Tag: Education

  • Fla. Board Says Syllabi, Reading Lists Must Be Posted Publicly

    Fla. Board Says Syllabi, Reading Lists Must Be Posted Publicly

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Liudmila Chernetska, Davizro and DenisTangneyJr/iStock/Getty Images

    Faculty at all Florida public universities must now make syllabi, as well as a list of required or recommended textbooks and instructional materials for each class, available online and searchable for students and the general public for five years.

    The new policy is part of an amendment to the Florida Board of Governors’ regulation on “Textbook and Instructional Materials Affordability and Transparency,” and it passed unanimously without discussion at a board meeting Thursday. On the agenda item description, board officials cited improved transparency as the impetus for the rule, which is meant to help students “make informed decisions as they select courses.” But some faculty members say it’s designed to chill academic freedom and allow the public to police what professors teach in the classroom.

    “Many of my colleagues and I believe that this is yet another overreach by political appointees to let Florida’s faculty know that they are being watched for potentially teaching any content that the far right finds problematic,” said John White, a professor of English education and literacy at the University of North Florida. He said officials at his institution told faculty members they must upload their syllabi for 2026 spring semester classes to Simple Syllabus, an online syllabi hosting platform, by December.

    “Florida’s universities are being run in an Orwellian manner, and working as a faculty member in Florida is increasingly like living in the world of Fahrenheit 451,” he said.

    According to the approved amendment, professors must post the syllabi “as early as is feasible” but no fewer than 45 days prior to the start of class. Public syllabi must include “course curriculum, required and recommended textbooks and instructional materials, goals and student expectations of the course, and how student performance will be measured and evaluated, including the grading scale.” Individualized courses like independent study and theses are exempt from the rule.

    The Florida Board of Governors did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about the amended policy, including a question about when it will start being enforced.

    Concerns About Faculty Safety

    It’s not a unique policy, even in Florida. Since 2013, the University of Florida has required professors to post their syllabi online—but only three days prior to the start of class, and they have to remain publicly available for just three semesters. Now, all Florida public universities, including the University of Florida, must follow the new rules. A UF spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed the university is waiting for the Board of Governors to share guidance about when the new policy will be enforced.

    “Even before the rule, most faculty members have been posting anyway to advertise their course. Faculty members in fact prefer to post in advance and certainly have nothing against posting,” said Meera Sitharam, a professor in the department of computer and information science and engineering, and president of the University of Florida’s 2,150-member United Faculty of Florida union. The faculty she spoke with primarily took issue with the new 45-day deadline, which is “quite early for a posting containing all the details” of a syllabus, she said. They are also concerned that they will no longer be able to make changes to reading lists midsemester.

    “A good-quality discussion class would permit the instructor to assign new reading as the course proceeds. This would now be disallowed,” Sitharam said. “The effect of this is likely to be that an overlong reading list is posted by the faculty member just to make sure that they don’t miss anything they might want to assign. And much of the reading list may never be assigned.”

    Texas similarly requires all faculty at public institutions to make a version of their syllabus public. Indiana implemented a law in July requiring public institutions to publish all course syllabi on their websites, and this fall, the University System of Georgia introduced a new policy requiring faculty to post syllabi and curriculum vitae on institution websites.

    Some faculty members in those states have seen firsthand the risks of posting syllabi online; several professors have been harassed and doxed over course content in their online syllabi. Florida faculty are concerned the same thing could happen to them; several faculty members believe that the board passed the rule with the intent of siccing the general public on professors who teach about topics that conservative politicians don’t like.

    “The sole purpose is to subcontract out the oversight of all of our courses, so that if there’s some independent entity or individual that wants to look at the College of Education at Florida State, and they spend two months doing a deep dive into all of the classes, then they’ll come up with: ‘Here at Florida State we found these five classes that don’t meet [our standards],’” said William Trapani, communications and multimedia studies professor at Florida Atlantic University. “Why else would you have that capacity to make this data bank and make it publicly accessible for five years?”

    Stan Kaye, a professor emeritus of design and technology at the University of Florida, sees concerns about the policy as overblown. “I cannot see why making syllabi public at a public institution is a problem for anyone—I would think that promoting your work and subject is generally a good thing,” he said. “If you are afraid you are teaching something illegal or that lacks academic integrity and you want to keep it secret, that should be a problem.”

    Faculty safety is the primary concern for James Beasley, an associate professor of English and president of the faculty association at North Florida.

    “The most important issue related to this requirement is the safety of our faculty, both online and in person. The concern is that faculty will be exposed to external trolls of course content and that the publication of course locations will expose faculty to location disclosures,” Beasley said in an email. While it is typical for syllabi to include course meeting times and locations, the new board policy does not require that information to be posted online.

    Trapani also said that because of the five-year syllabus retention period, faculty are worried they could be retroactively harassed for teaching about something the public finds unfavorable from a class several years ago. White has similar concerns.

    “I’m teaching a course that utilizes neo-Marxist theory to critique the idea of meritocracy—will the Board of Governors or members of the public falsely claim I’m teaching communism or that I’m teaching students to hate their country? If a history professor or a social studies education professor is discussing redlining or Jim Crow laws, will they later be critiqued for teaching students about institutionalized racism or sexism?” White said.

    Ultimately, Trapani believes the amended syllabi policy is an attempt to insulate the Board of Governors from public criticism.

    “Florida will make a lot more sense to outsiders if its policymaking is viewed through a lens of fear,” he said. “They’ve deputized an army of outsiders to pore through records older than most students’ time at the university—all so that they cannot be accused of missing something … It’s just another way in which faculty employment conditions and physical safety are made more precarious by the endless barrage of false claims about our teaching practices.”

    Josh Moody contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Skills-based higher education driving student financial support

    Skills-based higher education driving student financial support

    Author:
    Peter Gray

    Published:

    Over the weekend, HEPI published a blog on reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women and a blog on the future of languages in multilingual Britain.

    Today’s blog was kindly authored by Peter Gray, CEO and Chairman of the JS Group.

    If universities are to adapt to the latest skills-led demands of the Government (and to match the stated national future industry priorities), they will need to look well beyond their course and employability provision at many other aspects of the student experience.

    One such key area is in the connection between student financial support and employability opportunities. It is important that those students from lower-income or more restricted backgrounds are financially equipped and able to take advantage of, for example, off-campus experiences with employers to ensure they aren’t denied these frontline opportunities for skills development and for making connections. While there are many charities working to structure and access these opportunities, it is the funding itself to enable this full participation that needs particular attention.

    That’s why I can foresee a new demand for universities to steer more and more bursaries, scholarships, and special-case funding streams towards helping students with skills-based experiences. It is a trend that is already growing – as JS Group’s latest annual analysis of patterns in student financial support demonstrates. In recent years, we’ve assessed the overall use of £296 million of such support provided to 584,000 students.

    In the last 12 months (the 2024/25 academic year), we have looked at the use of this funding by students, the formats of payments and the timelines of when funding is being used and applied. This data (from our Aspire platform) is immensely important as it can draw on real-time and (student) user-based experiences to ensure universities have the evidence to make future decisions about their student support investments.

    A notable trend this year – which is in part explained by an expansion of participating universities providing data and the use of funding from Turing and Taith public funding schemes – is in how more and more students are using cash-based support from their institution to address the costs of work placements or associated travel, or to recover such expenses.

    Expenses claims are up by more than six per cent, use of placement funds is up three per cent and travel is up by more than one per cent. Our indicators show more action in these areas alongside continued support for accommodation, household bills, groceries and course-based resources.

    Our feedback survey of students as funding beneficiaries also shows the value that they place on funding for levelling-up (in terms of their ability to participate in opportunities) and for strengthening their perception of value and belonging with their university.

    If, as we expect, there will now be a national policy drive to steer more embedded work-related and skills-driven activities as part of the higher education experience, then it makes sense for universities to reassess how they are using their financial support beyond cost-of-living and cost-of-learning applications.

    Source link

  • Higher education must include valuable workforce experience and training that helps students secure meaningful jobs

    Higher education must include valuable workforce experience and training that helps students secure meaningful jobs

    by Bruno V. Manno, The Hechinger Report
    November 10, 2025

    This fall, some 19 million undergraduates returned to U.S. campuses with a long-held expectation: Graduate, land an entry-level job, climb the career ladder. That formula is breaking down.  

    Once reliable gateway jobs for college graduates in industries like finance, consulting and journalism have tightened requirements. Many entry-level job postings that previously provided initial working experience for college graduates now require two to three years of prior experience, while AI, a recent analysis concluded, “snaps up good entry-level tasks,” especially routine work like drafting memos, preparing spreadsheets and summarizing research.  

    Without these proving grounds, new hires lose chances to build skills by doing. And the demand for work experience that potential workers don’t have creates an experience gap for new job seekers. Once stepping-stones, entry-level positions increasingly resemble mid-career jobs. 

    No doubt AI is and will continue to reshape work in general and entry-level jobs in particular in expected and unexpected ways. But we are not doomed to what some call an “AI job apocalypse” or a “white-collar bloodbath” that leads to mass unemployment. There are practical solutions to the experience gap problem when it comes to education and training programs. These include earn-and-learn models and other innovative public and private employer partnerships that build into their approaches opportunities for young people to gain valuable work experience.  

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    Before I describe these potential solutions, here is more information on how I see the problem.  

    The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that in March 2025, the unemployment rate for college graduates ages 22 to 27 was 5.7 percent, compared to an overall unemployment rate of 4.0 percent. Other than the temporary pandemic-related spike in 2021, that was the highest unemployment rate for new grads since 2014. More recently, the Fed’s August 2025 unemployment rate for recent college graduates was 1 percentage point higher than its overall unemployment rate of 4.3 percent.  

    The experience gap phenomenon is not limited to the tech sector. In 2019, 61 percent of AI-related job postings were in the information technology and computer science sector, with 39 percent in non-tech sectors, labor analytics from Lightcast show. By 2024, the majority (51 percent versus 49 percent) of AI-related job postings were outside the tech sector. 

    The cumulative effect of all this is apparent. The hollowing out of entry-level work stalls mobility across the labor market, leaving many college graduates stranded before their careers can even begin. Moreover, these changes cut to the core of higher education’s promise.  

    If graduates can’t secure meaningful jobs, confidence in higher ed falters — one reason why it should come as no surprise that 56 percent of Americans think earning a four-year degree is not worth the cost, a March 2023 Wall Street Journal-NORC poll found, compared with 42 percent who think it is, a new low in a poll first administered in 2013. Skepticism was predominant among those ages 18 to 34, and college degree holders were among those most skeptical.  

    Related: As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment 

    The collapse of entry-level jobs isn’t just a cyclical downturn. It’s a structural shift. Left unchecked, this dynamic will deepen inequality, slow social mobility and further undermine faith in higher education. 

    As I’ve said, solutions exist. Here are five that I believe in: 

    Apprenticeships and other earn-and-learn models: Earn-and-learn apprenticeships are a promising, direct solution to the experience gap. They combine paid work with structured training and provide years of experience to college students in those jobs. Sectors from tech to health care are experimenting with this model, examples of which include registered apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships and apprenticeship degrees that allow individuals to pursue a degree while they work in an apprenticeship. 

    Skills-based hiring and alternative credentials: Initiatives such as skills-first hiring by major employers like IBM, Google and Apple aim to evaluate candidates based on their competencies rather than their degrees. Microcredentials, industry certificates and portfolios can serve as verifiable signals of skills gained through alternative training routes. 

    Stronger college and employer partnerships: Colleges can (and should) embed work-based learning into curricula through co-op programs, project-based courses and partnerships with local industries. Northeastern University and Drexel have long pioneered this model. And others, such as Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University, are using online learning to advance this approach. Scaling this solution could help close the experience gap. 

    Policy innovations: Governments can play a role by giving incentives to companies to create early career opportunities. Workforce Pell, recently enacted in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, expands financial aid to use for short-term training programs, opening new pathways for students who may not be pursuing traditional degrees. Tax credits for apprenticeship sponsors and funding for regional workforce hubs could further expand opportunities. 

    Reimagining internships: Expanding access to paid internships — especially for first-generation and low-income students — could democratize the attainment of experience. Philanthropies and local governments could underwrite stipends to ensure that opportunity isn’t reserved for the affluent who can afford unpaid internships or have social networks that connect them to these opportunities. 

    The challenge presented by this troubling experience gap is urgent. Today’s students deserve a college experience and a labor market in which education and effort still translate into opportunity. 

    Bruno V. Manno is a senior advisor at the Progressive Policy Institute, leading its What Works Lab, and is a former U.S. assistant secretary of education for policy.  

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about workforce experience was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-too-many-college-graduates-are-stranded-before-their-careers-can-even-begin-we-cant-let-that-happen/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113298&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-too-many-college-graduates-are-stranded-before-their-careers-can-even-begin-we-cant-let-that-happen/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • conflict, peace and international education 

    conflict, peace and international education 

    It’s that time of year again. On streets and in shops across the UK this, someone will have been be selling poppies. And today, on Remembrance Sunday, at War Memorials from tiny villages to Whitehall, people will gather for a period of silence. A moment to reflect, to remember. 

    For me personally, there is a family connection. My paternal great-grandfather was killed in WWI, leaving four young children. His name is on the vast Tyne Cot memorial in Belgium, one of 35,000 of the missing who died in the Ypres Salient after August 16, 1917, and have no known grave.

    But I also think of another memorial, the one I gathered around for the years I worked at Sheffield University. This is the moving tribute to the students and staff who lost their lives in two World Wars. 

    This carved stone monument at the University’s core was once located in the original library, and it contains arguably the most sacred and painful book in its collection – a Book of Remembrance.

    Sheffield University had its own battalion in WWI and it was almost completely destroyed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Some 512 young men lost their lives in a single day. I was once given permission to lift off the glass cover and open the book. It was shocking, each page crammed full of so many hundreds of names. 

    For many of those students, hopefully joining up and travelling to France was the first time they had been overseas, just as it was for my great-grandfather. He left his mining village on the unluckiest of journeys – first to Gallipoli where he was gassed, and then to France where he died in the mud. 

    Today, students have a very different opportunity for travel, for connection. A century after my great-grandfather died, I have travelled the world in peacetime thanks to international education. I’ve been to Delhi and seen the vast war memorial at India Gate with its eternal flame and walls of other names – Hindu, Sikh, Muslim. I have friends from China whose relatives long ago would have dug the trenches as part of as part of the 140,000 strong Chinese Labour Corps for the British and French armies.

    Remembrance Day isn’t a British only tradition – a whole world was drawn into those terrible events. 

    What international students teach us now 

    And I have international students friends who don’t need a poppy to remind them to remember because they come from countries with current experience of conflict. 

    Who are they? A refugee scholar from Syria working on environmental sustainability. A Gaza scholar who rejects the language of resilience and uses her research to build deep understanding. A friend in Singapore who has family in Russia and Ukraine. And the Afghan scholars who have become not only friends but family, those who teach us all that the peace to sit with your loved ones and share a meal is never to be taken for granted. That for young girls and women to access education, university, careers and have choices is a right hard won that must be cherished. Each of them is also my teacher. 

    As the world changes, nationalism grows and spheres of influence are fortified by economic and literal weapons, those who understand one another are more important than ever

    And this is also why I believe in international education. Peace takes understanding. It takes work. As the world changes, nationalism grows and spheres of influence are fortified by economic and literal weapons, those who understand one another are more important than ever. 

    It is a tragedy that language courses close because, as John le Carré said, learning a language is an act of friendship. But international education in all its forms is also what my NISAU friends call a ‘living bridge’.

    Whether it happens through traditional programmes of overseas study, short courses, institutional partnerships, TNE or internationalisation at home, global education offers a precious opportunity to meet in peace. To gain a perspective not only on what others think and how they see the world, but about yourself. 

    Why it matters that #WeAreInternational 

    When years ago we founded a campaign called #WeAreInternational , it was a statement not about a structure of higher education but about who we are and want to be. It doesn’t mean abandoning your identity, it means opening it up to possibility. That is in itself an education. 

    John Donne famously wrote that no man is an island but that we are deeply connected to one another, all of us connected to the continent. And when others are harmed, we are all diminished. That the bell that tolls for any life is ringing for humanity too. 

    On Remembrance Sunday this year, as we are urged never to forget, there is also an implicit call to action – not to wage war but to build peace. How do we do that? Nobody is pretending it’s easy, but I think the education we are privileged to support has a very human part to play. 

    I think of the words of my Afghan scholar friend Naimat speaking at City St George’s University of London to students earlier this week. As the minute’s silence begins on today, I will think of my great-grandfather Robert, the lost students of Sheffield University, and the words of this international student who knows of what he speaks. 

    To achieve peace at all times, we must do three things:

    1. Acknowledge the past: we must study and accept the hard lessons, the disconnected dots, and the mistakes of history.
    2. Act in the present: we must stand up against injustice wherever it occurs, recognising that a violation of human rights in one corner of the world eventually casts a shadow over all of us.
    3. Prioritise the future: we must commit to sustained dialogue – not just talk, but a genuine exchange of ideas where all voices, especially the most marginalised, are heard and valued.

    Dialogue, he says, is the non-violent tool we possess to sustain peace. It is how we convert fear into understanding, and resentment into cooperation. And international education offers a precious and powerful opportunity for both. 

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: A thousand days of silence: reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women

    WEEKEND READING: A thousand days of silence: reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women

    This blog was kindly authored by Naimat Zafary, PhD student at The University of Sussex and a former Afghan Chevening Scholar.

    As I mark my fifth year in UK higher education, a journey that began with a Chevening Scholarship and an MA at the Institute of Development Studies before leading to my PhD in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, a single, recurring image encapsulates a profound contrast.

    From my study window on campus, I watch the vibrant flow of students: a tide of ambition pouring into and out of lecture halls. In a silent, personal ritual, I often count them. Invariably, I find more young women than men, a sight that swells me with pride to be part of an institution that offers equal and abundant opportunities to female students.

    Yet, this everyday scene instantly transports me to my home of Afghanistan, where this picture is hauntingly absent. For nearly three years – around 1,050 days – the Taliban has barred Afghan girls and women from their fundamental right to higher education. Their university campuses, once symbols of hope, are now forbidden ground.

    Beyond internationalisation

    The start of the academic year is a time of new beginnings for UK universities. There is a mood of anticipation, proudly announcing numbers of new starters and, on my own diverse campus, a commitment to internationalisation. Students arrive from across the world, a myriad of stories behind each of them. For some, a struggle, for others, lifelong dreams of individuals and families.

    If we are lucky, we will share some of these experiences and perspectives with the people around us. We will define our possibilities differently as a result. This focus on global reach is commendable and a deep privilege. We are – we become – international.

    But I ask myself a sharper question too. What of those who do not, cannot travel? How do we consider the community which includes the missing, the trapped?

    So, as I look across campus, I see these faces too. Will institutions that are committed and measured in part in relation to the sustainable development goals –  every one of which is behind – take a step to localise, to go to those who cannot come to them?

    British higher education has a long history of outreach. Many of its now great universities began as an effort to take learning and opportunity to provinces where it was absent, or to include within its potential those who, at one time, were told education was not for them.

    That widening participation agenda is now under strain at home and abroad. If you measure the outcomes only of those blessed with an environment and the support to succeed, you implant a bias away from risk. If you effectively close off the means of access, the hopeful will turn away. Participation can narrow as well as widen. In some cases, participation can stall completely –  those desperate to continue their dreams, whose voices are screaming to be heard, and who are simply waiting for a chance?

    Who will answer the call?

    In the worst of times, those who step forward, demonstrate they care and –  despite their own challenges – stand against this injustice are living the most profound values of education.

    Here again, I look out at my campus at The University of Sussex with pride, and I believe there are lessons for others too.

    It begins with leadership and with kind-hearted teams, but also a desire to turn feeling into action. In this case, despite headwinds of practical barriers, the university has undertaken a pilot and has awarded online distance learning master’s degree scholarships for a small group of talented Afghan women and girls.

    The inspiration for this initiative was born out of a stark contrast. As female Afghan Chevening scholars walked across the Sussex graduation stage with pride, in Afghanistan, not a single woman could enter a university, let alone a graduation ceremony. I longed for those with the potential of taking action to hear the voices of Afghan women and somehow open a door, even for just a few.

    Developing an outreach programme in such a sensitive context isn’t easy. Universities have their own urgent challenges close to home, and the many demands they face don’t pause while they innovate in global education.  But principled leaders took the challenge of the absence of women in higher education a world away to their own core, and recognised that this too was their business. 

    Finding a possible solution took time: more than two years of proposals; assessing the situation; back-and-forth communication; and ensuring we were always working in line with advice on ensuring the safety of participating students. It was modest, but it matters beyond words.

    The logic was beautifully simple and necessary: if Afghan women are banned from stepping into the higher education arena, then higher education must step into their own room. This is a practice the Western world embraced during the pandemic; we simply need to apply it now to find a light in the darkness.

    An undefeated hope

    The proof of this need was instantaneous. In early July 2025, the University of Sussex’s announcement went live. Within the first 48 hours, more than eight hundred women and women sent an inquiry and applied for the scholarships.

    That response sent a clear, undeniable message of a thirst and love for education, of persistent talent, eligibility, and an undefeated hope for the future. And now it begins. The five talented women awarded these scholarships have started on the first of these courses with an unwavering commitment.

    One of the awardees described her gratitude this way:

    As an Afghan woman achieving this milestone under such challenging circumstances has been both difficult and deeply meaningful. I am committed to making the most of this opportunity and to using the knowledge and skills I gain to contribute toward strengthening and supporting our fragile communities.

    These students are proof that Afghan women are not defeated even in this brutal hour. They may have to learn behind legal bars for now, but they believe in a better future, they are determined to serve their community and contribute to wider society — given the chance, they will change their lives and the lives of those around them.

    Deeds not words

    To my colleagues and friends in UK higher education, I humbly say this. Our institutions are built on the foundational motto of “leaving no one behind” – no one, not even the women whose doors are bolted but whose spirits still crave learning.

    I profoundly hope the UKhigher education community will look closely at the successful case of the University of Sussex, draw on the experience of this pilot and follow its lead. One programme could become many. A single voice could become a chorus.

    Afghan girls and women are navigating one of the most catastrophic times in their history. The education of women is core to the UN Sustainable Development Goals for good reason. Those who step up now, who provide a lifeline through education in this moment of darkness, will not only be remembered – they will be helping to shape the very future of Afghanistan. As the suffragists once chanted in this country, this is a time for Deeds Not Words.

    I ask each of you not to write off hope.  A dear friend shared a poem with me, which is much loved across this country. It was written by the great War poet Siegfried Sassoon at a time of despair, but it continues to move people because it defiantly imagines a time of release and redemption.

    Everyone suddenly burst out singing;

    And I was filled with such delight As prisoned birds must find in freedom…

    My heart was shaken with tears; and horror Drifted away … O, but Everyone

    Was a bird; and the song was wordless; the singing will never be done.

    There are times a university keeps hope alive, where a pilot programme is a flame visible across the world. It is the promise of a better future through the empowerment of those who wish desperately to build it.

    A good deed can be multiplied. If Afghan women students cannot come to us, let us join together as a band of scholars and go to them.

    If any university colleagues would be interested in understanding more about the Sussex pilot to offer online postgraduate access to Afghan women, please contact [email protected].

    Source link

  • Cornell Settles With the Trump Administration

    Cornell Settles With the Trump Administration

    Cornell University has reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay the government a $30 million settlement—and invest another $30 million in agricultural research—in exchange for having its frozen federal research funding restored.

    The agreement, announced Friday, makes Cornell the latest institution to strike a deal with the federal government in an effort to settle investigations into alleged civil rights violations. The settlement follows similar arrangements at the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, Brown University and the University of Virginia. Concessions varied by university, with Columbia making the biggest payout at $221 million.

    Collectively, those institutions were targeted for a range of alleged violations, including allowing transgender athletes to compete on women’s sports teams, failing to police campus antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian protests and operating supposedly illegal diversity, equity and inclusion practices as the Trump administration cracked down on DEI initiatives.

    Now the university will see roughly $250 million in frozen federal research funding immediately restored. The federal government will also close ongoing civil rights investigations into Cornell.

    While some institutions, including Columbia, have given tremendous deference to the federal government and agreed to sweeping changes across admissions, hiring and academic programs, the deal at Cornell appears to be relatively constrained, despite the $30 million payout.

    Under the agreement, Cornell must share anonymized admissions data broken down by race, GPA and standardized test scores with the federal government through 2028; conduct annual campus climate surveys; and ensure compliance with various federal laws. Cornell also agreed to share as a training resource with faculty and staff a July memo from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi barring the use of race in hiring, admissions practices and scholarship programs. And in addition to paying the federal government $30 million over three years, Cornell will invest $30 million “in research programs that will directly benefit U.S. farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency, including but not limited to programs that incorporate [artificial intelligence] and robotics,” according to a copy of the agreement.

    Cornell leaders cast the deal as a positive for the university.

    “I am pleased that our good faith discussions with the White House, Department of Justice, and Department of Education have concluded with an agreement that acknowledges the government’s commitment to enforce existing anti-discrimination law, while protecting our academic freedom and institutional independence,” Cornell president Michael Kotlikoff said in a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed. “These discussions have now yielded a result that will enable us to return to our teaching and research in restored partnership with federal agencies.”

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon also celebrated the deal in a post on X.

    “The Trump Administration has secured another transformative commitment from an Ivy League institution to end divisive DEI policies. Thanks to this deal with Cornell and the ongoing work of DOJ, HHS, and the team at ED, U.S. universities are refocusing their attention on merit, rigor, and truth-seeking—not ideology. These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” she wrote.

    Some outside observers, however, excoriated the settlement as capitulation to authoritarianism.

    “The Trump administration’s corrupt extortion of higher ed institutions must end. Americans want an education system that serves the public good, not a dangerously narrow far right ideology that serves billionaires,” American Association of University Professors President Todd Wolfson said in a statement, which also urged colleges to fight intrusion by the federal government.

    This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

    Source link

  • Congress Accuses GMU President of Lying About DEI Efforts

    Congress Accuses GMU President of Lying About DEI Efforts

    House Republicans have accused George Mason University President Gregory Washington of lying to Congress about diversity practices at his institution, ratcheting up pressure on the president to step down.

    The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee alleged in a report released Thursday night that Washington made “multiple false statements to Congress” in testimony about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at GMU. The public university has been under fire for months over allegedly illegal DEI practices as the Trump administration has sought to crack down on such initiatives, claiming they are discriminatory and violate federal civil rights law. The Judiciary Committee report also alleged that the university “likely violated federal civil rights law by discriminating based on race in its hiring practices to advance Dr. Washington’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative.”

    Washington has denied breaking the law through efforts to diversify GMU’s faculty and staff, telling Congress that the university did not practice illegal discrimination under his leadership.

    The report is the latest salvo from Republicans who have launched federal investigations into GMU over its hiring policies, including demands that the embattled president apologize for allegedly discriminatory practices, which he has refused to do as he denies any wrongdoing.

    What’s in the Report

    The House Judiciary Committee’s report zoomed in on an effort by GMU, launched shortly after Washington took office in July 2020, to diversify employee ranks. The Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence initiative the president introduced aimed to make faculty and staff “mirror student Demographics” at GMU, which is among the most diverse institutions in the country. As part of that effort, GMU tasked schools and departments with hiring more underrepresented individuals.

    But in Congressional testimony, Washington denied the initiative was a strict mandate.

    “These are overall goals and they’re aspirational in focus,” Washington said, according to a transcript of his Sept. 17 interview released by the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.

    Though the Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence initiative stemmed from his office, Washington told Congress that faculty in each department developed plans for their unit. He also cast the creation of such plans as optional, telling Congress “if units did not want to develop a plan, they did not have to.”

    But the House Judiciary Committee claimed Washington lied about that.

    “Documents and testimony obtained by the Committee … show that Dr. Washington and his deputies actively sought to punish schools that did not comply with his racial discrimination mandates,” the committee report states. “A senior GMU official told the Committee that GMU financially punished any school that resisted Dr. Washington’s unconstitutional initiative.” 

    Congress pointed to testimony from Ken Randall, the dean of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, as evidence that Washington lied about the plan being optional.

    “You’d get fired if you didn’t have a plan,” Randall said, according to an interview transcript.

    Washington also denied the administration formally reviewed plans to diversify faculty hiring. Republicans accused him of lying about that, too, pointing to internal remarks from then-vice president of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Sharnnia Artis (who now has a different title), in which she said the DEI team “consistently reviewed, monitored, and supported” such plans.

    “Again, the evidence contradicts Dr. Washington’s testimony,” the report states.

    However, Douglas Gansler, a lawyer representing the GMU president sharply disrupted claims that his client lied to Congress, which he accused of carrying out a “political lynching” in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed.

    “The political theater of the politicians accusing Dr. Washington of misrepresenting anything to them is unadulterated nonsense. Dr. Washington has never discriminated against anybody for any reason and did not utter one syllable of anything not verifiably completely true,” Gansler wrote.

    What Happens Next

    The GMU Board of Visitors has said little in the immediate aftermath of the report.

    “Today, the Board of Visitors received an interim staff report from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. We are reviewing the report and consulting with University counsel and counsel for Dr. Washington,” board members wrote in a brief statement. “The Board remains focused on serving our students, faculty and the Commonwealth, ensuring full compliance with federal law and positioning GMU for continued excellence.”

    While the board is reviewing the report, it appears unlikely members would be able to take action against Washington. GMU’s board, which is stocked with GOP donors and political figures appointed by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, is currently without a quorum after Virginia Democrats blocked multiple appointments in recent months. Now a legal battle over those blocked appointments is slowly winding its way through the judicial system. While the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in the case last month, it has yet to issue a ruling on the matter. In the meantime, with only six of its 16 seats filled, GMU’s board is hobbled.

    Youngkin’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The George Mason chapter of the American Association of University Professors offered a fiery defense of Washington, arguing in a statement the committee was carrying out a politically motivated attack designed to erode institutional autonomy and impose partisan control over the public university.

    “The Committee’s unfounded accusations, dependence on clearly compromised sources, and selective presentation of ‘evidence’ represent an unprecedented abuse of congressional power—designed not to find the truth, but to silence leadership that refuses to yield to political pressure,” the GMU-AAUP chapter wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed.

    GMU students, employees and community members rallied in support of president Gregory Washington earlier this year, amid concerns the board would fire him.

    With Washington under pressure from Congress, state and national Democrats have rallied to his defense, accusing the GOP of waging an ideological war on universities and hypocrisy by focusing on the GMU president’s alleged dishonesty while federal officials brazenly lie in court.

    “In Donald Trump’s Gangster State, they pick the target first and figure out the charges later,” House Judiciary Democrats wrote on X. “Today’s target: GMU President Gregory Washington. The Trump Education Department failed to find evidence of employment discrimination at GMU. So [House Judiciary committee] Chairman [Jim] Jordan opened his own investigation. When that one only confirmed Dr. Washington followed Virginia law, Jordan pivoted and conjured up an absurd and convoluted criminal referral based on an alleged lie that takes 8 pages to explain.”

    Representative James Walkinshaw—a Democrat in Virginia’s 11th district, which includes GMU—called Washington “an exemplary leader” in a biting statement posted on Bluesky.

    “Make no mistake, this is an attack on free speech and academic freedom,” Walkinshaw wrote. “It’s cancel culture at its worst and the American people are tired of right-wing snowflakes like Jim Jordan trying to silence anyone who doesn’t bend the knee to their bizarre MAGA ideology.”

    Source link

  • Billions of Aid Dollars Go to High-Income Students

    Billions of Aid Dollars Go to High-Income Students

    A new report from the Century Foundation found that state and institutional grant aid too often flows to higher-income students who don’t need it, while low-income students continue to struggle with unmet need.

    The analysis, released Thursday, shows that more than half of students from the top income quartile, 56 percent, receive grants that surpass their financial need, compared to a mere 0.2 percent of students from the bottom income quartile. That means that top income quartile students were 280 times more likely to receive grants that exceeded their level of need than their lowest income peers. The share of white students that receive grants beyond their needs (19 percent) far exceeds the share of Black of Hispanic students who receive such grants (5 percent).

    Part of the issue is that the share of state grants that are merit-based jumped 17 percentage points between 1982 and now, according to the report. Over all, about 10 percent of grant aid—at least $10 billion annually in state and institutional aid—exceeds students’ financial need.

    The analysis also found that state grants disproportionately go to students at highly selective public colleges versus students at open-admission public four-year institutions—$3,693 and $842 on average, respectively. And at four-year public colleges over all, students with an Expected Family Contribution of zero were less likely than students with higher EFCs to receive aid from their institution.

    “What people think about as a pillar of the financial aid system in higher education has become a windfall for wealthy students that leaves working families paying the bill for tuition increases,” Peter Granville, the report’s author and a fellow at the Century Foundation, said in a news release.

    Source link

  • First-Gen Students More Likely to Drop Out Due to Low GPA

    First-Gen Students More Likely to Drop Out Due to Low GPA

    First-generation students make up half of all undergraduates, but only one quarter of them retain and graduate with a degree.

    A recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed first-generation student data against that of their continuing-generation peers to identify gaps in the classroom that may be hindering their success. Researchers found that first-generation students who received lower-than-expected grades in their first term were more likely to leave college entirely compared to their peers who also underperformed but utilized other pathways to continue in higher education.

    The findings point to a need for additional support resources to help first-generation students understand academic recovery opportunities—including course withdrawal and switching majors—to promote persistence to graduation.

    Digging into data: The study relies on transcript data from 145,000 first-year students at Arizona State University from 2000 to 2022, as well as survey data fielded during the 2021–22 academic year.

    Researchers found that parental education is a significant predictor of a student’s academic success, even when controlling for a variety of characteristics, including demographics, household income, major choice and early college performance.

    One distinguishing factor between continuing and first-generation students was their use of academic policies to protect their grades. First-generation students were less likely to change their majors or withdraw from courses, strategies that some students deploy to save their GPAs. They were also less likely to know their peers or turn to family members for support when faced with academic challenges, researchers wrote.

    “First-generation students who encounter negative grade events have about a 40 percent likelihood of dropping out, which is around five percentage points higher than observationally identical continuing generation students who face the same academic setback,” according to the study. “Rather than dropping out, we find that continuing-generation students who face academic difficulties in their first year are more likely to switch majors.”

    Researchers surveyed students to understand how their academic perceptions and outcomes could influence their retention. Results showed that first-generation students were more likely to consider poor grades as detrimental to their success or a signal of their academic failure, which might push them to drop out.

    One example of this was the decision to switch majors. While all students were more likely to switch majors if their first semester grades fell below a 3.0 GPA, continuing-generation students were much more likely to switch their major because of lower grades; first-generation students were more inclined to remain in their major even with poor grades.

    Researchers hypothesized that first-gen students may be less likely to switch majors because they have a less differentiated perspective on major earnings, meaning they expect similar earnings after graduating college regardless of their major. Therefore, poor grades in one major would mean poor outcomes in all fields—not just that particular program.

    Survey Says

    A 2025 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 55 percent of first-generation students said one of their top reasons for deciding to attend college was to pursue a specific career or profession.

    First-generation students were slightly more likely to say they enrolled to increase their earning potential or to achieve a personal goal, compared to their continuing-generation peers.

    One solution: As part of the study, researchers evaluated Arizona State University LEAD (Learn Explore Advance Design), a program that supports incoming students with lower grades or test scores. LEAD participants complete special first-year courses that focus on durable skills including time management and offer smaller class sizes and more interaction with faculty. The program also has dedicated staff and peer mentors who support incoming students.

    Data shows the program effectively helped students learn to navigate the university; participants had a slightly higher GPA and reported a greater sense of belonging and positive mental health. LEAD students were also more likely to switch majors and less likely to declare an undecided major, signaling to researchers that the program improved students’ cultural capital and flow of information.

    Related Research: First-generation students can be left behind in the classroom because they’re unaware of the “hidden curriculum,” or unspoken norms and processes involved in navigating higher education.

    Similarly, one research project found that first-generation students were less aware of conduct systems and how to interpret the student handbook, which could result in disproportionate disciplinary action.

    Read more here.

    How does your college help first-generation students navigate the hidden curriculum? Tell us more here.

    Source link

  • The Higher Ed Act Turns 60—And Needs a Refresh (opinion)

    The Higher Ed Act Turns 60—And Needs a Refresh (opinion)

    Sixty years ago, when Congress passed the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, it made a bipartisan promise to the American people: that college opportunity should not be reserved for the wealthy, but made available to anyone willing to work for it. That commitment built the foundation for millions of students to pursue higher education, strengthen the workforce, improve their lives and advance our nation.

    But as we mark another anniversary of the HEA’s enactment, that promise feels increasingly distant. The law that should lay out a steadfast vision for higher education has been left to languish for nearly two decades without a comprehensive review or update. In the interim, the foundational need-based aid programs it created—like the Pell Grant and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant programs—are now at the mercy of annual budget battles and political brinkmanship. When thoughtful reform is pushed to the back burner, the result is a student aid system that is fragmented and reactive, rather than strategic and steady. Rather than providing reliable support for students, it introduces instability and mistrust.

    The federal appropriations process, once a vehicle for steady investment in the nation’s priorities, has been weaponized—and students are collateral damage. The current government shutdown, now more than a month and counting, is only the latest reminder of how Congress is failing on its budgetary responsibilities. Congress consistently misses its own deadlines, instead relying on continuing resolutions, short-term fixes and partisan negotiations that leave students, families and the colleges that serve them in a constant state of uncertainty.

    When final budget information is not available until months after the fiscal year begins, students and families suffer. When schools cannot provide reliable estimates of federal, state or institutional aid awards, students are left in limbo and families lose faith that higher education remains a viable pathway to opportunity. That’s not a sustainable or fair system—it’s a symptom of one that’s been overrun by partisanship.

    Instead of prioritizing steady, predictable funding for student aid programs, lawmakers increasingly use appropriations as leverage to extract concessions on policy priorities better addressed outside of the appropriations process, ultimately leading to the threat of a government shutdown for which millions of Americans pay the price.

    But when updating landmark pieces of legislation falls off the list of priorities, it leaves few vehicles for thorough policy reform. FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) simplification—the largest overhaul of the financial aid system in decades—was tacked onto an appropriations bill in the final days of the first Trump administration.

    And it’s not just appropriations. Over the past two decades, Congress has used the budget reconciliation process—a tool designed for swift deficit reduction—to make sweeping changes to federal student aid. From the creation of Public Service Loan Forgiveness in 2007 to the elimination of bank-based lending in the student loan program in 2010 to the recent overhaul of repayment plans and new loan limits in 2025, these changes have reshaped the financial aid landscape one policy at a time. This disjointed approach to policy change without comprehensive and considered debate results in confusion, unrealistic implementation timelines, conflicting statutes and unintended consequences, leaving the professionals who must translate policy into practice to manage monumental changes with little warning—and often little or unclear guidance.

    Without question, there are real challenges in higher education that demand congressional action. College prices continue to rise, student loan debt remains a national concern and families are rightly asking whether higher education is still worth the investment. But the place to grapple with those long-term structural, accountability and sustainability issues is through a full reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, not a patchwork of policies layered on top of one another through reconciliation bills, regulatory processes and executive orders.

    The HEA was designed to be reviewed and reauthorized every five years to ensure that student aid programs evolve alongside students’ needs, but the last comprehensive reauthorization took place in 2008. Since then, higher education has changed dramatically, but the law underpinning our financial aid system has not.

    What’s been lost in all this is the chance to step back and evaluate the student aid system as a whole, receive thoughtful input from experts and stakeholders, and pursue a comprehensive, bipartisan approach to address the root issues: how to make college more affordable, adapt to new learning models, streamline student aid delivery and ensure that public dollars are truly serving students’ needs.

    The Higher Education Act was born out of a shared belief that education is a public good—a cornerstone of economic mobility and national strength. As we reflect on the last six decades of progress, it’s clear that the country still believes in the promise of higher education, but trust in the system to deliver on that promise is eroding. What’s missing is the political will to rise above the polarization that threatens to pull us apart and to protect that promise. Congress must return to the thoughtful policymaking that once defined our approach to higher education and reauthorize the law that made opportunity possible for generations of Americans.

    Melanie Storey is president and CEO of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA).

    Source link