Stacy Bartlett, currently the chief of staff at Point University in Georgia, will become the institution’s president, effective July 1.
Michael Benson, president of Coastal Carolina University, has been named the 27th president of West Virginia University, starting in July.
John Butler, the Haub Vice President for University Mission and Ministry at Boston College, has been appointed the institution’s president, beginning in the summer of 2026.
Elizabeth Cantwell, president of the Utah State University system, has been appointed president of Washington State University, effective April 1.
Sylvia Cox, executive vice president and chief academic officer at Southeastern Community College, has been named president of Rockingham Community College, effective May 1.
Wendy Elmore, currently executive vice president and provost of Lamar State College–Orange in Texas, has been named the institution’s next president, effective June 1.
Andrea Goldsmith, dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, will become the seventh president of Stony Brook University, effective Aug. 1.
Adam Hasner, executive vice president of public policy for the Geo Group, has been named president of Florida Atlantic University.
Elizabeth Kiss, who most recently served as CEO of the Rhodes Trust, will become president of Union College, effective July 1.
Michelle Larson, president and CEO of the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, has been named president of Clarkson University, effective April 1.
Dean McCurdy, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Ivy Tech Community College, has been named president of Colby-Sawyer College, effective June 1.
Heather Norris, formerly the interim chancellor of Appalachian State University, has been appointed to the position permanently, effective March 1.
Joseph Odenwald, president of Southwestern Michigan College, has been named president of Alma College, effective June 1.
Andrew Rich, dean of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at the City College of New York, has been appointed president of Franklin & Marshall College, beginning this summer.
Daniel Shipp, the president of Pittsburg State University, has been named president of Maryville University in Missouri, starting in June.
Shane Smeed, president of Park University in Missouri, has been appointed president of Utah Tech University.
Gentry Sutton, currently executive vice president and vice president of advancement at Warner University in Florida, has been appointed president of the institution.
Suzanne Walsh, president of Bennett College in North Carolina, has been named president of City University of Seattle, effective July 1.
Jermaine Whirl, who most recently served as president of Augusta Technical College, has been appointed president of Savannah State University, effective April 1.
According to 2024 general election exit polling, 42 percent of voters with college degrees voted for now-President Donald Trump, compared to 56 percent of those without college degrees. Asked how they feel about this growing education gap in the electorate—what researchers call the diploma divide—25 percent of college and university presidents say they’re very or extremely concerned about its implications for their institution.
More say they’re highly concerned about the growing divide’s impact on higher education in general (58 percent) and on American democracy (64 percent). That’s according to a new analysis of findings from Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents, completed with Hanover Research.
Presidents also offer a scathing review of how higher education has responded to this divide thus far: Just 3 percent think the sector has been very or extremely effective, versus not at all, somewhat or moderately effective. The leaders have a similarly dismal view of how higher education is responding to declining public confidence: A mere 1 percent, rounded up, think it has been highly effective. Much larger shares of presidents think higher education has not been at all effective in responding to the public confidence crisis, with presidents of private nonprofit institutions especially likely to say so, or to the growing education divide in the electorate.
The Diploma Divide
Experts say that the diploma divide can’t be decoupled from the public confidence crisis, and that both have implications for the intensifying debate over, and presidential communication about, higher education’s value—especially in this political moment.
More on the Survey
Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Presidents was conducted with Hanover Research starting in December and running through Jan. 3. The survey included 298 presidents of two- and four-year institutions, public and private, for a margin of error of 5 percent. Download a copy of the free report here, and check out reporting on the survey’s other findings, including what presidents really think about faculty tenure and student mental health, and their expectations for the second Trump administration.
On Wednesday, March 26, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will present a webcast with campus leaders who will share their takes on the findings. Register for that discussion here.
“Presidents should be making very clear and very concrete what the practical benefits of their university are, not just for the students that attend that university but for the community, the state at large,” said Joshua Zingher, an associate professor of political science and geography at Old Dominion University who studies elections and political behavior, including the diploma divide. “Thinking about the long-term development of the U.S. as a science power or a technology power is very much a story of the university.” He noted that football games at the University of Iowa, in his home state, pause after the first quarter so that fans can wave to patients in the campus children’s hospital—an example of how society depends on thriving colleges and universities, and how cuts to university research and other funding have ripple effects.
Matt Grossman, professor of American politics and public policy and director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, who co-authored the 2024 bookPolarized by Degrees: How the Diploma Divide and the Culture War Transformed American Politics, agreed there is reason for presidents to be concerned about the diploma divide, in that the “analogies are not great.” Just think of the politically polarized trust in so-called mainstream media, an institution in which both Democrats and Republicans were once largely confident.
But whereas Zingher said that presidents might have to “take a position” at some point, even if many loathe being seen as political figures, Grossman pointed to existing public polling linking declining confidence to concerns about ideological bias within institutions, at least among Republicans. So Grossman said he was surprised by how few presidents in IHE’s annual survey most attribute declining trust to concerns about ideological bias (11 percent). About double that share say concerns about ideological bias are very or extremely valid (22 percent).
Grossman explained that higher education has always been culturally liberal, but as social and cultural issues become more central to how people vote, it’s harder for institutions to “be above the fray.” Indeed, higher education is now a wedge issue. As for how campus leaders should respond to the diploma divide, Grossman said, “The first step would be a realization that they know that they are facing these complaints.”
Presidents of private nonprofit institutions are somewhat more likely than their public counterparts to express the highest level of concern about the divide’s impact, including on higher education in general. Region also appears to matter, with presidents in the South least likely to worry about the divide. Regarding its impact on American democracy, for example, some 45 percent of presidents in the South are very or extremely worried, versus 62 percent of those in the Midwest, 73 percent of those in the West and 75 percent in the Northeast.
The widening diploma divide means that voters without a college degree are increasingly likely to vote Republican and those with a degree are increasingly like to vote Democratic. With the Republican Party growing more critical of higher education, this has real consequences for college and university missions and budgets.
But Keith Curry, president of Compton College and chief executive of the Compton Community College District, emphasized that educating students, including about voting, transcends politics: “It’s important that as leaders we’re bipartisan, and to focus on helping students register to vote and participate in the [democratic] process. They have to understand the issues and how to gather the information. They make their own decisions.”
For what it’s worth, faculty members in a fall poll by IHE and Hanover overwhelmingly said that they planned to encourage students to vote in the 2024 election. But just 2 percent planned to tell students to vote for a particular candidate or party.
Jay Akridge, trustee chair in teaching and learning excellence, professor of agricultural economics and former provost at Purdue University, offered a slightly different take. Calling the diploma divide “concerning,” he said it might “make higher ed think more about students with parents who did not go to college and how to better serve this group of first-generation students.”
The Value Debate
If not concerns about ideological bias, to what do presidents most attribute declining public confidence in higher education?
From a list of survey options, the plurality (49 percent) cite concerns about the value of a college education and/or whether college is worth it. A less common choice: concerns about lack of affordability, including high tuition (18 percent). And very few presidents point to concerns about whether colleges are adequately preparing students for the workforce (7 percent).
Some differences emerge by institution type, with public presidents more likely to cite concerns about whether college is worth it than their private nonprofit peers (54 percent versus 43 percent, respectively). But presidents of private nonprofits are somewhat more likely to blame concerns about affordability (22 percent versus 15 percent of public institution presidents).
As for whether presidents think that such concerns are actually founded, half say that concerns about affordability are very to extremely valid, with presidents at public institutions (57 percent) significantly more likely to say so than those at private nonprofits (39 percent).
And while very few presidents over all (1 percent) most attribute declining public confidence in higher education to concerns about equity, including access and outcomes for historically underrepresented groups, a quarter (26 percent) think that such concerns are highly valid. The same goes for higher education being disconnected from society (24 percent say this is highly valid)—something that’s arguably linked to the diploma divide, as well.
Just 15 percent of presidents say the value question is highly valid. Some 40 percent say it’s not at all valid, while an additional 46 percent rate it as somewhat or moderately valid.
In IHE’s 2024 Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers with Hanover, 94 percent of CBOs somewhat or strongly agreed that their institution offers good value for what it charges for an undergraduate degree. Just 9 percent of CBOs said their institution charges too much for an undergraduate degree.
As for the student perspective, in IHE’s 2024 Student Voice survey series, most current two- and four-year students agreed that they’re getting a valuable education. But they were much less likely to agree that their college was affordable.
Martha Snyder, partner at HCM Strategists, says the education firm’s own U.S. polling and other research has found a general, even bipartisan belief “that education beyond high school in some form or fashion is necessary and important for longer-term economic viability, prosperity and longer-term job security.” But—similar to the Student Voice findings—the “disconnect tends to be in accessibility and affordability.” That is, even as Americans may understand the long-term value of higher education, it is undercut by the immediate challenges of paying for it—especially when weighed against the opportunity cost of not working, or perhaps not working as much, while pursuing a degree.
Snyder says this also points to a need for institutional transparency on cost of attendance and for better presidential communication as to why higher education works the way it does.
“Think about the notion of a credit hour, right? The complex way that pricing happens is not easily understood by students and families. And even though net price has fallen, well, what is net pricing?” she said. “So there’s another disconnect in how we are communicating the information we’re providing to individuals about the opportunities, about the pathways and about what the end result is, in terms of career opportunities and career advancement.”
Akridge, of Purdue, also noted the gap between the relatively large share of presidents who think concerns about the value of a degree are driving declining public confidence and the relatively small share who point to concerns about whether or not colleges are adequately preparing students for the workforce, as these two points are connected. Moreover, he said, there “are plenty of valid questions raised by employers about whether or not college graduates are ready for the work world.”
In just one example, a recent survey of U.S. employees and human resources leaders by Hult International Business School found that 85 percent of recent graduates wish their college had better prepared them for the workplace, and 75 percent of HR leaders say most college educations aren’t preparing people at all for their jobs. There’s a lot to mine here‚ some of it probably generational (Gen Z employees aren’t necessarily mangers’ favorites, and they have their own expectations about work).
Employer-led skills training has long been on the decline, as well. In any case, Akridge said that given employer perceptions about lack of preparation, “presidents are missing an opportunity—the so-called skills gap is an issue they can take action to close. And this is an issue where such actions will be well received by the public and will make a great story to tell.”
Akridge and David Hummels, professor of economics and dean emeritus at Purdue, last fall launched “Finding Equilibrium: Two Economists on Higher Ed’s Future,” a Substack newsletter seeking to inform the value conversation. It has offered a number of ideas for improving the career readiness of college graduates, including elevating teaching and learning as a priority through curricular and co-curricular design, innovation and delivery; rethinking organizational structures and student support with a focus on career readiness; and strengthening connections and feedback loops with employers. Akridge and Hummels have also written about how the economic case for college remains strong and how the price students actually pay to attend college has fallen.
Hummels told Inside Higher Ed that presidents are especially well positioned to share this kind of information with the public, to address the value debate head-on: “They are not passive actors. They need to get out in their communities and around their states, talking to high schools and chambers of commerce and the like, making the case that college is affordable with grant aid. That the return on college is large and positive when you take challenging courses of study and make the most of co-curricular opportunities.”
The big asterisk here is that completion rates hover in the mid–60 percent range for four-year institutions. Students pursuing more expensive college options but moving into lower-wage jobs is another problem. So it’s also “clear higher ed does not work for everyone,” Akridge said. “We don’t create value for all students.” And how to get better remains “an essential question.”
More on Affordability—and the Diploma Divide
Curry, president of Compton College, said he has no doubts about higher education’s value, but that affordability is a highly valid concern at his institution.
“We have students who are thinking about, ‘Do I buy a book for math class, or do I get food?’ They have to make some real decisions based off of their current finances about to going to college. It is not just the tuition cost. It is the total cost of education—what does that look like?”
Similarly, students are weighing the cost of working versus going to college. This means that they have to be able to see higher education’s value in real time, Curry said. One way the college is helping students understand this is with program maps that list careers, salaries and other opportunities connected to various areas of study.
For Hummels, affordability also points right back to the diploma divide in terms of future funding for higher education. If a majority of voters without a college education vote for one party and express a growing conviction that college is not worth it, he said, “then it becomes easier to cut back on Pell Grants, on subsidized student loans, on state support for universities.”
The impacts of these cuts would be felt most strongly by lower-income and lower-education households, he continued, and “the lack of support becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. College will become out of reach for these households.”
Even as someone who has done his fair share of thinking and writing about teaching writing, I did not realize that his landmark book, Writing Without Teachers, was first published all the way back in 1973. For sure, the approach to writing he advocated for in Writing Without Teachers and subsequent books challenged the prevailing dogma of academic writing by emphasizing freedom, student agency and audience above correctness and authority, but to consider the full import of Elbow’s message and compare it to what happens in writing classrooms, it’s tough to see a full “transformation” at work.
At the time I started teaching freshman composition as a graduate TA (1994), I had never heard of Peter Elbow, and none of the people tasked with preparing me for the job introduced me to his work. In fact, I would not encounter Elbow until 2001, when I expressed frustration with teaching through the lens of rhetorical “modes” and how I wished that I could get students writing more freely and authentically because I was tired of reading performative B.S. written for a grade.
“You should try Peter Elbow,” I was told. I did, and it was like the clouds suddenly parted and I could see the sun for the first time. Anyone who teaches writing as a process, who uses peer review and reflection, is working from Elbow-ian DNA. This surely fits any definition of transformation, doesn’t it?
But also, why was I not introduced to Peter Elbow as a beginning writing teacher? Why, at the time I did discover him, were departments still teaching rhetorical modes, or composition as (essentially) essays responding to literature?
In hindsight, I can tell that Elbow’s views on writing must have had a significant impact on the kind of writing I was asked to do in school and how I did it. I’ve written extensively how my grade school teachers of the 1970s privileged creativity and writing problem solving over correctness, engendering a lifelong curiosity about how writing works.
But by the time I was a teacher, it seems as though whatever transformation Elbow had caused had been beaten back, at least to some degree. Focus on process and revision remained, but this process was deployed in the making of very standard, significantly prescriptive artifacts that were easy to explain, straightforward to grade—as they fit established rubrics—and (at least in my experience) largely uninteresting to read and (in the experience of many students) uninteresting to write.
It isn’t surprising that attempts at giving students room to maneuver, which make it difficult to compare them to each other or standards of sufficiency, are resisted by those who prefer order to exploration. The most popular composition textbook of recent years is They Say/I Say (well over a million copies sold) a book that literally coaches students to write using Mad Libs–style templates to imitate forms of academic writing, under the theory students will learn academic expression through osmosis.
Having tried this book for half a semester, I understand its appeal. It’s really just a more refined version of the prescriptive process I used in the 1990s teaching rhetorical modes. If your primary goal is to have students turn in an artifact that resembles the kind of writing that would be produced through a scholarly process, it is very handy.
If the goal is to get students to think like scholars or go through a process that requires them to wrestle with the genuine challenges of academic inquiry and expression, it is a lousy choice. These are simulations of academic artifacts, predating the simulations now easily created by large language models like ChatGPT.
The orderly logic of “schooling” seems to repeatedly win over the mess and chaos of learning. Elbow argued that discovery and differentiation was the highest calling of the learning process, and that writing was an excellent vehicle for fulfilling this calling. This requires one to get comfortable with discomfort. For some reason this is serially viewed as a kind of threat to school, rather than what it should be, the focus of the whole enterprise.
The New York Times obituary calls Elbow’s approach a “more reflective and touchy-feely process,” which I read a signal as to the lack of rigor of the approach, but in truth, it’s the opposite. There’s nothing particularly rigorous about compliance, particularly when enforced by an authority above with all the power, like a teacher wielding their grade book.
As I’ve found over and over in my career, including weekly in this space for the last 13 years, there is nothing more demanding than being asked to deliver a thought that could only come from your unique intelligence. There is also nothing more interesting for both the writer and the reader.
Ultimately, I evolved in ways that make me not quite a full Elbow-ian. The experiences in The Writer’s Practice are structured in ways that do not quite square entirely with Writing With Teachers, though even as I write this sentence, I cannot help but note that calling the assignments in the book experiences, and the fact that I wrote the book in such a way that it could be engaged in the absence of a teacher, suggests that maybe the gap isn’t as wide as I perceive.
While I was working on the manuscript of what would come to be called More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, I would play around with possible titles, as the title on the proposal—“Writing With Robots”—was used for the purpose of getting attention for a book proposal, not something that genuinely reflected the sentiments of the book I planned to write.
One of the titles I considered was “Everyone Should Write,” a reference to one of Elbow’s later collected volumes, Everyone Can Write.
One of the gifts of the existence of large language models has been to demonstrate the gap between machine prose and that which can be produced by a unique human intelligence. In a way, this only revalidates Elbow’s original insights of Writing Without Teachers, that we, as humans, have a higher purpose than producing school artifacts for a grade.
I’m not giving up hope that we can accept this gift.
Legal challenges to the Education Department’s guidance ordering colleges to rescind all race-based programming are piling up.
A week after the American Federation of Teachers sued the Trump administration over the guidance, the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit that seeks to restrain the department from enforcing the Feb. 14 letter.
Similar to the AFT lawsuit, the NEA argues that the letter and its threat to cut federal funding would hamper public schools’ function as “the nation’s ‘nurseries of democracy.’” The NEA lawsuit was filed in the New Hampshire federal district court, while the AFT’s challenge is in Maryland district court.
“The Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for … fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance,” Becky Pringle, president of the NEA, said in a news release. “We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons.”
NEA alleges that the Dear Colleague letter “imposes vague and viewpoint discriminatory prohibitions,” “invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” and causes “substantial, irreparable harm.” The NEA wants the court to declare the letter contrary to constitutional rights and place a permanent restraint on the department, preventing it from enforcing the letter’s orders.
Butler County Community College is discontinuing credit-bearing, in-person programs at its LindePointe campus in response to enrollment troubles and the looming demographic cliff in Pennsylvania. The programs are scheduled to continue through the spring semester and shut down in August.
Enrollment at the LindePointe campus has fallen sharply, from 300 students in fall 2014 to 45 in fall 2024, with a particularly steep drop during the pandemic, according to a news release from the college Tuesday.
“Our numbers simply have not rebounded to a sustainable level,” Joshua Novak, vice president for student affairs and enrollment management, said in the release.
College leaders estimate ending in-person programs will save approximately $450,000 annually.
Students in Mercer County, where the LindePointe campus is located, will still be able to take online classes and participate in dual-enrollment and workforce training programs, including training in emergency medical and fire services at a local fire department. The college has promised to create degree-completion plans for each student, which may include online courses or classes taught at its five other locations. All the other campuses continue to offer in-person courses for credit. It’s unclear what will happen to LindePointe faculty and staff, though the college plans to “explore opportunities” for them, including potential reassignments, according to the release.
The move comes after the college previously considered but didn’t ultimately move forward with plans to teach its LindePointe courses and programs at Pennsylvania State University at Shenango as part of a potential partnership between the two institutions.
“While we looked at potential partnerships and alternative models, we could not identify a solution that was feasible long term,” Megan Coval, the college’s interim president, said in the release.
Stacy Bartlett, currently the chief of staff at Point University in Georgia, will become the institution’s president, effective July 1.
Michael Benson, president of Coastal Carolina University, has been named the 27th president of West Virginia University, starting in July.
John Butler, the Haub Vice President for University Mission and Ministry at Boston College, has been appointed the institution’s president, beginning in the summer of 2026.
Elizabeth Cantwell, president of the Utah State University system, has been appointed president of Washington State University, effective April 1.
Sylvia Cox, executive vice president and chief academic officer at Southeastern Community College, has been named president of Rockingham Community College, effective May 1.
Wendy Elmore, currently executive vice president and provost of Lamar State College–Orange in Texas, has been named the institution’s next president, effective June 1.
Andrea Goldsmith, dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, will become the seventh president of Stony Brook University, effective Aug. 1.
Adam Hasner, executive vice president of public policy for the Geo Group, has been named president of Florida Atlantic University.
Elizabeth Kiss, who most recently served as CEO of the Rhodes Trust, will become president of Union College, effective July 1.
Michelle Larson, president and CEO of the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, has been named president of Clarkson University, effective April 1.
Dean McCurdy, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs at Ivy Tech Community College, has been named president of Colby-Sawyer College, effective June 1.
Heather Norris, formerly the interim chancellor of Appalachian State University, has been appointed to the position permanently, effective March 1.
Joseph Odenwald, president of Southwestern Michigan College, has been named president of Alma College, effective June 1.
Andrew Rich, dean of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at the City College of New York, has been appointed president of Franklin & Marshall College, beginning this summer.
Daniel Shipp, the president of Pittsburg State University, has been named president of Maryville University in Missouri, starting in June.
Shane Smeed, president of Park University in Missouri, has been appointed president of Utah Tech University.
Gentry Sutton, currently executive vice president and vice president of advancement at Warner University in Florida, has been appointed president of the institution.
Suzanne Walsh, president of Bennett College in North Carolina, has been named president of City University of Seattle, effective July 1.
Jermaine Whirl, who most recently served as president of Augusta Technical College, has been appointed president of Savannah State University, effective April 1.
When President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency set out to slash billions from the federal budget, it puzzled me as to why one of their first targets was an obscure data collection and research agency, the Institute of Education Sciences, a relatively modest operation buried deeply in the corridors of the Department of Education, and indeed one few had ever heard of. Since then, the newly installed secretary of education has ordered a review of all the department’s functions as part of what she ominously called the department’s “momentous final mission.”
A conversation with a trusted colleague helped me understand the cuts to IES, noting that the action should be seen as part of a new breed of autocrats around the world who seek to control information to hide the impacts of their actions from the public. In contemporary authoritarian governments, control of information—or what has come to be known today as informational autocracy—often substitutes for brute force.
Similar to how the Trump administration is seizing control of the White House press pool, canceling contracts for independent, high-quality education research is another way of controlling information. As Democratic lawmakers wrote in a Feb. 21 letter decrying the cuts, “The consequences of these actions will prevent the public from accessing accurate information about student demographics and academic achievement, abruptly end evaluations of federal programs that ensure taxpayer funds are spent wisely, and set back efforts to implement evidence-based reforms to improve student outcomes.”
IES houses a vast warehouse of the nation’s education statistics. Data collected by the agency is used by policymakers, researchers, teachers and colleges to understand student achievement, enrollment and much more about the state of American education. With IES being among the largest funders of education research, cutting it limits public access to what’s happening in the nation’s schools and colleges.
In the Obama years, public data helped reveal bad actors among for-profit colleges, which were receiving millions in federal aid while delivering inferior education to poor and working-class students who yearned for college degrees. Since so few actually completed, what many got instead was crushing college debt. Luckily, good data helped drive nearly half of all for-profit programs to shut down. Publicly disseminated data exposes where things go wrong. But you can’t track down con men without evidence.
Ideally, in a well-functioning democracy, with a richly informed public, data helps us reach informed decisions, leading to greater accountability and enabling us to hold officials responsible for their actions. With access to reliable information about what’s happening behind closed doors, data helps us understand what may be going on, even to protest actions we may oppose.
Lately, however, things aren’t looking good. Since Trump and his top officials have slashed race-conscious programs and moved to prohibit funding for certain areas of research, higher ed leadership has remained mostly silent, with only a handful of college presidents protesting. Most have shrunk into the wings, cowed by Trump’s power to defund institutions. It already has the eerie feeling of watching your step.
Shutting down potentially revealing data collection is perhaps the least worrisome page in an autocrat’s playbook. As Trump continues to follow the authoritarian path set by leaders in Hungary, Turkey and elsewhere, we should expect other, more damaging and more frightening higher ed moves that have been imposed by other autocrats—selecting college presidents, controlling faculty hiring and advancement, punishing academic dissent, imposing travel restrictions.
Just a few months ago, there was comfort in knowing everything was there—data on enrollments, graduation rates, participation rates of women and other groups. All very neatly organized and accessible whenever you wanted. Even though some found IES technology old and clunky, it felt like higher ed was running according to a reliable scheme, that you could go online and open data files as in a railroad timetable. Without it, there might be a train wreck ahead and you wouldn’t know it until it was too late. Now these luxurious numbers may soon be lost, with decades of America’s academic history pitched into digital darkness.
It’s frightening to realize that we’ll no longer be operating on solid intelligence. That we’ll no longer have guideposts, supported by racks of sensibly collected numbers to tell us if we’re on the right path or if we’re far afield. Trump’s wrecking ball has smashed our confidence, a confidence built on years of reliable data. We’ll soon be in the dark.
Robert Ubell is vice dean emeritus of online learning at New York University’s Tandon School of Engineering and senior editor of CHLOE 9, the ninth national survey of higher ed chief online learning officers. A collection of his essays on virtual education, Staying Online: How to Navigate Digital Higher Education, was published by Routledge.
For example, at the age of 22, compared with the general population, care leavers and those who have ever been in care are four times less likely to enter higher education – 14 per cent of care-experienced people versus 56 per cent of the general population. Of those care leavers who do make it into higher education, 18 per cent drop out, more than double the withdrawal rate of their peers in the general population.
And it’s not just care leavers who experience unequal outcomes. The research looked more widely at anyone with experience of children’s social care – a group that is around 20 times larger than the care leaver population – and found stark inequalities in their access to and experience of higher education compared not only to the general population, but also compared to those eligible for free school meals. For example, “children in need” are two to three times less likely to attend higher education than the general population.
These results suggest that the experience of children’s social care has a lasting impact on educational prospects, and that the needs of affected young people are not being met by the current support system. Although the findings are perhaps not surprising, they are still shocking. Our report aims to act as a call to action for universities, policymakers and those seeking to close equality gaps in higher education.
Routes to an unlevel playing field
Not only is there an uphill struggle to the higher education “playing field” for those who have been in care, once there, the playing field itself is far from level. The data shows that getting those with experience of children’s social care into university is only the first challenge to address, and the high dropout rate demonstrates that targeted work is required to improve retention and support systems.
Care leavers – and others with experience of children’s social care – often take alternative routes to university. Over one-third (36 per cent) of care leavers take a vocational pathway, compared to just 13 per cent of the general population, and they are more likely to start university later in life rather than at the traditional age of 18. This suggests that the traditional academic pipeline does not serve them effectively, and that policymakers should aim to support these alternative pathways and set strategies for recruiting mature learners.
Care leavers and entry rates
There are some differences between those with experience of children’s social care overall and care leavers specifically. Although care leavers have poorer outcomes on most measures, care leavers have a relatively high entry rate at age 18/19, compared to other groups who have experienced children’s social care.
This could be due to a higher level of support being made available for this group in the transition from post-16 settings to higher education, reinforcing the importance of targeted interventions.
Accommodation outside of term time
Accommodation is another crucial area where care-experienced people are at a disadvantage, often without a stable home to go to during the term breaks. We need closer collaboration between local authorities and higher education providers to ensure they are collectively meeting their duty of support to care-experienced learners, and especially care leavers where the state has a corporate-parent responsibility.
This is one clear area where more joined-up working is needed to help ensure that care-experienced students have somewhere suitable to stay when universities close their doors outside of term time.
The people within the statistics
It is also important to note that many with experience of children’s social care enter higher education and thrive. As with all statistical reports, focusing on averages, however derived, risks missing the many important exceptions. That is, some individuals succeed despite the relatively long odds of doing so, and we should not interpret statistical results in a causal or absolute way.
We hope, in particular, that Virtual School Heads – a regional role that acts as a headteacher for all children with a social worker within a particular local authority – will find the research helpful when working on the strategic goal of improving educational inclusion and participation for care-experienced children and young people.
A call for change
The research underscores the fact that universities – including more selective or prestigious institutions – should rethink their approach to recruiting and supporting those with experience of children’s social care.
We outline some of the ways to support these groups – by recruiting mature learners, those from vocational pathways, and by strengthening retention strategies. One possible idea, previously suggested by the Social Market Foundation, is that providers could be offered an additional £1,000 for each care leaver they recruit as a “student premium”, beyond existing accommodation support. At TASO, we want to see higher education providers evaluating their interventions to attract and support those with experience of children’s social care, so we can start to build a picture of what works to benefit these students.
Our report makes it clear: universities, policymakers and local authorities must work together to ensure that those with experience of children’s social care are not left behind. The challenges they face in accessing and completing higher education are not inevitable but significant and targeted support is required to change the status quo. If higher education is a vehicle for social mobility, the continued focus on underrepresented groups – including those with experience of children’s social care – is vital.
The modern digital era has brought with it a world of remarkable changes and developments in the information space that today’s students are well-placed to enjoy. The search engine as you know it is changing and adapting to these changes, with old methods and processes giving way to newer, more effective ones.
While traditional Search Engine Optimization (SEO) remains essential, Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) is emerging as a complementary strategy for AI-driven search experiences. With AI-powered search engines like Google’s Gemini and ChatGPT transforming how prospective students find information online, today’s schools must adapt or risk being swept under the radar.
Keen on increasing organic traffic and leads?
Optimize your site, attract students, and elevate your visibility with our specialized SEO strategies.
The Evolution of Search in Education Marketing
Now, a few well-placed keywords are not enough. Although about 91% of today’s organizations still make significant marketing-related gains from SEO, the rules are fundamentally different now. Today’s prospective students use the search engine in ways that are quite unprecedented.
While traditional search engines serve up lists of links, AI-powered search engines deliver direct answers. Even better, they deliver such complete conversational responses that you do not need to visit a website. There’s a dual approach to this process: maintaining strong SEO foundations while embracing the emerging power of GEO.
Educational institutions stand to gain from this development. Prospective students can conduct exhaustive research without contacting an admissions office. By tapping the search button, they can get answers to vital questions about program details, application requirements, and career outcomes.
SEO: Still the Foundation of Digital Visibility
While AI is visibly gaining momentum, SEO remains an important tool. When executed properly, it can produce these benefits:
Enhanced Visibility: Optimised content drives organic traffic, increasing inquiries and applications to your school. Recent industry sources report that schools that invest in comprehensive SEO measures enjoy a significant improvement in conversion rates.
Better User Experience: With clear metadata, logical headings, and mobile-friendly designs, students can find information better on websites. The results include longer site visits, lower bounce rates, and higher engagement, which can help boost search rankings further.
Established Authority: By creating comprehensive content, you’re signalling to search engines and users that your school is knowledgeable and can be trusted. It gives a sense of authority that can ultimately boost your school’s profile.
What is the difference between SEO and GEO marketing? The key difference between SEO and Generative Engine Optimization marketing lies in their focus and approach. SEO is used for traditional search engines, and GEO is used for AI-Driven searches:
SEO optimizes content for traditional search engines (Google, Bing) to improve rankings in organic search results using keywords, backlinks, and technical SEO strategies.
GEO marketing optimizes content for AI-driven search experiences (Google SGE, ChatGPT), ensuring content is AI-friendly, conversational, and structured for retrieval by generative AI models.
While SEO targets search engine algorithms, GEO marketing tailors content for AI-driven responses and voice search interactions.
Effective SEO Strategies for Education
The optimization approaches discussed below have been proven to be used by the most successful institutions.
Strategic On-Page Optimization:
Using long-tail keywords like “best MBA programs in Canada for working professionals” can help capture niche audiences.
Content Authority:
Create in-depth guides and case studies addressing the nuanced questions that prospective students typically ask. So, instead of just listing program requirements, develop extensive resources that cover career paths, industry connections, and student outcomes.
Mobile Optimization:
A responsive design is a must-have, thanks to most searches now happening on mobile devices. This holds true for young people who use smartphones to explore their educational options.
Schema Implementation:
Structured data markup can help search engines interpret your content much better. An education-specific schema like EducationalOccupationalCredential or EducationalOrganization can boost your program’s visibility in search results.
Local SEO:
Institutions with physical campuses need to optimize for local searches. This includes claiming and maintaining Google Business Profile listings, building local citations, and creating location-specific content highlighting campus facilities and community connections.
The AI Search Revolution: Understanding GEO
What is Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)?
More pertinently, what is GEO in SEO? Generative Engine Optimization in SEO refers to optimizing content for AI-driven search engines and generative AI models like Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE) and ChatGPT. It focuses on structuring content for AI retrieval by using natural language, clear formatting, authoritative sources, and relevant keywords to improve visibility in AI-generated responses.
The way we interact with information today has changed drastically, courtesy of AI-powered search engines. You can now get direct, synthesized answers culled from several sources, so you don’t have to click through multiple links. The way this happens is in these three steps:
AI models scour the web for relevant information, searching from institutional websites to educational forums and third-party resources.
They blend this information into coherent, structured responses that address the specific query and can often include details from multiple sources.
Users will now get conversation-like answers without having to visit individual websites. These answers often come complete with citations or even visual elements.
Mastering GEO for Education Marketing
Imagine asking an AI assistant for the best digital marketing courses or top universities for business programs—and your institution doesn’t appear. That’s where Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) comes in.
What is GEO in digital marketing? GEO in digital marketing optimizes content for AI-driven search tools like Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE) and ChatGPT. Unlike traditional SEO, which focuses on ranking in search engine results, GEO ensures your content is structured, conversational, and AI-friendly, making it more likely to surface in AI-generated responses.
As AI search adoption grows, Generative Engine Optimization is becoming critical. Prospective students are no longer just typing keywords into Google; they’re asking AI assistants for tailored recommendations. If your institution isn’t optimizing for AI-driven search, you risk being invisible in the conversations shaping students’ decisions.
That’s why mastering GEO for education marketing is no longer optional—it’s essential. Schools, colleges, and universities must adapt their digital strategies to ensure AI models recognize their programs, faculty, and unique offerings. Ignoring this trend means missing out on valuable opportunities to engage with future students where they’re already searching.
Focus on these strategies if you’re looking to succeed with GEO:
Answer-focused Content: Use a Q&A format to create clear and concise responses to common questions. Instead of burying tuition-related information in program pages, provide direct answers to questions like “How much does it cost to attend [School Name]?”
Authoritative Information: Provide precise, updated information and only cite credible sources. You can reference accreditation bodies, link to relevant research and put out consistent information across all digital channels.
Comprehensive FAQs: Use detailed FAQ sections to cover key topics like admissions and campus life. Using proper schema markup, structure these sections so that AI tools can pull information straight from your authoritative source.
AI-Friendly Schema: To make your content more machine-readable, use FAQ, Course, Event, and Speakable schemas. This way, AI systems can connect the different pieces of information contained on your site.
Multichannel Distribution: Let your content be shown across platforms like YouTube, LinkedIn, and Quora to gain more visibility. Because AI search engines pull material from varying sources, a consistent message across your channels will help your school be represented the right way.
Example: This screenshot captures Google search results for “Does ATC Toronto offer an auto detailing program?” It includes a prominently featured snippet directly answering the question on the left side of the page, and AI search results also answer the question on the right.
Here are our best tips for creating suitable content for traditional and AI-driven searches:
Create Optimal Content:
Optimize Your Content Structure because human readers and AI algorithms will benefit immensely from clear organization.
Create a logical hierarchy using descriptive headings and subheadings. For example, move your program pages from a general overview to curriculum, faculty, career outcomes, and other specific details.
Incorporate bullet points and numbered lists for easy scanning. This is particularly important for details about admission requirements, application deadlines, and program benefits.
Implement appropriate schema markup to help search engines understand your content.
Let your content have a clear content hierarchy that guides users from general information to specific details.
Focus On Quality and Engagement
It is important to create high-quality content that addresses user intent. Follow these strategies:
Reach out to prospective students with answers to their most asked questions. Correctly predict and sort out their needs across all decision-making stages.
Balance authoritative information with a conversational tone. Do this while avoiding academic jargon and maintaining the appropriate level of sophistication for your target audience.
Use short paragraphs and clear language to make your content readable. Also, blend concise, direct answers with in-depth guides.
Let your student testimonials, faculty perspectives, and alumni success stories feature authentic voices as they can help humanize your institution.
Example:The University of Toronto has a section on its website that features testimonials from current students, alumni, and staff, helping to boost the school’s image with genuine feedback.
Modern search optimization has gone past keywords, and here’s how:
Develop comprehensive pillar pages that cover broad topics like “Graduate Programs” or “Student Life” with links to more specific content. Use natural language mirroring how people speak and search. Incorporate variations and related as opposed to repeating the same keywords.
Create content clusters that address related topics and questions. Also, you can link between them to establish topical authority and help users navigate your site.
Consider the semantic field around educational topics, including synonyms, related concepts, and commonly associated terms.
Example: Here, R-MA demonstrates its mastery of semantic SEO with this Student Life page. Apart from providing a general overview of the school’s Student Life Program, the page also contains links to specific aspects of the program.
One of the biggest threats to education marketers is the rise of zero-click searches, where users get answers without visiting your website. Nearly 65% of Google searches now end without clicks to any websites. This trend is particularly problematic for institutions relying on website traffic for lead generation.
Here’s a quick look at how Zero-Click searches show up in search engines:
Featured Snippets: This displays key information directly in results, answering questions about application deadlines, tuition costs, and program requirements without requiring clicks.
Voice Search: Conversational queries often receive single, direct answers, particularly for straightforward questions like “When are applications due for [School Name]?”
AI Summaries: New tools seek to compile information from multiple sources into one response. Synthesizing details about educational programs without directing users to specific institutional websites.
Strategies to Combat Zero-Click Searches
Optimize the content for featured snippets: Structure content to rank better by directly answering questions.
Implement FAQ Schema: Mark up Q&A content with the right schema so your answers appear more in search results.
Create must-click content: Create resources that resonate with the users, including calculators and virtual campus tours.
Leverage Rich Results: Using structured data, enhance how your content appears in search results so it’s more appealing and clicked.
Focus on Complex Questions: Target those queries that you can’t answer in a snippet, those that need you to go further into your school’s offerings.
Example: Oxford University enhances its FAQ sections using structured data. By doing so, their answers are featured directly in search results—ensuring that key information about admissions and tuition is visible in a zero-click environment.
With voice assistants becoming more popular, optimizing for spoken queries is becoming increasingly important. Over 27% of searches are run through a voice interface, mostly among the younger generations. Here are some voice search best practices to use to this effect.
Use natural, question-based keywords that match how people speak, such as “How do I apply to [School Name]?” rather than “application process.”
Voice search is predominantly mobile-driven, so make sure your site is mobile-friendly and fast-loading.
Creating Conversation-Ready Content
To create conversation-ready content, you’ll need to follow certain rules. Our best tips include writing in short, digestible paragraphs that voice assistants can easily read aloud.
You must provide direct answers to common questions to start each relevant section. Another key tip is to create how-to guides and FAQ sections that fit with voice queries.
Let your content follow a conversation-like style, just like prospective students engage. There should be relevant context to match every user request, and the information provided should be clear and concise for the best results.
Essential Tools and Emerging Trends
To stay competitive in educational marketing, you need the right tools and awareness of emerging trends. Here are some must-have SEO and GEO tools.
Google Search Console: Monitor performance and identify opportunities by tracking how your pages appear in search results and which queries trigger their appearance.
SEMrush: Research keywords and analyze competitor strategies while paying particular attention to education-specific terms and competing institutions.
Ahrefs: Track backlinks and content performance, building a strong link profile that enhances your institution’s perceived authority.
Schema Markup Generators: Create and validate structured data to improve how search engines interpret your content.
Mobile Testing Tools: Ensure optimal performance across all devices, recognizing that many prospective students research educational options on smartphones.
Trends Reshaping Education Marketing
AI-Generated Search Summaries: By focusing on direct answers instead of posting traditional link listings, your search results appear faster and function better.
Voice Search Growth: This accounts for over 27% of all searches, mostly among younger demographic groups.
Engagement as a Ranking Signal: User interaction affects visibility, with metrics like time on site and interaction rates affecting search performance.
Video Content Prominence: Educational videos are gaining importance in search results, particularly for how-to and explanatory content about programs and campus life.
Social Proof Integration: With reviews, testimonials, and user-generated content, you can create more impact in traditional and AI-driven search results.
The Human Element: Storytelling in a Digital World
Although technical optimization remains crucial, education marketing relies heavily on human connection. The schools that balance data-driven strategies with authentic storytelling that resonates with prospective students succeed.
If you’re looking for a means to build student trust in your offerings through authenticity, here’s how to go about it.
Share real student success stories and testimonials that show how transformative your educational programs are.
Highlight those unique program features and opportunities that differentiate your institution from competitors.
Maintain transparency and avoid excessive jargon. Focus on pointing out what makes your institution special.
Create content that addresses the emotional aspects of the educational decision.
Example: Here, AAPS masterfully emphasizes the transformative power of its program by highlighting the experiences and successes of a student, recounted by the student herself.
Use analytics to inform content strategy, identifying topics and formats that resonate with your target audience.
Enhance text with visual and interactive elements that engage users and encourage deeper exploration of your offerings.
Personalize messaging for different audience segments, with their varying priorities and concerns.
Test and refine approaches based on performance data, continuously improving your digital marketing effectiveness.
Embracing the Future of Education Marketing
As the digital outlook for today’s educational market continues to evolve, schools must continually adapt to remain competitive. The future of search engines belongs to those who can master both SEO and GEO to produce results that drive and direct conversations.
The tide favours schools whose content resonates with traditional search engines and AI-powered platforms. The target is to position your institution for this kind of leverage, and that’s the essence of this piece.
Ready to transform your digital presence? Start optimizing today and watch your institution’s story unfold—one search at a time.
Keen on increasing organic traffic and leads?
Optimize your site, attract students, and elevate your visibility with our specialized SEO strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is the difference between SEO and GEO marketing?
Answer: The key difference between SEO and Generative Engine Optimization marketing lies in their focus and approach. SEO is used for traditional search engines and GEO is used for AI- Driven searches.
Question: What is GEO in SEO?
Answer: Generative Engine Optimization in SEO refers to optimizing content for AI-driven search engines and generative AI models like Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE) and ChatGPT.
Question: What is GEO in digital marketing?
Answer: GEO in digital marketing optimizes content for AI-driven search tools like Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE) and ChatGPT.
After a year of many last events, Cabrini University celebrated its final commencement ceremonies last May and a “legacy” event to ceremonially close the institution and pass the legacy to Villanova University, which purchased the campus. As the emotions have tempered, and Cabrini’s president and academic leadership team have moved on to new career opportunities, we offer these lessons learned for financially struggling colleges that may be facing the possibility of closure, as well as insights for colleges in positions of financial strength on how they can help.
If Your College Is Struggling Financially
The quickest route to a chaotic close is running out of cash. Depending on how liquid an institution is—a combination of how much actual cash it holds with how many assets it has that can quickly be converted to cash—running out of cash can happen suddenly. A constant awareness of liquidity is imperative to avoid such a terrible outcome, and any potential partner will ask how long the cash will last as a preliminary decision criterion.
This is the third part of a three-part series. Parts 1 and 2 can be found here and here.
For many institutions, the most accessible cash resource is the unrestricted portion of the endowment. This can be both a blessing and a curse. Some institutions today are actively drawing more on their endowment than the historic 4 to 5 percent in support of annual operations in order to solve potentially existential challenges (the blessing)—but if the revitalization effort fails, then institutional resources may not be available to preclude closure (the curse). Without the Villanova partnership, Cabrini would have faced a significant cash crunch, which would have forced very difficult choices, especially related to supporting employees in the final stages of closing.
Rating agencies have also called out the growing amount of deferred maintenance colleges are facing. This is an in-the-weeds problem that many institutions are not addressing, at their great peril. In Cabrini’s case, we had to close a residence hall due to a heating system failure, and a heavily used campus road was so frequently repaired that it was difficult to traverse. We also could not provide competitive equipment for students in one of our most popular majors.
For institutions on the brink, deferred maintenance can be a real deterrent when considering deal terms with potential partners. Villanova has announced that it will spend $75 million to upgrade the Cabrini campus.
Here are some additional factors financially struggling institutions should consider:
Your accreditor will not tell you to close until it is too late. Cabrini did not receive any warnings from its accreditor in the decade prior to closure. The institution remained accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education through graduating its final class and even moved through the required accreditation self-study process in the final year of operation. Do not rely on your accrediting body to make decisions for you.
Be honest and transparent with your campus community about enrollment and the college’s financial reality.
Consider the cash reserves necessary to close with dignity. Your expenditures will be higher than normal during the wind-down period. You will need to secure an excellent legal team with expertise in closing colleges. There will also be costs associated with exiting long-term contracts and licenses as well as severance and retention costs. Anticipating these increased costs and decreased revenues in the final year is critical to the success of the closure.
Anticipate that alumni may want to “save the college.” If you do not have a history of alumni making large gifts, these efforts will be unlikely solutions. When entertaining such possibilities, consider the amount necessary to raise not just to keep the institution open for another year, but to sustain operations over time.
Plan for a closing timeline, even if you are not certain you will close. Choosing the right time in the academic calendar to announce a closing is an especially challenging task. Primary consideration must be given to future educational opportunities for students, followed by maximizing employment opportunities for faculty and staff. If it is possible to announce a closing after the end of an academic year for two years into the future, that affords the opportunity to graduate juniors and seniors while preparing sophomores and first-year students for teach-out, and gives faculty up to two academic recruiting cycles, which is especially helpful for tenure-stream faculty. Having sufficient funding on hand is key to offering a two-year closing time frame, given that fiscal and human resources start to deplete as soon as a closing announcement is made.
As you plan for a closing timeline, consider the ethical responsibility to deliver a robust student experience. In its final year, Cabrini prioritized using funds for student events and experiences and reduced or eliminated budgets for employee travel, professional memberships and other non-student-facing services.
If Your College Is Preparing for a Closure Announcement
If your institution has decided to close, consider the following steps before you announce:
Build a website with critical information so that all of your constituents—students, employees, alumni and donors—can receive information. Continue to add to FAQs as more information becomes available.
Keep the circle of people who know about the impending closure small to avoid leaks prior to having as much planned as possible. Using nondisclosure agreements is critical. While holding this news may be questioned as unethical, the decision to wait to announce until plans are in place provides the community with more clarity on partner/teach-out institutions, career counseling, mental health counseling, health care, plans for severance and retention agreements, etc.
Consider hiring a crisis management team to prepare you for the announcement.
Plan to host open forums (virtually and in person) for parents, students and faculty to support their transitions immediately after the closure announcement. Understand that the messaging may not be absorbed when people are upset. Post recordings or PowerPoint slides on your closing website.
Plan for mental health support for employees and students, with both in-person and virtual options.
Plan for the many human resources issues you will need to consider. Compliance with the federal WARN Act is crucial in order to not incur additional costs. If you provide a notice of a year or more, you will want to retain key faculty and staff. Simultaneously, you will want some melt of employees to align with the melt of students (and tuition income) that will occur. This means you will need to consider both retention and severance agreements, while complying with terms laid out in employee handbooks.
Remain in close communication with your accreditor(s) and continue to report on compliance with standards as well as the closure plan. They have processes and expectations that colleges need to honor in order to retain accreditation for the final graduating class. As noted earlier, Cabrini had to complete a regularly scheduled Middle States self-study process, including the site team visit, in the final year of operation, while also completing processes related to closure and the asset purchase agreement.
Anticipate that there will be additional administrative tasks to finish after students and faculty leave. In this regard, there will seem to be multiple dates that feel like an ending—the date when academics cease and degrees are no longer awarded, the date when accreditation ends, the date when a transaction occurs for the property, the date the endowment transfer process happens through the Orphan’s Court—a process specific to Pennsylvania—and more. Audits, financial aid close-out and reporting requirements, tasks related to tax compliance, discontinuation of vendor relationships, transition of student records, withdrawal from the federal international student program and other administrative tasks will need to occur after most campus employees have been terminated. Understanding these requirements and creating a checklist for closure will keep your leadership team on track.
If Your College Has Announced Plans to Close
Request department chairs work collaboratively to identify students who can realistically graduate prior to closing, determine what courses these students need and schedule classes to meet these needs. Closing institutions need to be flexible but not sacrifice the quality of the education. Modifying degree requirements to the point where students do not have the skills and knowledge that is expected of the degree is unethical.
Adapt catalog policies to ensure due process for managing grievances, academic standing determinations, grade disputes/changes, hearing requests, etc., within the timeline for closure. Once closed, transcripts cannot be modified.
Establish a working group on record retention to determine what needs to shift to another institution or agency and what needs to be shredded.
Prepare faculty and staff on campus to assume many roles as their faculty and staff colleagues depart throughout the year.
Anticipate that alumni will suddenly be more engaged than they have been in recent years. Your focus must remain on taking care of your current employees and students, who deserve a robust experience.
Give yourself grace and extend that to everyone around you. Everyone is experiencing some level of grief, stress and trauma. Be flexible even while knowing that at times you will need to have firm deadlines to respect people’s bandwidth and complete processes. Understand that students and employees will react differently and move on different schedules.
Have hope. There are moments of your closure period that will be horrific. There is no other way to describe it. There will also be moments of solidarity and togetherness. Ultimately, a closure can be a period of forced growth for many people. Many Cabrini employees found a new job opportunity that advanced their careers.
If Your College Isn’t Closing, but a College in Your Area Is
If a college or university in your area is closing or is rumored to be closing, talk with them to ask how you can best support them. Before posting information on your website or speaking with the media about welcoming the students from the closing college or university, ask the closing institution directly about how you can best support their students and employees for a smooth transition.
Working with institutions to establish memorandums of understanding for supportive transitioning of students is important, as is acting with transparency and honesty. Unfortunately, there were institutions that exhibited predatory behaviors toward Cabrini students with flashy, false promises that led vulnerable students to spend more time and money to complete their degrees. Don’t be that institution.
If a college provides a notice period, understand that actively recruiting their students or employees prior to closure might negatively impact the closing institution. If you would like to offer employment to someone at a closing institution who is in a key position such as director of financial aid or registrar, consider communicating with the closing institution to seek a solution that can provide a transition period, possibly splitting the employee’s time between the two institutions.
Final Reflection
In an ideal world of higher education, no institution would have to endure a sudden or planned closure. However, the current financial and enrollment pictures at many colleges and universities point to a harsher reality.
For others working at institutions that are exploring mergers, acquisitions or closures, do not work in isolation. There are now many higher education professionals who have lived through this experience who can offer advice confidentially and understand the need for nondisclosure. Higher education will be stronger if we work together, not in competition, and recognize our shared mission to serve students and our communities.
The final two years were a very difficult time for Cabrini University’s community. The institution’s leadership is forever grateful to the faculty and staff, all of whom rose to the occasion to embrace the many lasts. Their selfless work and sacrifice will serve as a legacy for Cabrini, as will the colleges where Cabrini students chose to continue their educations and the institutions where former Cabrini faculty and staff will continue their careers.
Helen Drinan served as interim president of Cabrini University. Previously, she served as president of Simmons University.
Michelle Filling-Brown is associate vice provost for integrated student experience and a teaching professor in the Department of English at Villanova University. She formerly served as chief academic officer/dean for academic affairs at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Richie Gebauer is dean of student success at Bryn Mawr College. He formerly served as assistant dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University.
Erin McLaughlin is the interim dean of the College of Arts, Education and Humanities at DeSales University. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Business, Education and Professional Studies at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 16 years.
Kimberly Boyd is assistant professor of biology and anatomy and physiology at Delaware County Community College. She formerly served as dean of retention and student success at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 25 years.
Missy Terlecki is dean of the School of Professional and Applied Psychology at Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine. She formerly served as associate dean for the School of Arts and Sciences at Cabrini University, where she also served as a faculty member for 19 years.
Lynda Buzzard is associate vice president and controller at Villanova University. Previously, she served as the vice president of finance and administration at Cabrini University in its final year.
