diminished, China’s path to global dominance will be immeasurably easier, predicted Chu. “Trump is perfectly willing to destroy institutions that any country in the world would give its eyeteeth for,” he said.

    Unusually for a Nobel laureate, Chu’s prize did not mark the peak of his scientific achievements. He led a committee that recommended the creation of ARPA-E, a science agency that has funded more than $4 billion in battery, nanotech and other types of energy research since 2009, generating spin-out companies worth more than $22 billion.

    Meanwhile, his time as energy secretary saw further investment, including the funding of an experimental $1 billion carbon-capture plant in Louisiana—a stark contrast to the “drill, baby, drill” priorities of the current administration. Obama also credited his expertise as a major reason why the cleanup after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010—the biggest oil spill in history—was successful.

    And there are his brushes with some of the 21st century’s biggest tech companies, even if Nvidia wasn’t the only big fish he missed out on. “I knew [financier] Richard Blum, who said he could get me on the board of Apple— I didn’t say yes because I had a lot of nonprofit activities, but that was 2006, the year before the iPhone was launched,” he reflected.

    Not that he thinks the money would have made much difference. “If I was worth a couple of hundred million dollars, would I have stopped doing science and just bought sports cars and houses? I hope not.”

    Source link

  • Americans Recognize Nuances of Higher Ed’s Value

    Americans Recognize Nuances of Higher Ed’s Value

    While the Trump administration has painted a bleak picture of the higher education sector as a costly enterprise that burdens taxpayers and pushes leftist ideologies, new survey data shows that most Americans—regardless of their political leanings—still value it.

    “Increasingly, higher ed is being cast as elite, expensive and not connected with everyday Americans,” said Sophie Nguyen, senior policy manager with the higher education team at New America, the left-leaning think tank that published its annual Varying Degrees survey on Wednesday. “There’s a significant disconnect in the narrative about what higher ed is” and how it’s perceived.

    Capturing the American public’s views on the purpose of higher education drove many of the questions Nguyen and her colleagues asked 1,631 respondents in March for the ninth iteration of the survey.

    After reaching a low point last year, the data shows that satisfaction with higher education is on the rise: 40 percent of respondents—including 42 percent of both Republicans and Democrats—reported that higher education is “fine as it is,” compared to 36 percent who said the same last year.

    “We see a lot of alignment between Democrats and Republicans, something we haven’t heard a lot about,” Nguyen said, describing such data points as “the common ground” colleges can tap into when defending their worth to both consumers and lawmakers.

    New America’s findings are in line with a poll Gallup also released Wednesday in partnership with the Lumina Foundation, which shows that 42 percent of Americans surveyed said they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, compared to a low of 36 percent in 2024 and 2023—though it’s still far from the nearly 60 percent confidence peak in 2015. The share of people who reported “very little” or no confidence is also on the decline, falling from 32 percent last year to 23 percent this year. Although Democrats reported much higher confidence in higher education institutions, Republican confidence in both four- and two-year colleges rose by 11 and 12 percentage points, respectively, compared to last year.

    Data visualization of change in confidence in four- and two-year colleges, by political party.

    Respondents cited the economic and social benefits of higher education, its standing at the forefront of innovation, the quality of education and training—both for jobs and exposure to different viewpoints—as drivers of the uptick in their confidence.

    The Trump administration’s war on higher ed may have played a role, said Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning.

    “It is possible that we are seeing people in support of the sector because they see so many attacks,” she said. Whatever the reason, she said the new data is positive, and if institutions want to restore confidence to 2015 levels they should consider “how they can build on this moment and show up for students and ensure they’re getting value.”

    Like Gallup’s report, New America’s survey revealed partisan divides as well as agreements. Sixty percent of Republicans said colleges are having a negative impact on the country, while 75 percent of Democrats said they’re having a positive impact. But respondents from both parties were much more aligned on questions about specific aspects of higher ed’s value and purpose.

    While Republican lawmakers pressure universities into proving their return on investment, the vast majority of Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats, believe higher education should function as more than a transaction. They say it should not only equip students with the skills and knowledge to succeed in their chosen fields (97 percent of Democrats; 98 percent of Republicans), but also help students become informed citizens (97 percent of Democrats; 89 percent of Republicans) and critical thinkers (97 percent of Democrats; 92 percent of Republicans).

    “The rhetoric coming from Washington tends to be a caricature of what are some real issues facing college campuses and the sector in general,” Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute who focuses on the economics of higher education, said at a media briefing about New America’s survey. While “there’s room for improvement … it’s unfortunate that the rhetoric is empowering misinformation about what institutions are doing.”

    Bar chart of responses to the question "How important do you think it is for colleges and universities to do the following?" Responses are detailed earlier in thes tory.

    Even as Trump and his political allies move to dramatically cut federal funding for university research—which advocates say will devastate university budgets, local economies and progress toward lifesaving research—88 percent of Republicans and 97 percent of Democrats believe it’s important to some degree that colleges and universities conduct research to expand understanding in various subjects.

    Despite political rhetoric that suggests otherwise, American higher education has delivered an array of personal and societal benefits for decades, Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said during a news briefing on the report.

    “Higher ed continues to be the single most powerful socioeconomic catalyst in America, which is associated not only with higher earnings, but longer productive lives, better physical and mental health, resilience, adaptability, and personal development and fulfillment,” she said. “At the societal level, education drives long-term economic growth for local communities and the nation.”

    More broadly, it “strengthens our democracy,” because it “tends to mitigate or tame authoritarian tendencies” and “reduces individuals’ sensitivities to potential triggers by providing them with psychological protection in the form of self-esteem, personal security and autonomy,” she said. “It fosters a moral imagination—imagining what it’s like to be in the shoes of another, different from oneself—and interpersonal trust.”

    Despite the Trump administration and its allies’ attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, the survey data shows that an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats agree that higher education should create an environment where students of all backgrounds feel supported, provide a platform for exploration of diverse ideas and foster cross-cultural understanding.

    Bar chart showing responses to the question "How important do you think it is for colleges and universities to do the following" including "create an environment where students of all backgrounds feel supported" and "provide a platform for exploration of diverse ideas."

    Although New America’s survey suggests that most Americans recognize the layered value of higher education, Republican lawmakers have increasingly focused on both controlling the subjects colleges can teach and research and making it harder for students and colleges to access federal funding.

    The sweeping policy bill Trump signed into law earlier this month requires colleges to show that their graduates earn more than an adult with only a high school diploma or risk losing access to federal loans. Trump has also proposed billions of dollars in cuts to education funding, including eliminating all federal support for college-access programs that have long helped low-income, first-generation and students with disabilities navigate higher education.

    While Republicans and Democrats are divided on who they think should be primarily responsible for paying for college—76 percent of Democrats believe the government should; 67 percent of Republicans believe students should—respondents from both parties cited cost as the single biggest barrier to enrolling in or finishing college.

    At the same time, 75 percent of respondents over all (91 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of Republicans) said the federal government should spend more on making college more affordable.

    Hironao Okahana, vice president and executive director of the Education Futures Lab at the American Council on Education, said this data offers a ray of optimism for the higher education sector navigating an onslaught of partisan attacks from Republican policymakers.

    “The public is seeing higher education as a sector beyond some of the sound bites we’re hearing,” he said. “They’re seeing that it has more nuance and texture, and that there’s not just one way higher education can contribute to society.”

    Source link

  • Ideological Agendas Undermine Effective Governance (opinion)

    Ideological Agendas Undermine Effective Governance (opinion)

    Higher education has reached its canary-in-a-coal-mine moment: The recent resignation of the University of Virginia president under intense political pressure isn’t just another leadership transition but an indicator of hazards ahead, with similar pressures mounting George Mason University. Higher education governing boards cannot ignore these urgent warning signs that signal peril for the governance structures that have supported our universities and colleges for centuries.

    U.S. higher education is built on a unique model of governance in which independent citizen trustees exercise fiduciary oversight, set policy, safeguard institutional autonomy, support fulfillment of the mission and act in the best interests of the university or college as stewards of the public trust. This model of self-governance has preserved the academic freedom and driven the innovation that are hallmarks of U.S. higher education and that form the foundation of the profound societal impact and global prominence of the sector.

    Today, this governance model faces significant disruption. At both public and private institutions, trustees are being encouraged by policy-driven think tanks to serve as ideological agents and interfere with management rather than act as true fiduciaries. This violation of institutional autonomy is destabilizing and harmful to governance, yielding fractured boards, diminished presidential authority, politicized decision-making, academic censorship and loss of public trust.

    Boards must take this warning very seriously and take a hard look at whether their decisions reflect independent judgment aligned with the institution’s mission or, instead, the influence of external agendas. If governance fails, academic freedom is compromised, academic quality is weakened, public trust is eroded and the promise of U.S. higher education and its role in a democracy will disappear.

    To guide boards in upholding institutional autonomy and mission stewardship, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges recently launched the Govern NOW initiative with support from a Mellon Foundation grant. As part of this initiative, AGB developed a models of governance comparison and checklist for governance integrity. These tools help board members distinguish between effective governance and ideologically driven overreach and provide a framework to assess their practices and recommit to their fiduciary responsibilities.

    This is especially critical due to growing misinformation about the role of trustees. Without a true understanding of their responsibilities, they might act independently of board consensus, undermine governance norms, overstep management boundaries and pursue ideological agendas. These actions not only weaken governance by harming board cohesion and culture but also threaten the institutional stability and mission that trustees are charged to uphold.

    This moment is not about partisan politics. It is about leadership and whether we will allow institutional governance to be hijacked by ideological conflict. At stake is the integrity of the governance system that has been the foundation on which the strength and distinction of U.S. higher education has been built.

    To every trustee, I implore you to look inward. Ask whether your board is governing with independence and as stewards of mission and public trust. Use the tools AGB developed to evaluate your culture and boundaries. Engage in real dialogue with your president. Lead together with courage and clarity to secure higher education’s promise.

    Ross Mugler is board chair and acting president and CEO of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Source link

  • Closed Limestone University Owes Students Money

    Closed Limestone University Owes Students Money

    Limestone University, which shuttered abruptly in May after years of financial woes and a failed fundraising effort, owes nearly $400,000 to students affected by the closure, The State reported.

    Tuition refunds reportedly promised by university officials have not yet been disbursed.

    Altogether, Limestone owes $381,405 to 281 students, according to a report submitted to the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education by a consulting firm managing the university’s assets. A representative from that firm, Aurora Management Partners, declined to tell the newspaper when students may be reimbursed, noting that their agreement was confidential. 

    While students are due an average of more than $1,350 each, some are owed more.

    Michael Thielen, a former graduate student affected by the closure, told the newspaper that Limestone owes him more than $4,000, but he hasn’t heard from officials in almost two months. He bemoaned the university’s lack of accountability and transparency.

    “Everyone has washed their hands of this,” Thielen said.

    The private Christian university was one of the more jarring closures of the year, given how quickly it folded amid clear warning signs of financial distress, as noted in its latest audit.

    In April, Limestone officials punted on the closure decision, indicating they were in talks for a $6 million lifeline that would keep the university open. But that funding source never materialized, prompting a reversal from leadership and the abrupt closure of the 180-year-old institution.

    Former employees also sued Limestone recently over how it handled mass layoffs.

    Source link

  • Morningside University to Absorb St. Luke’s College

    Morningside University to Absorb St. Luke’s College

    Morningside University in Iowa is absorbing nearby St. Luke’s College, officials announced.

    St. Luke’s, which is focused on nursing and other health-care professions, is part of Unity Point Health, a hospital system with locations in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin. It will merge with Morningside in a deal that is expected to be finalized in late 2026, pending regulatory approvals.

    The two institutions have previously collaborated on bachelor’s degrees in radiologic technology and respiratory therapy, according to the announcement. Now Morningside will expand its health-related degree offerings as part of the merger, adding associate degrees in the above fields, an associate of science in nursing and an accelerated bachelor of science in nursing.

    Morningside, the larger of the two institutions, enrolled 2,056 students last fall. Nursing is one of the university’s most popular majors with 113 students in that field, according to its fact book.

    “Our commitment to excellence in nursing education is stronger than ever as we prepare to greet the talented students of St. Luke’s College,” said Jackie Barber, dean of the Nylen School of Nursing and Health Sciences at Morningside, in a news release. “We are excited to expand our program and offer these students support to help their academic journeys.”

    Morningside interim president Chad Benson called the merger “pivotal” for the nursing program.

    Source link

  • How Colleges and States Can Make Workforce Pell a Reality

    How Colleges and States Can Make Workforce Pell a Reality

    Community colleges secured a massive legislative win earlier this month after more than a decade of advocacy. Workforce Pell, at long last, is en route to become a reality.

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law July 4, extends Pell Grants to low-income students enrolled in eligible short-term programs, between eight and 15 weeks long. The policy shift is expected to put money in the pockets of hundreds of thousands of students per year to help them afford these quicker, increasingly popular programs—and bring an influx of funds to the institutions that offer them. 

    But realizing those gains will take some time, and with the policy scheduled to get off the ground next summer, some experts are worried a year won’t be long enough to parse the program’s details and ensure a smooth rollout.

    Lawmakers in Congress and colleges have been working toward some form of workforce Pell since former senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana pushed it forward as a part of the JOBS Act in 2014.

    Since then, multiple attempts to enact the Pell expansion have failed even as the idea gained more bipartisan support. And for a moment in late June, workforce Pell seemed dead in the water when a nonpartisan Senate official, known as the parliamentarian, claimed it violated the rules of the Senate’s reconciliation process. Senators ultimately kept it in their version of the bill but limited the new Pell funds to accredited providers, appeasing the parliamentarian.

    “We’re very thankful to the persistence of our champions in Congress on this legislation from both parties in both chambers, for the commitment they made to this legislation,” said David Baime, senior vice president of government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges, noting that while the bill was partisan, support for this provision has been “bipartisan all down the line.”

    Community college leaders are “extremely enthusiastic” about the policy change after the immense “political effort that’s gone into this,” he added. “We consistently hear reports from our campuses about the importance of finding financing sources for low-income students to participate in these programs.”

    Others, however, feel trepidation, as workforce Pell is on the precipice.

    Wesley Whistle, project director for student success and affordability at New America, a liberal think tank, said for-profit colleges and online program managers, which set up short-term online programs for community colleges and other institutions, have also been eagerly awaiting the policy shift. Despite safeguards built into the legislation, such as job-placement rates, he worries students will still be lured into subpar programs at for-profits or slapdash, mass-produced online programs also eligible for the funds.

    “I hope I’m wrong,” he said. “We’re talking about our most vulnerable students.”

    Despite the bill’s passage, debates over workforce Pell are hardly over. Now, the hard work of planning for implementation begins.

    What Happens Next

    Workforce Pell is slated to take effect next July. But for that to happen, numerous details need to be hashed out by the U.S. Department of Education, states and program providers in the coming months.

    Under the legislation, short-term programs need to meet a set of standards to be eligible for Pell money. And the task of making sure programs meet the qualifications is divvied up between states and the federal government.

    The Education Department is responsible for checking that programs have existed for at least a year, boast completion and job-placement rates of at least 70 percent, and charge tuitions below graduates’ median “value-added earnings,” or the degree to which their income exceeds 150 percent of the federal poverty line three years out of the program.

    State governors must ensure short-term programs prepare students for high-skill, high-wage or in-demand jobs. The resulting credentials also must be “stackable and portable across more than one employer,” unless preparing students for jobs with just one recognized credential. Credentials need to count toward academic credit for a certificate or degree program, as well.

    Still, many questions linger about how workforce Pell will operate—likely to be answered through negotiated rule making, a lengthy process by which the Education Department creates rules and regulations by convening and listening to key stakeholders and experts, as well as public comment.

    “There isn’t a lot of meat on the bones of the outline of what implementation would look like,” said Katie Spiker, chief of federal affairs for the National Skills Coalition, a research and advocacy organization focused on workforce training. “A whole lot of decisions and next steps … that will ultimately decide how impactful and effectively short-term Pell rolls out are still left to be determined.”

    For example, some states already have quality frameworks in place for short-term programs and have spent more than $5 billion subsidizing these programs; it’s unclear how federal workforce Pell will work alongside these existing state-level initiatives. The legislation also doesn’t say who’s involved in deciding how “high-skill, high-wage or in-demand” jobs are defined. Spiker hopes those decisions draw on input from business leaders, education providers and state workforce agencies to make “public workforce and education systems better aligned.”

    Whistle agreed some of the guardrails need ironing out. He was heartened to see a tuition limit based on graduates’ salaries—a new addition since earlier versions of the policy—but he finds aspects of the requirement murky. For example, bachelor’s degree holders qualify for workforce Pell under the law, so he worries their higher salaries could throw off the metric, intended to ensure tuitions are reasonable relative to what graduates will earn. The measure is also based on graduates’ earnings three years down the line, raising questions about how to ensure programs younger than three years don’t rip students off, he said.

    Colleges’ To-Do List

    As the department works through the policymaking process, colleges will also have their own work to do to get workforce Pell ready.

    Higher ed institutions that want to participate will need to collect the data to prove they meet eligibility metrics, said Jennifer Stiddard, senior director of government relations at Jobs for the Future, an organization focused on the intersection between education and the workforce. If they don’t have that data, they’ll need to build up the reporting infrastructure.

    In addition to measuring completion and job-placement rates, “do they think they have the data to prove a program is in demand?” Stiddard said. “Are they going to be able to demonstrate that the program articulates for credit?”

    She expects community college systems in some states will be more ready than others to answer those questions, based on their states’ existing investments in short-term programs. For example, Virginia community colleges already have outcomes data on hand because of the FastForward program, which offers short-term training for jobs locally in high demand, with the state covering much of the cost. Institutions in other states, like Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina and Texas, may have a head start, as well, she said. And some colleges that are further behind could decide it’s not worth it.

    Baime, of AACC, said the association plans “to work as closely as we can with the administration to ensure that institutions are able to make their programs eligible as soon as possible.”

    Among community college leaders, “the overwhelming feeling, of course, is positive,” he added, “but there are issues of implementation that need to be ironed out sometime hopefully before next July 1 so we can get this program up and running.”

    An ‘Aggressive’ Timeline

    Some experts guffawed at the yearlong timeline set for implementing workforce Pell.

    Karishma Merchant, associate vice president of policy and advocacy at Jobs for the Future, called the July 2026 deadline “aggressive” but “possible” if the department gets started immediately. (Workforce Pell is just one item on the department’s task list for the next year, and experts are skeptical that the agency can get all the work done.)

    Even if the process could be done in a year, Spiker believes it shouldn’t be. She said a year doesn’t seem like an “effective and reasonable” amount of time to solicit feedback from different stakeholders and disentangle how the program aligns with the patchwork of existing state investments in short-term training.

    “We will be encouraging the department and states to take the time to be able to do a successful implementation that enables short-term Pell to grow over time and to serve more students and more workers, instead of pushing just to meet a relatively arbitrary timeline,” Spiker said.

    She emphasized that the process comes on the heels of drastic staff cuts at the Education Department and a larger plan to dismantle the agency, which so far includes shifting career and technical education and adult basic education programs to the Department of Labor.

    These changes are “taxing already on the agency,” she said, “and then to be spearheading an implementation simultaneous with all of those huge shifts … just makes the path forward even more difficult.”

    Source link

  • Student Preferences in On-Campus Housing

    Student Preferences in On-Campus Housing

    Recent survey data focused on student housing officers shows students want more privacy and mental health supports.

    YinYang/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    What do students look for in on-campus housing? According to university staff, students are most satisfied with their space when it’s well furnished and clean.

    A new report from StarRez, a student housing management platform, identified room conditions and a sense of community as top priorities for on-campus housing residents. The survey also found that a majority of institutions see social events and mental health support as key to the student experience in residence halls.

    In addition, the research reveals that today’s students prefer privacy in their living space but are still interested in creating connections and engaging with peers who share their residence hall. They are also open to opportunities to build living-learning communities.

    Methodology

    StarRez’s survey was fielded between Feb. 10 and April 14, 2025. It yielded 459 responses from 418 institutions across the globe, including 360 institutions based in the Americas.

    Setting the stage: An estimated 16 percent of all undergraduates live on campus, including 30 percent of those who attend four-year, public institutions and 43 percent of students at independent colleges, according to an analysis from the American Association of Community Colleges.

    Previous research shows that students who live in residential housing on campus are more likely than their peers who live off campus to persist and complete a degree. This trend may be due in part to the proximity to peer support, academic resources and security in basic needs that living on campus affords.

    In recent years, many colleges have seen a housing crunch impact their students, resulting in less-than-ideal accommodations and residence halls exceeding capacity. StarRez’s survey found that 64 percent of responding institutions had 90 percent or higher occupancy rates; 15 percent had occupancy rates of 99 percent or higher. Yet nearly 57 percent of students do not have access to on-campus housing, according to respondent data.

    But StarRez’s report points to a post-pandemic spike in students interested in living on campus—a trend that has leveled out this year—meaning the exceptionally high demand for on-campus housing may decline.

    Affordability also remains a growing concern in the campus housing market. Student housing prices are rising faster than those of single-family housing, growing 8.8 percent in 2023 compared to multifamily rentals, which rose 4.5 percent in cost over the same period.

    Survey says: When students say they’re satisfied with their housing, approximately one-third are referring to the room conditions and furnishings, their sense of community, or the residence hall’s amenities, according to institutional respondents.

    On the flip side, cost, facility issues and dissatisfaction with food or meal plans were the most commonly reported criticisms of on-campus living. Inside Higher Ed’s Student Voice survey from 2023 found that 48 percent of students believe their dining hall options need improvement and 37 percent said dining facilities need improvement.

    Across room types, apartment-style housing is the most requested option by students (34 percent), followed by suite-style housing (27 percent) and traditional dorms (21 percent), according to StarRez’s survey. The report also found that a greater share of students want their own space; at a majority of institutions (51 percent), students rank single rooms as their top choice on the housing application.

    Not every housing placement turns out to be successful. A majority of colleges said more than 10 percent of their residents requested a room change during the year, with 8 percent saying between 25 and 50 percent of residents asked for a new room.

    Among events offered to residents, 90 percent said social events are the most popular and widely attended, followed by recreational activities (56 percent) and wellness programs (39 percent).

    When asked which health and well-being activities students most often requested of their housing facility, nearly 60 percent of respondents said mental health support programs, and over half (56 percent) wanted social events and community-building activities. Less popular responses included counseling and peer support networks (46 percent), healthy dining options (38 percent), and financial and academic support services (36 percent).

    Living-learning communities continue to grow in popularity, with four out of five colleges offering this type of student housing. Academic-focused communities (23 percent) and honors programs (17 percent) were the most popular LLCs, while career (5 percent) and leadership-focused (6 percent) groups were the least popular.

    National data shows students with disabilities are enrolling in higher education at higher rates, and StarRez’s report points to an increase in emotional support animals making their way to campus as well. One-third of institutions said between 3 and 10 percent of residents have emotional support animals, with 3 percent of respondents saying more than 10 percent of students have them.

    Fewer institutions reported offering gender-inclusive housing in 2025 (69 percent) than in 2024 (73 percent), and there was little difference in the number who said they were considering implementing gender-inclusive housing space.

    Growth in international student enrollment is also pushing an increase in housing demand from international students, with 34 percent of respondents indicating a slight increase and 6 percent reporting a significant increase. A majority of respondents house fewer than 10 percent of their international students on campus. The report data does not reflect recent federal actions this spring that may impede international student enrollment in the fall.

    So what? Based on the report’s findings, authors recommend housing providers consider:

    • Students’ desire for privacy, mental health and belonging, which are core to their experiences on campus.
    • More students want apartment-style and single-room housing options, creating opportunities for institutions to adapt spaces to match this need.
    • Living and learning communities can provide high-impact experiences for residents, leading to greater satisfaction and retention.

    How does your institution promote belonging and well-being in the residence halls? Tell us more.

    Source link

  • Reflections on the demand for higher education – and what UCAS data reveal ahead of Results Day 2025

    Reflections on the demand for higher education – and what UCAS data reveal ahead of Results Day 2025


    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Maggie Smart, UCAS Director of Data and Analysis

    As we pass the 30 June deadline for this year’s undergraduate admissions cycle, UCAS’ data offers an early view of applicant and provider behaviour as we head into Confirmation and Clearing. It also marks a personal milestone for me, as it’s my first deadline release since rejoining UCAS. I wanted to take a deeper look at the data to reflect on how much things have changed since I worked here 10 years ago.

    Applicant demand has always been shaped by two key elements: the size of the potential applicant pool, and their propensity to apply. Since I last worked at UCAS in 2016, these two factors have continuously interchanged over the better part of the past decade – sometimes increasing or decreasing independently but often counterbalancing each other. Let’s take a look at how things are shaping up this year.

    Overall, by the 30 June there have been 665,070 applicants (all ages, all domiciles) this year, compared to 656,760 (+1.3%) in 2024. This is an increase in applicants of over 64,000 since UCAS last reported in January, although the profile of these additional applicants is very different. At the January Equal Consideration Deadline (ECD), over half of the total number of applicants were UK 18-year olds, who are the most likely group to have applied by that stage in the cycle. They represent just 8% of the additional applicants since January, among a much larger proportion of UK mature and international students.

    As we saw at January, the differences in demand for places between young people from the most advantaged (POLAR4 Quintile 5) and most disadvantaged (POLAR4 Quintile 1) areas at June remain broadly the same as last year – with the most advantaged 2.15 times more likely to apply to HE than those from the least advantaged backgrounds, compared to 2.17 last year.

    UK 18-year-old demand

    Demand for UK higher education (HE) has long been shaped by the 18-year-old population – the largest pool of applicants. Despite the well-known challenges facing the HE sector at present, at the 30 June deadline we see record numbers of UK 18-year-old applicants, with 328,390 applicants this year – up from 321,410 (+2%) in 2024. This trend was almost entirely locked in by the January deadline, given the vast majority of UK 18-year-old applicants have applied at this stage in the cycle.

    During my previous tenure at UCAS, the size of the UK 18-year-old population had been falling year on year but from 2020, it began to increase. This continued growth drives the increase in UK 18-year-old applicant numbers we have observed in recent cycles. But when we look at their overall application rate to understand the strength of demand among this group, the data shows a marginal decline again this year – down to 41.2% from 41.9% in 2024. The historically strong growth in the propensity of UK 18-year-olds to apply for HE, which we’ve observed across the last decade, has clearly plateaued.

    This could be due to a range of factors, such as young people choosing to take up work or an apprenticeship, or financial barriers. We know that cost of living is increasingly influencing young people’s decisions this year, with pre-applicants telling us that financial support – such as scholarships or bursaries – ranks as the second most important consideration for them (46%), followed closely by universities’ specific cost-of-living support (34%).

    Interesting to note is the number of UK 19-year-old applicants. When separating the data to distinguish 19-year-olds applying for the first time (as opposed to those reapplying), there has been a decent increase – from 46,680 last year to 48,890 this year (+4.7%). For many years, the number of first-time UK 19-year-old applicants had been falling year on year, but since 2023 this trend has started to reverse. This suggests that demand among young people may be holding up as they decide to take a year out before applying to university or college.

    Mature students

    For UK mature students (aged 21+), the picture looks very different. The number of mature students applying to university or college ebbs and flows depending on the strength of the job market, so since I was last at UCAS, we have typically seen applications decrease when employment opportunities are strong and vice versa. Alongside fluctuations linked to the employment market, rising participation at age 18 means there is a smaller pool of potential older applicants who have not already entered HE. The falling demand from mature students continues in 2025, although in recent years there have been small but significant increases in the volume of mature applicants applying after the 30 June deadline and directly into Clearing. 

    As of this year’s 30 June deadline there have been 86,310 UK mature (21+) applicants, compared to 89,690 (-3.8%) in 2024, meaning a fall in demand compared to the previous year at this point in the cycle for the fourth year in a row. However, whereas at the January deadline mature applicants were down 6.4% compared to the same point last year, at June the figure is only 3.8% down showing some recovery in the numbers. This is another indication that mature students are applying later in the cycle. While it remains too early to say whether we will see continued growth in mature direct to Clearing applicants in 2025, last year 9,390 UK mature students who applied direct to Clearing were accepted at university or college, an increase of 7.4% on 2023 and 22.7% higher than 2022.

    International students

    When looking at the UCAS data through the lens of international students, the landscape has changed significantly since 2016. Brexit led to a sharp decline in EU applicants, offset by strong growth elsewhere, the pandemic caused disruption to international student mobility, and we’ve seen intensified global competition, shifting market dynamics and geopolitics which are increasingly influencing where they choose to study. This year we’re seeing growth once more, with 138,460 international applicants compared to 135,460 in 2024 (+2.2%) – although this stood at +2.7% at January. It should be noted that UCAS does only see a partial view of undergraduate international admissions (we tend to get a more complete picture by the end of the cycle) and we don’t capture data on postgraduate taught and research pathways.

    Interest among Chinese students in UK education has held firm since my time at UCAS, and this year we’re seeing a record number of applicants from China – 33,870, up from 30,860 (+10%) in 2024. This year’s data also shows increases in applicants from Ireland (6,060 applicants, +15%), Nigeria (3,170 applicants, +23%) and the USA (7,930 applicants, +14%). 

    Offer-making

    We are releasing a separate report on offer-making this year, alongside the usual data dashboard for applications. This additional data covers offers and offer rates over the past three years, from the perspective of applicants according to their age and where they live, and from the perspective of providers by UK nation and tariff group.

    What we’re seeing as the natural consequence of increased applications this year is an uplift in offers. Universities have made more offers than ever before this year, with 2.0 million main scheme offers to January deadline applicants overall, largely driven by the rise in UK 18-year-olds applicants (who are the most likely to use their full five choices while applying). This record high surpasses the previous peak of 1.9 million offers set last year (+3.8%).

    While the main scheme offer rate has increased across all provider tariff groups, the most notable uplift is for higher tariff providers – up 3.2 percentage points to 64.4% this year.  Despite the increase in offer rates, higher tariffs do still remain the lowest, partly due to being the most selective institutions. Offer rates by medium and lower tariff providers have also increased, by 0.9 percentage points to 77.0% among medium tariff providers, and by 1.5 percentage points to 81.7% among lower tariff providers. This means that, among those who applied by the Equal Consideration Deadline in January, 72.5% of main scheme applications received an offer this year, also a record high, and 1.8 percentage points higher than in 2024.

    It’s worth noting that we’ll be updating our provider tariff groupings in time for the 2026 cycle, to reflect changes in the higher education landscape.

    Looking ahead

    For students who are intent on going to university or college, it makes this a very good year, with more opportunities than ever before. A record 94.5% of students who applied by the January deadline will be approaching the critical summer period having received at least one offer. High levels of offer-making by universities and colleges typically translates into more acceptances, which should give applicants plenty of confidence heading into results day. 

    I’m delighted to be back at UCAS, and my team will continue to dig further into the data as Confirmation and Clearing draws nearer to see how demand translates into accepted places come results day.

    UCAS

    UCAS, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, is an independent charity, and the UK’s shared admissions service for higher education.

    UCAS’ services support young people making post-18 choices, as well as mature learners, by providing information, advice, and guidance to inspire and facilitate educational progression to university, college, or an apprenticeship.

    UCAS manages almost three million applications, from around 700,000 people each year, for full-time undergraduate courses at over 380 universities and colleges across the UK.

    UCAS is committed to delivering a first-class service to all our beneficiaries — they’re at the heart of everything we do.

    Source link

  • Savvy Cyber Kids Appoints New Members to Board of Directors

    Savvy Cyber Kids Appoints New Members to Board of Directors

    Atlanta, Georgia,(GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Savvy Cyber Kids, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, appointed new members to the Board of Directors starting July, 1, 2025. 

    Joining the Board of Directors for Savvy Cyber Kids are James Azar, Anne-Marie Brockwell, Jason Cenamor, Nelson Soares, and Dr. Jasyn Voshell. 

    Savvy Cyber Kids enables youth, families and school communities empowerment through technology by providing age-appropriate cyber safety, cyber ethics and digital parenting resources and education starting at three years old.

    ———-

    “As a father, cybersecurity practitioner, and advocate for creating a safer digital environment for all children, I was compelled to join the board of Savvy Cyber Kids,” states James Azar, CISO and Host, CyberHub Podcast. “The organization’s mission, under the leadership of Ben Halpert, deeply resonates with me. Promoting responsible internet use begins at home, and Savvy Cyber Kids equips parents with the guidance and talking points they need to raise digitally aware and cyber-safe children.”

    James Azar is a dedicated cybersecurity practitioner and CISO in industries like FinTech, Banking, Energy and Oil and Gas with over 20 years of experience. He has a passion for aligning security and business goals, believing that innovation and creative thinking are key to solving today’s security challenges. As the host of the CyberHub Podcast, James enjoys sharing insights and fostering conversations around cybersecurity, technology, and business. He’s had the privilege of speaking at industry-leading events like RSA and CyberTech Israel and contributing to well-known publications. When not immersed in security, James enjoys espresso, good food, and a fine whiskey.

    ———-

    “I’m thrilled to join the board of Savvy Cyber Kids, where I can further my commitment to empowering families, educators, and students with the knowledge to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly,” states Anne-Marie Brockwell, Account Executive, Microsoft. “Through my advocacy for proactive digital learning and community engagement, I aim to expand awareness and foster a more inclusive, ethical online future. I look forward to using my network to amplify this vital mission.”

    Anne-Marie Brockwell is a seasoned Account Executive and strategic education leader with a deep commitment to empowering learners and advancing digital citizenship. At Microsoft, she leads partnerships with premier higher education institutions across New England, helping them accelerate AI innovation, modernize infrastructure, transform data strategies, and strengthen cybersecurity postures—all in service of their ultimate stakeholders: the students. With over a decade of experience spanning education technology and enterprise sectors, Anne-Marie brings a global, cross-industry perspective shaped by leadership roles at Rosetta Stone, Sanofi/Genzyme, Imagine Learning, and Deloitte. Her career has consistently focused on consulting selling, strategic partnerships, and operational excellence, underpinned by a passion for equity, access, and innovation in education.

    ———-

    “As technology becomes increasingly more prominent in our everyday lives, so does the need for increased education around cybersecurity,” states Jason Cenamor, Founder, Confide Group and The CISO Society. “Like all important things, cybersecurity education starts at the grassroots, and organizations like Savvy Cyber Kids will ensure cyber safety becomes as natural as looking both ways before you cross the road. Witnessing so many people fall victim to bad actors every day, I could not be more passionate about ensuring the next generation is prepared to navigate the new world equipped with the knowledge and tools to avoid the same fate.”

    Jason is the Founder and CEO of Confide Group – a cybersecurity advisory firm, and the Founder and Chief Community Officer of The CISO Society – a private community where members collaborate and share expertise on security strategy, project roadmaps, technology partners, CISO jobs, talent acquisition, industry news, and more. As a community figurehead and advocate, Jason possesses a passion for relationship building, networking, events, and providing an environment for security leaders to connect and learn from one another.

    ———-

    “As a father, cybersecurity advocate, and entrepreneur passionate about digital education, I’m honored to join the Board of Directors at Savvy Cyber Kids,” states Nelson Soares, Founder & CEO, C-Vision International and CEO, NS Advisory Group Inc. “Today’s children are growing up in a world shaped by rapid technological change—one that demands both awareness and resilience. I’ve spent my career helping organizations navigate innovation responsibly, and I believe there’s no greater mission than empowering our youth to do the same. I look forward to contributing to this critical cause and supporting Savvy Cyber Kids in building a safer digital future for families everywhere.”

    Nelson Soares is a dynamic entrepreneur and executive with deep expertise in leadership, consulting, and go-to-market strategy. As the Founder & CEO of C-Vision International, he has played a pivotal role in producing global thought leadership experiences for C-suite executives. He is also the CEO of NS Advisory Group Inc., where he advises startups and enterprise technology providers on scale, sales, and strategic growth. Nelson’s work bridges innovation and executive influence, particularly in cybersecurity and enterprise software, and his network spans the U.S., EMEA, LATAM, and APAC. He also serves on the board of Pocket Security, a nonprofit. A proud husband and father of two daughters, Nelson brings a personal and professional commitment to helping the next generation thrive in the digital age.

    ———-

    “I’ve had the privilege of knowing and working with Ben Halpert for over 20 years, including some of his earliest projects in cybersecurity education,” states Dr. Jasyn Voshell, Senior Director, Products and Solutions Security, Zebra Technologies. “Joining the Savvy Cyber Kids Board is especially meaningful to me as an uncle to nieces and nephews who are growing up in a world where digital technology is ever-present. Being part of an organization that empowers families to navigate the online world safely and confidently is both a personal passion and professional commitment I hold close to my heart.”

    Dr. Jasyn Voshell is the Senior Director of Products and Solutions Security at Zebra Technologies, where he leads the global Product & Solutions Security Program. He is responsible for the strategy, planning, and execution of Zebra’s enterprise-wide security initiatives across all products and solutions. Jasyn works closely with engineering and business teams to ensure security is embedded throughout the product lifecycle—secure by design, secure in use, and secure through trust. Jasyn was instrumental in establishing the Product Security Organization at Zebra, significantly reducing risk exposure while reinforcing customer trust in Zebra’s solutions. Under his leadership, the organization has delivered measurable improvements in secure software development practices, vulnerability management, and risk governance across the product portfolio. He holds bachelor’s degrees in Mathematics and Physics, a master’s degree in Applied Mathematics and Computer Information Systems, and a doctorate in Civil Law and Cybersecurity. Jasyn also maintains numerous industry-recognized certifications in cybersecurity and audit.

    ———-

    “Our children are frontline warriors pitted against threats delivered by today’s latest technology they can’t even comprehend,” states Ben Halpert, Founder, Savvy Cyber Kids. “Parents and schools unwittingly place the children they are responsible for up against harms they are not equipped to triumph over in their daily battles, both physically and mentally.” 

    Making meaningful, long term, generational change for the world’s most vulnerable population which is young children, takes dedication. “In today’s reality of youth sextortion related suicide, AI suicide encouragement, 24/7 cyberbullying, and the realization of harms against our children delivered through technology, educating young children starting at age three is paramount,” said Ben Halpert.

    “Most people want to believe quick fixes will work; when it comes to shaping human behaviors to build individual resilience, that is not the case. Our dedicated team looks forward to expanding our reach for the benefit of the world’s children,” said Ben Halpert.

    Learn more about the Board of Directors and their passion for Savvy Cyber Kids at https://savvycyberkids.org/about/board-of-directors/

    Savvy Cyber Kids is grateful for the ongoing support of its sponsors: CISO Horizon, C-Vision International, VIPRE Security Group, PWC US, Yass Partners, Jodi Fink Halpert Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Georgia Properties, Vercel,and SecurityScorecard.

    About Savvy Cyber Kids

    Savvy Cyber Kids (SCK), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to enable youth, families, and school communities to be empowered by technology, recognizes that children may be Digital Natives but are also “Digital Naives”, who, without intervention, completely lack understanding of the implications of their digital actions. Founded in 2007 by noted speaker and author Ben Halpert, Savvy Cyber Kids resources are used in 50 states and 54 countries around the world to help parents and teachers educate today’s youth on cyber safety and cyber ethics topics of cyberbullying, digital reputation, technology and screen-time balance, mental health, body and self-image, physical safety, sexting, privacy, gaming, child sexual predators, and more starting at 3 years old.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Jessica Berger | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Jessica Berger | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Jessica BergerJessica Berger has been appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Advancement Officer at Chapman University.

    Berger brings nearly two decades of advancement and fundraising leadership experience across multiple institutions. Most recently, she served as vice president for university advancement and executive director of the foundation at California State University, San Marcos (CSUSM), where she led a team of nearly 50 professionals across fundraising, alumni and donor relations, marketing and communications, events and government relations.

    Prior to CSUSM, Berger spent seven years at Harvey Mudd College, rising to the role of assistant vice president for development. Earlier in her career, Berger contributed to fundraising efforts at Polytechnic School in Pasadena during a $93 million campaign, raised private support for a children’s home in Kenya and served in the U.S. House of Representatives as a congressional staff member focused on constituent advocacy.

    Berger earned a Master of Social Work from Cleveland State University and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Wittenberg University, both with honors.

     

    Source link