Tag: Education

The Resilience of First-Generation Students

First-generation students face a host of barriers when they go to college. Terms commonly used in higher ed, like “registrar,” “provost” or “credit hours,” can be mystifying. They’re confronted with a hidden curriculum, a set of unspoken expectations for how to succeed. And they don’t always know whom to turn to for help.

But a new book, the first of three volumes on first-generation students, argues that these challenges, while important to study, offer an incomplete picture of who these students are.

The book, How First-Generation Students Navigate Higher Education Through an Embrace of their Multiple Identities (Routledge, 2025), explores in a series of essays how different identities, including class and race, affect the first-generation student experience and how these students bring unique strengths and assets to the classroom. It also offers guidance to different types of institutions about how to support first-generation students better and highlights colleges and universities that have modeled successful reforms and programs. Some of the essays are research-focused and written by scholars, while others are personal narratives authored by first-generation college graduates.

Co-editor Matt Daily, assistant vice president and dean of students at Idaho State University, spoke with Inside Higher Ed about why he’s working to change the discourse around first-generation students, alongside his co-editors, University of Portland professors SimonMary Asese Aihiokhai and Layla Garrigues. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: A theme throughout this book is the idea that too often first-generation students are studied through a deficit-focused lens that emphasizes their challenges rather than their strengths. Why was it important to you to shift that approach?

A: For a long time, when we’ve talked about first-gen, we’ve come in thinking that they need something, that they are lacking something, and I think for the last five years or so, that narrative has really shifted. It’s shifted from “What are they lacking?” to “What are they contributing?”

As we were doing a lot of research, as we were having a lot of conversations, while that’s something that we’re talking about at our respective institutions and starting to do more across the United States and beyond, it’s still something that we have to keep reminding ourselves is important—to really focus on the assets or the strengths that students bring.

And so, we thought that when we were dreaming up this project—and that’s a fun story, too, about how it came to be—we thought it really needs to be based in the strengths. And it would be so nice for practitioners, scholars, students, that they could find that the real theme and the real foundation and the real thread through it is the strengths of first-gen students, and what it is that they’re really bringing to these college campuses.

Q: What are some of the strengths and assets of first-generation students that you think are too often overlooked?

A: There’s really no one-size-fits-all for first-gen. Each first-gen student is as unique as the experience itself. I think that’s actually one trap we fall into: We really have to take each case as they come in and create that space.

In the introduction, I mention how Tara Yosso talks about her “community cultural wealth” model and cultural capital and talks about this idea of [ties to] family and culture [as] strengths. I think those are strengths that are really important. Laura Rendón also talks about—what Yosso was saying and building on it—this idea of ganas or perseverance, which is that ability to really develop inner strength and becoming self-reliant and determined to succeed.

There’s something about first-gen students where they are just so gritty. They really stick with it, and they are so inspiring. I love the way that they’re able to sort of exist in multiple worlds. I could have my college world, my peers, but also a lot of first-gen students work, so I can have that world, and then my family, and then maybe I’m from a different country. Really understanding how to exist in all those different worlds and being able to do that successfully, I think that is an incredible strength.

My biggest criticism of first-gen students is that they are too humble. They don’t think that their story is worthy enough to share. They don’t think it has worth, and I think they’re dismissive [of themselves], and that is my biggest criticism. Because for the amount of different first-gen students we have, there are an equal amount of stories that come with them. We need to encourage them to really share those and know that they have worth.

Q: Going off of that, you interspersed scholarly research with student narratives in this essay collection. Why was it important to you to include both perspectives?

A: That was really intentional. I think that the student voice gets ignored if we’re just talking about theory. If we’re going to talk about students, we need to hear their voice, right? It needs to be expressed, and we need to really have that authentic perspective. And so that was something we talked about early on in the project … especially in the last chapter, where we wanted to have students themselves or recent graduates share.

And I think that there’s equally as much value in terms of the research as to what the students are expressing, as they’re sort of in the moment, so to speak. I think [it’s important] even just coaching students that their voice matters … that you can go up and talk to senior administrators … and there’s value in that. I think that was one thing we were really hoping with this anthology was that maybe a graduate student or an undergraduate student could read that and feel inspired and go, “Oh, you know, this is something I could see myself doing,” and really get that spark, too. Gosh, if that happened, I would be over the moon.

Q: The book also emphasizes taking an intersectional approach to serving first-generation students. What does that mean to you? And what do you think we miss when we don’t factor in these students’ other identities?

A: I think that’s just so important. And I have to kind of acknowledge my own positionality. I’m a white male. And I am not first-gen. I will never understand a lot of these identities because I don’t identify that way. And so that’s something that’s been a part of my own journey. That was why it was so important with Simon, myself and Layla—we’re just a diverse collection. And then when you get to the other contributors, they do identify in a variety of different ways.

But that being said, identity is so important to the cultural richness of our college campuses. When I talk to college students, we talk about their gender identity, and sometimes that can be fluid; we talk about their racial or ethnic identity. We talk about their sexual identity, even their academic identity—meaning, what does it mean when I go from high school to college? Does that academic identity come into question when I experience different levels of success? But I think a lot of those identities we talk about, they’re visible. A lot of those identities we can see.

First-gen is not one of them. And that’s what’s interesting about being first-gen is you will never see physically if someone is first-gen. And so, it’s sort of this hidden identity. In a lot of my experiences working with first-gen students, I almost feel that I’ve outed them. When I explain to them, “Hey, I think you’re first-generation based on the information you’ve given me,” there’s a variety of different reactions, because it’s sort of a later-emerging identity. It’s not maybe one that’s discussed when a student is in elementary school, [with someone telling them], “Hey, you’re going to be a first-generation college student.” And so, I think what’s interesting is when you talk about this identity with other first-gen students, it’s one of many that intersect. But I think the timing of the intersection is so different for every first-gen student, if that makes sense.

In my previous role in Portland, when I would reach out to say, “I think you’re a first-gen student,” a lot of students would say, “No, I don’t want to be a first-gen student,” because they would think me identifying them in that way is something that’s negative. And part of that was really [making] that shift and going, “I am identifying you based on your mom and dad’s educational history or parent or guardian, and you might be first-gen—and that is so beautiful. Let’s celebrate that.”

I can be first-gen and a male or first-gen and African American male or I can be first-gen and a student athlete. What do those identities mean? Just being able to share what that identity means is so important for why a student is in college.

And I think that they forget that even as they graduate and go on to whatever’s next after college, to share that they’re first-gen is something that graduate schools, employers, what have you—they really value that.

It’s been programmed for so long that this is such a deficit. We’re working really hard at institutions to say, “Yeah, share that out—because of those qualities we talked about, this makes you a valuable part of this community.”

Q: I thought it was interesting that multiple chapters described how first-generation students can feel isolated from campus life, but also that campus life made them feel isolated from their home lives and families. How do you see the role of family and community for first-generation students’ success, and how do you think higher ed institutions can better account for that?

A: We assume that for first-gen students, when they go to college, that their families are behind it 100 percent, and that is not always the case. I think a lot of times the person that’s the most in favor of them going to college is themselves. And there’s a lot of, you know, “Why don’t you just work at the store?” The argument to convince others to go to college sometimes falls on the first-gen student, and we forget that. And so that kind of carries on through the experience, [family] going, “Why do you need to go to these programs?” or “Why do you need to go abroad?” It’s sort of having to be the explainer and the decoder for college life, and that is a lot for one student.

And so, I think that there is some push and pull with families sometimes, because the family wants to be supportive, but they don’t know how to be supportive strategically. In talking to a lot of families, I’ve coached them, saying, “Hey, you can just call your daughter or son and just say, ‘I love you. I support you doing this. I don’t know how I can strategically do that, but I want you to know I support you.’” That type of thing just goes so far.

The thing that’s also interesting, to your point about feeling isolated, we talk about programs and strategies that can really help first-gen students. But also on college campuses, the onus is on the student. You need to go do these things to be successful. And that’s not a first-gen thing, that’s a college thing. And I sort of push back on that. I think it’s on the institution to really create these spaces, to make students feel welcome, that they belong, that they matter, that they feel that they can have some sense of value in these spaces with their peers. And going back to first-gen identity, they’re not going to know who else is first-gen unless we create spaces where the students can find who else among their peer group is. And so, I think you kind of have to shift it a little bit.

They maybe feel isolated from family because we’re asking them to do a lot of things, such as engage with campus community, campus life, but sometimes that might come into conflict with what they’re being asked to do with their families, whether it’s watch my little brother or go to Grandma’s birthday party. That happened one time where a student really had to negotiate why they had to be on campus that first weekend of school for a lot of the programming [when] they were going to miss Grandma’s birthday. It really puts them in this code-switching situation where they feel isolated because they don’t feel anyone really gets what they’re going through.

Q: The book also offers a lot of concrete advice on how to better structure services and support for first-generation students and ensure they’re engaged and able to take advantage of opportunities like internships and study abroad. What do you think are some of the practical action steps you want to see higher ed leaders take away after reading this book?

A: I think high-impact practices are so important.

We talk so much about what student success means—what does it mean to have a sense of belonging, that type of thing—but I think one thing we really don’t talk a lot about is, other than the degree that the students are seeking, what is it that we really want them to take away from the college experience? What type of skills? Do we want them to think critically? Do we want them to be really engaged with the community? I think that we need to be really intentional on our college campuses about talking about what we want the students to take away, besides the degree. That can really help them in their next step. And I hope that maybe this book can talk a little bit about that. Can we really reimagine what we’re trying to do rather than just be very transactional about the degree?

I hope that they realize that it’s important to invest in this, that we need to invest in sustainable programs. Because I think a lot of times, what you have happen is different leaders or champions of first-gen work will leave institutions and then these initiatives really fizzle out. So, how can we think strategically that it’s not about the person, it’s about the program and initiatives. I think some of the things we talk about in here are almost a love letter to higher education institutions to say, “Look, this population is worth investing in, and it’s not just a one-size-fits-all, but if we can all adopt something that’s really creative and sustainable, all these students across the United States and even globally can benefit.”

Source link

August 6, 2025
Community College Instructor Quits Over Barring Noncitizens From Adult Ed

In response to federal guidance, Johnson County Community College no longer allows undocumented students to take adult education courses.

Matthew Fowler/iStock/Getty Images

An adult education instructor at Johnson County Community College in Kansas resigned after finding out the college would require proof of immigration status for adult ed programs in response to federal policy shifts, The Kansas City Star first reported.

Daniel Tyx, previously a middle school Spanish teacher, started teaching English to adults part-time at the college last year. He told the Inside Higher Ed that he took the job because he has a passion for working with immigrant students, and he planned to stay if not for the new policy. He described the college’s English language learner program as thriving, with over 800 students.

These students “always come to class. They’re always excited to be there. They’re full of questions. It’s just a dream job,” Tyx said.

But Tyx quit his job last Friday after he was told that he would have to verify students’ immigration statuses.

“That was not in alignment with my values,” Tyx said. “And I didn’t feel like, as a matter of conscience, that I was going to be able to continue.”

The college’s decision came after a February executive order demanded “no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens.” The U.S. Department of Education then announced in July that, to comply with the order, it would end Clinton-era guidance that allowed undocumented students to participate in adult and career and technical education programs. The department insisted that institutions receiving federal funds for these programs begin verifying that students are eligible to benefit from them.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in the announcement. “The department will ensure that taxpayer funds are reserved for citizens and individuals who have entered our country through legal means who meet federal eligibility criteria.”

Checking a student’s immigration status is not a typical practice for community colleges, which are now grappling with how to comply with the federal edicts and continue to serve students, and staffers are uncertain how to move forward. Another complication for community colleges and other public institutions is the Trump administration’s crackdown on policies that allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition if they meet other requirements. After Texas overturned its policy, state officials asked universities to identify undocumented students. At least one Texas institution, the University of Texas at Austin, now requires students to submit proof of immigration status, as well, KVUE reported.

The department’s guidance to bar undocumented students was the second blow to adult education programs after the Trump administration held up about $716 million in federal funds to these programs as part of a wider review of education-related grants in early July. The funds have since been released.

Johnson County Community College now has a message on its website saying that, starting in late July, students are required to show a Real ID, birth certificate, U.S. passport or their most recent immigration documents when they register for adult education classes.

Chris Gray, vice president of strategic communications and marketing at JCCC, said in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the college’s “compliance with federal requirements in this matter allows us to continue to serve qualified individuals” in adult education programs.

Tyx said he felt that college administrators were trying to get ahead of the federal guidance, which he considers “cruel and unjust.” He’s worried for his students, who have been peppering him with questions about whether their documents will suffice.

“My students make such sacrifices to come to class,” he said. “They have so many different reasons to want to learn English, and they’re all good ones. My students want to be able to connect better with their children or their children’s schools. They want to be able to employ the skills that they already have at work and progress in their work lives … It’s very weird that would be something that would be considered to be not desirable by our government.”

Source link

August 6, 2025
New Survey Measures Student Academic Flourishing in College

A new survey will collect data on academic flourishing among students enrolled in colleges and universities.

Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

For prospective students looking to enroll in higher education, there are a variety of institutional factors to consider, among them location, course of study, cost of tuition and campus culture. Various sets of rankings provide additional information that might matter to students, such as spending on research or socioeconomic mobility for graduates.

But one key outcome of higher education remains underappraised, according to Tyler VanderWeele, a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at Harvard University and director of the Human Flourishing Program: a student’s personal growth.

Many institutions publish lofty mission statements that connect the learning experience to students’ personal growth, leadership skills, vocation and sense of purpose upon graduation. But beyond anecdotal testimony, there are few measures to understand the influence of colleges and universities on student flourishing.

Next spring, Harvard University and Wanderweele are launching a new assessment tool as part of the Human Flourishing Program. The Flourishing Data Collaborative survey asks students to reflect on their college experience and provide their home institution with feedback as to what’s working and what needs additional intervention to affect student thriving.

What’s the need: Researchers created the survey in part to encourage colleges and universities to consider flourishing and student development a core function of the institution.

“I really do believe that what we measure shapes what we discuss, what we aim for, what policies are put in place to achieve those aims,” VanderWeele said. “So the very act of measurement, in some sense, itself constitutes an intervention and might help colleges and universities better pursue this.”

The assessment is not designed as a replacement for other measures of student success, including job placement or retention rates, Wanderweele noted. But sometimes a focus on ranking metrics can shift institutional priorities in a way that neglects the human-centered mission of postsecondary education, he said.

“For example, U.S. News & World Report rankings [have] very much shaped higher education, and people pay a lot of attention to this, but I think it’s also reoriented colleges and universities to specific metrics and ends that will help them go up in those rankings,” VanderWeele said. “Is it really the most important thing how much money has been spent on new student center facilities?”

The program also wants to better understand the role of higher education in promoting student well-being. Large numbers of young people report feeling on edge, lonely, unmoored or directionless, according to a study from Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. To get at this question, the survey asks about a learner’s sense of happiness and meaning and their financial security.

How it works: After promising results from pilot surveys conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Harvard and Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome last year, the annual survey will launch in spring 2026, allowing first-year students to have at least one semester of undergraduate experience under their belts. Learners will respond to 24 questions ranging from “to what extent has university life helped you pursue truth?” to “to what extent has university life helped you to better lead a moral life?”

VanderWeele hopes the survey will serve as a reflection tool for students to consider how education has contributed to their development, but also where they can be self-motivated to improve their well-being.

After data collection is complete, each institution will receive a 50-page report and a dashboard with their survey results, allowing them to filter by specific data points.

What’s next: Presently, the program is recruiting member institutions to participate in the survey and engage in a community of practice, Wanderweele said. The goal is for institutions to gain insight about their current practices, or even assess interventions across several surveys, but also to learn from their peers.

“Our goal with this is not to differentially rank institutions, but to help each of these institutions come together, reflect on their strengths [and] areas for growth and to learn from one another in these different ways,” VanderWeele said.

Institutions will pay an annual $10,000 membership fee to participate, which VanderWeele said is a similar rate to other survey offerings of this kind.

Approximately 20 colleges have indicated interest in membership and another 100 have signed up for an upcoming webinar on Aug. 20 for additional information. VanderWeele said he is hoping a few dozen colleges and universities join the initiative this year.

In addition to providing institution-specific insights and policy recommendations, VanderWeele and his team hope to use survey results to conduct research on human flourishing in higher education in general.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe to the Student Success newsletter here.

This article has been updated to correct the spelling of Tyler VanderWeele’s last name.

Source link

August 6, 2025
Stanford Plans to Cut 363 Jobs

Stanford is the latest university to announce layoffs in the wake of federal policy changes.

David Madison/Getty Images

Stanford University plans to cut 363 jobs this fall, starting at the end of September, due to financial challenges driven by federal policy changes, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The university previously announced a hiring freeze in February.

Stanford president Jon Levin and provost Jenny Martinez noted in a letter to campus that the cuts were part of an effort announced last month to reduce $140 million in the general funds budget. They called the layoffs, reported Tuesday, “the product of a challenging fiscal environment shaped in large part by federal policy changes affecting higher education.”

University officials provided more information in a letter filed with the California Employment Development Department that accompanied the layoff notice. They cited “anticipated changes in federal policy—such as reductions in federal research funding and an increase in the excise tax on investment income” as significant factors driving the reduction of Stanford’s workforce.

Neither letter provided more specifics on who would be affected by the job cuts.

Stanford has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration in recent months, with the Department of Justice launching an investigation into admissions practices at the private university, accusing it and several other institutions of skirting a ban on affirmative action.

Stanford is one of the wealthiest institutions in the U.S., with an endowment valued at $37.6 billion earlier this year; only two other institutions and a system had larger endowments.

Now Stanford joins other wealthy peers with multibillion-dollar endowments that have also enacted cuts recently. Last month, Duke University announced that 599 employees had accepted buyouts, and Northwestern University cut 425 jobs as it navigates a federal research funding freeze. While not as well resourced as Stanford, both are among the nation’s wealthiest universities.

Source link

August 5, 2025
Higher Ed Is Morally Injured (opinion)
For months, I’ve been grappling with the current state of higher education, which seems to be increasingly defined by anxiety, uncertainty and fear. Our budgets are shrinking and our programs are threatened. New federal legislation includes major changes to student aid. The values that have historically undergirded our work are under threat: We operate under a cloud of political interference, limiting academic freedom, diversity initiatives and even the very topics we are permitted to teach. We witness administrators, deans and presidents forced into impossible corners by the choices they have to make that pit their own convictions against their political survival and the financial health of their institutions. I wonder how many leaders have quietly caved to outside pressures because they feel that they have no other choice. And I wonder how many more will.

Our current moment isn’t the first time educators have faced profound moral dilemmas. During the McCarthy era, for instance, faculty and educators were forced to choose between signing loyalty oaths and risking professional ruin. These dilemmas did not simply fade into history; their echoes resonate powerfully in today’s educational climate, where, once again, many educators confront impossible choices, perhaps reflecting broader societal trends toward authoritarianism, censorship and anti-intellectualism. The recent wave of book bans and legislation restricting DEI initiatives highlights how deeply entangled education has become in national culture wars. These forces don’t just target policies; they directly wound the morale, trust and integrity of our campus communities.

This ongoing bending to pressures that run counter to our deeply held educational and ethical beliefs makes me wonder if we’re experiencing a collective moral injury in higher education. Moral injury is the profound emotional and psychological wound that occurs when our core values and integrity are betrayed or compromised, often through external pressures or systemic forces beyond our control. Unlike general burnout, which emerges from chronic exhaustion, moral injury arises specifically from the betrayal or violation of deeply held ethical convictions, creating profound psychological and existential distress. In higher education, moral injury manifests when institutional and political demands clash with our educational and human mission—that is, when leaders, faculty and staff are compelled to enact policies or decisions that violate their beliefs about equity, care, academic freedom and justice. It goes beyond burnout and stress; moral injury cuts deep, affecting trust, agency and our very sense of purpose.

Why should we care? Because moral injury doesn’t simply stay contained within the individual experiencing it. It’s not just private pain; it’s a profoundly social and relational wound. Moral injury has a silent, corrosive effect: When we educators and leaders repeatedly experience a conflict between institutional demands and our ethical convictions, it gradually erodes our trust in ourselves, in others and in the institutions we serve. Left unnamed, it quietly undermines morale, corrodes relationships and weakens the very foundations of our educational communities.

Moreover, when we leave moral injury unaddressed, we risk allowing it to become normalized. That is, we treat it as just another form of stress or burnout rather than a profound betrayal that calls for careful attention, communal support and systemic change. So, by openly naming moral injury, not only do we validate its seriousness, we also create pathways toward collective acknowledgment, courageous dialogue, healing and, ultimately, transformative action.

Consider the recent example of Jim Ryan, the ninth president of the University of Virginia, who announced his resignation in late June in a deeply reflective, heartfelt letter to the university community. Ryan faced a difficult choice: fight the federal government on principle, potentially losing the university’s federal funding, causing hundreds of employees to lose their jobs, cutting off vital research support and jeopardizing the educations and visas of countless students—or step aside. Ryan explained that while he believes deeply in fighting for what he values, he simply could not justify risking real and immediate harm to the UVA community. He called this decision “excruciatingly difficult,” a choice made with “a very heavy heart.” His resignation was not a defeat, but rather a stark acknowledgment of the painful moral dilemmas facing higher education leaders today.

Ryan’s decision underscores precisely what moral injury looks and feels like in our institutions. Higher education leaders are being placed in impossible situations, forced to choose between bad and worse. His decision reveals that moral injury isn’t abstract; it’s profoundly personal and relational, deeply rooted in the values that guided many of our decisions to enter education in the first place. His ordeal, however, is only half the story; the ripples of such decisions roll outward to our classrooms and, most crucially, to our students.

That’s because moral injury does not only affect leadership. I worry about how these conditions shape our students’ experiences. What lessons do students internalize when their institutions and professors appear forced into moral compromises? When we as educators seem powerless to protect our values or our students’ right to honest inquiry, how does our acquiescence impact their ability to trust, engage deeply and imagine hopeful futures? How does this dynamic undermine the very educational outcomes we strive to achieve?

These moral dilemmas and compromises aren’t accidental; they’re often embedded in the institutional structures of higher education itself. Consider how our reliance on politically influenced state funding can leave institutions and their leaders little room to maneuver ethically. National research funding, such as from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health or National Endowment for the Humanities, has now been politicized as well. These pressures become structural conditions that not only invite moral injury but almost inevitably enforce it. They leave educators and administrators feeling trapped between their values and institutional survival.

Yet, for me, Jim Ryan’s resignation provides us an example of moral clarity and moral courage. Ryan’s honest and public acknowledgment of his dilemma defines the harm and injustice of his situation. By openly describing his dilemma, Ryan makes the crucial first step toward us hearing it and allows us to bear witness to his moral wound.

Ryan’s choice thus compels us not only to recognize moral injury but also to grapple with how we might respond, heal and move forward collectively. When we experience moral injury, the clarity and courage we typically rely upon become distorted; in such moments, it is difficult to rise alone. We need that trusted community to recover our sight, to rekindle our nerve and to ask the hard questions that let healing begin. As educators and leaders, we need to consider the following questions:
- How can we create spaces to compassionately name the wounds we carry from these morally injurious conditions?
- What forms of community support might allow us to reclaim our sense of agency and take courageous, authentic action?
- What new futures might we collectively imagine for higher education, futures rooted in justice, compassion and integrity?
These questions are critical precisely because moral injuries do not heal on their own; instead, they require intentional, communal responses. Importantly, asking tough questions and naming the wound are only the threshold; authentic healing demands the collective courage to hold one another accountable, to co‑imagine more beautiful possibilities and to cultivate the shared clarity and resolve needed to pursue them. Imagination can help us sketch the future we long for, clarity lights our path toward it and courage supplies our stride: Each feeds the next in a journey that carries us from injury to transcendence.

Across our campuses, educators at every level (librarians defending banned books, faculty resisting diluted curricula, department chairs shielding vulnerable programs and, yes, the occasional president who chooses conscience over position) are modeling what it means to align clarity, courage and imagination. Each act, whether public or quietly steadfast, reminds us that collective moral injury can become a springboard for systemic renewal. When we discern what truly matters, dare to envision just alternatives and summon the courage to act together, we shift from enduring harm to transcending it. In so doing, we begin to rebuild higher education on the ethical foundations that first called us to teach and learn.

Mays Imad is an associate professor of biology at Connecticut College. She serves as an AAC&U Senior STEM Fellow as well as a scholar in residence at the Red House at Georgetown University and a research fellow with the Centre for the Study of the Afterlife of Violence and the Reparative Quest at Stellenbosch University. She writes on higher education, effective teaching, stress, learning and the brain.
Source link
August 5, 2025
AI in the University From Assistant to Autonomous Agent
We have become accustomed to generative artificial intelligence in the past couple of years. That will not go away, but increasingly, it will serve in support of agents.

“Where generative AI creates, agentic AI acts.” That’s how my trusted assistant, Gemini 2.5 Pro deep research, describes the difference. By the way, I commonly use Gemini 2.5 Pro as one of my research tools, as I have in this column, however, it is I who writes the column.

Agents, unlike generative tools, create and perform multistep goals with minimal human supervision. The essential difference is found in its proactive nature. Rather than waiting for a specific, step-by-step command, agentic systems take a high-level objective and independently create and execute a plan to achieve that goal. This triggers a continuous, iterative workflow that is much like a cognitive loop. The typical agentic process involves six key steps, as described by Nvidia:
User or Machine Request

The LLM: Understanding the Task

The LLM acts as the brain of the AI agent. It interprets the user’s prompt to understand the task requirements.

Planning Module: Task Breakdown

The planning module divides the task into specific actions.

Memory Module: Providing Context

The memory module ensures context is preserved for efficient task execution.

Tool Integration: Performing the Task

The agent core orchestrates external tools to complete each step.

Reasoning and Reflection: Improving Outcomes

Throughout the process, the agent applies reasoning to refine its workflow and enhance accuracy.
An early version of a general agent was released last week by OpenAI to their paid subscribers of ChatGPT. The message accompanying the release explains the potential for power and productivity as well as the care one must take to ensure privacy:

“ChatGPT agent allows ChatGPT to complete complex online tasks on your behalf. It seamlessly switches between reasoning and action—conducting in-depth research across public websites, uploaded files, and connected third-party sources (like email and document repositories), and performing actions such as filling out forms and editing spreadsheets—all while keeping you in control. To use ChatGPT agent, select ‘Agent mode’ from the tools menu or type /agent in the composer. Once enabled, just describe the task you’d like completed, and the agent will begin executing it. It will pause to request clarification or confirmation whenever needed. You can also interrupt the model at any time to provide additional instructions … When you sign ChatGPT agent into websites or enable connectors, it will be able to access sensitive data from those sources, such as emails, files, or account information. Additionally, it will be able to take actions as you on these sites, such as sharing files or modifying account settings. This can put your data and privacy at risk due to the existence of ‘prompt injection’ attacks online.”

I tried the new agent for an update on an ongoing research project I have been conducting this year. It was faster than the ChatGPT-o3 deep research product I have used previously. The report was more concise but included all the data I expected for my weekly update. It also condensed and formatted relevant material in tables. I was careful with the way in which I handled sharing personal information with the agent. Over time, I am confident that more secure ways will be found to protect users and their privacy.

Inherently, the agentic AI is different from the generative AI. Generative AI is like a brilliant but rather passive research assistant that requires constant, explicit direction. You must provide a series of precise, individual prompts to get it to complete your real objective. Agentic AI, on the other hand, functions more like an experienced project leader. You provide it with a high-level, strategic objective such as “Prepare a report for the provost that outlines the potential of offering a number of relevant new online AI certificate programs this fall targeted to large regional corporations.”

The agent then autonomously deconstructs this goal into a multistep workflow. It will search for relevant topics and targets, identify potential programs, compare and contrast current and potential offerings with those at competing institutions, generate a ROI over time analysis, synthesize the findings, draft the briefing document, access the provost’s calendar, identify available meeting times, and send a calendar invitation with the briefing attached.

That’s just one example. Agentic AI will be useful in many aspects of the university operation. It will promote efficiency, accuracy and save significant money through its round-the-clock productivity. Here are some key areas where agentic AI may be useful in the year ahead.
- Student recruitment, admissions and support: We are already seeing agentic AI transforming recruitment from a high-volume, nonpersonalized process into a deeply individualized and proactive process. Engaging prospective students 24-7 across multiple communication channels, agents tailor their outreach with the promise of personalized learning that has been a central goal of educational technology. Agentic AI is poised to make this vision a reality at scale.
- Teaching and learning: At last, agentic AI can personalize the learning process. These systems function as autonomous, 24-7 AI tutors that adapt to each student’s unique learning pace and style. The agentic tutor can assess a student’s understanding of a concept, identify any knowledge gaps and adapt the materials for each learner to create a personalized learning path. By employing techniques such as Socratic questioning, an agent can guide a student through a problem-solving process, adapting to the learner’s understanding of the topic and prompting them to think critically, rather than simply providing the correct answer. This can lead to mastery learning, where all learners master the key concepts of a class before they are awarded credit. No learner is left behind.
- Administrative support: Agentic AI can create enhanced, annotated grade books and continuously updated, enhanced course plans for faculty; predictive analytic reports for deans and directors; individualized retention and advancement recommendations; marketing and public relations materials and plans; library recommendations for acquisitions and student engagement; and many more functions across the spectrum of administration.
AI agents will offer the next level of artificial intelligence to higher education. We can anticipate embodied agents becoming available in a year or so. Meanwhile, I encourage us all to experiment with agentic AI as it becomes available. In doing so, we can begin to create our own personalized, proactive, professional assistant that can anticipate our needs and implement our preferences.

Who at your university is leading the move to agentic AI? Perhaps you may be in a position to model the efficiency and professionalism of AI agents.
Source link
August 5, 2025
3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

We have a long history of working with Scott Jeffe during his time as the VP of research at RNL. Recently, Scott moved on from RNL to begin working as an independent higher ed market research consultant and adviser to universities. To learn more about the work that Scott does and to hopefully gain some insight into where things may be going with online and graduate programs, we asked Scott the following questions.

Q: Tell us about what it means to be an independent higher ed market researcher. What sort of projects do you work on? How does what you do for universities differ from the services available from traditional consulting firms?

A: In higher education, the best market research means more than just gathering data—it means showing up as a consultant. That’s something I’ve really learned throughout my career. Too often, I see research reports that are, frankly, hard to interpret or apply. The data might be sound, but it’s overly complex, the visualizations are unclear or the recommendations are disconnected from the realities of how colleges and universities actually operate.

I’ve had those moments—looking at a data visualization and spending several minutes just trying to figure out what it’s supposed to say. And I know that no dean, provost or president has the time to do that. I’ve also read plenty of conclusions that are technically accurate but completely impractical in the real-world context of higher ed. That’s the kind of disconnect that leads campus leaders to quietly shelve the report, walk away and think, “Well, that was a waste of money.”

That is exactly what my work today seeks to avoid. My research and consulting prioritize being more direct, actionable and grounded in higher ed’s current challenges. My work now spans both institutional consulting and national research, and I think that balance is part of what makes my approach effective. For example, I’ve recently completed national studies on graduate student expectations and mentorship, which give me insight into broader trends that I can then bring into highly tailored campus-level work.

Over the past six months, I’ve developed four core services designed specifically for this moment in higher ed—politically, economically and culturally. They’re affordable, practical and fast to implement. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions, but I do believe institutions deserve work that respects their time, their context and their need to move quickly on what matters.

That’s ultimately the difference between what I offer and what many vendors often provide. I’m not just delivering a report—I’m helping institutions make real decisions, grounded in both the data and the dynamics of higher ed today.

Q: What are the most significant challenges and opportunities for universities wanting to grow graduate and/or online enrollment today?

A: At the graduate level, one of the biggest looming challenges is the likely decline in international enrollment, which has quietly propped up graduate enrollment growth for the past several years. Under the Biden administration, we saw international graduate enrollment rise by more than 117,000 students—reaching over 500,000 total. Just last year, international students made up a full one-third of new graduate enrollments in the U.S., and over 200 institutions reported that international students represented more than 30 percent of their total graduate population.

But we have to be clear-eyed: Not only is that level of growth not sustainable, but decline is coming. Whether due to shifting geopolitics, visa policy changes or growing global competition, institutions will need to refocus their efforts on the domestic graduate market—and fast.

That said, there’s opportunity in the challenge. In fact, the current job market will likely nudge more adults to consider graduate study as a buffer or springboard during economic uncertainty. The catch? Institutions are now facing unprecedented competition. By some counts, we’re adding 800 new master’s programs each year. To grow—or even maintain—enrollment, institutions must have an acute understanding of what today’s graduate students expect. That means building a blueprint rooted in student preferences and behaviors and then aligning everything—program design, marketing, recruitment and support—around those insights.

That’s where much of my work comes in. Over the last two decades, I’ve helped institutions do exactly this through tools like my Scorecard and Playbook and the Audience Alignment Study, which zero in on how to position programs for today’s increasingly selective learners.

Now, on the online education side, the landscape is a bit more favorable at the moment—particularly due to the regulatory environment calming down. The Biden administration’s push to more heavily regulate online programs—particularly around OPMs and state reciprocity—has largely been shelved. That’s good news for smaller institutions, where online offerings often represent the best path to enrollment stability or growth. Interestingly, one of the unintended effects of that regulatory scrutiny is that OPM contract terms are now much more favorable than they were a few years ago. Institutions have more leverage.

In terms of opportunity, there are two major areas I’m watching closely. First, the long-discussed but rarely well-executed effort to serve the 30 to 40 million U.S. adults with some college and no credential is almost entirely an online opportunity. However, most institutions struggle to fully serve this group. The barriers tend to fall into three key areas: restrictive credit transfer policies, pricing models that remain out of reach and a misplaced assumption that these students will return to campus for their courses. Institutions that succeed here build fully online programs with wraparound support—advising, tech help, financial aid guidance—specifically designed for students who haven’t set foot on a campus in years. And when they do that, it doesn’t just help this population—it improves online education quality for everyone.

The second opportunity is more subtle but just as important: the increased demand from traditional undergraduates for access to online courses. While this isn’t online program growth in the classic sense, it presents a major advantage. A robust online course infrastructure doesn’t just support distance learners—it makes the entire campus experience more flexible, more attractive and more resilient. For institutions, that’s a strategic win across multiple audiences.

Q: How can universities better choose which programs to start and invest in and then grow enrollments to financially sustainable numbers?

A: At all levels, I think most institutions are doing a much better job now of integrating market data into their program decision-making. There’s a pretty direct line between the era when those insights were missing and the wave of program cuts we’re seeing now. For instance, Inside Higher Ed recently reported that Indiana’s public institutions have combined or eliminated over 400 programs that weren’t meeting fairly modest graduation thresholds. That’s a clear example of the consequences of earlier decisions made without solid market alignment.

When I work with institutions on program strategy, my role is really to facilitate a conversation that balances market data and institutional strengths. I bring the external perspective—labor market demand, competitor analysis, growth trends—and they bring the internal knowledge of what they’re truly good at. The goal isn’t just to chase hot programs, but to find areas where there’s strong or emerging market demand and where the institution already has expertise, capacity and visibility. That combination is where real opportunity lives.

Why take that approach? Because institutions need quick wins. We’re often working with limited time and resources and pressure to show results. If you can build momentum by improving or reconfiguring an existing program—something that already has a foundation—you get to impact faster and more cost-effectively. In fact, across dozens of program prioritization studies I’ve been involved in, I’ve rarely seen a proposed new program with more short- or midterm market potential than several underperforming existing ones. That’s why I usually recommend a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 investment ratio favoring existing programs over net-new launches.

Once we identify the right programs to focus on, differentiation becomes key—especially in the online space, where commodification is a real concern. Institutions need detailed competitor intelligence, not just high-level benchmarking. We’re looking at how programs are positioned, how they’re structured and what messages they’re putting in front of students. That kind of granularity allows us to develop a true blueprint for differentiation—one that goes beyond clichés like “small class sizes” or “personalized attention” and speaks to what really sets a program apart.

And finally, with federal regulations increasingly focused on graduate outcomes and return on investment, it’s more important than ever to bake those metrics—job openings, wage growth, projected earnings—into the program planning process from the beginning. We’re entering a new phase where programs will be judged not just on academic merit or enrollment numbers, but on how they impact students’ long-term economic success.

So to me, the smartest institutions are those that align their strengths with market needs, invest in what they already do well and differentiate with purpose—grounded in real data.

Source link

August 5, 2025
International Student Enrollment Could Drop 15% by Fall

International student enrollment is projected to decline this fall, based on projections from NAFSA using publicly available federal data.

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

New international enrollments in the U.S. could drop by as many as 150,000 students in the next year, according to scenario modeling by NAFSA, the association of international educators, and JB International.

Based on a 30 to 40 percent decline in new students, the research projects that colleges and universities could see a 15 percent drop in overall international student enrollments in the next academic year, resulting in $7 billion in lost revenue and 60,000 fewer jobs.

“This analysis … should serve as a clarion call to the State Department that it must act to ensure international students and scholars are able to arrive on U.S. campuses this fall,” said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA, in a press release. “For the United States to succeed in the global economy, we must keep our doors open to students from around the world.”

The modeling is based on data from the Department of Homeland Security’s SEVIS By the Numbers and State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Annual J-1 Exchange Visitor Report, as well as State’s Monthly Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance Statistics, available through May 2025.

NAFSA attributes the projected decline to recent changes to international student visa processing under the Trump administration.

The State Department paused student visa interviews between May 27 and June 18, during peak issuance season, and then implemented vetting protocols for students’ social media accounts, which may have impeded some students’ ability to receive a visa.

NAFSA member institutions have also reported there are limited or no appointments available for their international students in China, India, Japan and Nigeria, which are among the top countries of origin for international students studying in the U.S.

On June 4, President Trump signed an executive order restricting visitors from 19 countries, but visa issuances for students from those countries had already begun to drop. F-1 visa issuances declined 150 percent and J-1 issuances declined 105 percent in May compared to last year, according to an Inside Higher Ed analysis of State Department data.

Over all, F-1 and J-1 visa issuance dropped 12 percent from January to April 2025 and an additional 22 percent year over year in May. NASFA’s report estimates that June 2025 F-1 visa issuances will decline as much as 90 percent under the new policies.

NAFSA is urging Congress to direct the State Department to provide expedited visa appointments for F-1, M-1 and J-1 visa applicants as well as exempt international students from travel restrictions.

The projection does not reflect increasing anxieties among international students interested in studying in the U.S.; a May survey by Study Portals reported student interest in studying in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest point since COVID-19, with students considering other English-speaking nations like the U.K. or Australia instead.

Current visa projections only account for fall 2025 enrollment. In a July interview with Inside Higher Ed, Rachel Banks, senior director of public policy and legislative strategy at NAFSA, noted some colleges and universities are anticipating international students will be unable to make the start of classes in the fall but may be able to come to campus later in the term or in the winter.

Source link

August 5, 2025
Can Western New Mexico U Recover a Golden Parachute?

Western New Mexico University is looking to claw back $1.9 million in severance already paid to former president Joseph Shepard, who stepped down in January following a spending scandal.

Shepard, who led the university for nearly 14 years, resigned late last year in the aftermath of media reports that found he spent university funds to upgrade the president’s house with lavish furniture. Critics also raised questions about costly recruiting trips to Greece, Spain and Zambia that yielded very few enrollments from those countries. The Office of the State Auditor determined in November that Shepard “engaged in the waste of public funds” and found instances where his travel appeared to be “unrelated to official university business.”

But in December, after the damning details came to light, board members—some of whom had joined the president on international trips—gave Shepard nearly $2 million in severance, plus additional fringe benefits and a five-year faculty contract that required him to teach six credit hours a year, though he had the option to do so online. Shepard’s annual faculty salary is set at $200,000, down from the base salary of $365,000 he was making as president.

The agreement prompted outrage at WNMU, which is located in one of the nation’s poorest states and has many low-income students. Democratic governor Michelle Lujan Grisham subsequently demanded the resignation of the board, who complied, and has since appointed new members.

Last week, the new board voided Shepard’s separation agreement and terminated his teaching contract, arguing that the regents who struck the deal did so improperly and in violation of New Mexico’s Open Meetings Act. State officials have made similar arguments in a related lawsuit.

A Board Reversal

WNMU regents took up Shepard’s contract and separation agreement at a Thursday meeting.

John V. Wertheim, one of the new regents appointed by the governor in recent months, argued that the prior board failed to provide proper notice of the action items at the December meeting where they approved Shepard’s contract. Given the alleged failure of compliance with New Mexico’s Open Meetings Act, Wertheim argued that the board’s approval of the deal was invalid.

In two separate motions, the board unanimously agreed to invalidate the deal and terminate Shepard’s teaching contract. Board Chair Steven Neville said the agreement is now “in limbo.”

Wertheim noted that while WNMU’s board hired special counsel to advise them on the matter, there are outstanding questions, many of which he said regents would not be able to answer immediately due to both the legal complexity of the issue and because it is a personnel matter.

“I’m sure both the press and the public are going to have a lot of questions, and all I ask is that there be patience … because all of these detailed questions, we don’t necessarily have the answers today to give everyone, but we will, in due course,” Wertheim said at the meeting.

Following the vote, Shepard accused WNMU in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed of orchestrating a smear campaign against him.

“After serving 14 exemplary years of advancing the university, it’s troubling that this new, Governor-appointed Board has chosen this path. This is a matter before the courts. The Board’s desire to attempt to circumvent the legal process is telling in that they know they can’t win where facts matter and are doing all they can to prevent the truth from being shared,” Shepard wrote, calling the move an effort to destroy his reputation and career.

But the state’s governor praised the board’s decisions as the “right thing.”

“They recognized that public dollars must serve the public good, not pad executive pockets during difficult transitions,” Lujan Grisham wrote on social media. “This decision represents exactly the kind of fiscal responsibility and accountability New Mexicans deserve from their public institutions. Our students and their families work too hard and sacrifice too much to see their tuition dollars and taxpayer investments squandered on excessive golden parachutes.”

What’s Next?

WNMU declined to provide a comment to Inside Higher Ed, noting the situation was a personnel matter. But according to board members’ remarks, a legal fight with Shepard is expected and a settlement remains a possibility.

Complicating the matter are two lawsuits brought by the state.

New Mexico attorney general Raúl Torrez filed a lawsuit earlier this year in an effort to void the contract and recover severance payments. Torrez argued regents breached their fiduciary duty by approving the costly agreement and violated open meeting laws at December’s meeting.

Torrez brought the initial complaint in January and amended it in February. While he initially attempted to block the payment, that effort was unsuccessful, as the funds had already been disbursed. The legal fight in that case is ongoing.

Then, in late June, the New Mexico State Ethics Commission also sued Shepard, accusing him of violating the Governmental Conduct Act, which applies to state employees. In addition to the prior complaints of lavish spending, the commission accused him of diverting $177,404 intended for an ADA-compliant walkway and ramp to instead construct a walkway and patio “for the purpose of hosting events related to his daughter’s wedding” held on campus.

(Shepard has denied that university funds were used to help pay for his daughter’s wedding.)

The lawsuit also alleges that as president, “Shepard had a practice of authorizing university expenditures from which he benefited that were only loosely connected to university purposes.”

The commission is seeking financial penalties and for Shepard to reimburse WNMU for the construction of the originally planned ADA-compliant ramp and walkway, which were not built.

Back at the university, board members say they are open to some financial compensation for the former president. Had Shepard been fired for cause, he would have received no severance. Had he been fired without cause, he would have received less than $600,000, per the contract he previously negotiated with the board in 2022.

Wertheim indicated at Thursday’s meeting a desire to reach a settlement.

“The best resolution for everyone is to get this in front of a retired judge or justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court to hammer out a fair, negotiated settlement,” he said at the meeting.

Before Thursday’s vote, Shepard was reportedly scheduled to teach two online classes this fall, including one on business ethics. However, Interim president Chris Maples told The Silver City Daily Press that he and other officials plan to meet to determine what will happen with those courses. And with the semester starting Aug. 15, they’ll need to make a decision soon.

“Whatever we do, we’ll do the best job we possibly can for our students,” he told the newspaper.

Source link

August 5, 2025
Recognizing First-Gen Student Athletes

First-generation students can often feel alone or isolated on their college campuses, but a new initiative at the University of Texas, San Antonio, seeks to put first-generation student athletes in the spotlight.

Starting this fall, UTSA competitive athletes will be given special patches to place on their uniforms, recognizing their unique identity as a first-gen learner.

“We’ve been really intentional about telling the stories of our student athletes and sharing their personal stories that extend far beyond the fields and courts of competition,” said Lisa Campos, vice president for intercollegiate athletics and athletic director.

Approximately 45 percent of UTSA’s student population are the first in their families to attend college, and over one-third of student athletes (or 113 students) are also first-gen learners. So far, a majority of student athletes have opted to wear the patch—which displays the campus mascot, a roadrunner, and the words “first gen”—on their uniforms for the upcoming year, Campos said.

First gen in context: While NCAA student athletes are more likely to report thriving while in college, according to a study by Gallup, first-generation students are less likely to be engaged and connected on campus.

A 2023 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse found 37 percent of first-gen students spent zero hours per week engaging in extracurricular activities, while just 25 percent of continuing-generation students reported spending no time participating in activities on campus.

Navigating institutional processes and the hidden curriculum of higher education can also be barriers to first-generation student success, because these students are less likely to ask for help or use campus resources.

“First-gen students need a lot of support and a lot of education about what the college experience is like because, unlike other students, there’s not someone in their household who can answer all of the questions they may have,” Campos said.

Past research shows, when given academic and emotional support, first-generation student athletes feel more driven and capable of graduating from their college or university.

Students on display: The patch is just one piece of how the university seeks to celebrate first-generation students’ identities. UTSA’s athletic department is in the middle of a campaign that highlights stories of first-generation students, coaches and staff, recognizing their unique experiences. The department is also creating a resource hub on its website for first-gen student athletes.

As a first-gen student herself, Campos said attending and graduating from college is a major accomplishment for these students because of how new and unfamiliar the experience can be. “It’s important to us to recognize those student athletes who every day are changing the trajectory of their families for generations to come.”

Many of UTSA’s athletic staff members, including those on the leadership team or senior staff, are also first-generation college graduates, which Campos said provides them a better understanding of how to support student athletes.

Across the university, first-generation students can participate in a mentorship program and other special programming from the First-Generation and Transfer Student division.

How does your campus celebrate first-generation student identities? Tell us about it.

Source link

August 5, 2025