Keystone College has completed a merger with the Washington Institute for Education and Research, a fledgling think tank, after nearly three years of work, officials announced Monday.
Last week, Keystone’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, announced that it had reviewed and signed off on the ownership change, making it official at the end of May.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education, the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Education already approved the merger.
Keystone president John F. Pullo Sr. noted the merger effort was both lengthy and challenging.
“I am pleased to report that the merger transaction between Keystone and WIER was concluded on Friday, May 30, finally joining the College with its strategic partner after nearly a three-year journey that at times threatened the future of the College,” Pullo said in a news release.
Pullo’s remarks are a likely nod to Keystone’s precarious position in recent years. Last spring, MSCHE warned that the private college was “in danger of immediate closure.” However, Pullo noted at the time that officials were in talks with “an investment partner” to help stabilize the college. (Keystone’s accreditation was also at risk last year, but it remains accredited.)
Keystone’s new owner is a largely unknown think tank based in Washington, D.C.
WIER, founded in 2023, describes its purpose on its website as “The establishment and operation of post-secondary degree-granting institutions for the instruction of students” and “Funding and supporting other post-secondary 501(c)(3) degree-granting institutions.” WIER does not list any staff members on its website except for founder and president Ahmed Alwani.
Alwani was previously president of Fairfax University of America in Northern Virginia, which quietly closed in December due to its inability to find a new accreditor after the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools lost federal recognition, according to the FXUA website. The private, nonprofit institution, formerly known as Virginia International University, was almost shut down by state regulators in 2019 due to various issues highlighted by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, including a lack of academic rigor and other concerns.
The Florida Board of Governors voted Tuesday to reject Santa Ono as the next president of the University of Florida, bowing to opposition from conservatives over his past support of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Anti-DEI activist Chris Rufo led the conservative backlash, while multiple elected officials in Florida alleged that Ono failed to protect Jewish students during his time as president of the University of Michigan.
Amid those concerns, the Board of Governors voted 10 to 6 to reject Ono for the UF job.
That process included a no vote from Paul Renner, a former Republican lawmaker in the state who had previously angled for the UF presidency, as became clear during board discussions. Throughout the meeting Renner grilled Ono on his past support for DEI, prompting fellow board members to push back, accusing him of “interrogating” Ono and questioning the fairness of his inquiries.
The vote comes after the UF Board of Trustees approved Ono’s hire last week following a public interview that focused largely on DEI. Ono distanced himself from DEI in that interview, arguing that the initiatives began with good intentions but ultimately became divisive. He said they siphoned resources away from student success efforts and stifled dialogue, which he said prompted his decision to close Michigan’s DEI office this spring. (Ono resigned from the Michigan presidency in May to pursue the UF job.)
“I am here to ensure that DEI never returns to the University of Florida,” Ono said Tuesday.
In the past, Ono had condemned systemic racism and argued for the necessity of DEI. But Tuesday—as he did in his public interview with UF’s Board of Trustees last week—Ono emphasized his ideological evolution, which ultimately failed to convince the board.
A Contentious Meeting
In the public comments portion of the meeting, both Ono’s supporters and detractors made their case.
Michael Okun, director of the Norman Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at UF, disputed claims that Ono failed to protect Jewish students. Okun, who is Jewish, argued Ono is an ally to the Jewish community, “and suggesting otherwise is factually incorrect and deeply harmful.”
But University of Michigan Medical School professor Joshua Rubin countered that claim, arguing that Ono had failed to stymie a culture in Michigan where antisemitism thrived. Rubin argued that Ono failed to fix problems at UM and “is complicit in that culture.”
Other speakers included Kent Fuchs, the former UF president called out of retirement to helm the university again when Ben Sasse exited the job abruptly last year. Fuchs, who is currently serving as interim president, supported Ono’s hire, telling the board the candidate was “unmatched nationally in both his credentials and his experience and his track record.”
UF Board of Trustees chair Mori Hosseini also made an impassioned plea to hire Ono.
“The bottom line is that Dr. Ono is globally recognized as one of the most respected leaders in higher education, and we are lucky to have him. Outside of Dr. Ono, there are very few people, if any, with a combination of ideological alignment in Florida and the operational experience to run a research powerhouse like you are,” Hosseini said in remarks to the Board of Governors.
He added that “the UF presidency is not a position where someone can learn on the job.”
But the Board of Governors bombarded Ono with a series of sharp questions.
Few had to do with how he would run the University of Florida; student and faculty representatives on the board asked how he would support and include their respective groups in his decision-making process, but most questions focused on DEI.
Jose Oliva, a former Republican lawmaker, told Ono his ideological shift was “nothing short of incredible.” He also asked Ono, who has a background in ophthalmology, what science his “decades-long, enthusiastic support and advocacy” for DEI initiatives was based on.
Ono argued that he was “not an expert in that area” and had not created any DEI programs; he said such efforts were already in place when he arrived at UM and his previous institutions, such as the University of British Columbia.
“Your words simply don’t support that you were just kind of sailing along,” Oliva responded.
Some trustees also pressed Ono on transgender care at University of Michigan Health, questioning whether the hospital had “cut off” the breasts or genitals of transitioning patients, particularly children.
As with many other questions, Ono demurred. In that case, he said he didn’t want to misspeak.
“I’m not an expert,” Ono said, in what became a common refrain throughout the day.
Hosseini, who was seated next to Ono and involved in the conversation at times—including when he revealed that Renner, who was one of Ono’s fiercest inquisitors of the day, had inquired about the UF job—appeared to bristle at the Board of Governors’ sharp questions for the candidate.
“You all decided today is the day you’re going to take somebody down,” Hosseini told the board.
Ono had been set to make up to $3 million a year as UF president. Now it appears Hosseini and the rest of the board will have to restart the search process.
Ono’s Opponents Celebrate
As news of Ono’s rejection spread, conservative critics took a victory lap.
“This is a massive win for conservatives—and an act of courage by the board,” Rufo posted.
Florida’s elected officials also weighed in.
“This is the right decision for @UF. UF’s students, faculty, and staff deserve a president who will stand for Florida values and against antisemitism,” Republican senator Rick Scott posted on X. (Scott had previously called for an investigation into the search that yielded Ono.)
But conservatives weren’t the only ones celebrating.
Multiple academics on BlueSky also seemed to take satisfaction in the news, with some indicating they thought Ono had done an about-face on DEI, only for the move to backfire.
“I don’t know how many times this needs to be said: there is no winning with these people. If you’re willing to sell your soul to try and appease them, then I’m sorry but you deserve whatever they do to you,” Neil Lewis Jr., a communication professor at Cornell University, wrote online.
Outside experts also noted how the Ono vote reflected the influence of state-level politics on decisions.
James Finkelstein, a professor emeritus of public policy at George Mason University who studies presidential contracts and hiring processes, told Inside Higher Ed by email that the outcome illustrated the growing complexity and politicization of picking a college leader.
“This episode is a stark reminder of how state-level politics are reshaping the presidential search process. The lesson is clear: until a contract is signed, nothing is guaranteed,” Finkelstein wrote.
Preparing for an AI-Powered Evolution in How Students Search
If you’ve ever been involved in your institution’s digital marketing efforts, you’ve undoubtedly heard of search engine optimization — otherwise known as SEO.
But after more than a decade of optimizing keywords and backlinks in content for search engines like Google and Bing, we’re now at the dawn of a new age spurred on by artificial intelligence (AI) and a new approach is required: generative engine optimization (GEO).
As prospective students turn to AI tools and large language models (LLMs) to guide their college search, traditional SEO tactics are no longer enough. Digital marketing teams must also incorporate new GEO-focused tactics into their strategies.
In an increasingly competitive and LLM-driven world, institutions must now rethink their visibility, branding, and recruitment strategies for a digital landscape that continues to evolve.
Understanding Generative Engines and Their Impact on Students’ Search Behavior
Generative engine optimization is emerging as a critical response to the way AI is reshaping how prospective students find and evaluate colleges. Unlike traditional search engines, generative engines powered by large language models deliver conversational, synthesized responses — often without requiring users to click through to a website.
This shift is impacting how institutions need to approach their digital visibility and student engagement efforts.
The Rise of LLMs
As students move away from traditional search engines toward AI search tools, LLMs and LLM-powered tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Google’s Gemini and Search Generative Experience (SGE) are leading the way.
These platforms generate real-time, AI-powered answers that summarize information from across the web — often citing sources, but not always linking to them directly. Their growing popularity signals a move away from standard search engine results toward fluid, question-driven discovery.
The Impact of LLMs on Students’ Search Experiences
Prospective students are already turning to generative engines to ask nuanced questions such as, “What are the top 20 online MSW programs?” or “Which colleges have the best student support services for veterans?”
Instead of having to navigate a list of blue links, they’re receiving direct, synthesized answers to their questions. This introduces key shifts that digital marketers must consider, including:
Fewer clicks to their institution’s website
A higher priority for being cited in credible content
Reduced visibility in traditional search engine results pages (SERPs)
For colleges and universities, adapting to this new behavior is essential to staying prominent in students’ minds during their decision-making process.
SEO vs. GEO in Higher Education
Search engine optimization and generative engine optimization share a common goal: to ensure content is discoverable, relevant, and credible. Both approaches rely on strategic keyword usage, high-quality content, and data-driven refinement to increase visibility.
SEO was built for traditional search engines that return ranked lists of links. GEO is designed for AI-powered engines that synthesize information and deliver complete answers.
For universities, this change requires a new, blended approach — one that takes both SEO and GEO into account when creating admissions materials, program pages, and search rankings-focused content such as blog posts.
SEO vs. GEO: A Side-by-Side Comparison
Category
SEO (Search Engine Optimization)
GEO (Generative Engine Optimization)
Primary Goal
Ranks web pages in search engine results pages
Surfaces content in AI-generated, conversational responses
Keyword Strategy
Optimizes for exact-match and high-volume keywords
Focuses on semantic relevance and contextual cues
User Experience
Prioritizes site structure, navigation, and readability
Prioritizes clear, structured content that AI can easily parse
Tracks AI referrals, citation frequency, inclusion in LLM answers
Content Strategy
Page-level optimization for ranking
Multisource optimization for synthesis in AI-generated content
Adaptability Requirement
Evolves with search algorithm updates
Evolves with AI behavior, model updates, and platform preferences
User Search Experience
List of blue links with snippets
Zero-click answers, direct responses, and conversational recommendations
How Generative Engines Pull and Rank University Content
Generative engines like ChatGPT and Google’s SGE don’t rank web pages the same way traditional search engines do. Instead, they synthesize information from multiple sources to deliver a single, cohesive answer.
To be included in these AI-generated responses, university content needs to strike a balance between academic credibility and an accessible, student-friendly structure. AI prioritizes information that is well-organized, clearly written, and backed by authoritative sources, such as:
Research publications
Program pages
Institutional blogs
Institutions that prioritize clarity and credibility in their content are more likely to be cited and surfaced in generative search results.
Key GEO Strategies for Colleges and Universities
To stay visible in AI-driven searches, institutions need to adopt innovative content strategies tailored to how generative engines interpret and deliver information. Here are some core GEO tactics:
Showcase Faculty Within Content
Highlight faculty expertise in program pages, blog posts, and FAQs.
Link to faculty bios and published research to boost credibility.
Feature quotes, profiles, or insights to personalize academic offerings.
Ensure AI- and LLM-Friendly Structure and Markup
Use schema (structured data) markup to help AI understand the content’s context.
Organize pages with clear subheadings that mirror common student questions.
Example: “Is an Online EdD Respected?”
Boldface key points and use callout boxes to surface important information.
Design site architecture for easy crawling and content parsing.
Create Concise and Clear Content
Use conversational, student-centered language.
Write in short, scannable paragraphs with clear takeaways.
Address common and next-level questions.
Examples: “How long does it take to complete this degree?” and “What can I do with my degree after graduation?”
Use Content Formats That Perform Well in GEO
Incorporate career outcome and salary tables.
Include degree comparisons.
Example: “MBA vs. MPA”
Use visuals and guides that explain steps for processes such as admissions, licensure, and the student journey.
Build Brand Authority and Trust
Invest in public relations campaigns to generate credible mentions and citations.
Maintain consistent messaging across the web, social media, and paid media.
Grow visibility through strategic content distribution and strong social media channels.
Measuring GEO Performance in Enrollment Marketing
As with every digital marketing initiative, it’s not enough to just roll out a GEO strategy — institutions need to measure its success. Here’s how it’s done in the GEO world:
Create LLM-Focused Dashboards via GA4 and Looker Studio
Institutions can build LLM-focused dashboards using Google Analytics 4 (GA4) and Looker Studio by creating filters for platforms like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Claude.
Google currently doesn’t provide direct data for AI Overview referrals, and they have been neutral in response to questions on if they will ever release AI Overview data.
While LLMs are still evolving, isolating referral traffic from these tools can provide institutions with early insight into how students are discovering their content through AI.
Use Attribution Models for AI-Influenced Student Journeys
To fully understand how GEO affects students’ enrollment behavior, marketers need to evolve their attribution models, or how enrollment conversions are attributed to different channels. AI-generated responses often play a role at the top of the enrollment funnel, influencing students before they ever land on a university’s website.
Measuring that influence through multitouch attribution and long-view funnel analysis will become increasingly important as AI tools reshape how students explore, compare, and commit to higher education programs.
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
As generative engines continue to shape how students discover universities, inherent challenges will likely arise.
AI tools can misrepresent data or present outdated information, raising concerns about their accuracy and whether they can be trusted. There’s also the risk that well-resourced, elite institutions may disproportionately dominate generative search results, reinforcing existing inequities. Lack of transparency in how algorithms surface and prioritize content makes it difficult for institutions to ensure they are receiving fair and accountable representation.
Future Trends in Higher Education GEO
When it comes to emerging digital marketing techniques like GEO, early investments can help institutions stay ahead of the curve.
Multimodal Optimization for Virtual Campus Tours and Visual Content
As generative engines evolve, optimizing for multimodal content — such as images, video, and virtual tours — will become increasingly important.
This goes beyond traditional desktop experiences. In Meta’s first quarter 2025 earnings call, Mark Zuckerberg predicted that smart glasses will eventually replace smartphones, describing them as ideal for AI and the metaverse.
With Meta already partnering with Ray-Ban on AI-integrated eyewear, higher ed marketers need to start preparing content that’s not just LLM-friendly but also immersive, interactive, and wearable-ready.
AI-Driven Personalization for Students
Rather than relying on static rankings or one-size-fits-all search experiences, AI is ushering in a wave of hyperpersonalization. Prospective students may soon interact with personalized advisors, see school rankings tailored to their goals, and receive customized digital content that aligns with their academic and career interests.
This shift will push institutions to deliver flexible, student-centered content that adapts to each individual’s intent and pathway.
Search by Outcome, Not Degree
Generative tools are beginning to trace backward from desired career outcomes by identifying what roles successful professionals hold, then linking those roles to specific programs, professors, and institutions.
For colleges and universities, this means alumni outcomes, employer partnership information, and job title visibility are essential signals. Institutions that surface these elements clearly will be better positioned to show up in outcome-based searches and AI-generated guidance.
Ready to Get Ahead of the Curve?
The use of AI and large language models in search is only going to increase, fundamentally reshaping how students discover, evaluate, and engage with higher education institutions.
Developing a strong generative engine optimization strategy is essential. GEO needs to be seamlessly integrated into your existing SEO and digital marketing efforts to ensure your institution stays visible and relevant in a rapidly shifting landscape.
With generative engines evolving at an unprecedented pace, now is the time to prepare for how you’ll reach the next generation of students.
Want to talk through how GEO fits into your broader enrollment strategy? Contact Archer Education to start the conversation.
by Joseph David Blacklock, Jeanette Baird and Bjørn Stensaker
Risk-based’ models for higher education quality regulation have been increasingly popular in higher education globally. At the same time there is limited knowledge of how risk-based regulation can be implemented effectively.
Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) started to implement risk-based regulation in 2011, aiming at an approach balancing regulatory necessity, risk and proportionate regulation. Our recent published study analyses TEQSA’s evolution between 2011 and 2024 to contribute to an emerging body of research on the practice of risk-based regulation in higher education.
The challenges of risk-based regulation
Risk-based approaches are seen as a way to create more effective and efficient regulation, targeting resources to the areas or institutions of greatest risk. However, it is widely acknowledged that sector-specificities, political economy and social context exert a significant influence on the practice of risk-based regulation (Black and Baldwin, 2010). Choices made by the regulator also affect its stakeholders and its perceived effectiveness – consider, for example, whose ideas about risk are privileged. Balancing the expectations of these stakeholders, along with their federal mandate, has required much in the way of compromise.
The evolution of TEQSA’s approaches
Our study uses a conceptual framework suggested by Hood et al (2001) for comparative analyses of regimes of risk regulation that charts aspects respectively of context and content. With this as a starting point we end up with two theoretical constructs of ‘hyper-regulation’ and ‘dynamic regulation’ as a way to analyse the development of TEQSA over time. These opposing concepts of regulatory approach represent both theoretical and empirical executions of the risk-based model within higher education.
From extensive document analysis, independent third-party analysis, and Delphi interviews, we identify three phases to TEQSA’s approach:
2011-2013, marked by practices similar to ‘hyper-regulation’, including suspicion of institutions, burdensome requests for information and a perception that there was little ‘risk-based’ discrimination in use
2014-2018, marked by the use of more indicators of ‘dynamic regulation’, including reduced evidence requirements for low-risk providers, sensitivity to the motivational postures of providers (Braithwaite et al. 1994), and more provider self-assurance
2019-2024, marked by a broader approach to the identification of risks, greater attention to systemic risks, and more visible engagement with Federal Government policy, as well as the disruption of the pandemic.
Across these three periods, we map a series of contextual and content factors to chart those that have remained more constant and those that have varied more widely over time.
Of course, we do not suggest that TEQSA’s actions fit precisely into these timeframes, nor do we suggest that its actions have been guided by a wholly consistent regulatory philosophy in each phase. After the early and very visible adjustment of TEQSA’s approach, there has been an ongoing series of smaller changes, influenced also by the available resources, the views of successive TEQSA commissioners and the wider higher education landscape as a whole.
Lessons learned
Our analysis, building on ideas and perspectives from Hood, Rothstein and Baldwin offers a comparatively simple yet informative taxonomy for future empirical research.
TEQSA’s start-up phase, in which a hyper-regulatory approach was used, can be linked to a contextual need of the Federal Government at the time to support Australia’s international education industry, leading to the rather dominant judicial framing of its role. However, TEQSA’s initial regulatory stance failed to take account of the largely compliant regulatory posture of the universities that enrol around 90% of higher education students in Australia, and of the strength of this interest group. The new agency was understandably nervous about Government perceptions of its performance, however, a broader initial charting of stakeholder risk perspectives could have provided better guardrails. Similarly, a wider questioning of the sources of risk in TEQSA’s first and second phases could have highlighted more systemic risks.
A further lesson for new risk-based regulators is to ensure that the regulator itself has a strong understanding of risks in the sector, to guide its analyses, and can readily obtain the data to generate robust risk assessments.
Our study illustrates that risk-based regulation in practice is as negotiable as any other regulatory instrument. The ebb and flow of TEQSA’s engagement with the Federal Government and other stakeholders provides the context. As predicted by various authors, constant vigilance and regular recalibration are needed by the regulator as the external risk landscape changes and the wider interests of government and stakeholders dictate. The extent to which there is political tolerance for any ‘failure’ of a risk-based regulator is often unstated and always variable.
Joseph David Blacklock is a graduate of the University of Oslo’s Master’s of Higher Education degree, with a special interest in risk-based regulation and government instruments for managing quality within higher education.
Jeanette Baird consults on tertiary education quality assurance and strategy in Australia and internationally. She is Adjunct Professor of Higher Education at Divine Word University in Papua New Guinea and an Honorary Senior Fellow of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne.
Bjørn Stensaker is a professor of higher education at University of Oslo, specializing in studies of policy, reform and change in higher education. He has published widely on these issues in a range of academic journals and other outlets.
Blacklock, JD, Baird, J & Stensaker, B (2025) ‘Evolutionary stages in risk-based quality regulation in Australian higher education 2011–2024’ Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 1–23.
Networking events with alumni give students the chance to learn more about life after graduation and build career skills.
A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 29 percent of respondents believe their college or university should prioritize connecting students to alumni or other potential mentors. However, not every student has this opportunity before graduating; only one-third of graduates said their institution helped them to network with alumni while they were students, according to a 2024 National Alumni Career Mobility survey.
Administrators don’t always recognize this disconnect between current and former students; a 2024 survey of student success leaders found that 56 percent believe their career center effectively connects students with the institution’s alumni network.
Inside Higher Ed compiled six ways colleges and universities can invite alumni to partner with them to enhance students’ career development.
Mentorship Programming
Pairing students with graduates, particularly those in the same discipline or with similar career goals, is a common way to foster feelings of belonging among classes and with the institution.
Survey Says
A 2025 survey from Gravyty found that 80 percent of alumni engagement teams invite alumni to participate in community or networking events, but just over one-quarter ask alumni to become active volunteers. A survey of alumni also by Gravyty found that alumni who have served as mentors say they are 200 percent more likely to donate in the future.
The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth hosts a Meet and Mentor mixer to introduce current and past students, building organic relationships in an informal setting. Syracuse University extends mentorship opportunities for alumni far from campus through virtual mentorship meetings. The university has coordinated over 1,000 meetings between students and alumni mentors over the past five years.
In some cases, alumni can provide insights into evolving industries in ways that career services pros may be less equipped to.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute created a mentorship program for students interested in green or sustainable jobs and industries, in part to help them keep up with the rapid changes in the field. The program has found more mentors than mentees so far, including alumni from a variety of industries such as architecture and design, waste reduction, consulting, and energy.
Office Hours Programs
Establishing an informal space for students to meet with alumni allows them to create connections and helps students build confidence for venturing into more professional networking spaces. Clemson University’s business school invites alumni to participate in drop-in office hours to review résumés, provide career advice or engage in a casual conversation with students.
Some colleges and universities designate alumni in residence who provide one-on-one guidance, give presentations, engage in networking receptions and more, as needed. The University of Connecticut’s career center asks alumni in residence to devote at least four hours per month for virtual office hours and to participate in several career events and programs.
Job Shadows
While many students may know what field they’re interested in working in, understanding the day-to-day responsibilities of an industry professional can feel out of reach. Alumni connections can address the transition to work and help students establish work-life balance. Kalamazoo College connects students with local alumni for a short-term job shadow during spring break, showcasing local businesses and industries that hire graduates.
Grinnell College also taps alumni around the globe each spring to provide job shadows and homestays, giving soon-to-be graduates a deeper look at what their future may be after college. The visits, which can last from a day to a week, connect students to new cities, professional networks and careers.
Microinternships
Microinternships have grown as a way to engage students in project-based experiential learning connected to a potential employer. At Goucher College, microinternships also introduce students to alumni who share their career interests. The six-week virtual experiences take place across the winter break and January term, and students are paid a stipend by the university, reducing barriers for participation.
Projects vary depending on the needs of alumni, and in the past students have edited books, organized data, created presentations or conducted market research. The goal is to enable the student to walk away with a portfolio piece they can talk about in future interviews.
Early Alumni Engagement
Colleges can also help graduating students make the transition to being engaged alumni by establishing programs for recent graduates.
Boise State University created BOLD, short for Broncos of the Last Decade, an alumni group specifically for students who graduated in the past 10 years, which holds tailgate events and a champagne reception for new grads during commencement weekend. BOLD also offers discounts on football and basketball season tickets, helping alumni maintain connections to the institution even after graduation.
West Virginia University and Marshall University partnered to create a talent-development pipeline, called First Ascent, for recent graduates to reduce brain drain in the state and connect recent alumni to peers and mentors.
Financial Support
Alumni can also build institutional capacity and help sustain programs for current students through financial gifts and endowed resources. Supported through alumni donations, Brandeis University’s World of Work fellowship program provides stipends of up to $6,000 for students to participate in unpaid or underpaid experiential learning opportunities, helping build their career skills.
Many career centers are also endowed by alumni, including the University of Central Florida’s Kenneth G. Dixon Career Development Center, named for the 1975 alumnus who donated $5 million in 2024.
Do you have a career-focused intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
During my first foray into marcomm leadership, every project seemed on fire. If the project was due at 3 p.m., the first draft was ready at 2 p.m., giving little time for adjustments. I noticed this happened with almost every project. As I did some research into the production calendar, I realized there were more projects than time. That meant if one project got behind, there was a ripple effect that continued to impact more and more projects the team was working on.
An initial strategy to address this involved offloading projects that were not the best use of marcomm’s time. The second strategy looked at increasing capacity through student workers and approved freelance partners. Despite implementing both, the team still struggled to accomplish all the tasks, finding many delays in the back-and-forth process with the campus partner. As I started exploring what would help the team, the idea of cross-functional teams emerged as a viable strategy to yield better alignment with key constituents, increase efficiency and create better products.
Cross-functional teams are groups of people from various areas in an organization who work together to achieve a common goal. I have used these teams with key university partners including enrollment, advancement and athletics. Each cross-functional team has several members from the marcomm team (usually a representative from communications, marketing, creative and web) and two or three members from the other unit. Together, these groups meet regularly and work as strategic partners to meet institutional goals.
Cross-functional teams are time-consuming but can have significant impact on outcomes, culture and organizational success when done well. Below are a few benefits of utilizing cross-functional teams when working with strategic campus partners.
Moving From Service Provider to Strategic Partner
One benefit of cross-functional teams is positioning marcomm teams as a strategic partner, not just an order taker. This shift allows marcomm to more meaningfully support institutional goals. Instead of executing someone else’s strategy, these teams can apply their individual expertise while collaborating on integrated strategies that support the partner and ultimately the organization. For example, the web team member can begin approaching the project thinking about the entire digital strategy, instead of just making a website pretty. This role’s shift helps improve relationships between the teams but ultimately drives results.
Operational Efficiency Creates Wins Faster
Familiar teams work faster. Less time is required to navigate procedural and relational decisions, such as who needs to review something or what the feedback process entails. In cross-functional teams, the members become comfortable with these aspects, allowing them to begin working faster. The speed comes not only from familiarity but also from intentionality. Shared institutional knowledge of the goals and the internal processes to complete tasks results in more thoughtful responses when adjustments are needed because of changes like enrollment shifts, market changes or budget adjustments.
Consistency Builds Brand Equity
Aligned teams also create consistent work. Regular collaboration leads to consistency in voice, tone and look on projects. For example, when cross-functional teams are collaborating on the goals for a piece, there is more likely to be synergy in the tactical execution of the piece or at a least a shared understanding of the approach. When there is no alignment, the teams may agree on the goal but are less likely to agree on the strategies and tactics, resulting in disjointed messaging and less effective outcomes.
Cohesive messages also build trust and recognition with external audiences, which is critical to support for university objectives. Ultimately, consistency across teams strengthens the university’s voice in the market and amplifies the impact of every communication.
Internal Alignment Supports Goals
One of the biggest benefits of cross-functional teams is how they strengthen internal alignment within marcomm. By collaborating closely with colleagues across disciplines, the marcomm team is better equipped to align its work with the goals and priorities of campus partners. For example, telling our story takes on an enhanced meaning when it is viewed through the lens of growing enrollment or raising private institutional support. In addition, this cross-functional collaboration fosters greater accountability and trust within the marcomm unit itself. From my experience, the team often internally aligns on the approach and presents a strategic (and united) front when pitching concepts or suggesting strategy shifts.
Empowered Teams Create Elevated Outcomes
Cross-functional teams facilitate learning from all members. Hearing new perspectives from other divisions creates new understandings, both within marcomm and outside of it. For example, web team members learn about graphic design and enrollment best practices. This occurs because cross-functional teams are collaboration-based, so all team members are empowered to contribute ideas instead of only giving feedback on their traditional roles. More broadly, the entire marcomm team benefits from cross-functional teams if there’s a way to share these learnings with the full group instead of just those in a specific meeting.
Working Toward Success
When I first stepped into marcomm leadership, the team was running full speed just to keep up, racing from one fire drill to the next with little time to pause, reflect or align. What initially seemed like a time-management problem turned out to be a deeper issue of structure, communication and partnership. Through the intentional creation of cross-functional teams, we began to shift from reactive executors to proactive strategic partners.
Cross-functional teams require time investment to create shared mission, collaboration frameworks and understanding of the work at hand. However, these teams generate shared ownership and strong trust, central to ongoing collaboration, partnerships and organizational innovation. Most importantly, the outcomes are usually a more agile, aligned and high-performing organization—better equipped to meet both immediate goals and long-term strategic priorities of the institution.
Carrie Phillips, Ed.D., is chief communications and marketing officer at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
City College of San Francisco announced last week that it had hired a new chancellor—but never voted to approve the candidate and later deleted the news release, leaving the process in limbo.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that City College posted a news release on Tuesday announcing that it had selected Carlos O. Cortez as its next chancellor, pending approval at a Board of Trustees meeting on Thursday. However, the board spent several hours in a closed executive session before ultimately deciding not to make a decision on the candidate.
Trustees did not explain their inaction on the search, according to a review of the meeting. The board agenda shows trustees were also set to consider approval of a contract for Cortez, with an annual base salary of $350,000, but removed that action item after punting on the search.
Multiple speakers at the meeting expressed support for Cortez.
In the Tuesday news release that was later deleted, Anita Martinez, the Board of Trustees president, lauded the candidate for his “proven track record of success in academic innovation, fundraising, student success, and community engagement.”
Cortez was previously chancellor of the San Diego Community College District from July 2021 to May 2023 before he stepped down suddenly, a move he attributed to the need to take care of his ailing parents in Florida. Since then he has emerged as a finalist for six jobs at the chancellor or president level, including SFCC. Five of those jobs were in California and one was in Wisconsin.
The San Francisco Chronicle also reported that Cortez was arrested in Florida on suspicion of driving under the influence in January 2024 and later pleaded no contest to reckless driving. Cortez told the newspaper the charge was “due to a mixture of prescription medicine.”
Cortez told the San Francisco Chronicle last week that he didn’t know where his candidacy stands. He did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed sent via LinkedIn on Monday.
City College officials also did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
We’re entering what would normally be the long-awaited reprieve of summer—a time to write, think, travel, to escape the demands of the academic year. But this will not be a normal summer.
Faculty may long for a break, but the government is actively operationalizing Project 2025, a blueprint for remaking every public institution, with higher education being the crown jewel of its antidemocratic agenda. At his 100-day rally in Michigan, Donald Trump declared, “We’ve just gotten started. You haven’t even seen anything yet.” Christopher Rufo, architect of the right-wing culture war, promises to plunge higher education still further into “an existential terror.”
We recommend mobilizing on two simultaneous fronts this summer: by operationalizing mutual academic defense compacts (MADCs), and through direct activism. We must forge powerful alliances for mass protest. We suggest one often-overlooked but deeply strategic constituency— veterans.
Recent opinion polls show that most Americans oppose the Trump administration’s approach to higher education. This public sentiment gives us a crucial opening—and we must seize the momentum as we move into summer.
Mobilize and Form Unlikely Alliances
Faculty can take simple, student-centered actions this summer—sharing stories of student impact over social media using #DegreesForDemocracy, or highlighting the real-world outcomes of their teaching and research with #WhatWeBuild—to demonstrate the value of higher education and help galvanize public support. Op-eds and blog posts that highlight how higher ed strengthens local communities, drives economic growth and improves American public health and well-being are also powerful tools.
In addition, faculty must begin to mobilize on the streets for mass peaceful protest. This will require reaching beyond our usual circles and forming big-tent coalitions. Now is not the time for ideological purity or partisan hesitation. The threat we face at this point goes beyond conventional liberal-versus-conservative disagreement; it is an attack on democratic institutions, civil liberties and public education itself.
One particularly powerful, and perhaps surprising, potential partner in this moment is the veteran community. As a start, we urge faculty to consider aligning with veterans this Friday for the June 6 D-Day anniversary protest: Veterans Stand Against Fascism Nationwide at the National Mall, as well as at more than 100 other venues across the country. This is a great way for higher ed to show up in the lead-up to the June 14 No Kings Day protests.
Why Join With Veterans?
The shared legacy of the GI Bill links veterans and higher education. A public alliance with veterans has the potential to lend more political credibility to faculty and foster broader public empathy that will disrupt the Trump administration’s strategy of divide and conquer.
From Black WWII veterans who catalyzed the civil rights movement to anti–Vietnam War resistance, veterans have consistently served on the front lines of social change. Today, they are standing up to deep budget cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs; the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and dangerous reductions to the veteran workforce—issues that mirror the assaults on higher education.
Professors and veterans are natural allies in more ways than many realize. Since the passage of the GI Bill in 1944, millions of veterans have earned college degrees and experienced upward mobility through higher education. Veterans are a protected class under antidiscrimination law and recipients of DEI programming. The veterans’ centers and services we have created to support them are now under threat from the Trump administration’s ideological dismantling of DEI. While trust in most American institutions—including higher education—has declined, polling shows that the military remains one of the few institutions still trusted by a majority of Americans. This trust is rooted in the military’s demographic breadth: Its members come from every region, ethnicity, income bracket and political background.
In contrast, higher education suffers from an image problem—often caricatured as elite, out of touch and overly partisan. Yet many of the most trusted professionals in society—nurses, teachers, first responders, small business owners and veterans themselves—were trained and mentored in our classrooms. Building visible alliances with veterans can help reshape public perceptions of academia, challenging the dominant narratives that seek to isolate and delegitimize higher education.
Operationalize Mutual Academic Defense Compacts
While public protest builds pressure, cross-institutional coalition building creates networks for effective resistance. Faculty and university senates across the country are approving mutual academic defense compact resolutions, which call for universities to join in shared defense of any participating institution that comes under government attack. But this is just the beginning. We need more, and these resolutions need to be operationalized through the creation of MADC task forces of administrators and faculty on as many campuses as possible. Presidents and chancellors need to endorse both the compacts and the task forces.
We must use this summer to refine model MADC resolution language to align with institutional legal and financial requirements, to prepare for the passage of resolutions and creation of MADC task forces in the early fall, and to build the infrastructure that will allow these coalitions to function as coordinated networks of protection, resistance and shared strategy.
We’ve been struck by how many faculty members lack formal structures for self-governance on their campuses. Shared governance is a foundational pillar of academic freedom—though often overshadowed by the more visible right to pursue scholarship free from interference. We’re working with campuses to strengthen existing faculty governance organizations with the establishment of Stand Together groups, and where none exist, we’re helping to establish American Association of University Professors and other advocacy chapters to fill that crucial gap.
This summer, we must think strategically—and expansively. This summer calls for alliance building across our sister institutions of higher ed and across diverse nonacademic interest groups. The stakes are nothing less than the future of democracy.
Jennifer Lundquist is a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.Kathy Roberts Forde is a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.Together, the authors co-foundedStand Together for Higher Ed.
Raymond PierceThe Southern Education Foundation has secured a significant legal victory in its fight against the U.S. Department of Education, with a federal judge ordering the reinstatement of a key grant that was terminated earlier this year over allegations of illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.
On May 21, 2025, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted SEF’s motion for preliminary injunction, ordering the Department of Education to restore the organization’s Equity Assistance Center-South grant and reimburse all outstanding expenses. The grant, which had been terminated on February 13, 2025, enables SEF to provide technical assistance to public school districts and state agencies across 11 Southern states to help them comply with federal civil rights law.
The court’s ruling was particularly pointed in its criticism of the Education Department’s decision to terminate the grant.
“In view of the history of race in America and the mission of SEF since the Civil War, the audacity of terminating its grants based on ‘DEI’ concerns is truly breathtaking,” the judge wrote in the opinion.
The Southern Education Foundation, which has operated for more than 150 years with a mission to advance educational opportunities for Black students in the South, traces its origins to the late 1800s when it supported education for individuals recently emancipated from enslavement. The organization’s Equity Assistance Center represents a continuation of work that began with the original Desegregation Assistance Centers.
“We are pleased with the Department of Education’s compliance with the court order by reinstating our grant,” said SEF President and CEO Raymond Pierce. “With the grant reinstated, SEF can move forward with developing the assistance needed to free school districts from policies and practices that remain from the dark era of lawful segregation which continue to hinder equal education opportunity for far too many children.”
The preliminary injunction provides temporary relief while the case proceeds through the courts. The judge found that SEF was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the Department violated federal law in terminating the grant. However, the reinstatement is not yet permanent, pending the outcome of the full legal proceedings.
The case highlights ongoing tensions around diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in education, particularly as they relate to organizations with deep historical roots in civil rights work. The Southern Education Foundation’s century-and-a-half commitment to educational equity predates modern DEI terminology by decades, making the Department’s allegations particularly contentious.
The EAC-South serves a critical function in the region, providing technical assistance to help school districts navigate complex federal civil rights requirements. This support is particularly vital in states with histories of legal segregation, where legacy policies and practices can continue to create barriers to equal educational opportunity.
The reinstatement allows SEF to resume its work immediately, though the organization will be watching closely as the legal case progresses. The preliminary nature of the court’s order means that while SEF can continue operating the program, the long-term resolution of the dispute remains uncertain.
The case represents a broader debate about the role of equity-focused programming in education and the extent to which federal agencies can regulate or restrict such work. For the Southern Education Foundation, the stakes extend beyond a single grant to encompass the organization’s fundamental mission and its ability to continue serving communities that have historically faced educational inequities.
American universities are dynamic engines of deep technological innovation (deep tech), responding to a growing demand for STEM research innovations that can reach the market quickly and at scale. In order to remain competitive in a fast-moving global scientific landscape and strengthen national research dominance, universities need to accelerate their innovation outputs by shortening the time it takes for research products from graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields to reach the market, while providing these early-career researchers with the necessary mentorship and resources needed to translate their academic research projects into high-impact startup companies. By targeting these highly qualified scientists at the juncture of innovative university research and entrepreneurial ambition, we can more effectively advance academic research discoveries from early-career STEM talent into commercially viable new companies (NewCos) at scale.
To fully capitalize on this immense potential, America must transcend the current national innovation paradigms. We argue that our nation’s global leadership in science and technology could be maintained through strategically scaled and nationally coordinated approaches to innovation, including cross-cutting and cross-sectoral approaches. Additionally, to retain American scientific and technological leadership on the global stage, we must confront the inherent risks of deep tech ventures head-on and decisively maximize our national “shots on goal,” which can lead to developing a truly robust and self-sustaining innovation ecosystem.
These programs have served as important launchpads for many academic entrepreneurs, including early-career scientists. However, early-phase SBIR/STTR grants typically range around $150,000 for durations of six months to one year. While this funding provides critical seed capital, it represents only a fraction of the substantial investment required for R&D, prototyping and market validation for deep tech ventures. Compounding this challenge, the acceptance rate for SBIR grants has declined sharply, from approximately 30 percent in 2001 to just 10 percent in 2024 in some sectors, further straining the pipeline necessary for deep tech innovation.
Current federally focused financial support systems are falling short. Start-up success rates remain low, and private venture capital is unlikely to close the funding gap, especially for university-based early-career scientists. As competition for SBIR funding intensifies and global venture capital investment drops by 30 percent, America’s scientific and technological competitiveness is at risk without stronger shared-risk models and expanded backing for academic innovation.
In today’s highly commercialized and globally competitive research landscape, the quality and quantity of start-ups emerging from academic labs are critical parameters for developing the next generation of entrepreneurs. A strong pipeline of NewCos enables more innovations to be tested in real-world markets, increasing the chances that transformative companies will succeed and attract external investment from industry. To meet this challenge, America needs a bold vision focused on maximizing national shots on goal through strategic scaling, proactive risk management and innovative risk-sharing models. This framework must not only rely on investment from the federal government but also from a strategically blended funding model that includes state and local governments, industry, philanthropy, venture capital, mission-driven investors, and other nontraditional funding sources.
A nationally coordinated cross-sector pooled NewCo fund, supported by federal agencies, universities, industry, philanthropy, private equity and venture capital, partnering together, is essential for rapidly advancing national innovation at scale.
This idea is not unique to us; it has been proposed in Europe and Australia and has been part of the science policy conversation for some time. However, the current historical moment in American science offers a unique opportunity to move from conversation to action.
Impacts of Research Funding Cuts
This year, significant reductions in federal funding for R&D at multiple federal agencies have posed substantial challenges to universities striving to remain global-leading STEM innovation hubs. Reductions in staff at the NSF have implications for SBIR programs, which rely on robust institutional support and agency capacity to guide early-stage innovation effectively. In addition, proposed reductions in indirect cost reimbursements for grantees at multiple agencies including NIH, DOD, NSF and the Department of Energy may also pose a challenge to research institutions and resulting start-ups in covering essential overhead expenses, impacting the transition of federally-funded research from labs to market-ready applications.
An Updated Framework
The national shots on goal framework is a potential remedy to the currently changing landscape imposed by federal science funding cuts. By emphasizing public-private-philanthropic partnerships, scaled seed investments and improved use of existing infrastructure within universities, this framework can help mitigate the impact of research funding cuts at federal agencies on early-career researchers.
This framework can be especially impactful for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields whose scientific projects, entrepreneurial endeavors and research careers require robust and sustained federal support from multiple funding sources over a longer period of time. It also allows universities to maintain and expand deep tech innovation without relying solely on federal agency funding.
For example, targeted one-year investments of $200,000 per NewCo can provide an essential and low-risk commercialization runway, similar in scale to the NIH R21 program. This fund would be sustained through contributions from a broad coalition of federal agencies, philanthropies, state governments, regional industries, universities and venture and private equity partners. By distributing risk across the ecosystem and focusing on returns from a growing pipeline of NewCos, this coordinated effort could partially counteract the losses sustained by the research enterprise as a result of federal agency funding cuts and accelerate university-driven scientific innovation nationwide.
To support the long-term sustainability of these start-up companies, a portion of national NewCo funds could be reinvested in traditional and emerging markets, including crypto. This would help grow the NewCo funds over time and de-risk a pipeline of start-ups led by early-career scientists pursuing high-risk research.
A Pilot Program
To validate the national shots on goal vision, we propose a targeted pilot program initially focused on graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields pursuing NewCo formation at select U.S. land-grant universities. Land-grant universities, which are vital hubs for STEM research innovation, workforce development and regional workforce growth, are uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Below, we suggest a few elements of effective pilot programs, bringing together ideas for outreach, partnerships, funding and relevant STEM expertise.
Dedicated, national risk-mitigating funding pool: To minimize capital risk, provide one-year seed grants of $200,000, along with subsidized or free access to core facilities. By the end of the year, each venture must secure external funding from the commercial sector, such as venture capital, or it will be discontinued, given that follow-on support cannot come from additional federal grants or the seed fund itself.
Targeted, risk-aware STEM outreach and recruitment: Implement a national outreach campaign explicitly targeting STEM graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at land-grant universities, highlighting risk-managed opportunities and participation pathways. Industry and philanthropic partners should be included in outreach and recruitment steps, and promote projects that meet high-priority industrial and/or philanthropic R&D strategic interests.
Specialized, STEM-oriented risk management–focused support network: Develop a tailored mentorship network leveraging STEM expertise within land-grant universities. The network should include alumni with entrepreneurial talent and economic development partners. It should also include training for academic scientists on risk modeling and corporate strategy, and actively incorporate industry experts and philanthropists.
Earmarked funding for STEM-based graduate and postdoctoral programs: In addition to the above, new funding streams should be specifically allocated to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields. This framework would grant them an intensive year of subsidized financial support and access to the university’s core facilities, along with support from business experts and technology transfer professionals to help them launch a company ready for external venture funding within one year. Critically, during this process, the university where academic research was conducted should take no equity or intellectual property stake in a newly formed company based on this research.
Rigorous, risk-adjusted evaluation and iteration framework: Establish a robust national evaluation framework to track venture progress, measure performance and iteratively refine the framework based on data-driven insights and feedback loops to optimize risk mitigation.
Leverage existing programs to maximize efficiency and avoid duplication: Entrepreneurial talent and research excellence are nationally distributed, but opportunity is not. Select federal programs and initiatives can help level the playing field and dramatically expand STEM opportunities nationwide. For example, the NSF I-Corps National Innovation Network provides a valuable collaborative framework for expanding lab-to-market opportunities nationwide through the power of industry engagement.
Prioritize rapid deep tech commercialization through de-risking models that attract early-stage venture and private equity: Transformative multisector funding models can unlock NewCo formation nationwide by combining public investment with private and philanthropic capital. The Deshpande Center at MIT demonstrates this approach, offering one-year seed grants of $100,000, with renewal opportunities based on progress. These early investments can help deep tech entrepreneurs tackle complex challenges, manage early risk and attract commercial funding. ARPA-E’s tech-to-market model similarly integrates commercialization support early on. Additionally, the mechanism of shared user facilities at DOE national labs reduces R&D costs by providing subsidized access to advanced infrastructure for academic researchers in universities, thereby supporting the formation of NewCos through strong public-private partnerships.
Bridge the academic-industry gap: Given the central role of universities in national innovation, building commercially viable deep tech ventures requires bridging the science-business gap through integrated, campus-based STEM ecosystems. This requires strengthening internal university connections by connecting science departments with business schools, embedding training in risk modeling and corporate strategy and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration. These efforts will support the creation of successful start-ups and equip the next generation of scientists with skills in disruptive and inclusive innovation.
Conclusion
As American scientific innovation continues to advance, this moment presents an opportunity to rethink how we can best support and scale deep tech ventures resulting in start-up companies emerging from university research labs. In the face of federal funding cuts and ongoing barriers to rapid commercialization at scale within universities, these institutions must adopt bold thinking, forge innovative partnerships and exhibit a greater willingness to experiment with new models of innovation.
By harnessing the strengths of land-grant universities, deploying innovative funding strategies and driving cross-disciplinary collaboration, we can build a more resilient and globally competitive national research and innovation ecosystem.
Adriana Bankston is an AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow, currently working to support sustained federal research funding in the U.S. House of Representatives. She holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology from Emory University and is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.
Michael W. Nestor is board director of the Government-University-Industry-Philanthropy Research Roundtable at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. He directed the Human Neural Stem Cell Research Lab at the Hussman Institute for Autism, where his work led to the founding of start-ups Synapstem and Autica Bio, and contributed to early-stage biotech commercialization at Johnson & Johnson Innovation–JLABS. He holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and completed postdoctoral training at the NIH and the New York Stem Cell Foundation.
The views expressed by the authors of this article do not represent the views of their organizations and are written in a personal capacity.
