Tag: Education

AAUP, Middle East Studies Group Sue Trump Over Deportations

Accusing the Trump administration of creating a “climate of repression and fear on university campuses,” two faculty groups sued the federal government Tuesday to stop the president’s efforts to deport noncitizen students and faculty who have participated in pro-Palestinian protests.

The Middle East Studies Association and the American Association of University Professors argue in the lawsuit that what they call Trump’s “ideological-deportation policy” violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act. They are asking a federal judge to rule that the policy is unconstitutional. This is the second lawsuit challenging the policy, though this legal action includes more faculty and students.

The litigation comes after immigration officers have, over the past month, targeted international students and postdoctoral fellows for alleged participation in pro-Palestinian protests, raiding their dorm rooms and revoking their visas.

Tuesday afternoon, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from deporting a Columbia student, who moved to the United States from Korea when she was 7 but is now a legal permanent resident. The New York Times reported that the government argued Yunseo Chung’s “presence in the United States hinders the administration’s foreign policy goal of stopping the spread of antisemitism.”

But the judge said Tuesday that “nothing in the record” showed that Chung posed a “foreign-policy risk,” according to the Times.

Chung has not yet been detained. She’s just the latest student to come under fire from the administration’s crackdown on those who protested the Israel-Hamas war. That crackdown has included revoking the visas of students and faculty, giving universities names of students to target, and a social media surveillance program, according to the AAUP lawsuit.

The MESA and AAUP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, specifically cites the cases of Chung; Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University postdoc; and Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate. Judges have also blocked the government from deporting both men.

“While President Trump and other administration officials have described pro-Palestinian campus protests as ‘pro-Hamas,’ they have stretched that label beyond the breaking point to encompass any speech supportive of Palestinian human rights or critical of Israel’s military actions in Gaza,” the suit says. “They have left no doubt that their new policy entails the arrest, detention and deportation of noncitizen students and faculty for constitutionally protected speech and association.”

Attorneys from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia are among the lawyers representing the scholarly groups.

MESA and the AAUP—along with the AAUP chapters at Harvard, New York and Rutgers Universities—filed the suit against the federal government, Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem and Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Todd Lyons, plus their agencies.

A DHS spokesperson said in a statement that “taking over buildings, defacing private property, and harassing Jewish students does not constitute free speech.”

“It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America,” the spokesperson added. “When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country.”

The White House provided a similar statement from a Justice Department spokesperson, who said, “This department makes no apologies for its efforts to defend President Trump’s agenda in court and protect Jewish Americans from vile antisemitism.”

Beyond the immediate implications for students and faculty who face deportation, the policy has a broader chilling effect on campus free speech, the lawsuit argues.

“Out of fear that they might be arrested and deported for lawful expression and association, some noncitizen students and faculty have stopped attending public protests or resigned from campus groups that engage in political advocacy,” the suit says. “Others have declined opportunities to publish commentary and scholarship, stopped contributing to classroom discussions, or deleted past work from online databases and websites. Many now hesitate to address political issues on social media, or even in private texts.”

The lawsuit adds the policy harms the plaintiff associations “because they are no longer able to learn from and engage with noncitizen members to the extent they once did, and because they have had to divert resources from other projects to address the all-too-real possibility that their noncitizen members will be arrested, imprisoned, and deported for exercising rights that the Constitution guarantees.”

Source link

March 26, 2025
‘How can I know what I think till I see what I say?’: How AI is changing education and writing
- Following HEPI’s recent Policy Note on students’ use of artificial intelligence (AI), HEPI Director Nick Hillman reviews a new book from the United States on what AI means for writing.
‘ChatGPT cannot write.’ It’s a bold statement but one near the start of the new book More Than Words: How to Think about Writing in the Age of AI that explains what comes in the following 300 pages.

The author John Warner’s persuasive argument is that generative AI creates syntax but doesn’t write because ‘writing is thinking.’ (I hope this is the only reason why, when asked to write a higher education policy speech ‘in the style of Nick Hillman’, ChatGPT’s answer is so banal and vacuous…) People are, Warner says, attracted to AI because they’ve not previously been ‘given the chance to explore and play within the world of writing.’

Although Warner is not as negative about using ChatGPT to retrieve information as he is on using it to write wholly new material, he sees the problems it presents as afflicting the experience of ‘deep reading’ too: ‘Reading and writing are being disrupted by people who do not seem to understand what it means to read and write.’

The book starts by reminding the reader how generative AI based on Large Language Models actually works. ChatGPT and the like operate as machines predicting the next word in a sentence (called a ‘token’). To me, it is reminiscent of Gromit placing the next piece of train track in front of him as he goes. It’s all a bit like a more sophisticated version of how the iPhone Notes app on which I’m typing this keeps suggesting the next word for me. (If you click on the suggestions, it tends to end up as nonsense though – I’ve just done it and got, ‘the app doesn’t even make a sentence in a single note’, which sounds like gibberish while also being factually untrue.)

‘The result’, we are told of students playing with ChatGPT and the like, ‘is a kind of academic cosplay where you’ve dressed up a product in the trappings of an academic output, but the underlying process is entirely divorced from the genuine article.’

Writing, Warner says, is a process in which ‘the idea may change based on our attempts to capture it.’ That is certainly my experience: there have been times when I’ve started to bash out a piece not quite knowing if it will end up as a short blog based on one scatty thought or flower into a more polished full-length HEPI paper. Academics accustomed to peer review and the slow (tortuous?) procedures of academic journals surely know better than most that writing is a process.

The most interesting and persuasive part of the book (and Warner’s specialist subject) is the bit on how formulae make writing mundane rather than creative. Many parents will recognise this. It seems to me that children are being put off English in particular by being forced to follow the sort of overweening instructions that no great author ever considered (‘write your essay like a burger’, ‘include four paragraphs in each answer’, ‘follow PEE in each paragraph’ [point / evidence / explain]). Warner sees AI taking this trend to its logical and absurd conclusion where machines are doing the writing and the assessment – and ruining both.

Because writing is a process, Warner rejects even the popular idea that generative AI may be especially useful in crafting a first draft. He accepts it can produce ‘grammatically and syntactically sound writing … ahead of what most students can produce.’ But he also argues that the first draft is the most important draft ‘as it establishes the intention behind the expression.’ Again, I have sympathy with this. Full-length HEPI publications tend to go through multiple drafts, while also being subjected to peer review by HEPI’s Advisory Board and Trustees, yet the final published version invariably still closely resembles the first draft because that remains the original snapshot of the author’s take on the issue at hand. Warner concludes that AI ‘dazzles on first impression but … has significantly less utility than it may seem at first blush.’

One of the most interesting chapters compares and contrasts the rollout of ChatGPT with the old debates about the rise of calculators in schools. While calculators might mean mental arithmetic skills decline, they are generally empowering; similarly, ChatGPT appears to remove the need to undertake routine tasks oneself. But Warner condemns such analogies: for calculators ‘the labor of the machine is identical to the labor of a human’, whereas ‘Fetching tokens based on weighted probabilities is not the same process as what happens when humans write.’

At all the many events I go to on AI in higher education, three areas always comes up: students’ AI use; what AI might mean for professional services; and how AI could change assessment and evaluation. The general outcome across all three issues is that no one knows for sure what AI will mean, but Warner is as big a sceptic on AI and grading as he is on so much else. Because it is formulaic and based on algorithms, Warner argues:

Generative AI being able to give that “good” feedback means that the feedback isn’t actually good. We should instead value that which is uniquely human. … Writing is meant to be read. Having something that cannot read generate responses to writing is wrong.

The argument that so many problems are coursing through education as a result of new tech reminds me a little of the argument common in the 1980s that lead pipes brought down the Roman Empire. Information is said to become corrupted by AI in the way that the water supposedly became infected by the lead channels. But the theory about lead pipes is no longer taken seriously and I remain uncertain whether Warner’s take will survive the passage of time in its entirety either.

Moreover, Warner’s criticisms of the real-world impact of ChatGPT are scattergun in their approach. They include the ‘literal army of precarious workers doing soul-killing tasks’ to support the new technology as well as the weighty environmental impact. This critique calls to mind middle-class drug-takers in the developed world enjoying their highs while dodging the real-world impact on developing countries of their habit.

In the end, Warner’s multifarious criticisms tot up to resemble an attack on technology that comes perhaps just a little too close for comfort to the attacks in the early 1980s by the Musicians’ Union’s on synthesisers and drum machines. In other words, the downsides may be exaggerated while the upsides might be downplayed.

Nonetheless, I was partially persuaded. The process of writing is exactly that: a process. Writing is not just mechanical. (The best young historian I taught in my first career as a school teacher, who is now an academic at UCL, had the worst handwriting imaginable as his brain moved faster than his hand / pen could manage.) So AI is unlikely to replace those who pen words for a living just yet.

Although, paradoxically, I also wished the author had run his text through an AI programme and asked it to knock out around 40% of his text. Perhaps current iterations of generative AI can’t write like a smart human or think like a smart human, but they might be able to edit like a smart human? Perhaps AI’s biggest contribution could come at the end of the writing process rather than the beginning? Technology speeds up all our lives, leaving less time for a leisurely read, and it seems to me that all those ‘one-idea’ books that the US floods the market with, including this one, could nearly always be significantly shorter without losing anything of substance.
Source link
March 26, 2025
Government economic policy depends on a healthily diverse higher education ecosystem

At GuildHE, we represent over 60 institutions that do not fit the traditional, large, generalist, research-intensive mould. These institutions are deeply focused on industrial readiness, employability, specialist skills and regional growth.

They deliver vital skills in geographical areas and sectors where the UK faces acute shortages, and directly support the government’s own missions to grow, increase opportunity, develop a greener future, reduce crime levels and build a better NHS. Whether this is achieved through healthcare, the built environment, teaching, policing, agricultural innovations, law or the creative economy, the future talent pipeline to address these missions depends, in large part, on the success of these providers. However, the current funding landscape does little to protect and support them.

The image of the large generalist, research-intensive traditional higher education institution is the model on which the funding and regulatory system in the UK is based. This model has become the DNA of our systems, which rely on assumptions about the sector as a whole: its strategic missions, delivery mechanisms and capacity. These assumptions naturally impact the incentives and levers that are built into policy frameworks.

Policies often fail to recognise those that fall outside that image, so that smaller, specialist, and non-traditional institutions face increasing threats to their viability. Sector consolidation and investment in the historically-established HE model, as seen in other settings across the world such as Australia and the US, could undermine our global reputation, agility and responsiveness to diverse students and industries.

Challenging these systems, and the methodologies on which they are built, will require the government to embrace innovative models of practice across education, skills and research, even if it comes with some associated risk. Indeed, it will require a brave examination of the effectiveness of the very regulatory and funding systems which are encouraging a level of homogenisation across the sector that could spell its own doom.

To that end, we propose an approach to spending in the next period that focuses on reforms to encourage investment and rethinking the system to make it work smarter.

Invest in the talent pipeline and protect student choice

As part of this government’s vision to expand opportunity, we have seen the beginnings of multiple new strategies and administrative initiatives, including proposals for a new Industrial Strategy, a Get Britain Working strategy, a new ten-year plan for the NHS, reform of higher education and the introduction of Skills England. These new arrivals aim to improve economic growth, encourage efficiency in public services, produce a future skills pipeline and build an investment environment for UK business.

Higher education drives the transformative forces required to raise levels of productivity and improve economic growth. Institutions do this by stimulating the higher-level skills needed in industry, providing lifelong opportunities to retrain and upskill, and expanding opportunities for all to do so. They also do it by cultivating ideas and new knowledge; a cornerstone of productivity and growth.

Alongside these contributions, we need to protect student choice by preserving a variety of institutional types and locations across the country. Doing so is vital to ensuring the widest range of students can access the transformative power of higher education; a power that yields both individual improvements in life chances and direct improvements to employability, our public services and our economy. Furthermore, a system that boasts a diverse range of institutions and provision types is a healthy one that can deliver to local economies and communities across the country and thereby demonstrate ways in which higher education institutions are vital to those beyond us.

Balancing government growth and skills priorities with student choice is not mutually exclusive. Models of higher education that prioritise industry practice, employer needs, innovation impacts and workplace experience can achieve these priorities. The capability to develop high-level specialist skills dynamically in a way which also builds the social resilience required to respond effectively to new, advancing technologies is quickly becoming a standard requirement of our graduates. We need reformed spending to achieve it.

Do things differently, get different results

Minister of State for Skills Jacqui Smith has said that the government is ready to review the education system and develop a way forward that “challenges the status quo.” To genuinely fulfil this ambition, we need fundamental change to the foundational regulatory and funding systems so that diversity in terms of institution, student, and pedagogical approach can survive into the future. If this government is serious about its ambitions to grow and future-proof education and skills, the following reforms are needed.

Reform teaching funding to support priorities

Government should establish funding streams for specific outreach programmes in priority subject areas like creative arts, teaching, healthcare, construction and agriculture. Doing so would acknowledge failures in the prevailing market ideology that implied industrial need for qualified graduates would shape applications into relevant programmes. Identified subject areas required by both our industrial sectors and broader society could provide a clearer rationale for funding allocations than student numbers across current Office for Students bandings.

The Strategic Priorities Grant for 2024–25 has been used to support “work on high-cost subjects, student mental health, degree apprenticeships, equality of opportunity, technical qualifications and a range of other priorities.” It is hard to see how smaller and smaller block grant funding allocations have delivered to myriad priorities and we have yet to see an evaluation of the effectiveness of that funding to support them.

Given the existing financial pressures within the sector, which some suggest should be addressed by increasing tuition fees (presumably within the same funding methodologies), we suggest a more ambitious review of the funding system is needed to drive support to where it is most needed to preserve a healthy, dynamic and diverse sector that can deliver to a wide range of students across a wide range of locations, especially where there are limited routes into and through higher education.

Revise funding for skills, research and innovation to drive growth

The Growth and Skills Levy needs reforming. It needs to better support SMEs, which comprise 99 per cent of all UK employers and account for 61 per cent of total employment. SMEs are critical to most sectors, but they make up the majority of some identified as crucial sectors in the government’s Industrial Strategy, including life sciences, advanced manufacturing and the creative industries. Data from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport suggests that the vast majority of businesses in the creative industries are micro-businesses. To meet the government’s own industrial ambitions, it must not only reconsider how funding can be delivered through and to those SMEs, but also how investment in training could be flexed.

Recent announcements by the government indicating plans to defund all Level 7 apprenticeships feel tone-deaf for those working in construction, healthcare, engineering and data science fields. To our minds, more technical skills training in fields meant to drive economic growth, which includes a wide range of skills at different levels, is not only a good thing, but is a necessary investment if those ambitions are to be realised. This is not to say we should fund L7 at the expense of lower level apprenticeships. Rather, we are advocating for investment in apprenticeships at all levels indicated as necessary by employers in those sectors where critical skills shortages have been identified as key barriers to economic growth and improvements in our public services.

But it’s not just about skills training via apprenticeships. It’s also about generating new ideas and innovations to help us work more productively and unlock our abilities to deliver more with fewer tangible resources. To deliver that ambition, both research and innovation funding streams need reform. Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) thresholds should be lowered to remove systemic biases that disadvantage smaller and specialist institutions. Research funding should be adjusted to provide reasonable minimum levels of allocation to all institutions where excellent research is being generated. Doing so would dramatically broaden the UK’s research base rather than deepen it by funnelling greater levels of funding to points where research is already established, thereby expanding research and development capabilities by widening the pool of contributors.

Doing so would support a regional growth strategy. It would spread money to areas where infrastructure still needs development and could provide incentives in geographical areas where ERDF funding has been lost. Local authorities in non-mayoral regions should also have a clear role in shaping research and innovation policies, with greater collaboration and knowledge-sharing between them and MCA regions to create a more balanced and inclusive approach to regional development.

A call for an inclusive funding model

Higher education in the UK is built on a long history of tradition, prestige, and excellence. However, in a time of economic uncertainty and shifting international alliances, we must now innovate to maintain our position on the world stage. While large, generalist institutions continue to play a critical role in advancing knowledge and global competitiveness, they are just one part of the type of healthy higher education ecosystem needed to support 21st century democracies to deliver economically and socially for their citizens. Smaller-scale, specialist and non-traditional institutions with expertise in vocational, professional programmes are equally vital.

The government has already acknowledged the importance of skills development, regional growth, and public sector workforce expansion in words, but these priorities must be reflected in its spending decisions, policy frameworks and implementation plans. The coming fiscal choices will contribute to whether the UK’s higher education system remains diverse, dynamic, and globally competitive—or whether it risks stagnation.

Policymakers face a critical choice: will they promote a more balanced and inclusive approach to funding that embraces risk to boost excellence in research, innovation, and skills development? The future of our sector, the UK’s ability to meet its domestic goals, and the growing need for clear, strong and sustainable geopolitical values, depend on it.

Source link

March 26, 2025
Short-term service learning experiences help college students

College students are known to be strapped for time. A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found the No. 1 stressor in students’ lives is balancing academics with personal, family or financial responsibilities such as work.

Research shows campus involvement is tied to students’ retention, career development and sense of belonging while in college, but helping time-strapped students access these experiences can be a challenge for institutions.

This year, Goucher College in Maryland created a new forum through the office of Community-Based Learning. The short-term micro-experiences allow students to dip their toes into service without committing to a semester or longer. The college first piloted the unpaid opportunities in spring 2024, and student participation in service learning has increased as a result.

The background: The Office of Community-Based Learning offers seven focus areas for community engagement: animal welfare, empowering ability, environmental sustainability, food and housing security, K-12 education and youth development, immigrant and refugee programs, and health and wellness.

Participation could include off-campus Federal Work-Study roles, volunteering with a social justice student club or through a campus organization, taking a Community-Based Learning course, engaging in an internship, or serving as a student director. The office also partners with faculty members to provide experiences in the classroom, such as a semester-long project for a nonprofit partner or a field trip to a partner site.

One of the reasons CBL has previously not offered short-term or one-day service opportunities is because of ethical concerns of how impactful these experiences are for the organizations or individuals being served.

The change is reflective of the needs of today’s students, who are more likely to be working for pay or on a compressed timeline to complete their undergraduate program as quickly as possible, CBL director Lindsay Johnson Walton said.

To ask students to invest in a long-term program that requires three, four or five semesters’ worth of time, “it’s not practical,” she said.

On the other side, nonprofit and community partners can be so desperately in need of support that they hold fewer concerns about the model of service. “It doesn’t matter if it’s the same students as long as it’s engaged students,” Johnson Walton explained.

Offering short-term participation opportunities requires more work from the college to generate the experience and fill out paperwork because it only happens once, but Johnson Walton hopes with future iterations the process will become more streamlined.

How it works: CBL offers around one micro-experience per week, many taking place on a Saturday morning or afternoon. Each experience has a cap of 10 to 12 students.

Students sign up in advance and commit to volunteering for a few hours. College staff handle logistics, including transportation, covering background checks and coordinating with the site, so students just have to show up and serve. Student coordinators, who are part-time staff working for CBL, also contribute to the organization and execution of events.

Some experiences that work well as short-term offerings include volunteering at the food bank or assisting at an animal shelter, while other partners, such as public schools, still operate best with more sustained interactions.

On the trip back, staff lead a short debrief and guided reflection to help students connect their experiences to larger learning objectives and provide additional opportunities to learn or serve, if needed. Students are also sent a short questionnaire that asks them to reflect on their work.

Short-Term Experiential Learning Grows

Community-based learning isn’t the only area where Goucher College has shortened the duration of experiential learning opportunities.

In 2020, Goucher launched micro-internships for students, primarily to address a lack of offerings available to students due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The remote offerings help connect students with alumni and other college partners and give students a project to assist in their career development and growth.

Similarly, the global education office has seen a growth in student interest for three- to five-week study abroad offerings rather than semester-long programs.

Who’s doing it: The micro-experiences have attracted a wide variety of students, some who are curious about service learning and just want to dip their toes in. International students often fall into this category because volunteering can be a uniquely American experience, and the projects give them insight into different organizations and spaces they may not otherwise engage in, such as schools, Johnson Walton said.

Others have a passion for service but are unable to devote much time to it, so micro-experiences provide a flexible opportunity.

Many students had a service requirement while in high school or were told that volunteering is a good feature for their college application, which makes service more of a reflex, Johnson Walton said. “They think they should be doing it, because culturally it’s been built into the list of things you’re supposed to do.”

Each of these students reflects an opportunity to further engage them in longer-term community-based learning in a curricular or co-curricular setting.

Feedback from participants shows that even small or short projects can have an impact on the student. At a volunteer appreciation event, one student wrote they learned how to plant a tree, which is a simple action, but one that can help a lot of people and a skill they can take and use again and again, Johnson Walton said.

Similarly, sorting food at the food bank can seem insignificant, but recognizing how many people that food will feed can help students gain perspective on their service impact.

For organizers of community-based learning experiences, it can be hard to grapple with the potential harm done by short-term community service because of the power dynamics involved, but Johnson Walton has learned that allowing students to get out and do can be a great first start to thoughtful and intentional service.

Seeking stories from campus leaders, faculty members and staff for our Student Success focus. Share here.

Source link

March 25, 2025
What Happens if Libraries Can’t Buy Ebooks? (opinion)
Clarivate, the company behind ProQuest, dropped a bombshell in the academic publishing world last month when it announced that it will “phase out one-time perpetual purchases of digital collections, print and digital books for libraries.” Instead, institutions will pivot to subscription-based access models. Clarivate justifies this seismic shift by pointing to the need for regular content updates, particularly as AI-enhanced research tools reshape scholarly publishing.

While perpetual-access options for ebooks won’t vanish entirely—they’ll remain available through certain marketplaces like Clarivate’s Rialto platform—this decision drastically curtails traditional purchasing options. More troubling, it signals an acceleration of a broader industry trend toward subscription-only models, raising profound questions about the future of academic scholarship and underscoring libraries’ critical role in ensuring equitable, continuous access to scholarly resources.

The Critical Difference Between Books and Journals

In recent years, some major commercial publishers like Hachette and Penguin Random House have moved from perpetual access to subscription-based access models for ebooks, a shift that to date has primarily impacted public libraries.

This subscription push mirrors the established practice for scholarly journals but presents unique challenges for academic ebooks. Unlike journals, which primarily deliver new findings, academic books represent enduring intellectual investments. A monograph acquired today often remains essential to scholarship decades later, particularly in humanities disciplines like history, literature, philosophy and sociology, where foundational texts retain their relevance across generations.

Financial and Academic Risks

Given academic books’ distinctive value, subscription-only access threatens to undermine teaching and research continuity. Faculty who design courses around specific texts may suddenly find essential works unavailable due to licensing changes. Researchers engaged in long-term projects risk losing access to crucial resources if subscriptions lapse. Though subscription models initially offer lower up-front costs and greater flexibility, the cumulative expenses can become substantial over time, introducing budgetary uncertainty.

Yet subscription models also offer distinct advantages for certain institutions. Programs with rapidly evolving content, especially in STEM fields requiring frequent updates, may benefit from subscription flexibility. Smaller colleges and institutions experiencing enrollment fluctuations or curricular shifts might find subscriptions economically viable due to lower immediate costs. Subscriptions can help institutions avoid large up-front expenditures, manage predictable annual budgets more effectively and ensure continuous access to current scholarly content.

Understanding these potential financial implications becomes crucial, especially as other industries have navigated similar challenges when transitioning to subscription-based models.

Lessons From Other Industries

Higher education can extract valuable insights from similar transitions in software and media streaming sectors. Traditionally, software represented a one-time transaction granting perpetual access, allowing customers indefinite use after an initial investment. The shift to software as a service (SaaS) fundamentally altered this paradigm, providing continuous access through recurring subscriptions. SaaS models initially attracted organizations due to lower up-front costs and greater flexibility to scale services as needed. However, this transition introduced budgetary uncertainty, as ongoing subscription fees can be unpredictable over time.

The media industry’s experience with subscription models offers another cautionary tale. Platforms like Netflix and Spotify initially captivated consumers with affordable, convenient access to vast content libraries. Yet over time, numerous competing services entered the market, fragmenting content distribution. Consumers found themselves juggling multiple subscriptions to maintain comprehensive access, resulting in “subscription fatigue” and significantly increased total costs. This fragmentation not only impacted household budgets but also created complexity in managing multiple services, ultimately diminishing the convenience these platforms initially promised.

Drawing parallels to higher education, subscription-only models could similarly fragment access to academic resources, forcing institutions to maintain multiple subscriptions for comprehensive collections. Over time, this fragmentation could increase administrative complexity and total costs, complicating resource management. Institutions must therefore approach subscription-only models with caution and deliberation.

Open Access as a Strategic Solution

One proactive strategy for addressing subscription challenges involves embracing open access (OA), a model providing free, unrestricted online access to scholarly research. Unlike traditional commercial models dependent on paywalls, OA enables anyone to read, download and distribute content without cost barriers. This dramatically increases research visibility and democratizes knowledge by making it accessible regardless of institutional affiliation or financial capacity.

Institutions can strategically support OA by investing in university presses, institutional repositories and collaborative publishing platforms. Successful examples include the Directory of Open Access Books, Open Book Publishers and the Open Library of Humanities, which have demonstrated sustainable, rigorous academic publishing methods. Redirecting a portion of subscription budgets to these initiatives can build permanent collections while fostering transformative scholarly communication practices.

However, OA models face their own challenges. Financial sustainability concerns emerge because publication costs often fall on authors or institutions, potentially disadvantaging researchers without institutional backing. Moreover, robust infrastructure, consistent funding and effective policy frameworks remain essential to maintaining quality and longevity of OA content.

Moving Forward: A Call to Action

As academic scholarship navigates these transformative currents, institutional leaders must proactively engage with their libraries, publishers and vendors. Delaying action risks fragmented access, escalating costs and compromised academic integrity.

Leaders should urgently prioritize collaborative actions to:
- Develop balanced subscription and perpetual-access models in partnership with publishers and vendors.
- Invest strategically in open-access initiatives while acknowledging and addressing their implementation challenges.
- Strengthen consortia and partnerships to enhance negotiating power, reduce fragmentation and streamline resource management.
- Foster structured communication among faculty, libraries, publishers and vendors to align acquisitions with academic priorities.
The proactive decisions we make today will shape academic scholarship for decades to come, ensuring that vital resources remain accessible, sustainable and equitable for all.

Leo S. Lo is dean and a professor in the College of University Libraries and Learning Sciences at the University of New Mexico and president of the Association of College and Research Libraries.

The author serves as a volunteer member of the Clarivate Academic AI Advisory Council. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Clarivate.
Source link
March 25, 2025
How Leaders Can Chart a Path Through the Chaos (opinion)
The pressures on higher education leaders and their institutions have intensified with the new U.S. presidential administration’s agenda. We all became familiar with uncertainty as a result of the pandemic, but this new series of policy mandates and legal challenges creates an even more ambiguous environment. Higher education’s basic foundations, operating systems, cultures, values and structures are being challenged, which implies systemic change may be required.

Leading systemic change is difficult enough in a less demanding environment. In this one, higher ed leaders will need tools and resources that can help them strategically chart a path through the chaos. They will need advice about how to adapt and continue important work that may be challenged by current executive orders, as well as advice about how to navigate the sheer volume of those orders.

Leaders can be more successful adapting and strategizing if they do so in ways that honor their unique contexts. Context variously creates opportunities or presents barriers that influence the actions leaders may take. Therefore, it is important for leaders to step back for a few moments and “get on the balcony,” as Ronald A. Heifetz, Marty Linsky and Alexander Grashow put it.

While many leaders may not think they have the time to do this, it is critically important they take the time to understand the complexities of the current situation so as not to overreact, react too quickly or react incorrectly. For example, a leader responding to a recent executive order may move quickly to announce program and office closures, but without time to consider options and understand context, this quick action may have a greater negative impact than some other, more strategic approach, one that does not compromise institutional integrity.

Leaders may also find they have levers available to them that are important to identify and use strategically. For example, partnerships with donors or grant opportunities are great levers to not only achieve strategic priorities but also provide relief for shortfalls that may result from the current political climate.

One way leaders can “get on the balcony” is to dive into their context and ask key questions with their leadership teams. This analysis will illuminate aspects of the leadership landscape that perhaps weren’t fully realized, highlight opportunities and fill in the details of challenges they are facing. Important categories of context to analyze are institutional mission; campus culture; politics, leadership and governance; human capital and capacity; physical, financial and technological resources; and externalities.

The final category of externalities may be of particular relevance right now. This category refers to anything happening outside the university, from local community issues to state and federal policies. It goes beyond state appropriations and budgets to include social, political and economic factors. As leaders consider their external environment, here are some questions they can use to help them identify opportunities for and barriers to change, as well as levers they can use to inform the actions they can take:
1. Are there state or federal policies or programs that are related to the change you are trying to achieve?
2. What initiatives, organizations or businesses in your community might have a stake in this change?
3. If your campus is public or part of a state system, are there messages, policies and priorities that can be drawn on to support changes?
4. Is your campus a member of a national association that has initiatives you might participate in that will help you advance your change or gain momentum and support?
5. Are there state, federal or philanthropic organizations that have grant programs aligned with your change goals? Do you have any major donors that can be engaged in your change project to support your goals?
Let’s see how this exploration might help leaders chart a strategic path forward through the current climate of chaos and uncertainty. Leaders might identify some challenges with respect to their state or federal policy environment that present barriers. For example, in states that have defunded diversity efforts, universities have less funding to accomplish their goals of creating more inclusive environments to serve all students. However, they may find an opportunity to participate in a national project sponsored by an association that provides them the time and space to reconfigure their structures and programs in ways that would still allow them to reach their goals.

By thinking through the philanthropic landscape, institutional leaders might find that there are donors who share a passion for inclusivity and thus can be cultivated as supporters of programmatic initiatives. Leaders might also undergo a search to identify possible grants or foundation funders that align with campus goals. These types of funding mechanisms are useful levers for creating a change agenda that allows for continuation of the mission despite the initial challenges.

Identifying the opportunities and barriers is the first step towards strategic action. Let’s dive into the next step by looking closely at leader “moves.” If we focus on the opportunity of participation in a national project aimed at inclusion, that will involve several moves to ensure success.

For example, the selection of a team charged with taking on this task is critically important, and getting the right set of individuals may involve thinking differently than usual. Given the current environment, it might make sense to ensure there is legal expertise on the team. It may also be especially important to assure those who are asked to lead that they will have the support of institutional leaders. Sense making and learning is another important area for action: giving people information and helping them know what is possible in the current environment is an essential leadership move at the moment.

There are likely advocacy and political moves that also need to be made to set the stage on campus or within the state to garner additional support or prepare for potential backlash. Finally, for the team’s work to be sustained in the long term, leaders might think ahead to how they can sustain or scale the programmatic, cultural and/or structural outcomes that are achieved during the initiative at a time when national leaders question the nature of the work. In the current environment, staff and faculty may also have fears that need to be addressed before they commit to this work over the long term.

More information and examples can be found in our recently published “The Change Leadership Toolkit for Advancing Systemic Change.” Whatever leaders do, they must keep moving forward even though the headwinds might be strong. Delaying action may only create larger problems that are even more intractable or insolvable. Responding too quickly may also result in irreparable and unnecessary damage that may be difficult to recover from down the road. Systemic change takes time and process and most of all requires a thoughtful, strategic and focused approach tailored to the goals and environment in which leaders are operating.

The process and example provided above just skim the surface of the deliberate kind of work higher education leaders have to do in today’s climate as they assess their contexts, take advantage of levers and opportunities, and identify key moves they will need to make to ensure successful adaptation. We hope that this essay introduces leaders to a process they can use to inform their actions so they can keep calm and carry on.

Susan Elrod is the former chancellor and professor emeritus of Indiana University South Bend. She studies higher education systemic change and is actively engaged in helping campus leaders build capacity to create more strategic, scalable and sustainable change.

Adrianna Kezar is the Dean’s Professor of Leadership, Wilbur-Kieffer Professor of Higher Education and director of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at the University of Southern California.
Source link
March 25, 2025
Louisiana Sees Improved Pass Rates With Corequisite Model

During the 2020–21 academic year, only 12 percent of students attending a public institution in Louisiana who attempted to complete a credit-bearing English class passed. This past fall, success rates among learners jumped to 60 percent.

The change reflects an overhaul of remedial education courses at the state level, led by the Louisiana Board of Regents, to improve completion rates across the system’s 28 colleges and universities.

The initial numbers, coupled with high passing rates among mathematics courses, are a step in the right direction to support credential attainment for adults in Louisiana, said Tristan Denley, deputy commissioner of academic affairs and innovation for the Board of Regents.

What’s the need: The overhaul of remedial education is tied to the state’s strategic initiative, Louisiana Prospers, which sets a goal for 60 percent of the state’s adult population to have at least a credential of value. At present, the state is at 51 percent attainment, up six percentage points from 2021.

“One of the fundamental changes that had to be made to be able to increase that attainment in that way is really the barrier of early math and English success,” Denley explained.

Compared to remediation, corequisite courses reflect an asset-based approach to student success that indicates institutional readiness for student achievement. Resea r ch shows students who are placed in corequisite courses are more likely to retain, save money and graduate earlier, compared to their peers.

“A traditional approach to remediation sort of says, ‘Well, I know you think you’re in college, but maybe not quite yet,’” Denley said.

Other states, including California, Georgia, Illinois and Tennessee have also prioritized corequisite courses over remedial education offerings to boost student success.

Building better: The process of rolling out corequisite education began in spring 2022, providing each of the state’s 28 institutions 18 months to launch the math program and then another 18 months for English courses.

Louisiana launched its corequisite course structure for math courses in starting in fall 2023, and during that academic year, 52 percent of students in a corequisite class completed a college-level math course, up 41 percentage points from 2020–21, when only 11 percent of remedial math students completed a credit-bearing course.

Implementing corequisite education at scale is a large undertaking, requiring work from math and English faculty as well as the registrar’s office and others, and each rollout looked a little different depending on the college and its needs.

The system office hosted technical assistance and professional development events to support campuses, including semesterly corequisite academies, which brought together 150 faculty who teach corequisite math and English to share best practices, identify common challenges and establish a community of practice.

“Interestingly, there are lessons to be learned from the math folk for the English folk, and vice versa, as well as among themselves in those different disciplines,” Denley said.

One important facet of the corequisite model is addressing students’ self-perceptions of themselves as learners—particularly in math courses where students experience math anxiety—so the board established “Mindset Meauxtivators,” a faculty development course that emphasizes a growth mindset. Two hundred–plus corequisite faculty have completed the course, and a dozen or so serve as faculty champions for this work within their own campuses or regions.

What’s next: The state will continue to collect data and parse through to identify trends in completion of credit-bearing English and math courses across student groups and institutions.

Identifying opportunities to support faculty with modern pedagogy that assist with corequisite education is another focus for the board, because the teaching style is much different from remedial.

Attainment is the goal of this current strategic plan, but future student success work in Louisiana will address socioeconomic mobility and ensuring students “make good on the credential they earn,” Denley said. “After they’ve earned that, what are ways in which we can make sure that that credential is life-changing, both to themselves and to their families and their communities?”

We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

Source link

March 25, 2025
Bowdoin to Devote $50M Gift to AI Learning, Teaching

Bowdoin College has received a $50 million gift from Reed Hastings, 1983 alumnus, Netflix cofounder and Powder Mountain CEO, to create the Hastings Initiative for AI and Humanity.

The gift, the largest in the college’s 231-year history, will be used largely to support teaching and research related to artificial intelligence. It will pay for 10 new faculty members, expand faculty-led research and curriculum offerings, and drive campuswide conversations about the benefits and challenges of AI.

“This donation seeks to advance Bowdoin’s mission of cultivating wisdom for the common good by deepening the College’s engagement with one of humanity’s most transformative developments: artificial intelligence,” Hastings said in a press release. “As AI becomes smarter than humans, we are going to need some deep thinking to keep us flourishing.”

Hastings credited a late Bowdoin mathematics professor, Steve Fisk, for first encouraging him to study AI. “Steve was about forty years too early, but his perspective was life-changing for me,” Hastings said.

“We are thrilled and so grateful to receive this remarkable support from Reed, who shares our conviction that the AI revolution makes the liberal arts and a Bowdoin education more essential to society,” Bowdoin president Safa Zaki said in a statement.

Source link

March 25, 2025
Bridging Further and Higher Education: Building a Truly Tertiary Education System
- Professor David Phoenix OBE is Vice-Chancellor of London South Bank University and Chief Executive of LSBU Group.
- Dr Katerina Kolyva is Chief Executive Officer of The Education and Training Foundation.
Post-16 education in England is at a pivotal moment, with increasing efforts to create a more integrated and collaborative system. While elements of competition remain, the reintegration of the sector into the Department for Education presents new opportunities for colleges and universities to enhance their contributions to local communities. Both further and higher education providers play distinct yet complementary roles in supporting diverse learners, but significant challenges remain in achieving a fully joined-up system. The establishment of Skills England, along with the skills and industrial strategies, signals a growing recognition of these complexities, highlighting the need for a cross-government approach. Achieving greater alignment across the post-16 landscape could provide an opportunity to shape a system that empowers learners, strengthens local economies, and supports national prosperity.

In February, the Education and Training Foundation and London South Bank University therefore brought together a range of relevant stakeholders to discuss existing models of best practice and the workforce characteristics needed to help develop an effective tertiary education system.

University and college mergers, franchise agreements, Institutes of Technology and Group models are all examples of imaginative approaches to post-16 collaboration. Workforce characteristics found within these models include a leadership team with a clear vision, strong awareness of institutional values, and resilience against the prevailing winds of policy. Having the correct personnel with a positive and creative mindset can foster strategic risk-taking and allow for continuous learning with the avoidance of blame, though people and culture initiatives alone cannot be relied upon to deliver a coherent system.

Our marketised higher education system and a focus on further-higher education transitions around level 4 could risk missing the bigger picture. We need government to develop a national framework within which local skills and innovation strategies can be developed. Such strategies would seek to consider issues related to the skills pipeline (including key areas such as adult education and gateway qualifications) but would also look at job creation by leveraging universities to drive innovation with business. Such a system-based approach needs to also consider what post-16 provision in the schools sector looks like and how this interfaces with further education, as well as the interface between further and higher education. This is essential if we are to provide alternative study pathways that meet the needs of the majority whilst also preventing duplication and redundancy at all levels.

Published in December 2024, the government’s Devolution White Paper could be a first step towards establishing a framework for regional collaboration and addressing these missing elements. Strategic Authorities could take an important role in working alongside further and higher education providers and employers to identify skills shortages and promote clear pathways from education and training into employment through a combination of specialist institutions. The government, through a coordinated approach across departments, could use various regulatory and financial levers to encourage genuine collaboration between providers where there is a mismatch between skill demands and provision, while also simplifying the complex regulatory landscape.

A greater level of specialisation and the recognition of the importance of different institutional missions has the potential to support a greater diversity of missions and a shift to a more collaborative framework. When combined with designing a corresponding careers, information, advice and guidance service, this will allow institutions to build more pathways for learners, meaning a more inclusive system. Those who are educationally disenfranchised would have more options to re-enter education and work, breaking down a key barrier to opportunity and, in the long term, boosting economic growth.

Regulation, market forces, and financial constraints can both foster and hinder collaboration. If government can find the correct balance, post-16 education will better serve learners and employers, boosting equality of opportunity and economic growth. Government commitments to boost devolution, publish an industrial strategy and reduce intra-governmental bureaucracy tacitly acknowledge the problem, but an overarching framework for addressing this is lacking. Once the IFATE Bill, which will formally establish Skills England, achieves Royal Assent, government must establish a mechanism to ensure cross-departmental coordination, bringing together Skills England, regional authorities, education providers, and employers to drive structural change.
Source link
March 25, 2025
Understanding Incoming College Student Demographics

Anecdotally, higher education practitioners frequently share challenges and changes with today’s college students, but how unique are the incoming learners of the Class of 2029?

A February report published by the American Council on Education and the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, found the incoming class of college students is more diverse than past classes in terms of race, sexuality and socioeconomic standing.

According to the CIRP Freshman Survey 2024, some demographic groups are less likely to say they’re confident in their academic abilities and that they encounter mental health struggles, highlighting ongoing need to support students with their personal and academic development in higher education.

“This report gives institutional leaders a clear view of today’s first-year students—their backgrounds, aspirations, and challenges—so they can better support learner success,” said Hironao Okahana, vice president and executive director of ACE’s Education Futures Lab, in a February press release. “Centering student experiences in higher education policy and practice is essential, and these findings help colleges and universities create environments where all students can thrive.”

Methodology

The survey, conducted between April 14 and Oct. 10, 2024, includes data from 24,367 incoming students across 55 colleges and universities.

Demographics: Over half of respondents (50.8 percent) identify as white, but significant portions are students of color, including more than one race (14.8 percent), Asian and Pacific Islander (14.6 percent), Hispanic or Latino (11.0 percent), or Black and African American (7.7 percent). Around 1 percent of respondents are American Indian or Alaska Native.

Nearly 10 percent of surveyed students reported English was not their primary language, and almost half of those learners are U.S. citizens.

A majority of respondents indicated they are heterosexual (82.3 percent), but the next-greatest share identify as bisexual (8.5 percent).

Nineteen percent of respondents were classified as low-income, defined in this study as having a family income of less than $60,000. First-generation students (those whose parents or guardians had no college experience) made up 12.4 percent of all students and one-third of the low-income group.

Eight percent of respondents were military-affiliated, and these learners made up 3 percent of the low-income group.

College prep: Nearly all students took three years of math in high school, but those from higher-income backgrounds were more likely to have completed advanced mathematics courses and Advanced Placement courses.

Women (66.8 percent) were less likely than men to see themselves as having strong academic ability, compared to their male peers (75.8 percent) and those who indicated another gender identity (72.3 percent). Similarly, female students were less likely to say they have above-average intellect, compared to men and others.

Despite that lack of self-confidence, women were more likely to report earning A’s in high school (78 percent) compared to men (72 percent) and other gender minorities (72 percent). Women and nonbinary students were also more likely to say they felt challenged by their coursework frequently (34.9 percent and 36.2 percent, respectively).

Over half of students studied at least six hours per week, but first-generation students were less likely to study for six hours per week, compared to their continuing-generation peers. First-generation college students were also slightly more likely to work for pay at least six hours per week at 41.3 percent versus 38.6 percent.

Around one-third of students socialized with their friends for at least six hours per week, on trend with national data that suggests Gen Z spends less time with friends compared to previous generations.

Personal struggles: Mental health concerns have risen among young people nationally, and many incoming college students indicate feelings of being overwhelmed or depressed. Nonbinary students were most likely to report feeling anxious, stressed or depressed, and women were slightly more likely than men to share mental health concerns.

“When asked how they compare with their peers on emotional health, men showed the most confidence; 48.5 percent rated themselves as above average or in the top 10 percent,” according to the report. “By contrast, only 35.2 percent of women and just 16.6 percent of students who identified outside of the gender binary rated themselves as above average or in the top 10 percent.”

Around half of students indicated they had at least some chance of using mental health services offered at their institution.

Financial stress continues to weigh on students, with over half (56.4 percent) expressing some or major concern about paying for college. Latino (81.4 percent) and Black students (69.6 percent) were more likely to say this was true. Sixty percent of Latino students, over half of American Indian or Alaska Native, and half of Black students utilize Pell Grants to fund their education, and each of these groups also relied on work-study funding for their education costs at higher rates than their peers.

However, many students believe in the economic value of a college education, despite the financial barriers to access.

Politics: For the first time, the survey asked students if they considered state policies and legislation to be important to their college decision. One-third of men and almost 40 percent of women considered politics and legislation to be at least somewhat important of where to go to college, compared to 56 percent of their nonbinary peers. LGBTQ students (48 percent) also weighed this factor as important more than their peers.

The Class of 2029 is also civically engaged, with one-quarter of respondents indicating that they frequently or occasionally have demonstrated for a cause and one-third of respondents having publicly communicate their opinion about a cause. LGBTQ students were more likely to agree with these statements.

Military-affiliated students also reported high levels of community engagement, such as volunteering and voting.

Across the U.S., diversity, equity and inclusion work has become more controversial, but respondents still indicate a care for social equity. A majority of college students believe racial discrimination is still a major problem in the U.S., with students of color more likely than their white peers to share this opinion. Many students expressed an interest in correcting social inequalities and gender equity.

We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

Source link

March 24, 2025