Tag: Education

  • Shaping the future before it shapes us

    Shaping the future before it shapes us

    I’ve worked closely with colleagues in Silicon Valley throughout my career. Through these interaction, there are always new ideas, and the level of confidence in predictions typically starts strong and only gets stronger. This time felt different. Last week during a visit to Silicon Valley, I repeatedly heard the following as a preface to a prediction, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard it before when engaging with my most techno-optimistic colleagues: “I could be wrong, but …”

    A few innocent words, but a rhetorical hedge that suggests even the most confident among us understand that the AI era is pretty, pretty complicated.

    I was there to attend the Annual AI+Education Summit 2025, hosted by Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. The theme—Human-Centered AI for a Thriving Learning Ecosystem—framed discussions that were both urgent and inspiring. AI is not just on the horizon; it is actively reshaping the educational landscape. Our responsibility is to ensure this transformation augments human potential rather than diminishes it.

    The summit brought together leading researchers, educators and policymakers to explore AI’s role in personalizing learning, empowering educators and bridging educational divides. The pace of change is staggering—today, half of students use AI tools at least weekly, both inside and outside the classroom. Institutions must act now to shape AI’s role in education intentionally rather than reactively.

    The Power of Collective Action in Higher Education

    One of the key messages from the summit was that no single institution, company, innovator or researcher can tackle this challenge alone. A coordinated effort across higher education is essential to ensure AI serves students, faculty and society in equitable and effective ways.

    At the University of Michigan, we have seen firsthand how faculty innovators are experimenting with generative AI to enhance teaching and learning. Our most recent call for proposals at the Center for Academic Innovation resulted in a diverse set of AI-enhanced teaching and learning projects designed to explore AI’s potential across disciplines, from medical education to humanities. These projects demonstrate not only how AI can enrich classroom experiences but also how it can deepen engagement, personalize learning and extend human creativity. We are helping faculty translate emerging technologies into meaningful applications, creating impactful learning experiences on campus and beyond.

    Organizations like U-M’s Center for Academic Innovation and Stanford’s HAI and the Stanford Accelerator for Learning play a critical role in leading this work—through experimentation, research and convening communities of practice. Without spaces to explore AI’s potential responsibly, without research to test its effectiveness and without convenings to align efforts, the future of AI in education would be left to chance rather than deliberate innovation.

    Michigan’s work is part of a broader movement. Across higher education, institutions are launching AI-driven initiatives to explore the role of AI in teaching, learning and research. One example is the California State University system, which recently announced a partnership with OpenAI to explore AI’s potential across its 23 campuses. This initiative, like many others, underscores the need for systemwide efforts to develop responsible and scalable AI solutions.

    These efforts—faculty-led experiments at Michigan, large-scale system initiatives like CSU’s, and global convenings like Stanford’s AI+Education Summit—demonstrate the range of approaches to AI in education. Stanford’s summit, in particular, highlighted outstanding faculty-led experiments exploring AI’s role in augmenting learning, fostering creativity and addressing challenges in equitable access to technology. These initiatives reinforce the importance of institutional collaboration in shaping the future of AI in education. But the big question remains: How do we shape AI’s role in education to serve our preferred future rather than react to an imposed one?

    5 Key Takeaways From the AI+Education Summit

    1. AI is transforming education, but its role must be purposeful.

    AI is already reshaping how students learn and how educators teach. We must ensure AI serves as a tool for augmentation rather than automation. How do we steer away from optimizing automation and toward optimizing AI’s ability to augment human creativity, problem-solving and collaboration?

    1. Faculty innovation is leading the way—with institutional support.

    Some of the most compelling AI applications in education are emerging from faculty-led experimentation. Universities must create conditions for responsible innovation by investing in faculty training, providing resources for experimentation and developing ethical frameworks that support AI integration while prioritizing student learning. We need to understand what’s working for whom and be ready to quickly invest further in the most impactful efforts.

    1. AI ethics and governance must be at the forefront.

    AI’s potential to amplify biases and exacerbate inequities is well documented. Institutions must focus on governance, transparency and bias mitigation to ensure AI benefits all learners. Without clear institutional leadership, regulation will fill the void. Can we build governance frameworks that protect learners and help them to flourish while also fostering innovation and global competitiveness and security?

    1. AI literacy is urgent—but we lack consensus on what it means.

    There is universal agreement that students, educators and institutions need to accelerate AI literacy. However, what constitutes AI literacy remains unclear. Should AI literacy be about technical proficiency? Ethical responsibility? Practical applications? Probably all of the above—but the right balance is elusive. I could be wrong, but if we don’t actively shape this now, we may find that AI literacy is defined for us in ways that don’t align with our values. Definitions vary, but there is broad consensus that we need highly accessible and scalable opportunities for anyone to acquire AI literacy—and soon.

    1. We need a shared vision for AI in education.

    The AI+Education Summit made it clear that AI’s impact should be shaped by the collective choices of educators, institutions and policymakers. Without a shared vision, the future will be dictated by market forces alone. Speakers at the conference described the future they want to see: one that designs for the widest range of learners to support human flourishing, strengthens the essential relationship between teachers and students, and works for everyone—practically, equitably and responsibly.

    Institutions have taken very different approaches to AI—some choosing to ban it, restricting its use until clearer guidelines emerge, while others have opted to embrace it, fostering a culture of experimentation and innovation. Others have decided to take a wait-and-see approach, uncertain about how AI will ultimately shape higher education. Perhaps all of these strategies have their merits. Or maybe in a few years we’ll look back and realize the most effective approach was something we haven’t even considered yet. I could be wrong—but that’s precisely why we need a wide range of perspectives shaping this conversation now.

    Questions for Our Growing AI-in-Education Community

    As institutions embrace AI, we should ask ourselves:

    • How can we ensure AI enhances equity and access rather than reinforcing existing disparities?
    • How do we ensure AI supports human creativity and critical thinking rather than replacing them?
    • How do we balance experimentation with the need for institutional policies that safeguard students and educators?
    • What models of collaboration—between institutions, industry and policymakers—can accelerate responsible AI adoption in higher education?
    • How can institutions maintain trust with learners and faculty as AI adoption accelerates?
    • What does a thriving, AI-enhanced learning ecosystem look like in five years? How do we get there?

    The AI+Education Summit reinforced that we are not passive observers of AI’s impact on education—we are active participants in shaping its trajectory. The work happening at Stanford, Michigan, CSU and across the broader higher ed community signals a growing recognition that AI is not just another technology to integrate but a transformational force that demands intentionality, collaboration and vision.

    Yet, it would be a collective failure if we simply make it easy for students to offload critical thinking. AI must not become a shortcut that undermines the cognitive skills we seek to develop in our learners and citizens.

    Now is the time for institutions and individuals to come together, share knowledge and create our preferred future for AI in education. We don’t have all the answers, and some of today’s best ideas may prove incomplete or even misguided. It feels like there is little time for passive observation. AI’s role in education will be defined—either by us or for us. Let’s build the future we prefer—because if we don’t, well … I could be wrong, but I doubt we’ll like the alternative.

    James DeVaney is special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

    Source link

  • Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Public confidence in higher education is declining. Even students, most of whom say they’re getting a quality education, question the value of a degree with respect to affordability. Such doubts increase higher education’s vulnerability to the threats it’s currently facing. All this evokes the long-running debate over whether higher education can be viewed as a public good. And when revisiting that debate, it’s instructive to know what students expect from their college or university—specifically, whether they consider themselves not just students but also customers.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s first-ever Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators, released last fall, 71 percent of administrators said that undergraduates at their institution consider themselves customers (most of these administrators also agreed that parents of students consider themselves customers).

    But what do undergraduates themselves say? According to a new analysis of IHE’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab, nearly the same share of students—65 percent—consider themselves customers of their institution in some capacity, defined in the survey as expecting to have their needs met and be empathized with because they are paying tuition and fees.

    Some 41 percent of the survey’s 5,025 two- and four-year student respondents say they see themselves as customers both in their classes and across campus. Another 13 percent consider themselves customers only in their classes, while 11 percent view themselves as customers only outside of class, when interacting with staff and administrators across campus.

    Methodology

    Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

    Respondents include over 3,500 four-year students and 1,400 two-year students. Sixteen percent are exclusively online learners, and 40 percent are first-generation students.

    Top-line findings from the full survey are here and the full data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. The main annual survey asked questions on academic success, health and wellness, the college experience, and preparing for life after college.

    How satisfied are students as customers of their institution? When those who do not identify as customers (n=1,744) are asked to wear that hat for a moment, nearly half (45 percent) say they’re somewhat satisfied with their institution. Another quarter (23 percent) are very satisfied. The rest are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (19 percent), somewhat unsatisfied (9 percent), or very unsatisfied (3 percent).

    What about students who do identify as customers (n=3,280)? The satisfaction numbers are very similar, but this group is slightly less likely to have high satisfaction; 45 percent, the plurality, are somewhat satisfied with their institution and an additional 18 percent are very satisfied. Twenty percent are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, some 13 percent are somewhat unsatisfied and very few (4 percent) are very unsatisfied.

    The results are relatively consistent across sector and a swath of student characteristics. However, two-year college students are less likely than four-year college students to say they consider themselves customers both in classes and when interacting with staff and administrators outside of class, at 35 percent versus 43 percent, respectively.

    The higher-education-as-public-good debate typically centers on whether higher education meets the common criteria for a public good: nonexcludability, meaning it’s accessible to everyone, and nonrivalry, meaning one person’s use of the good the doesn’t limit others’ ability to use it.

    In this sense, counting students as customers of higher education hurts the public good argument: How can one be a customer of a public good? And concerns about a creeping customer service dynamic in higher education have long worried scholars, including the authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal for Educational Integrity arguing that a facile customer service model of higher education undermines the instructor-learner relationship by reducing it to transactional, vendor-vendee connection—one in which the institution meets the student’s expressed needs in exchange for payment. (Think grade inflation and more.) The name of that paper kind of says it all: “The Customer Isn’t Always Right: Limitations of ‘Customer Service’ Approaches to Education, or Why Higher Ed Is Not Burger King.”

    But is thinking of students as customers—and students thinking of themselves as customers—a universally bad thing?

    Alternative Models

    Various scholars have proposed alternatives to the customer service model of higher education.

    Student as client: Scholar Keith B. Murray, for instance, proposed in a December Inside Higher Ed opinion piece that it’s better to think of students as clients. Whereas vendors need to appeal to customers via a product at an attractive price point, he wrote, in “client-type transactions, exchange of time, effort and money by the consumer is predicated on one party’s professional expertise and advice.” Typical client-based vendor examples include “physicians, dentists, financial advisers, tax preparers, accountants, veterinarians, therapists and professors,” he added.

    Faculty and staff as stewards: Scholar Jeffrey Vetrano, in responding to Murray’s piece, also in Inside Higher Ed, advocated for a stewardship framework.

    “Faculty and staff at institutions of higher education are stewards of both our students and their educations. As such, we take personal responsibility for granting them every opportunity to succeed, by maintaining strong ethics as identified in Murray’s article. As stewards, every action we take is for the care and development of our students, and we strive for much more than a client/vendor relationship.”

    Luke Hobson, an instructional design leader and online lecturer with his own education podcast and blog, actually encouraged institutions to think of students as customers last year, citing these five reasons:

    • Focus on quality
    • Responsiveness to needs
    • Enhanced accountability
    • Market competitiveness
    • Feedback loop for continuous improvements

    Summing up all these points, Hobson wrote in a blog post that the “most significant factor” here was to “emphasize caring. A business cares about their customers. Without them, they can’t survive.” Moreover, he said, “The greatest educators I can think of share this trait in that they cared. They were passionate. They were there for the students and to see them succeed. They could all have different styles of teaching, but at the end of the day, they served their students. It’s this mentality that will keep students engaged in the learning environment.” Indeed, existing research links instructor caring to student trust and sense of belonging, both of which are associated with student success. Quality nonclassroom student support services also promote student success.

    Hobson also wrote that it’s “crucial to maintain a balance. Education is not a typical consumer good, and the primary goal of a university should be to educate and foster intellectual development, not just to satisfy customer demands. Students are coming to learn because they don’t have all the answers. They want to get better and they are seeking the expertise from the institution. The focus should be on helping them to reach their goals.”

    ‘Polarizing’ Idea

    A year later, Hobson recalls that post being his most polarizing ever, based on the feedback he got (some loved it, others hated it). But while he acknowledges the concerns of his peers—that, for example, a customer-focused model could hurt student autonomy by shifting the responsibility for learning onto institutions—his own views haven’t changed.

    Reviewing the Student Voice data, Hobson imagines that students who describe themselves as customers believe they’re “paying for the ultimate learning experience,” defined by a “comprehensive blend of academic rigor, personalized support and opportunities for professional and personal growth.”

    In this light, students expect “the best the university has to offer, including engaging faculty interactions, meaningful assignments, timely feedback and an overall environment that fosters intellectual and practical development,” he continues. They also “anticipate that this education will serve as a pathway to their future goals and aspirations. The effort they invest in their learning, they hope, will directly correlate to the outcomes they receive,” in the form of knowledge, skills or career opportunities.

    This model has parallel benefits for institutions, Hobson adds, in that it encourages a focus on quality, including in online education; responsiveness to student feedback and a general feedback loop for continuous improvements to the learning environment; accountability for delivering “value for tuition and aligning institutional actions with expectations for academic rigor and integrity”; and market competitiveness by virtue of providing exceptional experiences.

    Jhenai W. Chandler, vice president for research and policy at NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, who also reviewed the Student Voice data, says she understands the impulse to think about students as customers or even clients. And she’s recently been on the student side of this conversation, helping two people close to her choose a college based on their very different needs and wants: Chandler’s own mother returned to community college to advance specific career goals, while her high school daughter is exploring colleges based on their ability to deliver a well-rounded education both in and outside the classroom.

    Still, Chandler worries that framing the student as customer can sometimes reinforce “harmful misconceptions about the nature of higher education, particularly in a time when our field is under political scrutiny.”

    Instead of using terms such as “client” or “customer,” “we need to focus on a more meaningful conversation about the value we provide and the outcomes we generate for students and society,” she says. Higher education’s value is “rooted in evidence that shows how students’ lives and communities improve after degree completion, whether it’s an associate, bachelor’s or graduate degree. We have a responsibility to communicate this impact effectively—through data, outcomes and success stories—to students, parents, industry leaders and policymakers.”

    Chandler adds this: “Language and terminology can often be our worst enemies in this conversation, as the terms we use are not always understood outside of the academic world. We need to be intentional about the way we communicate, especially as we navigate misconceptions about what students expect from us.”

    What do you think students who view themselves as customers—in classes or of their institution as a whole—expect from professors and/or administrators or staff across campus? Are the expectations typically reasonable ones? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

    Higher ed botched response to anti-DEI guidance (opinion)

    While much of the now-infamous Valentine’s Day Dear Colleague letter from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights was vague and void of specific information, the following sentence was crystal clear:

    “The Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date, including antidiscrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funding.”

    Despite the letter’s clear language to the contrary, higher education leaders and the media (including the higher ed press) did the math and declared Feb. 28 “deadline day” for diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education. “Deadline day,” read one story. “The clock is running out,” claimed another. An Associated Press story ran with the lead “Schools and colleges across the U.S. face a Friday deadline to end diversity programs or risk having their federal money pulled.” What ensued was a self-made crisis characterized by spirited debates and ill-advised anticipatory compliance with the yet-to-be-announced changes to enforcement of Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Seasoned veterans knew better. The most likely “next step” indicated by the department was presumed to be further communication from OCR about the “measures to assess compliance” that were promised in the letter.

    And that is exactly what happened. On March 1, the department issued a press release and FAQ document elaborating on the Dear Colleague letter. The FAQ elaborates on the new administration’s intention to use a novel and expansive interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard, an admissions case in which Chief Justice John Roberts opined that diversity-related goals within higher education can be “commendable” and “plainly worthy.” It answers questions about how the department will receive complaints. In short, the department did exactly what it stated it would do within the 14-day timeline. The so-called deadline was a chimera, an artifact of the confusion and fear created by the letter’s politically charged context and lack of specificity.

    While it leaves many key questions unanswered, the FAQ does favorably settle several unclear points raised by the Dear Colleague letter.

    Question 8 asks, “Are Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs unlawful under SFFA?” The answer is no. Only if those programs discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin do they violate the law. The answer further clarifies what we have known all along: “Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’” The department declares in unambiguous language that it cannot deem certain words “illegal,” nor are phrases such as “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion” or “belonging” a violation of nondiscrimination obligations.

    Question 9 asks, “Does this mean that students, teachers, and school employees may not discuss topics related to race or DEI under Title VI?” Again, the answer is no. Only if those classroom discussions create “hostile environments through race-based policies and stereotypes” do they violate the law. The answer makes clear, “Nothing in Title VI, its implementing regulations, or the Dear Colleague Letter requires or authorizes a school to restrict any rights otherwise protected by the First Amendment.”

    The 14-day window between the Dear Colleague letter and the FAQ did not pass without some productive and inspirational advocacy. Notably, Paulette Granberry Russell and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education won a significant legal victory in federal district court, achieving a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement activities and the withdrawal of funding based on anti-DEI executive orders.

    The American Council on Education submitted a persuasive letter to OCR—signed by 71 national higher education organizations—requesting that the Dear Colleague letter be rescinded and that the department engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of the legal obligations of colleges and universities—a rare example of higher education speaking with one voice on this topic.

    The rest of the frenetic activity in this two-week time span was less productive. Despite many thoughtful suggestions to the contrary, some colleges and universities hastily undertook “audits” and website “scrubbing” of programming they thought might possibly be covered in the OCR’s forthcoming communications. A careful review of the FAQ document is likely to reveal that much of this was an unnecessary overreaction.

    From my perspective, the most harmful occurrence was an unproductive debate over institutional responses to the letter. Most of these took the shape of a false dichotomy between courage and cowardice. In my estimation, the institutions that stayed the course and waited for guidance from OCR were not courageous, but rather prudent. Conversely, the institutions that moved to action were not universally motivated by fear or cowardice, but rather by institution-specific realities of board governance, state and local politics, and individual risk assessments. At the end of the day, it was context and not courage or cowardice that motivated institutions.

    With a published methodology for compliance assessment now communicated, the department has answered a few of the lingering questions outlined on Valentine’s Day. Most notably, the FAQ provides a clear statement on how the Dear Colleague letter will be enforced.

    The answer to Question 14 clarifies that the department will use existing case-processing procedure—which includes due process for institutions and the possibility of a voluntary resolution agreement—and links to a newly revised Case Processing Manual. It is now the job of institutions that are committed to building “inclusive and diverse campus communities”—as the ACE letter penned by Ted Mitchell so eloquently states—to prepare a spirited defense of their programming by demonstrating that their efforts do not violate federal civil rights law.

    Steve Robinson is president of Lansing Community College.

    Source link

  • Findlay, Bluffton merger called off

    Findlay, Bluffton merger called off

    Almost a year after the University of Findlay and Bluffton University publicly shared plans to merge, the deal is off, both institutions announced last week, citing various challenges.

    The University of Findlay, the larger and financially stronger of the two private, religiously affiliated institutions in northwest Ohio, was the one to call off the merger. Its Board of Trustees voted last week not to move forward with the plan, according to a statement from the university.

    “Some higher education organizations may find mergers the best path forward,” University of Findlay president Katherine Fell said in the statement announcing the decision. “For us, due diligence in this case has demonstrated that partnering in key ways is a better solution.”

    A Sudden Change of Plans

    Sticking points on the deal were college athletics and, relatedly, financial aid.

    When the merger plan was initially announced, both institutions intended to combine operations but maintain certain elements of their identities. For example, Findlay would remain affiliated with the Churches of God, General Conference, and Bluffton would stay with Mennonite Church U.S. Athletics would also stay separate; Findlay planned to compete as the Oilers at the NCAA Division II level, while Bluffton would continue in the NCAA’s Division III under the Beavers moniker.

    But that proved difficult, according to Findlay’s statement, which noted that regulations require a separate process for financial aid distribution “and prohibit the sharing of resources and sports facilities, resulting in fewer synergies in those areas than originally anticipated.”

    The statement said that Findlay will continue to seek strategic partnerships. Asked for more information, Fell told Inside Higher Ed by email that “while Findlay is open to continuing these types of collaborations with Bluffton, we extend that potential for collaboration to other higher education institutions that are looking for creative ways to engage and serve students, employees, and stakeholders.”

    A Bluffton spokesperson said by email that the two universities “do not have any type of formal partnership in the works at this time.”

    In their own statement on the deal being called off, Bluffton officials noted that the due diligence process was beneficial in helping the university move forward, even though the merger did not come to fruition despite a year of work.

    “While the outcome of this vote was not within Bluffton University’s control, we remain confident, optimistic and steadfast in our commitment to the future of our institution,” Cheryl Hacker, chair of the Bluffton University Board of Trustees, said in a statement issued last week.

    Though she acknowledged feeling “a moment of disappointment” in the failed merger, Hacker added that Bluffton “continues to be financially stable, strategically independent, and well-prepared for the future.”

    The move to drop the merger was unexpected; a frequently asked questions page on Bluffton’s website said that the university was “shocked and disappointed by this change in direction.”

    The FAQ page also noted that “Bluffton University is not privy of [sic] the reasoning behind the decision.”

    As Bluffton moves forward in the aftermath of the aborted plan, it will do so without President Jane Wood: she resigned Wednesday, the same day Findlay’s board voted down the merger.

    Financial Imbalance

    On paper, Findlay is the stronger of the two institutions.

    Its endowment was valued at $67.8 million in the latest publicly available audit. Findlay has also stayed in the black, operating with positive revenues generated during its last 10 fiscal years.

    Bluffton’s endowment was valued at $29.3 million in the latest publicly available audit, down from $37.6 million in the previous fiscal year. It has operated at a loss in six of the last 10 fiscal years.

    In terms of enrollment, Findlay is much larger, reporting a head count of 5,057 students in fall 2023, compared to 678 for Bluffton, federal data shows.

    What’s Next?

    Despite the abrupt change of plans, Bluffton officials have sought to dispel speculation that closure is imminent, noting on the FAQ page that it has “a solid foundation, and is well-prepared for future growth and success.”

    Not long ago, both institutions seemed fully on board with the merger.

    In a FutureU podcast interview recorded in January and published last week, the presidents of both universities appeared committed to moving forward, but they noted various frustrations with the effort—particularly the glacial process, which both leaders said they wanted to speed up.

    “We believe in this merger,” Fell said at the time. She noted in the podcast that the two universities were “already setting up shared services, which are going to benefit us tremendously.”

    In her email to Inside Higher Ed, Fell wrote that the two universities “have collaborated to share guest speakers, cover sabbatical leave, offer additional course options for students, fill low-enrolled course sections, host events for our local communities and provide students with joint cross-cultural experiences.” At the same time, she noted, the two institutions have “explored cost sharing of administrative services but have not yet implemented those.”

    On the podcast, Fell expressed impatience with the change of control required for a merger, noting “frustrations embedded in the process,” which could take from 18 months to three years to complete, limiting what the two institutions could achieve before approval. She added the process “will certainly cost us a few hundred thousand [dollars]” but “we have had good fortune in having internal grants and funding sources” to aid with merger costs.

    “There is reason for frustration—not blame,” Fell said on the podcast.

    The proposed merger between Findlay and Bluffton isn’t the only partnership to fall apart in recent years—even in the state of Ohio.

    Last year Notre Dame College, a private Catholic institution, announced it was closing after the strategic partnership it sought with the much larger, public Cleveland State University never materialized.

    Elsewhere, in 2023, Trocaire College scuttled its planned acquisition of nearby Medaille University, in Buffalo, N.Y., leading Medaille to announce its closure the very next week.

    Some colleges have managed to survive independently after reversing course, including the Portland, Ore.-based National University of Natural Medicine and Seattle’s Bastyr University, which called off merger plans in late 2023.

    Source link

  • AGB leader resigns abruptly after six months

    AGB leader resigns abruptly after six months

    Less than a year into the job, Framroze Virjee is out as president and CEO of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Virjee retired, a decision that was effective Saturday, according to an email from Ross Mugler, chair of AGB’s Board of Directors, who has been tapped as acting president and CEO.

    “Fram shared that after working diligently to further the organization’s mission, he determined that the president/CEO role at AGB did not align operationally with his personal and professional goals, and he decided to step down from the organization. The AGB Board of Directors accepted his resignation and offered its appreciation for his accomplishments during his tenure,” Mugler wrote in a Monday email.

    In a message to AGB staff, Virjee wrote, “This was a difficult decision and not one that I made casually, but instead only after careful consideration and thought. As I leave AGB, I remain committed to its mission of supporting excellence in board governance and leadership and remain dedicated to the value of higher education in the lives of students, our communities, and our nation.”

    Virjee, president emeritus of California State University, Fullerton, formally started in mid-August after his predecessor, former AGB president and CEO Henry Stoever, resigned amid plagiarism allegations in late 2023.

    AGB did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed on Monday about Virjee’s sudden exit, but the organization’s website has been updated to reflect the leadership change.

    “As a result of this announcement, I have agreed to serve as acting president and CEO while the AGB Board of Directors finalizes details regarding new leadership,” Mugler wrote Monday.

    Mugler recently retired as commissioner of the revenue for Hampton, Va., a post he held for more than three decades. Mugler has been on AGB’s board since 2018 and was appointed five times to Old Dominion University’s Board of Visitors.

    Source link

  • Ramadan should matter to higher education

    Ramadan should matter to higher education

    Ramadan celebrates the revelation of the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, to the Prophet Muhammad.

    One of the five pillars of Islam is fasting (abstaining from all food and drink) during daylight hours in this holy month.

    In the UK, approximately 321,000 (11 per cent) students identify as muslim, which is the largest religious group after christian students (27 per cent).

    However, in a recent survey of nearly 300 UK educators, almost a quarter of them couldn’t say when Ramadan took place in 2024. A quarter also didn’t know whether they had any muslim students in their classes.

    Only 30 per cent knew the exact dates of Ramadan, and 47 per cent could only guess approximately. Worryingly, 40 per cent of respondents had no idea whether their muslim students were fasting, and despite 56 per cent acknowledging a need for change in teaching practices, only half of them had actually made any adjustments.

    This is concerning – because the practice of Ramadan will undoubtedly impact muslim students’ ability to engage with their studies among those who are able to observe it.

    The ninth month of the Islamic calendar

    Throughout Ramadan, priorities may shift towards personal worship and devotion, as well as family and community.

    They are more likely to require time to pray during the day, and to be absent to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan.

    Changes to muslim students’ routines to enable them to take part in pre-dawn meals and night prayers may also impact their learning. The effects of Ramadan will also fluctuate during a given day as well as through the fasting period.

    You can gain an insight into Ramadan from a students’ perspective in this video, produced by Oxford Brookes University.

    A prevalent myth is that staff should avoid eating and drinking in front of fasting students. This is not necessary – muslim students respect the need for others to eat and drink and generally do not expect others to alter their behaviour.

    However, it is considerate to avoid organising social events centred around food and drink during Ramadan.

    Another misconception is the belief that students will automatically request support or adjustments if needed. In reality, students may not be aware of their rights to reasonable adjustments on religious grounds, or they might not feel comfortable making those sorts of requests.

    Staff should openly communicate institutional policies regarding religious observance and encourage students to discuss their needs without fear of judgement or disadvantage.

    Fasting doesn’t affect all students in the same way. Not all muslim students fast – some may be exempt due to health reasons, travel, or other personal circumstances. The effects of fasting can also vary, with some students managing well while others may struggle, particularly during the holiest last ten days of Ramadan.

    Evidence regarding the impact on learning of fasting during Ramadan is mixed. It can have different impacts on cognitive functioning depending on whether students are studying in predominantly muslim countries or not.

    In terms of the impact of disrupted sleep routines and a lack of sleep on learning, the evidence is fairly robust, with multiple studies showing a negative impact. This sleep disruption when observing Ramadan could potentially have a greater impact on students’ learning than fasting itself.

    Unfortunately, the limited guidance available on most institutional webpages in the UK seems to be aimed at muslim students themselves, putting the onus on them to seek support or adjustments. This positioning takes away some of the responsibility of institutions to amend practices and policies to support these students.

    Supporting muslim students

    With these issues in mind, I led a project to find out what educators proactively do to support muslim students.

    Based on our findings, and with contributions from a panel of muslims and other experts, we created a guide containing information and practical support for educators to implement in their classrooms. The guide is available to download from the National Teaching Repository.

    In the guide we have:

    • included an email template (page 9) that you can adapt to send to all students to acknowledge Ramadan
    • included a link to free printable posters about Ramadan to display on campus
    • busted common myths, for example around eating and drinking
    • provided 6 ways to make relatively small changes to learning and teaching practices that could make a big difference. These include 1) Acknowledge Ramadan, 2) Avoid Assumptions and Ask, 3) Adjust Assessment Timings, 4) Offer Asynchronous Learning, 5) Raise Awareness and Celebrate, and 6) Be Inclusive and make Sustainable Change.
    • given some guidance relating to supporting students who are on a work placement

    Supporting muslim students on work placements during Ramadan presents unique challenges and opportunities. The guide encourages conversations with placement coordinators and managers early to explore what accommodations might be available, such as flexible scheduling to allow for prayers or adjusted meal breaks to accommodate Suhoor (pre-dawn meal) and Iftar (meal to break the fast).

    It also highlights the importance of understanding the potential impact of such accommodations not only on students but also on clients, patients, or service users in placement settings, ensuring that any adjustments made are both supportive and practical.

    Organising a three-way meeting between the placement provider, the student, and the academic lead can help surface specific issues and create tailored solutions. And constructing a formal policy for supporting fasting students on placements could serve as a blueprint for sustainable, long-term change.

    More broadly, institutions could formalise their approach by adding “religious observance” as a standing agenda item in relevant committees and planning meetings. This would ensure that religious inclusion is not treated as an afterthought but as an integral part of institutional decision-making.

    Working with university chaplaincies is another recommendation – chaplains often have direct connections with religious student groups and can provide valuable insights into their needs. Ideally the sector would move beyond fixes and towards normalising religious inclusivity, reduce barriers to learning, and demonstrate a genuine commitment to equity and fairness.

    We hope that the guide will make it relatively easy for educators to take some immediate positive action, and that even a small change will make a positive difference by increasing a sense of belonging and mattering to our muslim students.

    Source link

  • Senate vote finalizes Linda McMahon as education secretary

    Senate vote finalizes Linda McMahon as education secretary

    Linda McMahon was narrowly confirmed along party lines as President Trump’s secretary of education in a 51-to-45 Senate vote late Monday afternoon and sworn in shortly after at the Department of Education building.

    All eyes are now on the White House as educators, policy experts and advocates anxiously wait to see if Trump will sign a controversial but highly anticipated executive order to abolish the very department McMahon has been confirmed to lead.

    The president and his allies have promoted the idea of dismantling the 45-year-old agency since the early days of his campaign for a second term, saying the department has grown too big and interferes in matters best left to local and state authorities.

    But the idea isn’t entirely new, nor would it be easy to implement. It would require legislative support, as the department’s existence is written into statute. Shuttering it would require a majority vote in both houses of Congress.

    “We can expect there to be a bit of a panic when the order comes out,” Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education, told Inside Higher Ed.

    It remains unclear to observers what mechanisms the Trump administration would use to close the department, however.

    “This will all depend on what dismantling the department truly means,” Guillory said. “I believe that the executive order would be somewhat broad, like we’ve seen [in the case of the diversity, equity and inclusion orders], and it will give the department the opportunity to refine the details.”

    Still, Trump has continued to promote the concept, and red states across the country have backed it. Chatter about the executive order began circling just days after he took office in January, and the plans were confirmed by multiple news sources in early February, though specifics were still unclear.

    Since the plans were leaked, Trump himself has publicly confirmed his intention to dismantle the department, although he did not disclose specific details on how he would do so.

    Guillory believes that much like when Republicans have tried to get rid of the department in the past, they will lack the congressional votes needed to officially do so. But Trump could keep the skeleton of the department and move its core functions elsewhere, he said.

    “Our thinking, because we’ve seen this before, is that likely a lot of the functionality of the department would get placed at other agencies, but we would be curious as to what functions would be terminated entirely,” he said. “That would cause the most concern for our members … Will those things simply be moved to another agency, or will some of those things not?”

    There are certain functions that are protected by the Higher Education Act of 1965, Guillory said. “The department legally would not necessarily be able to just terminate student aid programs, for example.” But he still worries the transition of oversight from one department to another may not be seamless.

    Shortly before the vote began on Monday, the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, made the Democrats’ stance on McMahon’s nomination clear.

    “Before colleagues vote on Linda McMahon’s nomination for secretary of education, they should remember a vote for Mrs. McMahon is a vote for draconian cuts to education … That’s why I am so proud that every Democrat will vote no,” he said.

    Other democratic lawmakers warned during floor comments on Thursday that McMahon’s confirmation, and the major department-level changes she’s backed, could risk the future of the department.

    Senator Gary Peters of Michigan said the country needs a secretary of education “who values and respects public education.”

    “Instead of working to protect funding,” he said, “she’s blatantly supported efforts to dismantle our education system.”

    For more background on what senators have said about McMahon, check out Inside Higher Ed’s live blog from her confirmation hearing, or read the five key takeaways.

    Senator Alex Padilla of California noted the cuts that have already been made to more than 100 departmental research contracts and countless nonpartisan career staff members.

    “They’re making it clear that this is just the beginning,” he said. “We could talk about Linda McMahon’s qualifications, or frankly lack thereof, but I’m not shocked, because President Trump isn’t looking for someone with the background or commitment to public education in America. He’s looking for someone to destroy it.”

    Although no Republicans commented Thursday, they voted unanimously to confirm McMahon in Monday’s vote (Republican senators Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming were not present for the vote. Two Democrats were also absent). The majority leader, Senator John Thune of South Dakota, spoke in support of McMahon before the final confirmation.

    “Mrs. McMahon is an accomplished businesswoman and public servant,” he said. “I’m glad that Mrs. McMahon plans to work in a way that empowers those closest to the student, because they are in the best position to do what’s right for that student … I look forward to working with Mrs. McMahon to limit bureaucracy, empower state governments and let good teachers do what they’re best at.”

    Top Agenda Items

    Guillory expects McMahon to pick up accreditation policies as one of the first issues up for discussion.

    He also is expecting the new secretary to prioritize rethinking and potentially amending the financial value transparency and gainful-employment rule, a policy initiated by the Biden administration to better hold higher ed institutions accountable for students’ outcomes. A lawsuit was filed against the regulation in 2023, but federal judgment has been put on pause to allow the new administration’s Education Department to determine its position on the policy.

    It still remains unclear whether Trump will try to protect the gainful-employment rule or repeal it and drop the case, but Guillory has been encouraged by the line of communication between the department and higher ed leaders on the topic.

    “They’ve been really good about listening to and hearing from our members directly on some of the issues that they’ve experienced while they were reporting [financial transparency data] and they are really trying to get feedback on how can we make this better,” he said.

    Other topics of focus for McMahon will likely include expanded details on Trump’s enforcement of Title IX; his diversity, equity and inclusion orders; and the freeze of applications to income-driven repayment plans for student loans, Guillory said.

    Source link

  • Academics should forcefully reject the claim they are “promoting ideology”

    Academics should forcefully reject the claim they are “promoting ideology”

    To the editor:

    Jonathan Eburne calls the National Endowment for the Humanities’ posting of the executive orders regarding the promotion of gender, equity and environmental justice ideology an act of “capitulation” equivalent to “the ideological extension of a political party” (“An Open Letter to the NEH,” Feb. 28, 2025). I share his critical stance toward the executive orders and the spirit driving them. But his accusation against the NEH is unfair and normalizes a dangerous misreading of the scope of the orders that higher education must avoid.

    The NEH chair and staffers are federal employees, bound to obey government directives. To refuse compliance would invite immediate termination of the agency’s talented, experienced staff and call the future of the agency into question. With them would go vital funding and stewardship for the humanities that sustains faculty, students, state humanities councils and members of the public.

    To be clear, these orders apply across the federal government, and nothing in them is specific to the NEH. They do not apply to research and teaching; one (EO 14173) includes a carve-out for institutions of higher education.

    By treating NEH projects as falling under the scope of the orders, Eburne implicitly assents to the notion that research and teaching are equivalent to promoting ideology. This is indeed the guiding belief in Florida, and it is shared by the current administration.

    In fact, “promoting ideology” is not an accurate definition of scholarly or scientific inquiry, including the important work of teaching and doing research on gender, equity and the environment.

    It is crucial that we stand up against attempts to define academics as promoters of ideology and thus as untrustworthy stewards of knowledge, or, as the vice president has put it, dedicated to “deceit and lies, not to the truth.” It’s malicious abuse of language designed to undermine people’s confidence in academia and in expertise in general. The right strategy is not to accept a bad definition—it’s to call out the definition as wrong and reject the labeling while these orders are litigated in the courts.

    Joy Connolly is the president of the American Council of Learned Societies.

    Source link

  • The Changing Landscape of Internships in Higher Education

    The Changing Landscape of Internships in Higher Education

    Title: Internships Index 2025

    Source: Handshake

    The latest research from Handshake reveals a troubling reality in higher education: the internship landscape is becoming both more competitive and less accessible, particularly for students already facing systemic barriers. Based on a November 2024 survey of over 6,400 students and recent graduates, combined with job posting and application data from over 15 million students and 900,000 employers on Handshake, this report highlights key trends shaping the internship experience today.

    Internship listings have fallen by more than 15 percent from January 2023 to January 2025. At the same time, applications have dramatically increased, doubling the competition for each available position. The decline is even more severe in high-paying fields—technology postings dropped by 30 percent, and professional services postings dropped by 42 percent.

    There are persistent participation gaps:

    • First-generation college students (50 percent) lag behind their peers (66 percent) in internship participation.
    • Students at institutions classified as “inclusive” in the Carnegie Classifications (those with less selective admissions) have much lower internship participation rates (48 percent) compared to students at institutions classified as “selective” or “more selective” (70 percent).
    • Students at these inclusive institutions are twice as likely as those at selective schools to cite financial constraints as their main reason for not pursuing internships.

    These disparities are exacerbated by practical realities. More than 80 percent of first-generation students and those at inclusive institutions report struggling to balance internships with coursework or employment. The timing of internship recruitment adds another challenge, with larger employers typically concentrating on hiring in fall and winter while smaller employers tend to recruit later into the spring.

    Yet internships remain transformative experiences when students can access them. Among those who have completed internships, 56 percent report that the experience was essential in making progress toward their career goals and 79 percent say the experience had a moderate or significant impact on their interest in working for that employer. Of students who haven’t yet participated in internships but hope to do so, 59 percent believe internships will be essential to clarifying their career goals.

    Quality of experience matters as much as access to the opportunity itself. Students who felt fairly compensated were more likely to accept a job offer from that employer (82 percent) versus those who felt underpaid (63 percent), and over half (58 percent) report that mentorship had a major influence on their desire to work for their internship employer.

    Internships have long been a critical bridge from college to career, offering more than just a line on a resume. By investing in robust internship programs, we not only nurture individual potential but also cultivate a dynamic, forward-thinking workforce prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow’s workplace.

    To read the full report, click here.

    —Alex Zhao

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    Department of Education Releases FAQ on February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    by CUPA-HR | March 3, 2025

    On March 1, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) released a Frequently Asked Questions  document providing further guidance on OCR’s February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” letter.

    The February 14 “Dear Colleague” Letter

    The “Dear Colleague” letter outlines OCR’s enforcement position with respect to the legal requirements “under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities,” in light of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA). The letter states SFFA “clarified that the use of racial preferences in college admissions is unlawful, sets forth a framework for evaluating the use of race by state actors and entities covered by Title VI.” OCR declares in the letter that, in accordance with SFFA, federal law “prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” The letter states that OCR will “take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date,” which was February 28. OCR also notes in the letter that institutions that fail to comply “face potential loss of federal funding.”

    CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and dozens of other higher education associations in a February 25, 2025, letter to OCR noting  that the language in the “Dear Colleague” letter is ambiguous and, as a result, campuses are confused about their compliance responsibilities. CUPA-HR, ACE and the other associations requested in the letter that the department rescind the “Dear Colleague” letter and “engage with the higher education community to ensure a clear understanding of their legal obligations in this area.”

    The FAQ

    The March 1, 2025, FAQ provides details on how to file a discrimination complaint, the department’s view on what type of activity is unlawful and the department’s approach to enforcement.

    Enforcement

    With respect to the department’s approach to enforcement, the FAQ states that if OCR “determines that a school failed to comply with the civil rights laws that it enforces, [it] will contact the school and will attempt to secure its willingness to negotiate a voluntary resolution agreement.” The FAQ then states that “if a school is unwilling to negotiate a resolution agreement, OCR will inform the school of the consequences, which may result in OCR initiating enforcement through administrative proceedings or referring the case to the Department of Justice for judicial proceedings.”

    Unlawful Activity

    OCR notes in the FAQ that OCR’s assessment of whether an institution’s policies and programs are lawful “depends on the facts and circumstances of each case,” but provides more details on specific activities that do or may violate the law. The FAQ notes that it regards the following activities as unlawful:

    • preferences and stereotypes as a factor in admissions, hiring, promotion, scholarship, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and other programs and activities;
    • any programming, graduation ceremonies, housing, or any other aspect of school life that allows one race but not another or otherwise separates students, faculty, or staff based on race; and
    • policies that appear neutral on their face but are made with racially discriminatory purpose.

    With respect to the last bullet, OCR states in determining “whether a school acted with a racially discriminatory purpose, [it] may analyze different types of circumstantial evidence that, taken together, raise an inference of discriminatory intent.” OCR provides the following “non-exhaustive list,” which may include:

    • whether members of a particular race were treated differently than similarly situated students of other races;
    • the historical background or administrative history of the policy or decision;
    • whether there was a departure from normal procedures in making the policy or decision;
    • whether there was a pattern regarding policies or decisions towards members of a particular race;
    • statistics demonstrating a pattern of the policy or decision having a greater impact on members of a particular race;
    • whether the school was aware of or could foresee the effect of the policy or decision on members of a particular race; and
    • the school’s history and stated policy of using racial classifications and race-based policies to further DEI objectives, “equity,” a racially oriented vision of social justice, or similar goals.

    The FAQ also describes activities that could be unlawful. Specifically, the FAQ notes that “extreme practices at a university — such as requiring students to participate in privilege walks, segregating them by race for presentations and discussions with guest speakers, pressuring them to participate in protests or take certain positions on racially charged issues, investigating or sanctioning them for dissenting on racially charged issues through DEI or similar university offices, mandating courses, orientation programs, or trainings that are designed to emphasize and focus on racial stereotypes, and assigning them coursework that requires them to identify by race and then complete tasks differentiated by race — are all forms of school-on-student harassment that could create a hostile environment under Title VI.”

    DEI?

    The FAQ notes, “whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” but rather whether it discriminates “based on race, color, or national origin.” The FAQ notes that institutions “may not operate policies or programs under any name that treat students differently based on race, engage in racial stereotyping, or create hostile environments for students of particular races,” or programming that “discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races.”

    The FAQ also notes, however, that “programs focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world would not in and of themselves violate Title VI, assuming they are open to all students regardless of race.” OCR also states that “educational, cultural, or historical observances — such as Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, or similar events — that celebrate or recognize historical events and contributions, and promote awareness,” are lawful “so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination.”

    Next Steps

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor and keep members apprised of any further developments.



    Source link