Tag: Education

  • Prof. says he was fired for email calling U.S. racist, fascist

    Prof. says he was fired for email calling U.S. racist, fascist

    After Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, some faculty canceled classes to allow themselves and students time to process a result that shocked the media and academe.

    Campus responses to Trump’s re-election in November seemed more muted. But at Millsaps College, a private Mississippi institution of roughly 600 students, James Bowley said he canceled his Abortion and Religions class meeting the day after the election.

    Bowley, a tenured religious studies professor, told Inside Higher Ed the class had only three students, and he knew they were upset about Trump’s re-election. He said he sent them an email with the subject line “no class today” and one line of text: “need time to mourn and process this racist fascist country.”

    For what he wrote in that email, Bowley said, the college swiftly barred him from campus and, on Tuesday, fired him—ending his more than 22 years of employment. He’s now fighting to get his job back and said he remains on the payroll while he appeals to the institution’s Board of Trustees.

    “This seems to me like the very definition of censorship, and of course it will make every single faculty member fearful of the administration, fearful of sharing their own opinions,” Bowley said. “There are hundreds of historians who would say that the election was a victory for fascism and racism,” he added.

    The college didn’t provide interviews Thursday and didn’t answer written questions. The situation appears to be another example of faculty members being punished for commenting on current events—but this time involving communication to a small group of students, according to Bowley. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech and academic freedom advocacy group, is pushing for Bowley’s reinstatement.

    “This is absolutely absurd,” said Haley Gluhanich, a senior program officer in FIRE’s campus rights department. She said that when Bowley was initially suspended, “he was charged with an offense that does not exist in any of the handbooks, so they completely just made up a violation of policy.”

    The Email Gets Out

    Bowley said one of the students who received the email shared it on Instagram, approvingly, but another student whom he doesn’t know reported it to administrators. Bowley said he got a call from interim provost Stephanie Rolph on Nov. 7, the day after he sent the email, saying he was being placed on leave for it and banned from campus.

    “I was shocked, I was dumbfounded, I just could not believe it,” Bowley said.

    A copy of a letter from Rolph to Bowley, obtained by Inside Higher Ed, says this leave was “pending a review of the use of your Millsaps email account to share personal opinions with your students.” In the letter, Rolph told Bowley his email account access was cut off and further told him not to “engage with students.”

    The suspension dragged on, Bowley said, and three weeks in he filed a grievance against Rolph—which led to a hearing. Then, on Dec. 27, a grievance panel composed of three faculty members ruled that Bowley should be reinstated, according to a copy of the ruling that FIRE provided.

    “We recognize that Dr. Bowley has, on multiple occasions, shown poor judgment in his use of campus email,” the committee wrote. But during the hearing, Rolph couldn’t “identify a specific policy that Dr. Bowley violated,” they said. “No policy prohibiting the use of campus email to share personal opinions with students exists in either the Faculty Handbook or the Staff Handbook.”

    The panel further recommended that “Rolph issue a formal apology to Dr. Bowley” and that Bowley “be compensated for the loss of income resulting from his removal from the winter study abroad course he had been scheduled to teach.” Bowley told Inside Higher Ed that was a course in Mexico for which he would’ve been paid more than $6,000 and would have had his travel expenses covered. 

    The panel also concluded that Bowley wasn’t “afforded due process.” It said Rolph had argued that the both the staff handbook and the faculty handbook applied to faculty. It also mentioned unresolved tension between the interim provost’s confidentiality claims and Bowley’s right to the hearing, saying the “interim provost can refuse to answer substantive questions pertaining to the grievance.” (Michael Pickard, chair of the grievance panel and vice president of the college’s Faculty Council, said he couldn’t comment Thursday. Rolph didn’t respond to requests for comment.)

    Millsaps president Frank Neville rejected the grievance panel’s report and then fired Bowley on Tuesday, according to Bowley.

    Bowley and FIRE said there was an extra twist at the end: FIRE wrote on its website that Bowley was told in a meeting Tuesday that he was also fired for “not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s. To be clear: The college fired Bowley for an offense … of which he wasn’t accused.”

    “The FIRE article is riddled with inaccuracies,” wrote college spokesperson Joey Lee in an email to Inside Higher Ed. He did not specify what those inaccuracies were.

    “Because Millsaps does not disclose information about individual employment matters for privacy and confidentiality reasons, the article is based on incomplete information,” he wrote.

    ‘A Bit Reckless’

    Was Bowley fired for more than the email? The college won’t specify, and Bowley didn’t provide a copy of his termination letter.

    David Wood, the Faculty Council president, told Inside Higher Ed he doesn’t exactly know why Bowley was fired, but he doesn’t think he should have been. Wood said he’s disappointed in the college administration and “the extreme nature of the punishment.” But he also said he’s disappointed in Bowley.

    “This is partly on him as well,” Wood said.

    Wood doesn’t believe academic freedom is under threat at Millsaps and thinks “everything was done legally and by our own rules at the college,” he said.

    (After this article was initially published Friday, Wood added in an email that he believes the “initial suspension was unfair and unsubstantiated” and that Rolph “exercised very poor judgment in banning James without a hearing.” Wood wrote that he believes “the review continued and shifted because” Rolph “realized she was wrong and had to go fishing for other reasons to fire James. The rest of her investigation I believe was done according to the rules of the Faculty Handbook.”)

    Asked whether college leaders were upset with Bowley for previous alleged transgressions, Wood said, “There’s a history there, I’ll just put it that way.”

    “James has been a bit reckless in the past, but I do not believe that being terminated was the appropriate punishment,” Wood said. “James likes to push the envelope, let me just put it that way … he’s not going to steer away from controversial issues.”

    Bowley, for his part, said that Rolph had verbally reprimanded him before for sharing with students and employees—through email—a brochure for a prayer vigil for Palestinians killed in Gaza that used the term “genocide.”

    But Bowley said the postelection email was the primary reason for his firing. Regarding any other accusations, he said, “The administration spent two months trying to find other things, and they allege that there were problems in my other class.”

    One accusation leveled at him was “lack of awareness of the status of assignments and grades for a course,” he said. But he wasn’t allowed to appear before a committee to answer such charges, he said, or access his emails and other documents to defend himself.

    He also said he’s protested the death penalty and celebrated the legalization of gay marriage and has ended up on the news for such demonstrations.

    “The idea of me pushing the envelope is me being an activist,” Bowley said. “I am an activist and people know that.”

    Source link

  • HBCU leaders prepare for “delicate dance” under Trump

    HBCU leaders prepare for “delicate dance” under Trump

    Mississippi Valley State University, a historically Black institution, proudly announced last month that its marching band was invited to perform at Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration. The university’s president, Jerryl Briggs, described the invitation as a chance to “showcase our legacy” and “celebrate our culture.” A GoFundMe campaign was started in hopes of raising enough money for the Mean Green Marching Machine Band to make its debut on the national stage.

    Then the fighting started. Social media exploded with reactions to the move from within and outside of HBCU campus communities, with alumni coming down on both sides of the issue. Some condemned the university for participating in the celebration while others argued the band should embrace its moment in the spotlight. (The band is doing that, heading to the inauguration on Monday.)

    The moment felt like déjà vu. During the first Trump administration, in 2017, a group of HBCU leaders spoke with Trump during an impromptu visit to the Oval Office after they met with other government officials. A photo of their interaction with the president went viral, prompting swift backlash and skepticism. “Is it a photo op, is it an opportunity for Trump to put himself next to Black people and smile?” Llewellyn Robinson, a Howard University sophomore at the time, asked The New York Times. “Is that the situation we’re dealing with? Or is it truly a seat at the table?”

    The controversy speaks to a tension HBCU leaders face ahead of a second Trump administration, with Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress. On the one hand, they want to foster positive relationships with the powers that be and take advantage of whatever opportunities the new administration can offer their students and institutions. On the other hand, they’re serving communities with deep misgivings about the incoming president.

    Most Black voters, 83 percent, voted for Kamala Harris, reported AP VoteCast. And while that’s fewer than the 91 percent who voted for President Biden in 2020, it’s still the vast majority at a time when many Black Americans, including HBCU students, are leery of anti-DEI rhetoric and state laws advanced by Trump supporters. Some have a more tangible worry: that Trump’s talk of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education may threaten the federal financial aid that gets many HBCU students to and through college and helps often cash-starved, tuition-dependent institutions meet their bottom lines.

    HBCU leaders and scholars find themselves, once again, thinking through how to navigate a fraught political moment.

    “It is sometimes a delicate dance,” said Walter Kimbrough, interim president of Talladega College and the former president of Philander Smith College and Dillard University. He expects some HBCU presidents will avoid “high-profile photo opportunities” with members of the new administration this time around. Even so, “we have to let our constituents know, we have to work with whoever is in the White House. That’s part of the job.”

    He also, however, believes part of the job is pushing back on policies that could hurt the sector regardless of who’s in office.

    “We need to be consistent on the things that are good for us, to be advocating,” he said, “and the things that we think are problematic, we need to be brave enough to speak up against those, too.”

    But doing so can be precarious for HBCU presidents and their institutions, said Melanye Price, a political science professor and director of the Ruth J. Simmons Center for Race and Justice at Prairie View A&M University. “The question is always: Is it better to speak out with the potential of losing whatever ability you have to tend to and care for students, or figure out ways to maneuver within the context that you’re in now and still be able to help students?” Price said.

    Efforts to partner with the new Trump administration have already begun. The Thurgood Marshall College Fund, an organization representing public HBCUs, congratulated Trump in a statement after he was elected. They also praised some of the wins HBCUs achieved under his first administration, including the FUTURE Act, which made permanent additional annual funding for minority-serving institutions, and the HBCU PARTNERS Act, which required some federal agencies to submit annual plans describing how they’d make grant programs more accessible to HBCUs.

    Michael L. Lomax, president and CEO of the United Negro College Fund, which represents private HBCUs, met with Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick for education secretary, in December. He said in a press release that he found her to be a “good listener” and said they had a “productive discussion” about “issues of importance to HBCUs, HBCU students, the nation’s underserved students and how to improve the avenues of learning for all students.”

    “We will continue to work with those elected, because the needs of our institutions and students are urgent,” Lomax added. “Our motto is ‘A mind is a terrible thing to waste,’ but so is an opportunity to advance our HBCU-related goals and objectives.”

    Strategies and Priorities

    Trump has often touted his support for HBCUs during his first term, arguing in a presidential debate last summer that he “got them all funded,” though HBCU leaders have pointed out that many of these successes were initially pushed forward by Congress and signed by the president. It’s also unclear whether support for HBCUs, a meaningful issue to Black voters, will be as much of an emphasis for Trump in his final term now that he’s no longer striving for re-election.

    But HBCU leaders express optimism that they can secure some legislative wins in the next four years, given that support for the institutions has historically come from both sides of the aisle. And they plan to keep it that way.

    “While I can’t say what the future may hold, I can say that our most recent interactions with the secretary-designate seemed as if we have reason to be positive about the next steps,” said Lodriguez Murray, UNCF’s vice president of public policy and government affairs.

    HBCUs achieved some of their goals in partnership with the first Trump administration, Murray noted, including some loan forgiveness for institutions that received federal disaster relief loans as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

    Harry Williams, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, noted another reason for optimism heading into the new Trump term: Most HBCUs are located in red states, so they’ve always developed and relied on positive relationships with Republican lawmakers.

    State-level challenges to DEI programming from Republican lawmakers have ramped up anxieties on HBCU campuses about the state and federal political climate for their institutions in the years ahead, Williams said. But “what we have seen, and we’re hoping to continue” is that those same states are still investing in HBCUs. For example, Tennessee recently coughed up funds to keep Tennessee State University afloat, and Florida has made some sizable investments in HBCUs in recent years, he added.

    Williams hopes the incoming administration and Congress will echo those state lawmakers in their treatment of HBCUs. “Our strategy is to continue to partner with both sides and continue to forge relationships and create opportunities for our member schools to come and visit” government officials, he said.

    Kimbrough said those visits from HBCU representatives are going to be particularly important in the years ahead. Trump had an HBCU graduate and advocate among the ranks of his first administration, he noted—his former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman. But “right now, he doesn’t have anybody who really knows HBCUs at a close [level],” he said, “so we’ve got to do a lot of teaching and educating them about what we do, what our value is to the country.”

    With those ties reinforced, HBCU leaders plan to advocate for a long-held policy wish list: higher annual funding, improvements to campuses’ infrastructure, relief for institutions in debt and increases to the Pell Grant, federal financial aid for low-income students that helps the majority of HBCU students pay for college. HBCU leaders also want federal money for campus safety and security measures after a slew of bomb threats against HBCUs in 2022, which some campus leaders contend was inadequately handled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    “We don’t believe that a single student needs to have in their mind that something is happening to their institution simply because of what the institution is and who they are,” Murray said.

    Murray noted one more priority: increased funding for the Education Department’s Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities program, from about $400 million per year to at least $500 million, to keep pace with inflation.

    Student Fears, Faculty Concerns

    The day after the election, students in Price’s class on voting rights at Prairie View A&M discussed the results. The same worry came up over and over again: How will they pay for college if Trump abolishes the Department of Education?

    According to data from TMCF, more than 75 percent of HBCU students rely on Pell Grants, federal financial aid for low-income students. Price said it’s natural that students are worried about any policy plans that could destabilize financial aid. “There is a palpable fear about what this new administration will bring and that there’s no one to stop them,” she said.

    The students’ often tuition-dependent institutions are also vulnerable if changes in financial aid make it difficult for students to pay; most HBCUs don’t have large endowments or megadonors as a safety net.

    University of the District of Columbia professors, worried themselves, described a particular kind of pall hanging over their students ahead of Inauguration Day as they prepare for the Trump administration and new members of Congress to settle into the deep-blue district. To acknowledge and address some of students’ fears and worries, two faculty members organized a pre-inauguration teach-in today. It will begin with mindfulness practices, followed by panel discussions and speakers on Washington, D.C., history and politics and how the transition of power could affect the district.

    “Students are concerned about what the city will feel like in terms of its receptivity [and] tolerance around diversity,” said Michelle Chatman, associate professor of crime, justice and security studies and the founding director of the Mindful and Courageous Action Lab at UDC. Since Congress has more sway over D.C. than elsewhere, students also worry about programming and curriculum at the HBCU given restrictions on African American studies pushed by Republican lawmakers in other parts of the country. “We want them to feel empowered, and we want to normalize their feelings of concern.”

    Amanda Huron, a professor of interdisciplinary social sciences and political science and the director of the D.C. History Lab at UDC, said a teach-in felt like the obvious move in this tense political moment.

    “When we think, ‘well, what can we do in this moment, what can we as a university community do’—what we do is teach,” Huron said.

    She acknowledged that HBCUs have a difficult balance to strike right now. “HBCUs in the country, we want to thrive, regardless of what’s going on politically, and we need to, because we need to serve our students,” Huron said. At the same time, “we need to make sure that we are always providing spaces for critical and honest and fact-based conversation, so I think it’s important that we’re able to do both things.”

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Trinity College, Carmarthen

    Higher education postcard: Trinity College, Carmarthen

    It is 1848, and a spectre is haunting Europe. If you’re Karl Marx, that spectre is communism. But if you’re a member of the god-fearing gentry in west Wales, that spectre is the lack of education!

    Here’s the South Wales and Monmouthshire Training College, later Trinity College, Carmarthen, later still part of University of Wales Trinity Saint David. It was opened in 1848, following the efforts of the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church in England and Wales (they loved a snappy title in the nineteenth century). The National Society, as it was better known, had been established in 1811 to promote a religious education, mostly via Sunday schools. And there was a counterpart – the British and Foreign School Society for the Education of the Labouring and Manufacturing Classes of Society of Every Religious Persuasion – established in 1808 and 1814, which did the same but with less religion.

    I’ve written before about how education policy in England and Wales developed slowly, and that compulsory, free education for children was a long time coming. The efforts of the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society had a big impact. And they included not only the operation of schools, but of training colleges for teachers.

    Let’s take in the report from the magnificently named Monmouthshire Merlin of Saturday 4 November 1848 to get a flavour of the excitement in Carmarthen:

    OPENING of the TRAINING COLLEGE CARMARTHEN.

    This interesting event, which was anxiously looked forward to by the clergy and members of the Church Establishment in the Principality, took place on Tuesday week. The weather was very unpropitious; heavy showers descending the whole of the morning, which greatly marred the appearance of the imposing spectacle, and no doubt hindered many distant clergymen and gentlemen, as well as a great number of the respectable inhabitants of the town, from joining in the procession. At eleven o’clock the procession moved from the Town-Hall in the following order:

    Police Constables of the Borough.

    The Mayor and Corporation.

    The Magistrates.

    The Welsh Education Committee.

    The Principal, Vice-Principal, and Master of the Training College.

    The Clergy, in their gowns.

    The Gentry and Inhabitants of the Neighbourhood. &c., &c.

    After the procession reached St. Peter’s Church, divine service was performed, and the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of St Da vid’s preached an excellent sermon, with his usual eloquence and ability, from the 12th chapter of the Romans, and the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses. The collection at the close of his lordship s eloquent appeal amounted to £ 67. 14s. 4d., a much larger sum than had ever been previously collected at St. Peters Church on any occasion. After the conclusion of the service, the procession was not re-formed; the parties departed, and proceeded towards the Training College, to partake of the cold collation which had been provided at that place. No ceremony was performed at the college, in connection with its opening, any farther than the throwing open of the doors to admit the visitors and others interested in the proceedings. The place is now ready for the reception of pupils, as the masters are in residence, and the arrangements are all complete. From the celebrity of the principal. and the salubrious situation of the college, we have no doubt that many will avail themselves of the opportunities now offered to them at this Training Institution. The building of the college is finished in the best style of workmanship, is replete with every convenience required by the pupils, and it reflects great credit on the architect and others concerned. The Model Schools are also in a state of great forwardness; and as the workmen have now been transferred from the Training College to them, it is expected they will be ready for opening in a very short time.

    Romans chapter 12 verses 6, 7 and 8, by the way, read as follows:

    6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

    7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

    8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

    The college did well. In 1967 there was an entrance examination for places, with tuition fees waived, and travelling expenses for successful students, as noted by the Carmarthen Journal of 26 July 1867. Note that the better students were given more money for travelling expenses; and that “all persons of good health and character” did not include women: the college first admitted women in 1957.

    The college formally changed its name to Trinity College Carmarthen in 1931, although it seems likely that the name was used informally before then. I have seen, for example, a newspaper article of 1894 referring to its as Trinity College Carmarthen; and the postcard itself is certainly earlier than the 1930s.

    Like most colleges, over time it grew, added new subjects and generally thrived. The college building expanded from that shown on the card, with other facilities and residences. In 1990 it became affiliated to the University of Wales, and became a full member college in 2004. By this time, of course, the University of Wales was in a degree of turmoil, with exits as well as entrances. Trinity gained degree awarding powers in 2008, became Trinity University College in 2009, and in 2010 merged with St David’s College – or University of Wales Lampeter – to form University of Wales Trinity Saint David.

    Its most famous alumnus is arguably Barry John, one of the great fly halves of the legendary 1970s Welsh rugby team, and the punchline to Max Boyce’s Hymns and Arias.

    The card was posted, but sadly the stamp has been removed, so the postmark is missing. It was sent to Mr Williams in the Cottage Hospital, Caernarfon. The original message in Cymraeg is below. As best as I can tell, the first part reads something like:

    The weather for pilgrims far away is very good. We will be coming home next weekend.

    (This probably isn’t entirely right.)

    And then I can’t make out the words in the second half, so no chance of a translation, however bad. Can any reader do this?

    Here’s a jigsaw for you too.

    Source link

  • Misrepresentations by OPMs could land colleges in trouble, Education Department says

    Misrepresentations by OPMs could land colleges in trouble, Education Department says

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Colleges could lose access to federal financial aid or face penalties if their external service providers mislead their students, the U.S. Department of Education said Tuesday. 

    That includes companies that help colleges launch and run online programs. Employees of online program managers, or OPMs, cannot represent themselves as working directly for colleges, including by having email addresses or signatures implying they’re employed by those institutions, according to the guidance. 

    OPM employees are also not allowed to represent a virtual program as equivalent to a college’s campus-based version if they have dissimilar admissions criteria, completion rates, faculty qualifications or other substantive differences. And workers in recruiting or sales roles can’t call themselves an “academic counselor” or use a similar title if it doesn’t accurately describe their position. 

    The guidance — issued in the waning days of the Biden administration — aims to add more oversight to colleges’ relationships with OPMs. Student advocacy groups have long called for stricter rules for these companies, which often help colleges launch online programs in exchange for a significant cut of their tuition revenue.

    Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank, praised the letter Wednesday. 

    “Today’s move by the Department of Education is a step in the right direction, affirming what we already know: OPMs commonly mislead students about the quality of their online programs and that is illegal,” Fast said in a statement. “This action will deter misconduct by OPMs and their college partners and will help protect online college students from the risks posed by predatory OPMs.”

    What led to the guidance?

    The guidance comes after the Biden administration’s other plans to add oversight to the OPM industry faltered. 

    In early 2023, the administration said it would review guidance that allows colleges to enter tuition-sharing deals with OPMs that provide recruiting help — so long as it is part of a larger bundle of services. Despite asking for public comment on the matter, the Education Department has not updated or rescinded the 2011 guidance.

    At the same time it announced the review, the administration issued separate guidance that would designate OPMs and other organizations as third-party servicers. The change would have subjected them to regulations that would give the department insight into their contracts with colleges. 

    However, the Education Department quickly delayed the guidance — and eventually rescinded it altogether — amid widespread criticism that it would create burdensome requirements for the higher education sector. 

    “We finally have clarity, in the last days of the administration, what they’re actually going to do with the guidance around [third-party servicers]” and OPMs, said Phil Hill, an ed tech consultant. “It’s just been this soap opera for 2 1/2 years now.”

    However, Hill described Tuesday’s guidance as “petulant rulemaking” from the Biden administration. 

    “This Dear Colleague letter is attempting to go down to the level of telling colleges and universities and vendors what words are allowable and what aren’t,” Hill said. “And this went through zero process, zero attempt to get input from schools.”

    That includes whether the guidance will hamstring colleges from running online programs or whether the policies address the issues they’re trying to solve, Hill said. 

    Stephanie Hall, senior director for higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, took a different stance. 

    The Education Department received a “treasure trove of comments” when it sought public input in 2023 on policies that would have impacted the OPM sector, Hall argued. 

    “A lot was given over the past couple of years, and I see this guidance letter as just an extension or a conclusion of that process and not something new that didn’t take any input,” Hall said. 

    Whether the Trump administration will enforce the new guidance is another matter. But Hall said the guidance is likely to create changes either way. 

    “Schools are put on notice,” Hall said. “It’s something they take very seriously.” 

    The incoming Trump administration could also rescind the guidance altogether, though it’s unclear if OPM oversight is a priority issue to incoming officials. 

    “Are they aware of the impact this could have on online education, and is this going to be on their radars to take action and just immediately get rid of it?” Hill said. 

    The guidance could also draw legal challenges. The Biden administration’s now-rescinded 2023 guidance sparked a lawsuit from 2U, a prominent OPM. 

    “This is just waiting for a rescission or a lawsuit,” he said. 

    Source link

  • Making Higher Education More Affordable: The Role of Financial Aid Strategies

    Making Higher Education More Affordable: The Role of Financial Aid Strategies

    Key Takeaways:

    • Financial aid optimization transforms financial resource allocation into a strategic enrollment tool, aligning affordability for students with institutional goals.




    • By leveraging real-time data and tools like Liaison Othot, institutions can craft tailored financial aid strategies that address individual student needs and enrollment strategies.




    • Optimization enables proactive adjustments to financial aid strategies, ensuring accessibility while supporting student retention and institutional sustainability.




    • Strategic financial aid leveraging balances affordability for students with long-term enrollment and revenue objectives.

     

    The rising costs of higher education and fear of long-term debt have left many prospective students and their families questioning whether they can afford to pursue their academic dreams. For institutions, this presents a dual challenge: attracting diverse students and ensuring enrollment goals align with their mission. An effective and aligned financial aid optimization strategy offers a powerful tool to meet a campus’s enrollment goals. By combining institutional funds with federal and state resources effectively, colleges and universities can increase access and affordability in higher education while achieving broader enrollment objectives.

    From offering enough aid to make tuition manageable to continuously refining financial aid strategies based on real-time information, optimizing plays a pivotal role in strategic enrollment management (SEM). It transforms financial aid awarding from a static process into a dynamic tool that not only attracts and enrolls students but also supports their retention by effectively meeting their financial needs.

     

    What Is Financial Aid Optimization?

    Financial aid optimization transforms the allocation of financial resources into a critical enrollment tool. By aligning the overall enrollment leveraging strategy—regularly and in real-time at the individual level—optimization allows campuses to address student affordability needs in a unique and tailored way.

    At its core, optimization is a dynamic, data-informed process. Institutions develop annual plans for allocating financial aid (leveraging), basing decisions on previous cycles’ successes and challenges. Unlike traditional static leveraging models, modern optimization approaches incorporate continuous adjustments informed by real-time data. This lets colleges and universities respond proactively to shifting enrollment trends and keeps their financial aid strategies effective throughout the year.

     

    How to Make Higher Education More Affordable and Accessible

    More accessible higher education starts with understanding the financial challenges students face. For many undergraduates, the cost of tuition, housing, books, and other expenses can make college seem out of reach, even with federal and state aid. For example, a student from a low-income household may find that even the maximum Pell Grant award leaves a significant financial gap. Similarly, a middle-income family might struggle to cover tuition despite not qualifying for significant need-based aid.

    Financial aid leveraging allows institutions to tackle these challenges head-on by creating tailored aid packages that remove financial barriers for students. This approach relies on a mix of need-based and merit-based strategies, often informed by tools like FAFSA data and predictive analytics.

    One of the key advantages of financial aid optimization is its flexibility. Institutions can use data to fine-tune aid offerings based on unique student needs and behaviors. For instance, Liaison’s Othot platform, a cloud-based predictive and prescriptive analytics tool designed specifically for higher ed, can analyze factors such as a student’s location, academic profile, and campus engagement to build aid packages thatneeds. This granularity ensures that the financial aid awarding strategy not only meets the affordability threshold for students also aligns with the overall enrollment strategy being employed on the campus. An aligned optimization approach ensures that the affordability component is integrated into the strategy for specifically targeted cohorts or students, maximizing the likelihood of their enrollment.

    Optimization also lets institutions adapt aid policies for entire cohorts or demographic groups. For example, schools can address rising inflation in high school GPAs by recalibrating merit-based awards to prioritize equity and maintain fairness in their financial aid distribution. This adaptability keeps aid plans relevant as the dynamics of higher education continue to shift. By relying on data and continuously streamlining their financial aid models, institutions can make higher education more attainable for all students while maximizing their impact.

     

    The Strategic Impact of Financial Aid Optimization

    Financial aid optimization goes beyond simply helping students cover tuition—it’s about achieving a delicate balance between affordability for students and sustainability for institutions. By carefully crafting aid packages that meet the financial needs of students without overextending institutional resources, colleges and universities can enhance their enrollment efforts while maintaining financial health.

    For example, reallocating funds for strategic distribution among students could result in higher net tuition revenue (NTR) without sacrificing enrollment numbers. This demonstrates how strategic adjustments can yield significant results when financial aid decisions are guided by data, tailored to meet institutional priorities, and aligned to overall enrollment strategies.

    Retention and persistence are critical factors to consider when determining how to optimize financial aid. An effective leveraging model doesn’t stop at enrollment and the conclusion of a successful first year—it considers the long-term success of students. By analyzing which cohorts are more likely to persist and graduate, institutions can refine their aid offerings to improve outcomes for all students. This approach ensures that financial aid strategies not only attract students but also support their success throughout their academic journey.

     

    Aligning Financial Aid With Student Success and Institutional Goals

    Financial aid optimization is a powerful way to make higher education more accessible while helping institutions achieve their objectives. By combining institutional, federal, and state resources with data-driven optimization tools, colleges and universities can craft aid strategies that address affordability, bolster student retention, and maximize their impact.

    Institutions looking to enhance their financial aid and enrollment can benefit from Liaison’s suite of solutions, including Othot. Whether your team is just beginning to explore financial aid leveraging or has years of experience, Liaison’s tools provide the flexibility and insights needed to meet your unique goals. From devising an initial plan to optimizing existing processes, our solutions are designed to assist schools at every stage of their journey. Contact us today to learn more.

     

     

    Source link

  • Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Hi everyone. I’m Alex Usher, and this is the World of Higher Education podcast. If you’re a really faithful listener, you may remember that when the show was in beta and we were fooling around with formats and guests, we did an episode about Mexican higher education and its tribulations under the populist president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador or AMLO for short.

    Our guest that day was my friend, Alma Maldonado Maldonado, an education researcher at Cinvestav, which is the Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute. That interview was so brilliant, we turned this podcast into a full-time investigation of higher education developments in various countries around the world.

    Today, Alma’s back with us again to talk about how things have and have not changed in Mexico over the past two years. The big story there is that there’s a new president in town. Last spring, Claudia Sheinbaum became the country’s first ever woman president. One who happens to have a PhD in engineering with a specialty in energy and sustainability.

    You’d think that might be an advantage to a higher education sector, but Scheinbaum comes from AMLO’s Morena party and her instincts seem to be to continue her predecessor’s tradition of attacking higher education as being a dissolute elite enterprise.

    So what does this mean for Mexican higher education? Well, in general, it’s not good. Alma takes us through the implications of Morena’s supermajority in Congress, as well as its early attempts to put fiscal pressure on universities, and its continued fascination with the experimental and kind of shambolic Benito Juarez universities.
    Spoiler alert, there are not a lot of silver linings in this story, either for public or private sector universities in Mexico. But enough from me, let’s hand things over to Alma to explain.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.16 | Beyond the Rhetoric: Mexico’s Higher Education Reality with Alma Maldonado Maldonado

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Alma, almost two years ago, then-President López Obrador had about a year and a half left in his mandate and was essentially at war with the university sector and the scientific community. How did his administration end with respect to higher education? Did anything change? Did things get better or worse in his final months? Were there any significant policy shifts we should know about?

    Alma Maldonado Maldonado (AMM): Hi Alex, thanks for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be here. Well, I think most things didn’t change. Essentially, everything stayed the same. His rhetoric and narrative against higher education institutions, against graduates from abroad, and especially against UNAM, continued until the end of his term, unfortunately.

    There wasn’t anything that made him change that rhetoric. One reason for this is that he had political capital—he knew his base supported him fully. So, why change something that was working for him? On the contrary, the attacks on universities and the restriction of resources continued right until the end.

    AU: So, nothing was resolved. But earlier this year, there were elections for the presidency and both the Chambers of Deputies and the Senate. Did higher education play any role in that election? Were there significant policy differences between the parties?

    AMM: Not really. Education didn’t feature much in the campaign—similar to what we see in the U.S. It just wasn’t important. There were only a few mentions here and there about education, but in general, it wasn’t a key part of any campaigns.

    What we did see, unfortunately, was this sort of competition around scholarships. One candidate would say, “I’ll offer scholarships for secondary education,” and the other would respond, “Well, I’ll offer scholarships for secondary, but also primary, and even preschool!” That was the extent of the debate around education policy between the two main candidates. I’m not surprised but it was very disappointing because in a country like Mexico, where education can be a major driver of social change, it wasn’t given the attention it deserves.

    AU: The winner of the election was Claudia Sheinbaum of the Morena party, the same party as López Obrador. But she has a somewhat different image—she’s a scientist with an advanced degree from UNAM, a doctorate, I think. Does her presidency signal any kind of shift for higher education?

    AMM: It’s complicated. On paper, yes, she’s better. She has a PhD from UNAM and worked as an academic—one of the few cases where an academic has become president. Not the first, of course, but still, it’s notable.

    She has a pro-science and pro-higher education rhetoric, especially given her background in the student movement at UNAM in the 1980s. She fought alongside people like Emanuel Ordorica, Carlos Simas (her former husband), and Antonio Santos. She wasn’t a leader in that movement, though now some are rewriting history to present her as one.

    Her narrative emphasizes free higher education and the idea that education is a right, not a privilege. But since she took office a few months ago, we haven’t seen much change in terms of the most important issue—financing. It’s clear: follow the money.

    In the initial draft of the national budget, the funding for UNAM and other major universities was cut. Later, the government said, “Oh no, it was a mistake. We didn’t mean to cut the budget. Sorry, let’s fix it.” Imagine—someone who champions free higher education putting universities in that position. It’s a contradiction.

    AU: She has large majorities in both chambers of parliament, so she has significant power to implement her agenda. Why do you think she proposed cuts to education funding initially?

    AMM: Well, because she’s seen as the president of higher education and science. Reducing the budget as her first move would’ve been disastrous for her image.

    But you’re right—she has total control of Congress and the Senate. Right now, she’s focused on other reforms, particularly in the judicial system, and she’s changing a lot of laws. Education isn’t on the map because López Obrador already changed the Constitution’s third article, which governs education. There’s no immediate need for her to revisit it.

    AU: Let’s circle back to the budget cuts. Last month, the proposed budget included a cut of 10 billion pesos—about 500 million U.S. dollars—to higher education, with half of that falling directly on UNAM. There was significant outcry, and she backtracked somewhat. Do we know how this will end up? Will the universities be held whole, or are cuts still coming?

    AMM: They decided to reorganize the budget, but now they’re cutting other areas instead. Unfortunately, that includes initial education and other sectors. They also cut the Senate’s budget, which has caused disputes.

    In terms of higher education, they’ve claimed that funding will remain the same as last year, with a slight adjustment for inflation. But the adjustment is minimal—about 3%—while experts estimate inflation at around 5% but they’re just adding 3%. So, effectively, there’s still less money to spend. There’s less money for infrastructure, materials, and other essentials. Universities are in a slightly better position than they were a few weeks ago, but the situation remains difficult. The contradictions in her policies have drawn a lot of criticism.

    AU: Why was so much of the proposed cut targeted at UNAM? Was it deliberate? Is there animosity toward the university?

    AMM: There’s speculation about that. Some believe it was a punishment for UNAM’s independence, particularly regarding topics like judicial reform. UNAM has maintained a critical stance, which Morena and Claudia don’t like.

    Let’s not forget that one of the first things López Obrador did when he came to power six years ago was to modify the Constitution’s third article, removing university autonomy. When there was backlash, they said, “Oh, it was a mistake. We didn’t mean it.” But there have been many such “mistakes.”

    AU: Going back to AMLO, he also set a goal of increasing enrollment by 1.5 million students while also underfunding institutions at the same time. How did that play out? Did he reach that goal? How did the funding play into the final result?

    AMM: Currently, enrollment coverage in higher education is about 44%—very low compared to other Latin American countries. AMLO’s goal was to reach 50%, but he fell short.

    Now, Claudia Sheinbaum is aiming for 55%. I don’t think that’s realistic. The common system in Mexico is to add 5% on any policy, even if the last one isn’t achieved. To achieve that, they’d need to add about 1.2 million students, which isn’t feasible with the current system.

    The problem is that the educational spaces being created aren’t in the places where students want to go. There’s a clear contradiction between their enrollment goals and actual planning.

    AU: Part of AMLO’s strategy was the Benito Juárez Universities—small, access-oriented institutions in remote areas. You previously described them as “Potemkin institutions.” What’s the current situation? Will Sheinbaum continue with this policy?

    AMM: Yes, she’s continuing the project. But as I’ve said before, it remains very obscure. We don’t know who attends these universities, who teaches there, or what students are learning. I have a student doing their master’s dissertation on these universities, and they can’t get access for research.

    Sheinbaum recently announced plans to open 50 more. But we don’t even know what’s happening with the existing 140—or whether that number is accurate. There have been protests at these universities over issues like unreceived degrees and inadequate resources. I wouldn’t be surprised that Colombia would adopt them because they’re friends of Claudia. The idea is that these institutions could increase 40,000 new spaces. While they’re meant to provide education in remote areas with programs tailored to local communities, they’re not addressing the larger participation gaps.

    AU: We’ve been talking mainly about the public sector, but what about the private sector? Institutions like Tecnológico de Monterrey are highly regarded. How does the disarray in the public sector affect them? Does it make them stronger?

    AMM: I think they are struggling too, but we need to distinguish between the high-prestige institutions and the low-prestige ones. So, let’s start with the high-prestige institutions like Tecnológico de Monterrey or Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara.

    They are struggling financially, particularly because some scholarships they used to receive for graduate programs have been eliminated. For example, many students in their graduate programs previously got scholarships from the National Science and Technology Council. But now, under the current rhetoric, those scholarships are only being given to students in public institutions.

    This has forced high-prestige private institutions to get more creative with their resources to maintain their programs.

    On the other hand, there are low-prestige private institutions, some of which are as bad as the Benito Juárez Universities. They lack quality, but the government lets them operate because they solve a demand problem. Parents want their kids to attend college, and these institutions offer that possibility, even if the education isn’t great. Families make sacrifices to pay for these degrees because, in their minds, a degree is still a degree.

    And then, in the middle, there are institutions that are more decent in terms of quality. But the big question is: who ensures the quality of these institutions? That’s been a longstanding issue, and it hasn’t improved under the current government.

    AU: It’s a classic trade-off we see in many countries. Alma, we’ve covered a lot of doom and gloom. Are there any bright spots you foresee for 2025?

    AMM: I wish I could say I see more positive things coming, but honestly, I don’t. A big part of my concern is tied to North America and what a Trump presidency could mean for Mexico. If he returns to power, we’re likely to face serious challenges around migration and broader U.S.-Mexico relations.

    It’s really sad that Mexico didn’t take advantage of opportunities to strengthen ties with the U.S. while Biden was in office. There could have been agreements, collaborations, and advancements, but those didn’t materialize.

    In the face of all this, creativity will be key. Maybe we’ll see new programs to support migrants with higher education degrees who end up staying in Mexico. It’s critical that we do better this time than we did during the Dreamers situation. But honestly, I’m not confident that the government is prepared to handle these challenges effectively. So, unfortunately, I don’t see much good news ahead.

    AU: Well that’s a good reminder that international affairs do intrude on higher education affairs sometimes. Alma, thanks for being with us.

    AMM: Thank you very much, Alex.

    AU: And thank you to our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Samantha Pufek. If you have comments or questions, reach out at [email protected]. Don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel. Join us next week when Michael Shattock will discuss governance in European universities. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : The Paradox of Being a Good Person

    Higher Education Inquirer : The Paradox of Being a Good Person







    Higher Education Inquirer : The Paradox of Being a Good Person – George Orwell’s Warning to the World (Pursuit of Wonder)




    Source link

  • What could WNMU’s ex-president’s exit package pay for?

    What could WNMU’s ex-president’s exit package pay for?

    Former Western New Mexico University president Joseph Shepard received an exit package that included severance pay of $1.9 million, and a tenured faculty job, with perks adding up to an estimated $3.5 million.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | skodonnell/iStock/Getty Images | rawpixel

    The controversial exit package for former Western New Mexico University president Joseph Shepard could have funded multiple scholarships, according to one analysis, while the state’s governor says that the money could have helped feed hungry students at the university for a year.

    Judith Wilde, a research professor at George Mason University who studies presidential compensation and contracts, previously told Inside Higher Ed that Shepard’s exit package could have funded 90 scholarships for undergraduate students at Western New Mexico.

    To Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, the decision to green-light a $1.9 million severance payment to the departing president “demonstrated an appalling disconnect from the needs of our state, where the median income of a family of four is just $61,000.”

    “The amount of money contained in Dr. Shepard’s separation agreement could have addressed food insecurity across the entire WNMU student body for a full year,” Lujan Grisham said in a news release last week.

    The estimated $3.5 million package—including benefits—for a president accused of improperly spending taxpayer dollars has infuriated state lawmakers and led to the resignations of several regents. More fallout is expected as the state attorney general seeks to claw back the severance payment.

    Shepard’s last day as president was Wednesday.

    Shepard, who led the university for 13 years, made a base salary of $365,000 a year. He’s not the only college president to get a generous severance on his way out the door, but compared to deals at other institutions, the agreement is unusually lucrative and will cost the university more than multiple line items in its budget. For example, when Ben Sasse stepped down as president of the University of Florida, he struck a deal to keep his $1 million annual salary through 2028 despite exiting the top job. But UF’s annual budget is just over $5 billion, meaning Sasse’s exit package comprises a tiny fraction of university expenses.

    Comparatively, Shepard’s exit package far exceeds those of other former presidents in his state. Former New Mexico State University system chancellor Dan Arvizu received an exit package valued at between $500,000 and $650,000 when he announced his early departure in 2023, a move both parties referred to as a “mutual separation” amid tensions. In 2016, Bob Frank left the University of New Mexico presidency early amid allegations of bullying, striking a deal for a $190,000-a-year tenured faculty job—down from the $350,000 annual salary initially considered.

    At WNMU, a university that enrolled 3,570 students in fall 2023, Shepard’s total exit package adds up to almost 5 percent of its $74.2 million fiscal year 2024 budget, an Inside Higher Ed analysis found.

    In one of the poorest states in the union, more than half of WNMU’s students receive Pell Grants. A 2023 survey also found nearly 60 percent of college students in New Mexico were food insecure, prompting efforts at Western New Mexico and other colleges to address the issue.

    Shepard’s exit package has roiled lawmakers, particularly in light of the economic challenges in the state and a state investigation that found the outgoing president improperly spent $360,000 in taxpayer money on international travel, splashy resorts and expensive furniture. Had the board elected to fire Shepard without cause, it could have spent roughly $600,000 to cut ties with him. Or the board could have waited for the conclusion of another state investigation, which might have given them cause to fire him without spending any additional money, depending on the findings.

    Instead, regents cut him a $1.9 million check and gave him a tenured faculty job teaching two courses a year with a remote option. Altogether those perks add up to a $3.5 million, Wilde estimated. (WNMU officials said the money was paid for out of reserves.)

    Four out of five WNMU regents have since resigned under scrutiny from lawmakers, including the governor. Attorney General Raúl Torrez also demanded an investigation into Shepard’s “golden parachute” and sought a restraining order to prevent him from accessing the $1.9 million severance payment as the state challenges the contract. However, a judge shot down the request to place a hold on those funds Monday. A legal challenge to the contract is pending.

    ButJohn C. Anderson, an attorney for Shepard, defended the payment as “appropriate” and said that the former president had “worked tirelessly on behalf of Western New Mexico University for nearly 14 years to increase graduation rates, modernize the campus through major renovations and the construction of new facilities, and expand the school’s programs,” among other accomplishments. (Shepard’s legal team also disputed the estimate of $3.5 million but did not provide their own figure.)

    As the legal wrangling continues, Inside Higher Ed took a look at WNMU’s budget to determine how Shepard’s controversial exit package stacks up to spending on athletics, academic support, faculty salaries and other line items in the fiscal year 2024 budget, which was last updated in December. While Shepard has already received a nearly $2 million severance payment, the remainder of his deal will be paid out to him as a tenured faculty member where he’ll initially make $200,000 a year. His salary will be paid for by the business school.

    • WNMU athletics teams—known as the Mustangs—compete on the NCAA Division II level. Western New Mexico University sponsors 13 sports with an athletics budget of $5.4 million.
    • The student services budget at WNMU is $4.5 million. That money is spread across a range of offerings from disability services to funding for special events and student health and well-being.
    • WNMU budgeted $4.4 million for the operation and maintenance of campus.
    • WNMU budgeted $3.9 million in academic support.
    • The student financial aid budget at WNMU was $1.2 million.
    • Shepard’s exit package also surpasses the total faculty salaries for any department at WNMU. The nursing department has 19 full-time faculty members, earning a combined salary of $1.4 million, according to budget documents. Nursing appears to be the largest program at WNMU based on the number of full-time employees listed. Social work is also among the university’s largest programs, with 17.2 full-time faculty members listed earning just over $1 million.

    Source link

  • Illinois guarantees transfer for all state high school grads

    Illinois guarantees transfer for all state high school grads

    Students who graduated from an Illinois high school, no matter where they’re currently enrolled, will soon be guaranteed transfer admission to any University of Illinois system institution—including the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which has a regular acceptance rate below 50 percent. 

    Illinois’s new policy, set to take effect this fall, builds on its previous transfer guarantee, which applied only to current Illinois community college students. Typical state transfer guarantee programs apply only to those currently enrolled in another state institution; Illinois’s more expansive approach may help bring back former residents who left the state for college.

    To be eligible, students must have graduated from an Illinois high school, earned at least 36 transferable credit hours toward their transfer institution and maintained a minimum 3.0 GPA in all transferable courses. Students will still have to apply, but if they meet the requirements, they’ll be automatically accepted. Admission to specific programs and majors, however, is not guaranteed. 

    Source link

  • Higher ed is not a public good—but it could be (opinion)

    Higher ed is not a public good—but it could be (opinion)

    ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    When 85,000 Cornhuskers all wear red on game day, it’s easy to think of college as something larger than students and professors, classes, research and extracurriculars. Berkeley, Penn State and Michigan each have hundreds of thousands of online followers. Tar Heel nation is, after all, a nation.

    But wearing “college” on our chests does not a polity make. Higher education is not a public good and Americans know it.

    In the plainest sense, public goods aren’t excludable. Think of the air we breathe, interstate freeways and national defense. Everyone is affected by carbon dioxide levels, can travel by open roads and is protected, equally, from foreign threats.

    But when it comes to higher ed, exclusion is the name of the game.

    Admissions offices reject most applicants from selective colleges and create barriers at others. Tuition, even when subsidized, deters those shocked by sticker prices or unable to pay. Courses are controlled by departments, yet some intellectual climates drive students away. Governance, when behind closed doors, excludes parents, students, employers and other stakeholders.

    All told, the labyrinth of exclusionary practices makes higher ed more of a private than public good. We can interpret low public confidence in higher education as reflecting a belief that college is for someone else. Of those who matriculate, two-thirds of new community college students form the same opinion and drop out or enter a broken transfer system. One-third of new B.A. students will drop out or take more than six years to graduate. Once they’re gone, it’s often for good: Only 2.6 percent of stop-outs re-enrolled in the 2022–23 academic year. All told, this has led to a societal “diploma divide”: More people without a college degree voted for Donald Trump’s re-election in 2024 than in 2020.

    Colleges and universities do need to reclaim a place of pride in American society. But instead of ambiguous calls “reaffirming higher education’s public purpose,” why not simply be more public? And deliver an education that is, well, more good?

    My new book, Publicization: How Public and Private Interests Can Reinvent Education for the Common Good (Teachers College Press), argues that educational institutions of any sort—private nonprofit, state-controlled or proprietary—can be more publicly purposed when they meet two criteria. First, they must prepare each generation to sustain the common goods on which American life rests: a vibrant democracy, a productive economy, a civil society and a healthy planet. These are three long-standing aims and one new existential goal, around which colleges and universities can better organize the student experience.

    Second, institutions must themselves operate in ways that are more public than private. To do so, Publicization offers an “Exclusion Test” applicable to six domains—funding, governance, goals, accountability, equity and an institution’s underlying educational philosophy. Colleges and universities can apply the test to these areas and identify where operations can be less exclusionary and therefore more public.

    For example, do policies assume that some students aren’t “college ready,” or do we meet everyone—particularly those impacted by COVID-19—where they are? To what extent do applications create formal and informal hurdles, or do we offer more streamlined direct admission? Are inequitable proxies like Advanced Placement Calculus blocking talented students from admission, or does coursework in more widely relevant areas like statistics matter equally? Are free college plans riddled with eligibility fine print or open to anyone?

    Are courses gated by size, section, time of day and instructor approval, or are they more accessible? Are we mostly catering to young adults or presenting real options for the almost 37 million Americans with some college but no degree? Is federal funding considered a necessary evil, or is Washington engaged as a key stakeholder? Do boards focus narrowly on institutional issues or see themselves as hinges between school and society, mediating higher ed’s role in a democracy? Do we tolerate every private belief or hold ourselves to an epistemology premised on shared evidence and public scrutiny, what Jonathan Rauch calls the “Constitution of Knowledge”?

    As for an experience that’s good, higher ed’s 15-year-old success agenda focuses on access, affordability and student support. These aren’t enough. Quality must join the list, with a particular focus on our technical core: teaching and learning.

    Ask any of the nation’s 1.5 million professors and most will tell you they were not taught how to teach. They are world-class scholars. They serve their institutions. They are committed to students. But hardly any received comprehensive training in effective instruction. This persists despite the fact that most Americans believe the best colleges have the best teaching and evidence that effective instruction leads to more positive mindsets about one’s academic abilities, deeper learning, stronger retention and life readiness.

    As such, it’s no surprise that Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa found, in Academically Adrift (University of Chicago Press), “limited learning on college campuses.” That was in 2010 and not enough has changed, as recent articles in USA Today, The Washington Post, Washington Monthly, Forbes, Deseret News and The Chronicle of Higher Education affirm.

    But change is afoot. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine soon plan to publish STEM teaching standards, a first. Groups like the Equity-Based Teaching Collective have identified policies and practices to promote effective teaching campuswide. Over the past 10 years, the Association of College and University Educators, which I co-founded, has credentialed 42,000 professors in effective teaching at 500 institutions nationwide with proof of positive student impact. Last June’s second National Higher Education Teaching Conference gathered hundreds of higher education leaders and professors to accelerate the teaching excellence movement.

    College as a “public good”? Let’s give the public what it wants and deserves: a good education. In which the “best” colleges aren’t, by definition, the most exclusive. So that at family gatherings, our students tell their voting, poll-taking relatives how much they are learning, how great their professors are and how college is for them.

    Jonathan Gyurko teaches politics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. His new book, Publicization: How Public and Private Interests Can Reinvent Education for the Common Good, was published by Teachers College Press last March.

    Source link