Tag: Education

  • Denied Emerita, Reid Named “Honorary Alum” at New College

    Denied Emerita, Reid Named “Honorary Alum” at New College

    Reid retired in August after 30 years at New College.

    Thomas Simonetti/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    Amy Reid, a former professor of French at New College of Florida, was granted “honorary alumni” status by the New College Alumni Association Board of Directors in a unanimous vote nearly three weeks after she was denied emerita status by college president Richard Corcoran.

    “I was honored when my colleagues nominated me for emerita status and when the New College Alumni Association adopted me as one of their own, in recognition of my long teaching career and my vocal advocacy for the College, its academic program, and for the position of gender studies in the liberal arts,” Reid said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “New College students have made their mark because they are fiercely independent and courageous learners. I’ll try to live up to their standards. To the Novo community: Honor & Respect.”

    The honorary designation, rarely bestowed, gives Reid the same “rights and privileges” as other New College alumni, including access to alumni events, according to the alumni association’s motion. Reid retired in August after teaching at New College for more than 30 years and now serves as interim director of PEN America’s Freedom to Learn program.

    Reid was also the founder of the now-defunct gender studies program at New College, which the then–newly appointed conservative board eliminated in 2023. The college was mired in controversy again the following summer when officials tossed books from its former Gender and Diversity Center in the trash.

    Despite what alumni association governance committee chair Chris Van Dyk described as “overwhelming recommendation” for emerita status, including from New College provost David Rohrbacher and leaders in the Division of Humanities, Corcoran denied Reid the emerita title because of her outspoken faculty advocacy and criticism of conservative leadership at New College.

    “Although I recognize Professor Reid’s contributions to New College in teaching and scholarship, I cannot concur with the Division and Provost that she be honored with the title of emeritus,” Corcoran wrote in an email to Rohrbacher. “When I became president with a mandate for change from the Board of Trustees, there was need for reasoned and respectful exchange between the faculty and administration. Regrettably, Professor Reid was one of the leading voices of hyperbolic alarmism and needless obstruction. In her letter of resignation, Professor Reid wrote that ‘the New College where I once taught no longer exists.’ She need not be burdened by further association with it.”

    After the former faculty representative to the New College Board of Trustees quit in protest, Reid was elected to fill the role in 2023. She and student representative Grace Keenan were the only two board members to vote against Corcoran’s appointment as permanent president, Florida Politics reported.

    Emeritus status is largely symbolic, but it does usually come with some concrete perks, including the continued use of institutional email accounts, library and athletic facilities access, and sometimes free campus parking.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Lobbying Drops in Third Quarter

    Higher Ed Lobbying Drops in Third Quarter

    Beleaguered by the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape higher education to align with conservative policy priorities, major universities continue to spend heavily on lobbying efforts to protect their interests.

    While lobbying expenses over all have boomed during 2025 compared to last year, spending fell in the third quarter, according to an Inside Higher Ed analysis of major research universities.

    Members of the Association of American Universities spent less in the third quarter of 2025 than in either of the first two quarters, racking up more than $8.6 million in lobbying costs, compared to $9 million in the first quarter and more than $10 million in Q2.

    AAU’s member institutions have already spent more than $27.8 million combined on lobbying this year.

    Top Spenders

    Among individual AAU members, Johns Hopkins University spent the most on lobbying in the third quarter, shelling out $390,000. JHU spent $170,000 in the first quarter and $380,000 in Q2, for a total of more than $940,000 so far this year.

    JHU’s lobbying disclosure form shows the private university in Baltimore engaged Congress on multiple issues, including the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, student loans and psychedelic research.

    “We continue to advocate for our research mission through all appropriate channels,” a Johns Hopkins University spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed.

    Others that invested heavily in lobbying include Yale University, which spent $370,000 in the third quarter, and its Ivy league counterpart the University of Pennsylvania, which spent $360,000. The University of Washington was the top-spending public institution at $310,000, while Columbia University rounded out the top five with $290,000 in lobbying expenses for Q3.

    “Communicating the impact of Columbia’s researchers, scientists, scholars, and clinicians to policymakers in Washington, New York, and locally is vital, and we utilize a combination of in-house and outside professionals to ensure our message reaches key stakeholders, including our New York delegation,” a Columbia spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    In addition to research funding and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, common areas of focus noted in lobbying disclosure forms include appropriations, student visas and immigration, among other concerns that college officials have raised in private conversations with lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

    Including their third-quarter expenditures, several of the institutions above are among the top spenders for the year. Northwestern leads AAU members in lobbying expenses at $1.1 million, followed by the University of Washington at $1 million, JHU and Yale at $940,000, and Cornell at $914,000.

    Many universities dialed back lobbying expenses in the third quarter, some by significant amounts. Emory University, for example, spent $500,000 on lobbying in the second quarter but only $185,000 in Q3. Emory has spent $855,000 on lobbying in 2025.

    Though still among the top-spending AAU members, Cornell pulled back on lobbying, which fell to $240,000 in Q3 compared to $444,000 in the second quarter.

    Northwestern has cut spending in each successive quarter. The private university spent $607,000 on federal lobbying in Q1, the most of any university in any quarter this year. But that number fell to $306,000 in the second quarter and $230,000 more recently.

    Outliers

    Some universities outside the AAU also spent heavily on lobbying in the third quarter.

    The University of Phoenix, for example, spent $480,000 on federal lobbying efforts. Phoenix has spent consistently across all three quarters, totaling $1.4 million in lobbying expenditures in 2025. That appears to make the for-profit institution the top individual spender across the sector this year.

    Lobbying disclosure forms show Phoenix engaged on legislation, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and a bill related to student veteran benefits, but also on broad public policy issues.

    Phoenix officials declined to comment.

    Northeastern University is another top spender that falls outside of AAU membership. The university has spent $270,000 in each quarter, totaling $810,000 in 2024 lobbying expenditures.

    Source link

  • Lewis & Clark College Divests From Weapon Manufacturers

    Lewis & Clark College Divests From Weapon Manufacturers

    Protests demanding divestment broke out across the country in the spring of 2024.

    Lewis & Clark College has divested its endowment funds from all weapons manufacturers, making it one of few higher education institutions in the U.S. to do so, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting. 

    The new policy, approved by the private college’s Board of Trustees in mid-October, also requires the institution to publicly post at least once a year a list of the companies it invests in. The policy does not mention the war between Israel and Hamas, which sparked demand for such divestment in the first place.

    For nearly two years, Lewis & Clark students have been calling on college leaders to withdraw any investments in weapons manufacturers or Israeli companies. But Paula Hayes, chair of the college’s Board of Trustees, said in a statement that the change had nothing to do with “any particular geopolitical situation or conflict.” 

    “Such considerations are inherently volatile, changing, and divisive, and contrary to the generally held view that the endowment should not be used to advocate specific positions on world affairs,” she said. 

    Students, on the other hand, called the decision a direct response to their demands. 

    “This is a functional divestment from genocide. The administration may attempt to depoliticize, but this is a political act,” Lewis & Clark student Sam Peak told OPB at a rally Oct. 22 celebrating the trustees’ decision. “This is a win for the boycott, divestment, sanctions movement and for solidarity with Palestine.” 

    A number of student groups across the country have made similar demands of their administrators, but few have succeeded. Among the institutions that have divested are the University of San Francisco and San Francisco State University. Others, including the University of Oregon, Oregon State University and Portland State University, have considered such an action but have yet to follow through.

    Source link

  • Universities Teaching Wisdom Skills 2030

    Universities Teaching Wisdom Skills 2030

    As with the prior column, this week’s thesis evolves out of the Zoom keynote to the Rethink AI Conference, sponsored in part by the International Academy of Science, Technology, Engineering and Management and hosted by the ICLED Business School in Lagos, Nigeria. Thanks again to the chair of the International Professors Project, Sriprya Sarathy, and the conference committee for making my presentation possible.

    Virtually all aspects and positions at universities will be touched by the transformation. The changes will come more rapidly than many of us in higher education are accustomed to or with which we are comfortable. In large part, the speed will be demanded by employers of our learners and by competition among universities. Change will also strike directly at the nature of what and how we teach.

    It is not that we have seen no change in teaching over the years. Notably, delivery systems, methods and modes of assessment, and related areas have been subject to significant changes. Anthony Piña, Illinois State University’s chief online learning officer, notes that online learners surpassed 50 percent in 2022 and continue to rise. However, deeper changes in the nature of what we teach have progressed as technology has influenced what employers are seeking.

    Most Popular

    Building knowledge has been the mantra in higher education for many centuries. The role of the university has been to build knowledge in learners to make them “knowledgeable.” Oxford Languages and Google define knowledge most concisely as “facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.”

    The emphasis on facts and information has taken a somewhat changed role with the advent of technologies over recent decades. Notably, the World Wide Web with the advent of the first browser, Mosaic, in 1993 provided instant access to unprecedented volumes of information. While familiarity with key facts and information remains paramount, the recall and synthesis of facts and information via the web can be performed nearly as quickly and more thoroughly than the human brain in most instances. In a sense the internet has become our extended, rapid-access, personal memory. Annual global web traffic exceeded a zetabyte for the first time in 2015. A zetabyte is 1,000 exabytes, one billion terabytes or one trillion gigabytes. This year, it’s expected to hit 175 ZB.

    More recently, we have seen a surge in professional certificates offered by higher education. As Modern Campus reports,

    “Every professional needs upskilling in order to maintain a competitive edge in the workforce. Keeping ahead of the latest skills and knowledge has become more crucial than ever in order to align with evolving market demands. Although traditional degree programs have long been the standard solution, certificate programs have gained popularity due to their ability to offer targeted, accelerated skill development.”

    However, agentic AI is just now emerging. It is different than the prompt to answer generative AI in that agentic AI can include many workforce skills in its array of tools. In fact, working and collaborating with agentic AI will require an advanced, integrated skill set, as described by the Global Skills Development Council:

    “In the fast-paced, digitally driven world, agentic AI is at the forefront of demanding new human competencies. While intelligent agents retain a place in daily life and work, individuals should transition to acquire agentic AI skills to thrive in the new age. These skills include, but are not limited to, working with technology, thinking critically, applying ethical reasoning, and adaptive collaboration with agentic AI systems. Such agentic AI skills empower one to consciously engage in guiding and shaping AI behaviors and outcomes rather than passively receiving and adapting to them. If one has agentic AI skills, they can successfully lead businesses, education, and creative industries in applying agents for innovation and impact. As such, re-dedicating ourselves to lifelong learning and responsible use of AI may prove vital in retaining humanity at the core of intelligent decision-making and progress. Without such competencies, professionals risk being bypassed by technologies they cannot control or understand. A passive attitude creates dependency on AI outcomes without the skill to query or improve them. Adopting agentic AI competencies equips individuals with the power to drive innovation and ensure responsible AI integration in the workplace.”

    The higher-level skills humans will need as described by the Global Skills Development Council are different from many of the career-specific skills that universities now provide in short-form certificates and certification programs. Rather, I suggest that these broad, deep skills are ones that we might best describe as wisdom skills. They are not vocational but instead are deeper skills related to overall maturity and sophistication in leadership, vision and insight. They include thinking critically, thinking creatively, applying ethical reasoning and collaborating adaptively with both humans and agentic AI.

    Agentic AI can be trained for the front-line skills of many positions. However, the deeper, more advanced and more cerebral skills that integrate human contexts and leadership vision are often reflective of what we would describe as wisdom rather than mere working skills. These, I would suggest, are the nature of what we will be called upon to emphasize in our classes, certificates and degrees.

    Some of these skills and practices are currently taught at universities, often through case studies at the graduate level. Integrating them into the breadth of the degree curriculum as well as certificates may be a challenge, but it is one we must accomplish in higher education. Part of the process of fully embracing and integrating AI into our society will be for we humans to upgrade our own skills to maintain our relevance and leadership in the workplace.

    Has your university begun to tackle the topics related to how the institution can best provide relevant skills in a world where embodied, agentic AI is working shoulder to shoulder with your graduates and certificate holders? How might you initiate discussion of such topics to ensure that the university continues to lead in a forward-thinking way?

    Source link

  • Why busy educators need AI with guardrails

    Why busy educators need AI with guardrails

    Key points:

    In the growing conversation around AI in education, speed and efficiency often take center stage, but that focus can tempt busy educators to use what’s fast rather than what’s best. To truly serve teachers–and above all, students–AI must be built with intention and clear constraints that prioritize instructional quality, ensuring efficiency never comes at the expense of what learners need most.

    AI doesn’t inherently understand fairness, instructional nuance, or educational standards. It mirrors its training and guidance, usually as a capable generalist rather than a specialist. Without deliberate design, AI can produce content that’s misaligned or confusing. In education, fairness means an assessment measures only the intended skill and does so comparably for students from different backgrounds, languages, and abilities–without hidden barriers unrelated to what’s being assessed. Effective AI systems in schools need embedded controls to avoid construct‑irrelevant content: elements that distract from what’s actually being measured.

    For example, a math question shouldn’t hinge on dense prose, niche sports knowledge, or culturally-specific idioms unless those are part of the goal; visuals shouldn’t rely on low-contrast colors that are hard to see; audio shouldn’t assume a single accent; and timing shouldn’t penalize students if speed isn’t the construct.

    To improve fairness and accuracy in assessments:

    • Avoid construct-irrelevant content: Ensure test questions focus only on the skills and knowledge being assessed.
    • Use AI tools with built-in fairness controls: Generic AI models may not inherently understand fairness; choose tools designed specifically for educational contexts.
    • Train AI on expert-authored content: AI is only as fair and accurate as the data and expertise it’s trained on. Use models built with input from experienced educators and psychometricians.

    These subtleties matter. General-purpose AI tools, left untuned, often miss them.

    The risk of relying on convenience

    Educators face immense time pressures. It’s tempting to use AI to quickly generate assessments or learning materials. But speed can obscure deeper issues. A question might look fine on the surface but fail to meet cognitive complexity standards or align with curriculum goals. These aren’t always easy problems to spot, but they can impact student learning.

    To choose the right AI tools:

    • Select domain-specific AI over general models: Tools tailored for education are more likely to produce pedagogically-sound and standards-aligned content that empowers students to succeed. In a 2024 University of Pennsylvania study, students using a customized AI tutor scored 127 percent higher on practice problems than those without.
    • Be cautious with out-of-the-box AI: Without expertise, educators may struggle to critique or validate AI-generated content, risking poor-quality assessments.
    • Understand the limitations of general AI: While capable of generating content, general models may lack depth in educational theory and assessment design.

    General AI tools can get you 60 percent of the way there. But that last 40 percent is the part that ensures quality, fairness, and educational value. This requires expertise to get right. That’s where structured, guided AI becomes essential.

    Building AI that thinks like an educator

    Developing AI for education requires close collaboration with psychometricians and subject matter experts to shape how the system behaves. This helps ensure it produces content that’s not just technically correct, but pedagogically sound.

    To ensure quality in AI-generated content:

    • Involve experts in the development process: Psychometricians and educators should review AI outputs to ensure alignment with learning goals and standards.
    • Use manual review cycles: Unlike benchmark-driven models, educational AI requires human evaluation to validate quality and relevance.
    • Focus on cognitive complexity: Design assessments with varied difficulty levels and ensure they measure intended constructs.

    This process is iterative and manual. It’s grounded in real-world educational standards, not just benchmark scores.

    Personalization needs structure

    AI’s ability to personalize learning is promising. But without structure, personalization can lead students off track. AI might guide learners toward content that’s irrelevant or misaligned with their goals. That’s why personalization must be paired with oversight and intentional design.

    To harness personalization responsibly:

    • Let experts set goals and guardrails: Define standards, scope and sequence, and success criteria; AI adapts within those boundaries.
    • Use AI for diagnostics and drafting, not decisions: Have it flag gaps, suggest resources, and generate practice, while educators curate and approve.
    • Preserve curricular coherence: Keep prerequisites, spacing, and transfer in view so learners don’t drift into content that’s engaging but misaligned.
    • Support educator literacy in AI: Professional development is key to helping teachers use AI effectively and responsibly.

    It’s not enough to adapt–the adaptation must be meaningful and educationally coherent.

    AI can accelerate content creation and internal workflows. But speed alone isn’t a virtue. Without scrutiny, fast outputs can compromise quality.

    To maintain efficiency and innovation:

    • Use AI to streamline internal processes: Beyond student-facing tools, AI can help educators and institutions build resources faster and more efficiently.
    • Maintain high standards despite automation: Even as AI accelerates content creation, human oversight is essential to uphold educational quality.

    Responsible use of AI requires processes that ensure every AI-generated item is part of a system designed to uphold educational integrity.

    An effective approach to AI in education is driven by concern–not fear, but responsibility. Educators are doing their best under challenging conditions, and the goal should be building AI tools that support their work.

    When frameworks and safeguards are built-in, what reaches students is more likely to be accurate, fair, and aligned with learning goals.

    In education, trust is foundational. And trust in AI starts with thoughtful design, expert oversight, and a deep respect for the work educators do every day.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • The Case Against AI Disclosure Statements (opinion)

    The Case Against AI Disclosure Statements (opinion)

    I used to require my students submit AI disclosure statements any time they used generative AI on an assignment. I won’t be doing that anymore.

    From the beginning of our current AI-saturated moment, I leaned into ChatGPT, not away, and was an early adopter of AI in my college composition classes. My early adoption of AI hinged on the need for transparency and openness. Students had to disclose to me when and how they were using AI. I still fervently believe in those values, but I no longer believe that required disclosure statements help us achieve them.

    Look. I get it. Moving away from AI disclosure statements is antithetical to many of higher ed’s current best practices for responsible AI usage. But I started questioning the wisdom of the disclosure statement in spring 2024, when I noticed a problem. Students in my composition courses were turning in work that was obviously created with the assistance of AI, but they failed to proffer the required disclosure statements. I was puzzled and frustrated. I thought to myself, “I allow them to use AI; I encourage them to experiment with it; all I ask is that they tell me they’re using AI. So, why the silence?” Chatting with colleagues in my department who have similar AI-permissive attitudes and disclosure requirements, I found they were experiencing similar problems. Even when we were telling our students that AI usage was OK, students still didn’t want to fess up.

    Fess up. Confess. That’s the problem.

    Mandatory disclosure statements feel an awful lot like a confession or admission of guilt right now. And given the culture of suspicion and shame that dominates so much of the AI discourse in higher ed at the moment, I can’t blame students for being reluctant to disclose their usage. Even in a class with a professor who allows and encourages AI use, students can’t escape the broader messaging that AI use should be illicit and clandestine.

    AI disclosure statements have become a weird kind of performative confession: an apology performed for the professor, marking the honest students with a “scarlet AI,” while the less scrupulous students escape undetected (or maybe suspected, but not found guilty).

    As well intentioned as mandatory AI disclosure statements are, they have backfired on us. Instead of promoting transparency and honesty, they further stigmatize the exploration of ethical, responsible and creative AI usage and shift our pedagogy toward more surveillance and suspicion. I suggest that it is more productive to assume some level of AI usage as a matter of course, and, in response, adjust our methods of assessment and evaluation while simultaneously working toward normalizing the usage of AI tools in our own work.

    Studies show that AI disclosure carries risks both in and out of the classroom. One study published in May reports that any kind of disclosure (both voluntary and mandatory) in a wide variety of contexts resulted in decreased trust in the person using AI (this remained true even when study participants had prior knowledge of an individual’s AI usage, meaning, the authors write, “The observed effect can be attributed primarily to the act of disclosure rather than to the mere fact of AI usage.”)

    Another recent article points to the gap present between the values of honesty and equity when it comes to mandatory AI disclosure: People won’t feel safe to disclose AI usage if there’s an underlying or perceived lack of trust and respect.

    Some who hold unfavorable attitudes toward AI will point to these findings as proof that students should just avoid AI usage altogether. But that doesn’t strike me as realistic. Anti-AI bias will only drive student AI usage further underground and lead to fewer opportunities for honest dialogue. It also discourages the kind of AI literacy employers are starting to expect and require.

    Mandatory AI disclosure for students isn’t conducive to authentic reflection but is instead a kind of virtue signaling that chills the honest conversation we should want to have with our students. Coercion only breeds silence and secrecy.

    Mandatory AI disclosure also does nothing to curb or reduce the worst features of badly written AI papers, including the vague, robotic tone; the excess of filler language; and, their most egregious hallmark, the fabricated sources and quotes.

    Rather than demanding students confess their AI crimes to us through mandatory disclosure statements, I advocate both a shift in perspective and a shift of assignments. We need to move from viewing students’ AI assistance as a special exception warranting reactionary surveillance to accepting and normalizing AI usage as a now commonplace feature of our students’ education.

    That shift does not mean we should allow and accept any and all student AI usage. We shouldn’t resign ourselves to reading AI slop that a student generates in an attempt to avoid learning. When confronted with a badly written AI paper that sounds nothing like the student who submitted it, the focus shouldn’t be on whether the student used AI but on why it’s not good writing and why it fails to satisfy the assignment requirements. It should also go without saying that fake sources and quotes, regardless of whether they are of human or AI origin, should be called out as fabrications that won’t be tolerated.

    We have to build assignments and evaluation criteria that disincentivize the kinds of unskilled AI usage that circumvent learning. We have to teach students basic AI literacy and ethics. We have to build and foster learning environments that value transparency and honesty. But real transparency and honesty require safety and trust before they can flourish.

    We can start to build such a learning environment by working to normalize AI usage with our students. Some ideas that spring to mind include:

    • Telling students when and how you use AI in your own work, including both successes and failures in AI usage.
    • Offering clear explanations to students about how they could use AI productively at different points in your class and why they might not want to use AI at other points. (Danny Liu’s Menus model is an excellent example of this strategy.)
    • Adding an assignment such as an AI usage and reflection journal, which offers students a low-stakes opportunity to experiment with AI and reflect upon the experience.
    • Adding an opportunity for students to present to the class on at least one cool, weird or useful thing that they did with AI (maybe even encouraging them to share their AI failures, as well).

    The point with these examples is that we are inviting students into the messy, exciting and scary moment we all find ourselves in. They shift the focus away from coerced confessions to a welcoming invitation to join in and share their own wisdom, experience and expertise that they accumulate as we all adjust to the age of AI.

    Julie McCown is an associate professor of English at Southern Utah University. She is working on a book about how embracing AI disruption leads to more engaging and meaningful learning for students and faculty.

    Source link

  • Improving Community College Transfer in California

    Improving Community College Transfer in California

    California has established significant goals for postsecondary attainment, with the stated aim of having 70 percent of working-age adults hold a credential of value by 2035. To meet this goal, the state has invested time and resources into the community college system and upward transfer processes, seeking to create affordable and accessible pathways in and through higher education.

    A recently published report by the Public Policy Institute of California Higher Education Center found that a large share of community college students are applying to and enrolling in state universities to complete a bachelor’s degree, but equity gaps persist among certain demographic groups.

    The data highlights the importance of focusing on early benchmarks of academic progress—including credit completion rates, GPA and the stated goal of transfer—to help students succeed in making the transition to a four-year university. The report also underscores that some transfer students are willing to pay more and travel farther to attend a more selective institution.

    The background: California’s public higher education system is the largest and most diverse in the country, the report authors note. The California Community College system includes 116 institutions enrolling over 2.1 million students, and the California State University system consists of 22 institutions educating nearly half a million students. Within the state, the system is the top destination for upward transfer, with 58 percent of community college students going on to enroll at a CSU campus.

    Over the past decade, the two college systems have partnered to streamline transfer opportunities. One innovation is the associate degree for transfer (A.D.T.), a group of 40 academic pathways that guarantee admission to students who complete 60 credits toward a bachelor’s degree in a specific major. Another is the CSU Transfer Planner, which provides insights for students to navigate transferable credits, degree programs and campus requirements for transfer.

    The report looks at student demographic information, academic progress and participation in transfer pathways such as A.D.T. to identify success indicators in the transfer pipeline.

    Methodology

    Researchers analyzed data from the CSU Application and Admission Dashboard and longitudinal student-level data from fall 2018 and fall 2023.

    In the sample, 48 percent of transfer applicants were Latino, 26 percent white, 15 percent Asian and 4.5 percent Black. A majority were 24 years old or younger, and 75 percent received a California Promise Grant or a Pell Grant while in community college.

    The data: The average student spends nine semesters at a community college before applying to a CSU institution, researchers found.

    Students are required to complete 60 credits to transfer with junior-level standing, but the median student completed 71.5 credits. Only half of applicants had earned an A.D.T. before applying, and 22 percent earned a local associate degree, meaning about 30 percent of students applied for transfer without a credential.

    Researchers noted that students who made significant progress in their first year of community college were more likely to transfer. Those who successfully completed transfer-level math in their first year applied to CSU after seven terms on average, whereas student who didn’t applied after 10 community college terms.

    Students who were 25 or older, Black or financial aid recipients were less likely to meet early milestones and therefore less likely to transfer. Conversely, students with high GPAs were more likely to transfer.

    The data also indicated a gap between students eligible for admission at a CSU and those who actually applied. One in five students who completed an A.D.T. never applied to CSU despite having guaranteed admission. Of those, 43 percent enrolled at a different university, many in the University of California system.

    In total, 87 percent of A.D.T. recipients declared a transfer goal while at community college, but approximately 20 percent of them didn’t continue on to a bachelor’s degree program.

    A majority (92 percent) of all transfers were eventually admitted to at least one CSU, and 63 percent of all transfers enrolled. Three in 10 applied more than once, and almost half of them (47 percent) had their application denied the first time.

    “It is possible that these students were initially rejected from the campus of their choice (or to all campuses), took more community college classes, and then gained admission,” researchers wrote. On the flip side, a large share of those whose transfer applications were rejected applied only once (88 percent), and to only one campus (61 percent).

    Admissions data also revealed the importance of academic benchmarks early in the student’s community college career. Admission rates for students who took transfer-level math or English in their first year were higher compared to their peers who did not; similarly, students who earned 24 transferable credits were more likely to gain admission to a CSU. Unsurprisingly, students who stated a transfer goal, completed the A.D.T. or had a GPA of 3.25 or higher also had high admittance rates.

    One trend researchers noted is that students who were admitted to a CSU but chose to enroll at a different institution were more likely to select a college that was farther away or more expensive, indicating that cost and proximity are not deciding factors. Transfers also enrolled at more selective colleges compared to their peers who opted to enroll at CSU, though some students selected universities with lower graduation rates than CSU.

    Over all, transfer students had high graduation rates. Among the incoming fall 2020 cohort, 76 percent graduated with their bachelor’s degree in four years, and 69 percent completed it in three years. About 19 percent of students left the CSU system without graduating three years after enrolling, and these students were more likely to be Black, Latino, male or older or have financial need.

    Recommendations: Based on their findings, researchers identified three opportunities for improvement:

    1. Invest in the student’s first year. Interventions including dual enrollment, corequisite English and math courses, proactive advising, and flexible scheduling can promote early momentum and academic success for community college students.
    2. Collect additional data on enrollment decisions. While system data showed that some students opt out of a four-year degree program, researchers emphasized the need for student voices to understand why those admitted would not enroll at CSU. Researchers also noted a need for campus-specific data, “because there is high variation across individual CSUs in both acceptance and enrollment rates.”
    3. Create space at selective campuses and in high-demand majors. “Some of the students who were never admitted to CSU were competitive applicants, but they applied to the most in-demand campuses,” the authors wrote. To increase capacity for these students, researchers suggest flexible course scheduling options, co-locating campuses or expanding online degree programs.

    Source link

  • Director of Online Program Development at UVA

    Director of Online Program Development at UVA

    The origins of “Featured Gigs” trace back to the first post in the series with Kemi Jona, vice provost for online education and digital innovation at UVA. While I had the idea for the series, it was Kemi who ultimately came up with most of the language for the four questions we use to explore opportunities at the intersection of learning, technology and organizational change. Today, Kemi answers questions about the role of director of online program development.

    Q: What is the university’s mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

    A: The 2030 Plan calls on the university to expand the reach of its educational programs—both in person and online—and to make UVA more accessible, including to learners across and beyond the Commonwealth. The University of Virginia’s Office of the Vice Provost for Online Education and Digital Innovation is a key part of advancing this charge on behalf of the university, helping our schools and institutes design, deliver and scale high-quality online and hybrid programs that extend UVA’s reach and impact.

    The director of online program development plays a central role in advancing UVA’s online education goals. The role is ideal for someone who thrives at the intersection of strategy, innovation and execution. The director will not only guide program development but also help UVA build the internal capacity and frameworks needed to sustain this growth long-term. This is a high-impact, high-visibility position that will help shape the next chapter of online and hybrid learning at UVA and potentially serve as a model for the sector.

    Q: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?

    A: This role sits within the provost’s office and reports directly to the vice provost for online education and digital innovation. The director will guide UVA schools and institutes through the planning, launch and evaluation of new online and hybrid programs, serving as a trusted partner to deans, associate deans, program directors and faculty.

    This individual will bring structure and strategy to UVA’s online growth, helping schools scope opportunities, assess market demand, support business case development and build the readiness needed for sustained success. The role requires exceptional communication, diplomacy and systems-level thinking to align multiple stakeholders around a shared vision.

    Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

    A: In service of the vision articulated in the 2030 Plan and aligned to the strategic goals of our partner schools and institutes, UVA is undertaking ambitious growth in its online and hybrid portfolio. In the first year, success means ensuring active projects move from planning to launch with clarity and momentum, establishing shared frameworks, timelines and accountability across partners.

    Within three years, success will be measured not only in the number of successful program launches but also in the maturity of UVA’s internal systems, talent and decision-making processes that enable continued agility and innovation.

    Longer term, the director will help institutionalize a robust, repeatable, data-informed model for program development so UVA’s schools can innovate faster and with greater confidence, while ensuring that all programs uphold UVA’s reputation for academic excellence.

    Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

    A: Because this individual will be deeply engaged in all aspects of online program design, development and launch, he or she will gain substantial experience working with deans, faculty and other senior leaders. This experience would help set up future leadership roles in online education and digital innovation or in the private sector.

    This role offers a rare opportunity to operate at the heart of institutional transformation—building systems and partnerships that inform how UVA advances its mission as we begin our third century as a leading public institution. The experience will prepare the director for senior university leadership roles in strategy, academic innovation or digital transformation. It will equip them with the cross-sector perspective and executive acumen valued by both higher education and mission-driven organizations beyond academia.

    Please get in touch if you are conducting a job search at the intersection of learning, technology, and organizational change. If your gig is a good fit, featuring your gig on Featured Gigs is free.

    Source link

  • How Colleges Use Anti-Elitist and Elite-Adjacent Campaigns

    How Colleges Use Anti-Elitist and Elite-Adjacent Campaigns

    High Point University in North Carolina sets itself apart by offering a luxury experience.

    Wikipedia

    Two university campaigns hit the national spotlight in recent weeks. Each tells a very different story about how colleges market themselves.

    Colorado Mesa University’s new Featherstone University spoof takes aim at elite school stereotypes, ending with the line “We care about who you are, not who you know.”

    Days later, The Wall Street Journal profiled High Point University in a turnaround story built on private wealth and exclusivity. Its campus features etiquette lessons, manicured gardens and an airplane cabin for networking drills. HPU prepares students for a world where who you know still matters.

    In an industry criticized for sameness, both CMU and HPU stand out as strategic outliers.

    Trust, Value and the Split in Demand

    Public trust in higher education is fragile. Concerns over cost, access and free speech have left families asking if it is worth it. Against this backdrop, two playbooks are emerging: anti-elitist authenticity and elite-adjacent experience.

    Playbook A: CMU’s Skepticism as Fuel

    Colorado Mesa University’s “Welcome to Featherstone” flips elite-school marketing on its head. The parody ends with a challenge: “We don’t care about who you know. We care about you.”

    For a public university serving rural, first-generation, working-class students, the message fits. CMU has built its brand on affordability, access and trust by cutting tuition, growing CMU Tech and guaranteeing free tuition for Colorado families earning $70,000 or less.

    This isn’t simply mocking the elite; it’s segmentation. CMU speaks to families who see higher education as a bridge, not a birthright. In a sea of interchangeable ads, it uses satire to say, “We hear your skepticism—and we’re still here for you.”

    A Take From Rural America

    CMU’s approach hit a nerve, but it also hit a truth.

    I was born in East Detroit, then raised in Richmond, Mich., a farming town of 4,000. When my parents learned our local high school wasn’t accredited, they sent my brothers and me to school an hour away. At that time, only 32 percent of the local high school graduates pursued college. I still remember junior high classmates missing school to plant and harvest corn and soybeans.

    For rural communities like these, college can feel distant—financially and culturally. CMU’s campaign speaks to them with rare honesty.

    Playbook B: High Point’s Experience as Advantage

    If CMU sells authenticity, High Point sells aspiration. Its campus hums with classical music and fountains, lined with rocking chairs and gardens designed for conversation. Students dine in on-campus restaurants that double as lessons in professional etiquette, and housing options range from traditional dorms to $40,000 tiny homes.

    President Nido Qubein calls it preparation, not pampering: “Half of Wall Street sends their kids here.” The model caters to families who can pay full price and want an environment that mirrors the careers their children expect to enter.

    It’s not subtle, but it shows the university understands its target audience. In an uncertain marketing environment, HPU is selling a vision of success that feels polished, predictable and safe.

    What the Models Reveal

    CMU and HPU reveal opposite, equally intentional strategies. CMU doubled down on affordability with its 2024 CMU Promise Tour, which reached 22 rural and urban communities, boosting first-year enrollment by 25 percent. HPU, meanwhile, courts families buying access and advantage through concierge-level amenities.

    CMU uses satire to mock exclusivity; HPU leans into luxury to promise it. Both know exactly whom they’re speaking to.

    Leadership Takeaways

    In a landscape of sameness and skepticism, higher ed leaders should ask, “What do we stand for—and how do we prove it?”

    Is it belonging and mobility like CMU, or exclusivity and polish like HPU? Either can work if it’s backed by programs, outcomes and transparency. Whatever your promise, ensure the experience delivers it.

    Both institutions have likely alienated some audiences, but they’ve connected deeply with their own. That’s the point of strategic marketing. Their playbooks, while different, seem to be working for Colorado Mesa and High Point, which both had record enrollments in fall 2025 amid national headlines warning of a demographic cliff.

    Beyond the Marketing

    Beyond the spotlight, both universities must prove results. Time and measurement will tell if they are delivering on access and affordability, or on postgraduate success and networks.

    Authenticity carries risk, as organizational psychologist Adam Grant recently noted in a New York Times op-ed, but when outcomes match promises, both models can be legitimate. Hide results or exaggerate benefits and either fails the test of ethics and equity.

    In a nation this diverse, there is no single market for higher ed—there are many markets. And in a landscape this stratified, the unforgivable sin isn’t satire or spectacle; it’s sameness without substance.

    Maria Kuntz is director of content marketing strategy and communications at the University of Colorado–Boulder. She leads content strategy for advancement, oversees the award-winning Coloradan alumni magazine and writes about storytelling, leadership and trust in higher education.

    Source link

  • AAUP President Exacerbated “Organizational Antisemitism”

    AAUP President Exacerbated “Organizational Antisemitism”

    Cassidy asked the AFT president to respond in writing to four questions by Nov. 6.

    U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education Labor and Pensions

    In a letter to American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Republican who chairs the education committee, accused American Association of University Professors president and AFT vice president Todd Wolfson of promoting “organizational antisemitism” within the AAUP. 

    Cassidy cited an August Inside Higher Ed interview with Wolfson in which the union leader stood against sending weapons to Israel, accused the Trump administration of weaponizing antisemitism for political gains and advocated for the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, a definition of antisemitism that does not include anti-Zionism.

    Cassidy also referenced a statement from Wolfson calling Vice President JD Vance a fascist as well as a March letter to the AAUP from the Anti-Defamation League and Academic Engagement Network that said “the AAUP [is] being perceived as increasingly moving in a virulently anti-Israel direction, and as a result, growing insensitive and even hostile to the concerns of its Jewish and Zionist members.”

    “In the six months since he received this warning from one of the nation’s leading organizations dedicated to fighting antisemitism [ADL], Dr. Wolfson has not only failed to address these concerns but has exacerbated them,” Cassidy wrote. “Jewish faculty members deserve to carry out their work free from discrimination. As an association with a national presence, it is concerning that AFT has not only failed to help solve this problem but has made it worse by allowing Dr. Wolfson to continue to serve in a leadership role.”

    The AAUP is an affiliate of the AFT, one of the largest unions nationwide for K–12 and higher education professionals. The two became formally affiliated in 2022 and share some leadership, including Wolfson.

    Wolfson replied to Cassidy’s letter in a statement to Inside Higher Ed Monday.

    “It appears Senator Cassidy and his GOP colleagues are furious that seven universities have rejected Trump’s absurd Higher Ed Loyalty Oath. Rather than reckon with their failed attempt to strong-arm higher education, they’ve chosen to complain to our national affiliate, AFT, because AAUP dared to hold a webinar,” Wolfson wrote, referring to an AAUP webinar called “Scholasticide in Palestine” that Cassidy referenced in the letter. “I would respectfully suggest they spend less time trying to undermine my constitutional rights and more time focusing on what Americans actually care about—like reopening the government, lowering healthcare costs, and addressing the cost-of-living crisis.”

    Cassidy wants Weingarten to tell him by Nov. 6 how AFT is addressing the concerns raised by the ADL and to share more details about how she’s working with the AAUP to ensure Jewish members aren’t experiencing antisemitism. He also asked Weingarten whether AFT publicly condemns Wolfson’s remarks.

    Source link