While many students experience growing pains in the transition from high school to college, today’s learners face an extra challenge emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic. Many students experienced learning loss in K-12 as a result of distance learning, which has stunted their readiness to engage fully in academia.
Three faculty members in the communications division at DePaul University noticed a disconnect in their own classrooms as they sought to connect with students. They decided to create their own intervention to address learners’ lack of communication and self-efficacy skills.
Since 2022, DePaul has offered a two-credit communication course that assists students midway through the term and encourages reflection and goal setting for future success. Over the past four terms, faculty members have seen demonstrated change in students’ self-perceptions and commitment to engage in long-term success strategies.
The background: Upon returning to in-person instruction after the pandemic, associate professor Jay Baglia noticed students still behaved as though their classes were one-directional Zoom calls, staring blankly or demonstrating learned helplessness from a lack of deadlines and loose attendance policies.
“We were seeing a greater proportion of students who were not prepared for the college experience,” says Elissa Foster, professor and faculty fellow of the DePaul Humanities Center.
Previous research showed that strategies to increase students’ collaboration and participation in class positively impacted engagement, helping students take a more active role in their learning and classroom environment.
The faculty members decided to create their own workshop to equip students with practical tools they can use in their academics and their lives beyond.
How it works: Offered for the first time in fall 2022, the Communication Fundamentals for College Success course is a two-credit, five-week course that meets for two 90-minute sessions a week, for a total of 10 meetings. The class is housed in the College of Communication but available to all undergraduate students.
The course is co-taught and was developed by Foster and Kendra Knight, associate professor in the college of communication and an assessment consultant for the center for teaching and learning. Guest speakers from advising and the Office of Health Promotion and Wellness provide additional perspective.
(from left to right) Jay Baglia, Elissa Foster and Kendra Knight developed a short-form course to support students’ capabilities in higher education and give them tools for future success.
Aubreonna Chamberlain/DePaul University
Course content includes skills and behaviors taught in the context of communication for success: asking for help, using university resources, engaging in class with peers and professors, and learning academic software. It also touches on more general behaviors like personal awareness, mindfulness, coping practices, a growth mindset, goal setting and project management.
The demographics of students enrolled in the course vary; some are transfers looking for support as they navigate a university for the first time. Others are A students who wanted an extra course in their schedule. Others are juniors or seniors hoping to gain longer-term life skills to apply to their internships or their lives as professionals and find work-life balance.
Throughout the course, students turned in regular reflection exercises for assessment and the final assignment was a writing assignment to identify three tools that they will take with them beyond this course.
What’s different: One of the challenges in launching the course was distinguishing its goals from DePaul’s Chicago Quarter, which is the first-year precollege experience. Baglia compares the college experience to taking an international vacation: While you might have a guidebook and plan well for the experience beforehand, once you’re in country, you face challenges you didn’t anticipate or may be overwhelmed.
Orientation is the guidebook students receive before going abroad, and the Communication for Success Class is their tour guide along the way.
“I think across the country, universities and college professors are recognizing that scaffolding is really the way to go, particularly with first-generation college students,” Baglia says. “They don’t always have the language or the tools or the support or the conversations at home that prepare them for the strangeness of living on their own [and navigating higher education].”
A unique facet of the course is that it’s offered between weeks three and seven in the semester, starting immediately after the add-drop period concludes and continuing until midterms. This delayed-start structure means the students enrolled in the course are often looking for additional credits to keep their full-time enrollment status, sometimes after dropping a different course.
The timing of the course also requires a little time and trust, because most students register for it later, not during the course registration period. Baglia will be teaching the spring 2025 term and, as of Jan. 10, he only has two students registered.
“It has not been easy convincing the administrators in our college to give it some time … Students have to register for this class [later],” Baglia says.
The results: Foster, Knight and Baglia used a small grant to study the effects of the intervention and found, through the data, a majority of students identified time management and developing a growth mindset as the tools they want to keep working on, with just under half indicating self-care and 40 percent writing about classroom engagement.
In their essays, students talked about mapping out their deadlines for the semester or using a digital calendar to stay on top of their schedules. Students also said they were more likely to view challenges as opportunities for growth or consider their own capabilities as underdeveloped, rather than stagnant or insufficient.
The intervention has already spurred similar innovation within the university, with the College of Science and Health offering a similar life skills development course.
Course organizers don’t have plans to scale the course at present, but they are considering ways to collect more data from participants after they finish the course and compare that to the more general university population.
Since winning the election, Trump has yet to offer more details on how he will fulfill the policy promises he’s made.
Colleges, meanwhile, have mostly adopted a wait-and-see approach to the incoming Trump administration. Over all, reactions to Trump’s election on college campuses were more muted this time around compared to the protests and outcry in 2016.
Trump’s impact on higher education will likely vary according to the type of institution. For instance, for-profits and other colleges are expecting less red tape and oversight from the administration, while historically Black colleges and universities are preparing to educate the administration and Congress about their institutions and their value.
Trump’s Team So Far
He tapped Linda McMahon—former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, co-chair of his transition team and founder of a pro-Trump think tank—to carry out his anti–diversity, equity and inclusion education agenda and shrink the department.
McMahon has yet to receive a confirmation hearing in the Senate, but she’s expected to get the green light. Who else will serve with McMahon in key roles related to higher ed such as the under secretary, assistant secretary of civil rights and chief operating officer for Federal Student Aid is not yet clear.
Trump did nominate former Tennessee commissioner of education Penny Schwinn as deputy secretary Friday. Schwinn, who will likely focus primarily on K-12 policy, was part of former University of Florida president Ben Sasse’s cabinet as vice president for PK-12 and pre-bachelor’s programs.
Trump doesn’t need McMahon and her team in place to get started. While day one of the administration will be filled with much of the traditional pomp and circumstance, the president’s transition team has also said it will include the signing of 200 executive orders, Fox Newsreported Sunday, which would be a record.
It’s not clear how many of those orders will affect colleges and universities, but higher education, which received little attention from Trump in his first term, is expected to rank higher on the administration’s priority list this time around. Actions related to diversity, equity and inclusion programs; transgender students; campus antisemitism; and immigration could be among the first on the docket.
During his first administration, Trump toned down oversight of for-profit colleges, issued new Title IX rules that bolstered due process protections for those accused of assault and appointed a conservative majority to the U.S. Supreme Court, paving the way for justices to later strike down affirmative action in June 2023, among other changes.
Now, just as he did in the first term with Obama’s policies, Trump will likely roll back many of the regulations President Biden put in place. Those include added steps to the process of merging or acquiring colleges, protections for borrowers who were misled by their higher ed institution and an income-driven repayment program that lowered monthly payments for millions of borrowers. Others, however, including gainful employment, might remain in place, as the GOP considers increasing federal oversight of colleges and universities.
Biden’s Team Wraps Up
Trump’s list of potential repeals grew shorter when a federal judge vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX rules. Other lawsuits challenging rules made by the Biden administration are still pending.
Before the holidays, Biden withdrew two debt-relief proposals, half-baked rules on accreditation and state authorization, and a controversial rule regarding the participation of transgender student athletes in women’s sports. The decision forces Trump to start at square one rather than leaving the existing policies open to amendment.
But the president may not even need to act himself on some of these issues as Republicans take the lead in Congress. House Republicans have passed legislation to ban trans women from women’s sports teams nationwide and to crack down on the detention of undocumented immigrants. The immigration bill could also potentially make it more difficult for international students from China and India to study in the U.S. The Senate voted Friday to advance that bill for a final vote, which could come as soon as Monday.
As Donald Trump returns to the White House on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day—with a GOP Congress behind him, a vice president who’s called universities “the enemy” and a WWE powerhouse tapped as his education secretary—it’s fair to say that the only certainty for U.S. higher education is uncertainty.
Trump’s attention to the sector during his first term was fleeting. He didn’t make higher ed a central issue in his protracted campaign for re-election, either, although he did call for axing the Education Department, firing accreditors, deporting campus protesters, eliminating DEI programs and launching a national online university.
His conservative allies have plenty of plans at the ready. Project 2025 has called for radical reform to reduce the federal role in higher ed and hand power to the states. GOP members of Congress will be eager to pass pent-up bills they couldn’t get through in the past four years—some welcome by many in higher ed, others stirring broad alarm.
And while Republicans are raring to reform higher ed, the sector limps into Trump Part II in a weakened state, scarred from plummeting trust in the value of a college education as well as scalding political rhetoric, congressional probes into campus antisemitism, state laws banning DEI programs and dictating curriculum changes, and the politicization of boards and presidencies—not to mention the imminent arrival of the long-dreaded demographic cliff.
It might sound like a grim state of affairs. But the priorities of the new administration and Congress—and how they might affect colleges and universities for both good and ill—are anybody’s guess at this point. So is their ability, or political will, to pass and implement sweeping reforms.
Not everyone is guessing, though. This is academia, after all—experts know things, or at least have highly educated guesses. So we asked a range of prominent leaders and scholars to identify their highest hope and greatest fear for the sector in the second Trump administration. No consensus emerges—again, after all, this is academia. But their collective insights shed some unexpected light on both the challenges and opportunities Trump’s second four years may present.
Some of their fears might not surprise you. But some of their hopes probably will. The responses have been edited for clarity and concision.
Paulette Granberry Russell
President of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education
My highest hope is that the administration respects and upholds the autonomy of higher education institutions and does not attempt to undermine them further.
We have witnessed continual attacks by the states on institutional autonomy, academic freedom and free speech. I hope that federal policy will not extend these attacks through the elimination of critical departments, drastic changes via executive orders or significant reductions in funding to the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services—agencies whose resources and policies underpin equity, inclusion and access. For institutional leaders, courage and consistency in prioritizing equity, access and opportunity will be crucial to preserving the transformative mission of higher education.
My greatest worry is that inclusive strategies and interventions, many catalyzed by landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX in 1972, will stall—or worse, regress. Federal policy modeled after restrictive state-level legislation would disproportionately harm individuals and communities that have historically faced discrimination. Efforts to dismantle programs aimed at achieving more equitable outcomes—programs that have yielded measurable benefits for generations—would erode the progress made in expanding access and success for underrepresented students. The implications of such rollbacks would extend beyond higher education institutions, threatening the broader economy and society. Diverse, equitable campuses don’t just benefit individual students; they create a pipeline of leaders and innovators essential for a competitive global workforce.
Miriam Feldblum
Executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration
In the coming years, there will undoubtedly be harsh immigration and border policies, increased deportations and some restricted opportunities to stay and work in the U.S. for those with temporary or fragile immigration statuses. Yet my greatest hope is that we recognize, solidify and even expand real opportunities to find common ground, including ways for higher ed institutions and campuses to support these students and other campus members. President Trump recently said that he wants to work to find a way for Dreamers to stay and keep contributing. He has also suggested giving green cards to international student graduates and said he supports H-1B visas. Higher ed leaders and institutions should seize these opportunities for common ground.
My greatest fear, meanwhile, is that America squanders the potential of Dreamers, immigrant-origin and international students through restrictive policies. The U.S. is facing an immense talent imperative to sustain our global economic competitiveness, drive innovation, fill workforce shortages and produce a trained and dedicated workforce. Higher education institutions are essential to meeting these challenges. And immigrant-origin students—including Dreamers and refugees, and other first- and second-generation immigrant students—along with international students make up over a third of all students in higher education. The loss of this talent due to misguided immigration policies, fear and targeted enforcement actions would be self-defeating for our nation’s future.
Barbara Snyder
President of the Association of American Universities
President Trump has repeatedly said he wants to make America great and keep us ahead of China and other competitor nations. I am optimistic that he will support policies and investments that ensure the United States continues to be the world’s leader in scientific research. The president and Congress can secure that position by both increasing our public investments in cutting-edge research and by promoting policies that make it easy for the world’s best and brightest technological and scientific minds to study, work and stay here and advance U.S. innovation and economic growth.
My single greatest fear would be that some might try to convince the president to pull back these investments in America’s greatness and close ourselves off from the global talent and knowledge that has helped make our country great. I hope that he and Congress will resist that shortsightedness and will choose to recommit our country to the government-university research partnership that has made us the world’s strongest and most prosperous country.
Jeremy Young
Director of state and higher education policy at PEN America
Over the past four years, a group of lawmakers and conservative think tanks have waged merciless war on free expression in the higher education sector. Fifteen states have passed laws that censor ideas on college and university campuses, and the new federal administration seems poised to expand this ideological war on higher education into new arenas: weaponizing federal research funding, Title VI enforcement and accreditation to restrict ideas on campus while engaging in endless bullying and jawboning of university leaders to force “voluntary” closures of diversity offices and academic programs.
My fear is that the new administration will carry forward this destructive playbook, actively suppressing politically disfavored viewpoints on campus and destroying the ideological autonomy of higher education institutions. But my hope is that it will step back from the abyss. Scientific discovery, cultural creation, the fostering of critical thinking skills employers seek in new graduates and the promotion of democratic pluralism among the rising generation—these outcomes are only possible if colleges and universities remain places where all ideas are open for debate, not just those the government agrees with.
Ivory Toldson
Howard University professor, editor in chief of The Journal of Negro Education and former executive director of the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Under a second Trump administration, my highest hope is for the continued growth and expansion of HBCUs. These institutions have historically enjoyed bipartisan support, and even Project 2025 acknowledges the importance of providing federal support to historically Black and tribal colleges. Compared to many of the highest-ranked predominantly white institutions (PWIs), HBCUs enroll a higher percentage of U.S. citizens, which may shield them from challenges associated with more restrictive immigration policies. Moreover, as race-conscious admissions policies are rolled back, HBCUs could play a critical role in supporting Black students who may be denied opportunities at PWIs, further solidifying their importance in U.S. higher education.
My greatest worry lies in the challenges to diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which could leave Black students at PWIs with fewer resources to address persistent issues of equity, access and institutional racism. Without these programs, Black students may face increased racial hostilities with fewer protections and support systems. Additionally, efforts to weaken or eliminate the Education Department could severely threaten funding for lower-income students, particularly through federal student aid programs. Combined with growing anti–higher education attitudes, these threats could place colleges and universities under heightened scrutiny, hurt enrollment and jeopardize the future of higher education as a whole.
Jeremi Suri
Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs and professor of public affairs and history, University of Texas at Austin
Republican politicians love to attack the elitism of higher education, even as they leverage their own elite pedigrees for money and power. Republicans do not really want to destroy higher education; they want to own it for themselves. I expect that the next four years will make this clear and open a wider discussion about who should have access to higher education and how we can broaden it for those who feel left out. So far, Republicans have relied on attacking DEI and “woke” culture, but what do they want to replace it with on college campuses? They cannot go back to the white male–only institutions of the early 20th century. As Republicans are forced to articulate a coherent vision for access in higher education, I expect a more open and useful conversation that will bring us back to discussing diversity and affordability—not largely in terms of race and gender, but in terms of class and geography and family history. This will still be a difficult discussion, but one that might be more substantive, complex and even useful.
Republican politicians have also promoted a new “civics” agenda in higher education, based on an unproven claim that universities have abandoned the subject matter. The push for civics has meant more traditionalism and patriotism, less creativity and criticism. But that is a difficult agenda to take very far. If Republicans want universities to study more Madison, Jefferson and Lincoln, how can they avoid more (not less) study of pluralism, separation of church and state, and civil rights—the core issues for these most traditional historical figures? Republican advocacy for civics education must grapple with the complex questions that many Republicans wish to avoid. A serious discussion of civics in higher education will make this clear in coming years, and it will force these programs to widen their agenda or retreat into niche enclaves on campus. Most donors will prefer the former, which might build bridges with ecumenical faculty and students.
Nicole Smith
Chief economist at Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce
My single highest hope is for a renewed focus on workforce development and career readiness. Amid growing debates about the value of higher education, they have remained key priorities on the Trump platform. This focus presents opportunities for higher ed institutions to continue to innovate and expand programs that align closely with labor market demands. Vocational training, apprenticeship programs and technical education have been central to Trump’s agenda, providing a foundation for colleges and universities to build stronger partnerships with industries. This can drive innovation in areas such as competency-based learning, stackable credentials and enhanced internship opportunities. By equipping students with practical skills and clear career trajectories, higher education can continue to reinforce its role as a key driver of economic mobility—a topic sure to be on the minds of leaders in this new administration.
My greatest worry for the sector? Poorer outcomes for historically marginalized students, with no way to record it. Federal support for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, as well as academic research, is likely to be withdrawn entirely under the Trump administration. Efforts to defund or restrict DEI programs—particularly in public institutions—may intensify. These restrictions could also lead to the politicization of academic research, with areas like intergenerational mobility in education and income, gender equity and any evaluations by race or ethnicity potentially seeing funding reductions or shifts in priority. Such changes risk creating substantial obstacles for institutions committed to fostering inclusive environments and conducting research that addresses critical societal issues. For Black professionals in higher education, this presents a dual challenge: preserving DEI efforts in the face of external resistance while defending academic freedom in a climate increasingly marked by skepticism and distrust of research.
Sherene Seikaly
Associate professor at UC Santa Barbara and facilitator of the Faculty for Justice in Palestine network
My highest hope is that the Trump administration does not engage in repression, securitization, censorship and attenuation of higher education. My greatest worry is that the Trump administration will escalate the repression of social movements on campus, and in particular the movement standing with Palestinian liberation and political rights.
Miriam Elman
Executive director of the Academic Engagement Network
With alarming incidents of antisemitism occurring on campuses nationwide and beleaguered Jewish students increasingly reporting that they’re being harassed, bullied and marginalized, Donald Trump’s return to the White House is likely to result in better days ahead. Trump has already warned universities to expect a tougher stance from his administration, including the possible loss of accreditation and federal support, if they fail to address the rising level of antisemitism in their institutions. Under Trump, we may actually see several universities that are deemed in violation of civil rights law get their federal funds fully or partially cut off for not taking antisemitic bigotry and harassment seriously. This will be consequential not only for the affected schools, but will send a strong signal to other universities that antisemitism won’t be tolerated.
Tougher OCR [Office for Civil Rights] settlements are very likely coming down the pike, which is what many Jewish students, faculty and staff are hoping for. But we should be worried that at many schools there soon may no longer be adequate staffing to effectively address and combat antisemitism. With a second Trump administration, a Republican Congress and new Education Department leadership, we’ll see more diversity programs shuttered. For the Jewish community on campus, that’s going to mean a mixed bag. After all, it’s hard to see how antisemitism awareness training and educational programming will be rolled out if the staff needed to organize and facilitate these programs no longer have their jobs. To be sure, some poor DEI trainings exacerbate divisions and have done a terrible disservice to Jews on campus. Done well, though, these programs can benefit Jewish and all campus communities.
Kenneth Stern
Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate
I worry about a political attack on higher education and its effect on students and the ability of faculty to teach. Are students who are refugees from places like Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan and elsewhere going to face deportation? Are we going to see 18-year-olds deported because of how they view the war in Gaza? Will administrators, fearing overly aggressive Title VI cases, opt to suppress speech and academic freedom? No university should tolerate students being harassed or intimidated or bullied. But I fear that the new Congress and administration are going to draw lines not around actual safety but emotional safety, punishing universities that allow demonstrations with political expressions that some detest.
Vice President–elect JD Vance said that, as in Victor Orbán’s Hungary, the U.S. should give universities “a choice between survival or taking a much less biased approach to teaching.” Funding and endowments may be targeted after Jan. 20, and scholars teaching contentious subjects may be in the crosshairs. Sixty-eight years ago, the Supreme Court in Sweezy v. New Hampshire rejected a legal attack against a Marxist professor, upholding the importance of academic freedom. I don’t like some of what’s being taught today, either, but the remedy is certainly not government-imposed rules on what to think or teach.
Ted Mitchell
President of the American Council on Education and U.S. under secretary of education from 2014 to 2017
We’re encouraged by the emphasis the incoming Trump administration and the new Congress have placed on issues such as transparency and accountability related to student outcomes. This isn’t new, and it isn’t partisan, but meaningful change is long overdue. Finding the right balance between ensuring students have access to postsecondary education while creating meaningful consequences for programs that aren’t serving their students well isn’t easy. But there are a number of thoughtful proposals being discussed that we hope will lead to a real solution in the next two years. As I said in an open letter to President-elect Trump earlier this month, our overriding goal is to provide more opportunity for all Americans.
Given the enormous list of competing priorities a new administration juggles, my biggest worry is that in attempting to pay for major spending cuts and pass tax legislation, the administration and Congress will do the shortsighted thing and enact policies like cuts to student financial aid and research funding—all of which would hurt students, keep them from reaching their full potential and hamper our nation’s economy and security.
Jim Blew
Co-founder of the Defense Freedom Institute and assistant secretary of planning, evaluation and policy development for the Education Department from 2017 to 2020
I am optimistic that in the wake of the Biden-Harris administration’s management of FAFSA and the student loan portfolio, the incoming administration and Congress will agree on how to fix the broken Office of Federal Student Aid. That will require a new approach, perhaps located outside the department, that shields FSA’s operations from partisan agendas and changes the damaging incentives inherent to a performance-based organization that isn’t held accountable for financial performance. During those talks, I hope they can also align on policy reforms that will help all students access post–high school opportunities for a wide range of high-value career paths.
I’m worried that higher education institutions will misread the moment and try to stonewall efforts to hold them accountable when their students don’t get a good return on their investments or don’t repay their federal loans. If the higher ed lobby isn’t sincerely at the table, there’s a high risk that the resulting policy solutions will be less workable, or unworkable. There’s already a growing sentiment that the student loan portfolio has become a weapon of partisan politics. I wouldn’t test Congress’s patience, or there might be a severe reduction in the use of federal taxpayer funds to help our students afford postsecondary education.
Greg Lukianoff
President and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
My highest hope during the second Trump administration is for Congress to pass a bill that defines student-on-student harassment consistently with the speech-protective definition set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. Campus speech codes, however well intentioned, are routinely used to punish just about any speech that someone on campus doesn’t like. Until a federal judge vacated the Biden administration Title IX rules, the Education Department was forcing schools to use an unconstitutional definition of student-on-student harassment in both the Title IX and Title VI contexts. Properly applied, the Davis standard ensures that institutions protect students against actual discriminatory behavior as opposed to punishing students who merely express controversial viewpoints.
My greatest fear also involves possible legislation. Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed the unconstitutional Antisemitism Awareness Act. While antisemitic harassment is a serious problem on campuses, the AAA’s examples of antisemitism include statements critical of the state of Israel, which is core political speech protected by the First Amendment. Rather than resurrect the AAA, members of Congress can craft constitutional legislation that would address antisemitism on campuses by prohibiting harassment based on religion, confirming that federal law forbids discrimination based on ethnic stereotypes and codifying the Supreme Court’s definition of discriminatory harassment.
David Hoag
President of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities
We aspire to a higher education system that is more affordable, more accessible and more focused on the lifelong value of higher education, particularly within Christian institutions. In 2025, the CCCU hopes that the incoming administration recognizes the invaluable role of faith-based colleges in the United States. These institutions provide educational opportunities and enhance community engagement to the benefit of the entire nation. I am concerned that the current approach seeks to measure higher education through purely transactional, financial metrics, overlooking the holistic value of a liberal arts degree.
Walter Kimbrough
Interim president, Talladega College
My single highest hope is narrow. I hope that the Trump administration will continue to support the bipartisan HBCU fly-in each year in Washington, D.C., started in 2017 by Republicans. HBCUs are one of the few issues that receive overwhelming bipartisan support, and we hope that support continues not just with the meetings, but increased Title III and infrastructure funding, along with Pell Grant growth.
My greatest worry is broad. The attacks on the Department of Education overwhelmingly focus on K-12. But there would be significant harm done to college students and families if some of the proposed changes to the department actually take place. Instead of viewing higher education as the enemy, there is an opportunity to push higher education with resources to be more active in solving the nation’s problems.
Robert Eitel
Co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute, senior counselor to the secretary of education from 2017 to 2020 and deputy general counsel from 2005 to 2009
It’s time to bring reason and sanity back to Title IX. In defiance of the law’s text, structure and history, the Biden administration sought to leverage the law to institutionalize gender ideology in schools, colleges and universities. With the 2024 Title IX regulations vacated by a judge in December, I am hopeful that a [Linda] McMahon Education Department will not only vigorously investigate violations of the 2020 Title IX regulations but also take steps to safeguard women’s and girls’ athletics and facilities in educational institutions that receive federal funds.
While expectations are high for the second Trump Education Department, my greatest fear is that the pace of Senate confirmations of crucial subcabinet positions will be too slow. Although the secretary sets the goals, expectations, pace and tone, it is in the principal offices run by assistant secretaries where the nitty-gritty work of policy development, rule making and grants management occurs. Long-term vacancies in these offices would severely disrupt the president’s education agenda.
Heather Perfetti
President of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education
We face an opportunity to bridge perspectives around critical federal policy in ways that advance important dialogue for the benefit of our students, our communities and our global status while ensuring that any regulatory shifts contain a return on investment.
Federal policy, however, must not inhibit higher education activities in ways that are misaligned with the needs of students or the realities of the shifts in the sector. The increasingly diverse student population faces challenges requiring institutions to honor the many individualized approaches that we know help students achieve success along their academic journey. Policies that lack flexibility and diminish innovative approaches will stray from the recognition that institutions hold unique spaces within their communities and are driven by distinct missions. Misaligned policies, however, will make the sector’s challenges more pronounced. Ensuring a deep understanding of today’s accreditation and working with us accreditors will be critical to inform federal policy, as accreditation remains one of the most powerful levers available for influencing change and assuring value in higher education.
Todd Wolfson
President of the American Association of University Professors
We are deeply concerned that the bombastic rhetoric coming from politicians and propagandists will be used as justification to ramp up political interference and censorship in higher education and deepen the ongoing crisis of declining academic freedom, ballooning student debt and access to education for working-class Americans. Without a thriving, inclusive higher education system that serves the public good, the majority of Americans will be excluded from meaningful participation in our democracy and this country will move backward.
Margaret Spellings
President and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center, secretary of education from 2005 to 2009
We are falling short. Many are questioning the value of a college degree. Too many families find higher education out of reach. And our workforce faces a skills mismatch, with more than one million unfilled job openings. No one is questioning that there is room for improvement in higher education. BPC has launched a Commission on the American Workforce, which will convene during 2025 and draft a bipartisan strategy for Congress to nurture talent, expand opportunity and invest in our workforce.
My highest hope is that we can make the future recommendations from our commission a reality as Congress looks at the Higher Education Act, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and Perkins CTE Act.
Brigid Harrington
Higher ed attorney
My highest hope for higher ed over the next four years is that colleges and universities will focus on the tangible benefits of education and tailor their approach to the current American workforce. What does that mean in 2025? Definitely more affordable options. Probably more remote and flexible options. More than likely addressing the needs of students who are not on a traditional post–high school path to a bachelor’s degree.
My greatest worry is that colleges will forget their educational mission in the midst of unprecedented pressure from Congress and the executive branch to bow to politics. Higher education has always been a bastion of the free exchange of ideas, and that should not change. Our students and affiliates are not wallflowers and should be encouraged to engage in robust debate of the issues and to not devolve those discussions into speech that is harassing or, frankly, uneducated.
Johanna Alonso, Jessica Blake, Sara Custer, Susan H. Greenberg, Liam Knox, Josh Moody, Kathryn Palmer, Ryan Quinn and Sara Weissman contributed to this article.
Johns Hopkins University and the California Institute of Technology agreed to settle in a federal antitrust lawsuit that alleges 17 wealthy institutions, known as the 568 Presidents Group, illegally colluded on financial aid formulas and overcharged students for years.
Late Friday, JHU settled for $18.5 million and Caltech for $16.7 million, according to court filings. Both were more recent additions to the group, which was established in 1998. Johns Hopkins joined in November 2021, and Caltech in 2019.
The class action lawsuit was filed in January 2022 and initially implicated Caltech along with Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Emory, Georgetown, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Yale Universities; Dartmouth College; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and the Universities of Chicago, Notre Dame and Pennsylvania.
Johns Hopkins was added to the lawsuit in March 2022.
After Friday’s court filing, 12 of the 17 institutions have settled. Altogether the settlement amounts add up to nearly $320 million. Vanderbilt had the largest settlement: $55 million.
The five remaining defendants in the lawsuit—Cornell, Georgetown, MIT, Notre Dame and Penn—have denied wrongdoing and continue to fight the antitrust case in court. The 568 Presidents Group name is a reference to a carve-out in federal law that allowed member institutions to discuss financial aid formulas with immunity from federal antitrust laws due to their need-blind status. Congress created that exemption following a 1991 price-fixing scandal that involved all eight Ivy League universities and MIT.
The legislative carve-out expired in 2022, and the group subsequently dissolved.
However, plaintiffs have argued that defendants did consider financial circumstances and made decisions based on family wealth and donation history or capacity, often admitting students on “special interest lists” with substandard transcripts compared to the rest of accepted classes.
The American Historical Association’s top elected body has shot down a resolution opposing scholasticide in Gaza, after members who attended its annual convention approved the statement early this month by a 428-to-88 margin.
The association’s elected council, which has 16 voting members, could have accepted the resolution or sent it to the organization’s roughly 10,450 members for a vote. Instead, the council rejected it as the official position of the association.
Jim Grossman, the association’s executive director and a nonvoting member of the council, said the Thursday afternoon vote was 11 to 4, with one abstention. He said the meeting was over Zoom.
The rejected resolution had condemned the U.S. government’s funding of Israel, saying it “has supplied Israel with the weapons being used to commit this scholasticide” and that Israel “has effectively obliterated Gaza’s education system.” Scholasticide is defined as the intentional eradication of an education system.
The resolution also called for a permanent ceasefire and for the association to form a committee to help rebuild Gaza’s “educational infrastructure.”
In a written explanation of the veto, the council said it “deplores any intentional destruction of Palestinian educational institutions, libraries, universities and archives in Gaza.”
However, it considers the resolution to be a contravention of AHA’s “constitution and bylaws because it lies outside the scope of the association’s mission and purpose.” The constitution, the council noted, defines that mission and purpose as “the promotion of historical studies through the encouragement of research, teaching and publication; the collection and preservation of historical documents and artifacts; the dissemination of historical records and information; the broadening of historical knowledge among the general public; and the pursuit of kindred activities in the interest of history.”
Grossman said the vote to approve that explanation was 10 to zero with three abstentions, after some members left the meeting following the veto vote. He said he couldn’t reveal who voted which way in either tally because the discussion was confidential.
“We consider it imperative that council members be able to speak freely and candidly during the meeting, and that’s why they’re not recorded and that’s why we do not quote any individual council members,” Grossman said. “And they did speak freely and candidly.”
Van Gosse, a co-chair and founder of Historians for Peace and Democracy, which wrote the resolution, said “we are extremely shocked by this decision, and disappointed.” He said, “It overturns the democratic decision at that huge [conference] business meeting and the landslide vote.”
Anne Hyde, a council member and a University of Oklahoma history professor, said she voted to veto “to protect the AHA’s reputation as an unbiased historical actor,” noting that the organization does congressional briefings. She also said the current war in Gaza “is not settled history, so we’re not clear what happened or who to blame or when it began even, so it isn’t something that a professional organization should be commenting on yet.”
Asked why she didn’t support sending the resolution to the full membership for a vote, Hyde said, “As a council member, you really are thinking about the full 10,000 people, and it includes high school teachers, people who teach in really difficult circumstances and who don’t agree about this issue.” She said, “You could imagine all kinds of scenarios” where a full membership vote “still wasn’t representative.”
This marks the second time this academic year that the top body of a major scholarly organization has shot down a pro-Palestinian resolution before the group’s full membership could vote on it. In the fall, the Modern Language Association’s executive council rejected a resolution that would’ve also accused Israel of scholasticide—and would’ve gone further by endorsing the international boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israeli policy.
Unlike the American Historical Association, the Modern Language Association Executive Council, which has different bylaws, axed that resolution before its convention this month even began.
In February 2022, the AHA council did approve a statement on another current war. It condemned “in the strongest possible terms Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine” and said, “This act of overt military aggression violates the sovereignty of an independent Ukraine, threatening stability in the broader region and across the world.”
The statement rebutted Russian president Vladimir Putin’s historical justifications for the invasion, saying, “Putin grossly simplifies and distorts Ukraine’s history, essentially erasing its distinct past and rendering it indistinguishable from Russia.” The statement ended with this: “We vigorously support the Ukrainian nation and its people in their resistance to Russian military aggression and the twisted mythology that President Putin has invented to justify his violation of international norms.”
Grossman told Inside Higher Ed Friday that “the Ukraine statement was purely historical. It was well within our scope.” He said, “No serious professional historian in the United States considers Putin’s historical explanation to be anything close to accurate history, so the war itself was based on an abuse of history, and that’s what our statement addressed.” There’s “no such consensus” among U.S. historians on the situation in Gaza, he said.
Two pro-Israel organizations, the American Jewish Committee and the Academic Engagement Network, said they sent a joint letter to the council Thursday urging the veto. The letter calls the scholasticide accusation “preposterous.”
“There is no evidence to suggest that Israel is deliberately and systematically targeting the Palestinian educational system for destruction,” the letter said. “The resolution blatantly ignores the fact that Hamas routinely launches rockets from, and houses its weapons and fighters in, civilian structures and facilities.”
The organizations wrote that “as an institution, the AHA should steer clear of weighing in on contentious political conflicts, particularly when so many members vehemently disagree.” They said such resolutions can “create a hostile and unwelcoming environment for scholars and students who identify as Zionists and those with strong personal, academic and professional ties to Israel.” They further argued that “the association would be better served by adopting a stance of political neutrality on geopolitical issues.”
Racial healing circles, or opportunities for community members to share stories and connect on a human level, are common activities for the National Day of Racial Healing. This year is the ninth observance of the holiday.
AJ Watt/E+/Getty Images
Over the past two decades, higher education has grown exceptionally diverse, enrolling students from all backgrounds and offering opportunities for education and career development for historically underserved populations.
This diversification of the students, staff and faculty who make up higher education also offers opportunities for institutions to promote justice and racial healing through intentional education and programming. One annual marker of this work is the National Day of Racial Healing.
The background: The National Day of Racial Healing was established by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation in 2017 as part of the Truth, Racial Healing and Transformation (TRHT) initiative to bring people together and inspire action to build a more just and equitable world.
The day falls on the Tuesday after Martin Luther King Jr. Day and is marked by events and activities that promote racial healing. Racial healing, as defined by the foundation, is “the experience shared by people when they speak openly and hear the truth about past wrongs and the negative impacts created by individual and systemic racism,” according to the effort’s website.
On campus: The American Association of Colleges and Universities encourages institutions to “engage in activities, events or strategies to promote healing and foster engagement around the issues of racism, bias, inequity and injustice in our society,” according to a Dec. 18 press release. AAC&U partners with 72 institutions to establish TRHT Campus Centers, with the goal of developing 150 self-sustaining community-integrated centers.
Some ways institutions can do this is through organizing activities, inviting faculty to connect course material to racial healing during that week, coordinating events or sharing stories on social media, according to AAC&U.
Here’s how colleges and universities, many that host TRHT Campus Centers, plan to honor the National Day of Racial Healing.
Baldwin Wallace University in Ohio will host two Jacket Circles for students to participate in storytelling and deep listening to build empathy and compassion. The University of Louisville, similarly, will host Cardinal Connection Circles.
Emory University in Georgia will hold a three-day event, beginning on Jan. 21, that includes a keynote, lunch-and-learn panel discussion, racial healing circles, and a dinner experience.
Binghamton University, part of the State University of New York system, will host its first National Day of Racial Healing this year, which includes healing circles, roundtable discussions and art-based initiatives.
The TRHT Center at Northern Virginia Community College will partner with the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to issue a formal proclamation in a public forum, acknowledging the importance of the day, a tradition for the two groups.
The University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa will take a pause today to recognize the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, as well as the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the National Day of Racial Healing. The event, Hawai‘i ku‘u home aloha, which “Hawai‘i my beloved home,” honors the past, present and future of the islands.
Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
I don’t remember where I heard this bit of wisdom, if I read it in a book or someone else told it to me, but it’s something I’ve carried around for a while now: There’s always going to be a next, until there isn’t.
My interpretation is a kind of combination of “this too shall pass” with “time marches on,” along with a reminder of the certainty that at some point all things and all people cease to exist.
(I find that last bit sort of comforting, but maybe I’m weird that way.)
It comes in handy when thinking about both exciting and difficult times. What is happening in a moment is not eternal, and something else will be coming along. In order to make that next thing as positive and beneficial as possible, we have to deal with both the present and those possible futures.
I think this mindset might be helpful to anyone who is considering the coming couple of years for higher education and bracing for the possible impact of a presidential administration that appears hostile to the work of colleges and universities and intends to bring this perceived hostile group to heel. I’m concerned that many institutions are not considering that there’s always going to be a next, and short-term accommodations are going to result in long-term problems.
What comes next will be far worse than it needs to be.
It’s strange to think that institutions that are so well established with such long histories should act with such fragility in the face of present uncertainty, but there are signs of what scholar of authoritarianism Timothy Snyder calls “obeying in advance” everywhere.
As reported by IHE’s Ryan Quinn, Texas A&M, along with other public higher ed institutions in the state, following threats ginned up by right-wing conservative billionaire-backed activist Christopher Rufo, has ended their participation in the PhD Project, a conference meant to help increase the number of doctoral students identifying as “Black, African American, Latino, Hispanic American, Native American or Canadian Indigenous.”
The institutions had previously participated for a number of years but have now rescinded their sponsorship because of Texas law SB 17, banning DEI programs at public universities. Texas governor Greg Abbott threatened to fire A&M president Mark Welsh. Welsh folded, issuing a statement that said, “While the proper process for reviewing and approving attendance at such events was followed, I don’t believe we fully considered the spirit of our state law in making the initial decision to participate. We need to be sure that attendance at those events is aligned with the very clear guidance we’ve been given by our governing bodies.”
The intention behind these attacks by Rufo and his backers is to, essentially, resegregate higher education under an entirely twisted definition of “fairness.” This point of view is ascendant, as multiple states have banned so-called DEI initiatives, and the rolling back of affirmative action in college admissions has already resulted in a decline in Black first-year students, something most pronounced at “elite” institutions.
So, this is now, but in acting this way now, what’s likely to be next? Will Texas A&M regress to a de facto policy of segregation? Is this healthy for the institution, for the state of Texas?
I grant that it is possible that a program of resegregation is consistent with the desires of a majority of the state’s citizens and the elected legislators are simply reflecting the desire of their constituency. If so, so be it … I guess. I wonder how long the institutions can last when it allows Chris Rufo or Elon Musk or Charlie Kirk or any other outside individual or group to dictate its policies. Is this a good precedent for whatever is next?
There’s going to be a next. What happens now will give shape to what that next might be. I worry that the folks making decisions believe there is only the now, not the next.
Thankfully, most of us do not have to make consequential decisions that impact many people working in large institutions, but we can use this framing in considering our individual fates as well.
In a couple of weeks my next book, More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, will be in the world. I’ve invested a lot in this book, not just time and effort, but some measure of my hopes for my career and the impact my ideas may have on the world of writing and teaching writing.
It is a fraught thing to invest too much into something like a single book. Books fail to launch all the time, as I’ve experienced personally … more than once. Finding the balance between investing sufficient effort to take advantage of the now, while also recognizing that I will have to do something next, has been a bit tricky, but necessary.
Maybe what’s next will be closely related to the now: more speaking, more workshops related to my vision for teaching writing, a truly tangible impact on how we collectively discuss these issues after being more of a gadfly and voice in the woods. But also, maybe this is closer to the end of a cycle that started with a previous book.
Imagining a next, I think I would call my local School of Rock and see if they needed someone to teach kids the drums, and I also would get to work on a novel that’s been rolling around my head. I picture that possible next, and while there is a sadness that what I’m hoping to achieve now did not come to fruition, I can also envision real pleasure in that other path.
To preserve their essential mission, institutions must be prepared for turbulence and change by knowing there will be a next. To survive in this time, individuals must both be present in the now and consider what might have to happen next.
The name of an ambition more than it is of a body of knowledge, the term “futurology” is attributed by one source on word origins to Aldous Huxley. The author of Brave New World is a plausible candidate, of course; he is credited with coining it in 1946. But a search of JSTOR turns up an article from three years earlier suggesting that Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West made him the pioneer of “what one may hope will sometime develop into a real science of ‘Futurology.’”
The author of that article was a political scientist and émigré from Nazi Germany named Ossip K. Flechtheim, then teaching at the historically Black Atlanta University; the article itself was published in a historically Black scholarly journal, Phylon. He soon decided that his idea’s time had come.
By 1945, writing in The Journal of Higher Education, Flechtheim advocated for futurology both as an emerging line of interdisciplinary scholarship and as a matter of urgent concern to “the present-day student, whose life-span may well stretch into the twenty-first century.” He was optimistic about futurology’s potential to advance knowledge: Maintaining that “a large number of scholars” concurred on “the major problems which humanity would face” in the coming decades, he announced that “predict[ing] the most probable trends is a task which we have the means to accomplish successfully today.”
But as Niels Bohr and/or Yogi Berra famously put it, “It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” Flechtheim went on to publish landmark contributions to the incipient field of study, surely expecting that a proper social science of the future would be established by the turn of the millennium. But on this point, as in most cases, subsequent history only confirms the Bohr-Berra conundrum.
One rough metric of futurology’s public-intellectual salience over time is how often the word appears per year in publications stored in the Google Books database. The resulting graph shows barely any use of the term before about 1960. But with the new decade there is a sudden burst of activity: a period of steep acceleration lasting about two decades, then collapsing dramatically over the final years of the 20th century. The JSTOR search results show much the same pattern.
And so it is that Glenn Adamson’s A Century of Tomorrows: How Imagining the Future Shapes the Present (Bloomsbury Publishing) approaches the subject with not so much skepticism about futurology’s prospects as a certain irony about its very status as a distinct kind of knowledge. The author, a curator and a historian, attaches Flechtheim’s neologism as a label to a kaleidoscopic array of efforts to anticipate the shape of things to come, whether by analyzing statistical trends, through artistic creativity or in experimentation with new ways of life. The book concentrates on the United States and the 20th century, but inevitably the larger world and earlier history shape the book, which also reflects some 21st-century pressures as well.
Plenty of science fiction novels have done better at imagining life in subsequent decades than think tank projections made in the same era. But comparing prognostications for relative accuracy is not Adamson’s real concern. Whatever means it may employ, the futurological imperative is always to respond to current reality—to its perceived failings or potentials, to the opportunities and terrors looming over the world or lurking just out of sight. Adamson writes that “every story about the future is also a demand to intervene in the present.” The forms of intervention considered include political movements, religious revivals, market research, scenarios for thermonuclear war, hippie communes, the insurance industry and time capsules assembled for future generations to ponder (to give an abbreviated list).
The future’s uncertainty provides a blank screen for projecting contemporary issues in reimagined form and the opportunity to imagine alternatives. (Or to imagine inevitabilities, whether of the encouraging or despairing kind.)
The author takes futurology to have emerged in the 19th century as a response to concerns previously the domain of religious traditions. Utopia and dystopia provide fairly obvious secular analogues to heaven and hell. But there is more to it than that. “For those who no longer saw the future as a matter of revealed truth,” Adamson writes, “new forms of authority stepped in to fill the gap. This is where the futurologists would come in. They would not only make claims about what lies ahead but also somehow persuade others of their ability to see it.”
The grounds for claiming such authority proliferated, as did the visions themselves, in ways resistant to linear narrative. Instead, the author pulls seemingly unconnected developments together into thematic clusters, rather like museum exhibits displayed in partly chronological and partly thematic order.
For example, the futurological cluster he calls the Machine includes the organization Technocracy, Inc., which in the early 1930s won a hearing for its plan to put the entire economy under the control of engineers who would end the waste, bottlenecks and underperformance that had, they purported, caused the Depression.
Enthusiasm for the Technocracy’s social blueprints was short-lived, but it expressed a wider trend. Futurologists of this ilk “set about creating self-correcting, self-regulating systems; conceptually speaking, they became machine builders.” Under this heading Adamson includes enthusiasts for “the Soviet experiment” (as non-Communist admirers liked to call it), but also the market-minded professionals involved in industrial design, especially for automobiles: “The advance planning of annual model changes was a way to humanize technology, while also setting the horizon of consumer expectation.”
Whereas the Machine-oriented visionaries of the early 20th century had specific goals for the future (and confidence about being able to meet them), a different attitude prevailed after World War II among those Adamson calls the Lab futurologists. The future was for them “something to be studied under laboratory conditions, with multiple scenarios measured and compared against one another.” Some of them had access to the enormous computers of the day, and the attention of people making decisions of the highest consequence.
“Prediction was becoming a much subtler art,” the author continues, “with one defining exception: the prediction of nuclear annihilation, a zero multiplier for all human hopes.”
Those who thought life in a Machine world sounded oppressive offered visions of the future as Garden, where a healthier balance between urban and rural life could prevail. A corresponding horror at Lab scenarios spawned what Adamson calls Party futurology. This started in Haight-Ashbury, fought back at the Stonewall and generated the radical feminist movement that still haunts some people’s nightmares.
Missing from my thumbnail sketch here is all the historical texture of the book (including a diverse group of figures, leading and otherwise) as well as its working out of connections among seemingly unrelated developments.
As mentioned, the book is centered on 20th-century America. Even so, “Flood,” the final chapter (not counting the conclusion), takes up forces that have continued to accumulate in the early millennium. Flood-era futurology is not defined either by climate change or digital hypersaturation of attention. The main element I’ll point out here is Adamson’s sense that futurology’s own future has been compromised by an excess of noise and meretricious pseudo-insight.
The floods of dubious information (from too many sources to evaluate) make it harder to establish reality in the present, much less to extrapolate from it. Filling the void is a churn of simulated thought the author calls Big Ideas. “By this,” he writes, “I mean a general prediction about culture at large that initially feels like an important insight, but is actually either so general as to be beyond dispute, or so vague as to be immune to disproof.” Much better, on the whole, is to study the record of futurology itself, with its history as a warning against secular fortune-telling.
Scott McLemee is Inside Higher Ed’s “Intellectual Affairs” columnist. He was a contributing editor at Lingua Franca magazine and a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education before joining Inside Higher Ed in 2005.
The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities named Montana State University president Waded Cruzado as its next president, according to a Thursday news release.
Cruzado, who has served as chair of APLU’s Board of Directors since 2021, will formally step into the top job at APLU on July 1. Cruzado has led Montana State University since 2010, and last August that she would retire in June 2025.
She replaces outgoing president Mark Becker, who has led APLU since 2022.
“Throughout my life, the history and the impact of land-grant universities and public higher education have provided me, and countless students and families, with inspiration and a call to action. I’ve seen firsthand the life-changing opportunity our public universities provide to their students, their communities, the country, and the world,” Cruzado said in the news release.
Cruzado, who was a first-generation college student, is a native of Puerto Rico.
Gary May, chancellor of the University of California, Davis, who led the search committee that hired Cruzado, described her as “an exceptional leader who brings deep experience in successfully leading a public and land-grant university to impressive new heights.” May also noted her familiarity with the organization given her time as chair of APLU’s Board of Directors.
(The headline was corrected to reflect that Cruzado is retiring before going to APLU.)
The number of first-year applicants this cycle is up 5 percent over January of last year, according to a new report from Common App, and overall applications rose 7 percent.
The growth was buoyed by a sharp uptick in underrepresented students: Latino applicants increased 13 percent, Black applicants by 12 percent and first-generation applicants by 14 percent. Asian applicants rose by 7 percent, while the number of white applicants didn’t change.
A Common App analysis also found that the number of applicants from low-income neighborhoods increased more than those from neighborhoods above the median income level—by 9 percent, compared to 4 percent. And the number of applicants who qualify for a fee waiver is up 10 percent so far.
Geographically, applicant trends seemed to follow broader demographic trends; they surged by 33 percent in the Southwest, with a 36 percent boost in Texas alone, while every other region remained relatively stable. The Western region saw applicants decline by 1 percent.
In general, students are applying to about the same number of schools as last year, with only a 2 percent increase in applications per student. Public institutions have received 11 percent more applications, while private ones have received 3 percent more.
For the first time since 2019, domestic applicant growth outpaced that of international applicants, with the former increasing by 5 percent and the latter slowing to 1 percent. Certain high-volume countries experienced steep declines: The number of applicants from Africa fell by 14 percent, and Ghana in particular saw a 36 percent decrease. Applicants from other increasingly popular source countries for international students surged; Bangladesh, for instance, saw 45 percent growth.
The number of applicants who submitted test scores was about even with the number who didn’t. For the past four years, since test-optional policies were implemented in 2020, no-score applicants have significantly outnumbered those who submitted scores, but institutions returning to test requirements may be swinging the pendulum back.
