Tag: Events

UNL Proposes Cutting Educational Administration Department

In an effort to address a deep deficit caused by rising costs, declining international enrollment and flat state funding, University of Nebraska–Lincoln officials have proposed merging or cutting a slew of programs. But one proposal has sparked particular outrage—within the university and beyond: the plan to ax the educational administration department.

If the plan goes through, faculty members and students worry the state will be left without a key pipeline to fill leadership roles at local schools and colleges, particularly in rural areas. The University of Nebraska–Lincoln is the only university in the state that offers a Ph.D. program in educational leadership or higher education, which has a distinct scholarly focus, while Ed.D. programs and master’s degrees to train education leaders can be found elsewhere.

“It’s hard for me to imagine the flagship university in a state does not offer a program to prepare future principals, future superintendents, future leaders of colleges and universities,” said Crystal Garcia, an associate professor and Ph.D. coordinator in the department. Eliminating the department would be “really doing a disservice to education as a whole in the state of Nebraska.” She noted the department is “incredibly impactful,” serving 316 current and incoming graduate students.

Administrators have proposed nixing five other academic programs as well: community and regional planning; earth and atmospheric sciences; landscape architecture; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design. The plan would potentially retain the master’s degree program in educational administration but rehouse it elsewhere.

Through these cuts, the university aims to reduce the budget by $27.5 million, in part by eliminating 58 roles—17 from the educational administration department, including tenured and tenure-track positions. University officials also proposed two department mergers and budget cuts to the College of Engineering and the College of Arts and Sciences, amid other cuts to administrative and staff expenses.

The proposal will now be considered by the Academic Planning Committee, a group of faculty, staff and students. Members of affected programs can make their case before the committee in live-streamed hearings, and the public can weigh in through a feedback form. Then, the APC will come out with recommendations the chancellor can take or leave. If the chancellor decides to move forward with the proposed cuts, the issue will come before the Board of Regents in December.

Elizabeth Niehaus, a professor in the educational administration department, said faculty were stunned by the news and are preparing to defend the department to the committee—and the Board of Regents if need be. She and other faculty members believe the department is thriving.

The proposed cut was “quite honestly shocking, because we are a strong department with great students, great faculty, with a national reputation, folks who have been winning awards for teaching and research,” Niehaus said. “So, we did not see that coming.”

The Decision-Making Process

The university’s executive team undertook “a strategic, data-informed and holistic review of all academic programs,” said Mark Button, UNL’s executive vice chancellor.

The review weighed a variety of metrics, he said, including student success outcomes—such as retention rates and degree-completion rates over a five-year period—the ratio of student enrollments to faculty members, and demand for programs as measured in student credit hours and students joining majors.

Administrators also drew on metrics for research success used by the Association of American Universities; the university is seeking to regain membership in the organization, which it lost in 2011. Those measures include book publications, research citations and awards and fellowships. Administrators also compared programs to similar programs at other public AAU institutions, Button said, and considered more qualitative factors, like whether a program was distinctive in the state. The metrics were shared with college deans and then department chairs in May.

Button said the metrics used to review the academic programs reflected priorities already in the university’s strategic plan and the criteria used for past budget reductions. Education administration was among the departments that “didn’t perform as well,” he said.

Faculty members argue the process lacked transparency; they didn’t know until a day before the proposal came out that the department was on the chopping block. They say their specific questions have gone unanswered, including which particular measures caused them to fall short and whether the pandemic years were contextualized in the data.

“We were reduced to a single number that definitely does not reflect the depth and breadth of what we do and our contributions to the field, to the university, to the state,” Niehaus said of the scoring process.

The decision felt so at odds with how the department sees itself that associate professor Sarah Zuckerman said she wondered if it was being targeted for its outspoken faculty members. Zuckerman, who serves as president of the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said other members of the department are also active in the organization, as well as in Advocating for Inclusion, Respect and Equity, a faculty coalition focused on diversity issues.

“It gives me a little bit of a nauseous feeling,” Zuckerman said.

Button argued it’s “definitively not true” that the proposed cuts target outspoken departments. He said the proposal involved “very painful decisions.”

“I probably can’t underscore enough just how difficult this budget-reduction process is for our entire university community and for everyone who’s committed to an outstanding land-grant, flagship, Big Ten university here in Nebraska,” Button said. “I share the sense of pain and grief that everyone on our campus is going through now.”

If the cuts become a reality, tenured and tenure-track professors will have a year’s notice of their termination and the university has promised to develop teach-out plans for students. But students don’t have the details of those plans, and some said the uncertainty makes them ill at ease.

Korrine Fagenstrom, who is participating in the online Ph.D. program focused on higher ed administration from Montana, said she doesn’t know what she’s going to do.

Four years into her program, she doesn’t want to leave, she said, but “I don’t know what it would look like to stay—I don’t know that anybody does.”

“The idea of the program getting eliminated at my final hour is terrifying,” said Kathryn Duvall, a third-year student in the Ed.D. program. “I have made sacrifices to my family. I have made sacrifices to my own personal life and dedicated years to getting my education. And this program has spent years pouring into me and developing me as a researcher, as a writer, as an educator, as a leader.”

She also worries on a “macro level” that education in the state will suffer without the leadership training UNL provides.

“Eliminating a program like this is eliminating foundational training that produces equitable educational opportunities in our society,” Duvall said.

The Bigger Picture

University officials argue that other offerings in the state, such as Ed.D. programs at University of Nebraska–Omaha or small private universities, can fill the same needs as UNL’s educational administration programs.

But K–12 superintendents, who generally have doctorates, need more—not less—access to the affordable, high-caliber training public institutions like UNL historically provide, said Mónica Byrne-Jiménez, executive director of the University Council for Educational Administration. The proposal to cut the department has garnered national attention, because it’s an unusual move for a flagship campus or a university with a Research-1 Carnegie classification, she added.

“It’s nothing I’ve seen before,” Byrne-Jiménez said, noting most R-1 universities boast strong K–12 and higher ed leadership programs. “We don’t want it to become a national trend.”

Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, said that while UNL is a “unique case,” she has seen a growing number of education schools or colleges merge with other programs over the last decade. The Iowa Board of Regents also approved plans last week to end the University of Iowa’s graduate and doctoral programs in elementary education, secondary education, special education and science education.

She worries that federal funding cuts, particularly to teacher training grants and Institute of Education Sciences contracts, is going to thrust more universities into positions where they consider taking such actions.

Byrne-Jiménez said such programs may be extra vulnerable at a time when Americans are questioning the value of higher education and schools are “hyperscrutinized.” Educational administration programs also tend to attract smaller cohorts, she said, because a select few want to go into education leadership roles. She fears their size, combined with national skepticism, makes them susceptible to budget cuts. But she believes these programs have an outsize effect on the long-term success of state residents that needs to be considered.

“From an external perspective, it looks like these are small, sort of niche programs that might not be generating a lot of money for the university,” she said. But “the impact is great.” At UNL, “those 300 students are going to go out to 300 schools and 300 communities.”

Source link

September 23, 2025
Bachelor’s Degrees Unaffordable for Most Low-Income Students

The high cost associated with college is one of the greatest deterrents for students interested in higher education. A 2024 survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 68 percent of students believe higher ed institutions charge too much for an undergraduate degree, and an additional 41 percent believe their institution has a sticker price that’s too high.

A recent study by the National College Attainment Network found that a majority of two- and four-year colleges cost more than the average student can pay, sometimes by as much as $8,000 a year. The report advocates for additional state and federal financial aid to close affordability gaps and ensure opportunities for low- and middle-income students to engage in higher education.

Methodology: NCAN’s formula for affordability compares total cost of attendance (tuition, fees, housing, etc.) plus an emergency reserve of $300 against any aid a student receives. This includes grants, federal loans and work-study dollars, as well as expected family contribution and the summer wages a student could earn in a full-time, minimum-wage job in their state. Housing costs vary depending on the student’s enrollment: Bachelor’s-granting institutions include on-campus housing costs, and community colleges include off-campus housing rates.

A graphic by the National College Attainment Network demonstrating how the organization calculated affordable rates for the average college student.
National College Attainment Network

Costs that outweigh expected aid and income are classified as an “affordability gap” for students.

A recent Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab survey of 5,065 undergraduates found that 9 percent of respondents said an unexpected expense of $300 or less would threaten their ability to remain enrolled in college.

The total sample size covered 1,137 public institutions, 600 of which were community colleges.

Majority of colleges unaffordable: Using these metrics, 48 percent of community colleges and 35 percent of bachelor’s-granting institutions were affordable during the 2022–23 academic year. In total, NCAN rated 473 institutions as affordable.

Comparative data from 2015–16 finds slightly more community colleges were affordable then (50 percent) than in 2022–23 (48 percent), but that the average affordability gap, or total unmet need, has grown from $246 to $486.

Among four-year colleges, more public institutions were affordable in 2022–23 than in 2015–16 (29 percent) and the average affordability gap shrank slightly, from $1,656 to $1,554. The data indicates slight improvement in affordability metrics but highlights challenges for low-income students interested in a bachelor’s degree, according to the report.

NCAN researchers believe the $400 increase in the maximum Pell Grant in 2023 helped lower costs per student at bachelor’s-granting institutions, but community colleges appear less affordable due to the loss of HEERF funding and the increase in cost of attendance due to rising housing costs.

Affordability ranges by states: Access to affordable institutions is also more of a challenge for students in some regions than in others. NCAN’s analysis found that 14 states lacked a single institution with an affordable bachelor’s degree program for low-income students. In 27 states, 65 percent of public four-year colleges were unaffordable.

For two-year programs, five states lacked an affordable community college. Some states had a small sample (fewer than five) of community colleges analyzed; Delaware and Florida had no community colleges in NCAN’s sample.

In Kentucky, Maine and New Mexico, 100 percent of the two-year colleges analyzed were found to be affordable for students, along with at least 80 percent of the bachelor’s degree–granting institutions in those states.

Students pursuing a bachelor’s degree in New Hampshire ($8,239), Pennsylvania ($8,076) and Ohio ($5,138) had the largest affordability gaps. For community colleges, students in New Hampshire ($11,499), Utah ($7,689) and Pennsylvania ($4,508) had the greatest unmet need.

Conversely, some states had aid surpluses, which can help address other expenses associated with college, including textbooks and transportation.

Cost isn’t the only barrier to access, however. “For many students who live in rural or remote areas, far from the postsecondary institutions in their state, college may remain inaccessible,” the report noted.

Based on the data, NCAN supports additional funding for higher education at all levels, federal, state and local, to provide students with financial aid.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

Source link

September 23, 2025
Texas State Prof Sues, Claiming Free Speech, Contract Violations

Thomas Alter had received tenure as an associate history professor just 10 days before he was fired.

Mikala Compton/Austin American-Statesman/Getty Images

A tenured Texas State University professor who was terminated earlier this month after allegedly inciting violence during a speech has sued the university, CBS Austin reported. In the lawsuit filed in district court, Thomas Alter, the former associate professor of history, claims that university leadership violated his free speech and due process rights and breached his employment contract.

At a Sept. 7 conference organized by Socialist Horizon, Alter said in part that “without organization, how can anyone expect to overthrow the most bloodthirsty, profit-driven mad organization in the history of the world—that of the U.S. government.” His speech was recorded and circulated by a right-wing YouTuber who had infiltrated the event. Alter was terminated three days later.

In a statement announcing his termination, Texas State president Kelly Damphousse said Alter’s “actions are incompatible with their responsibilities as a faculty member at Texas State University.” Alter told CBS Austin that he did not associate himself with Texas State during the conference.

“The reasons Provost Aswrath provided for Dr. Alter’s termination are false and give every appearance of politically-motivated discrimination,” the lawsuit states. “In truth, Dr. Alter was terminated because he espoused views that are politically unpopular in today’s politically-charged climate, in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.”

Alter told CBS Austin that his dismissal “turned my world upside down and my family’s world upside down.”

“Anyone should be able to express their views no matter how unpopular they are without facing the repercussions that many people are seeing,” he added. (Alter had earned tenure just 10 days before he was removed, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported.)

Texas State did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment, but a spokesperson told CBS Austin the university declined to comment on pending litigation.

Source link

September 23, 2025
Why Did College Board End Best Admissions Product? (opinion)

Earlier this month, College Board announced its decision to kill Landscape, a race-neutral tool that allowed admissions readers to better understand a student’s context for opportunity. After an awkward 2019 rollout as the “Adversity Score,” Landscape gradually gained traction in many selective admissions offices. Among other items, the dashboard provided information on the applicant’s high school, including the economic makeup of their high school class, participation trends for Advanced Placement courses and the school’s percentile SAT scores, as well as information about the local community.

Landscape was one of the more extensively studied interventions in the world of college admissions, reflecting how providing more information about an applicant’s circumstances can boost the likelihood of a low-income student being admitted. Admissions officers lack high-quality, detailed information on the high school environment for an estimated 25 percent of applicants, a trend that disproportionately disadvantages low-income students. Landscape helped fill that critical gap.

While not every admissions office used it, Landscape was fairly popular within pockets of the admissions community, as it provided a more standardized, consistent way for admissions readers to understand an applicant’s environment. So why did College Board decide to ax it? In its statement on the decision, College Board noted that “federal and state policy continues to evolve around how institutions use demographic and geographic information in admissions.” The statement seems to be referring to the Trump administration’s nonbinding guidance that institutions should not use geographic targeting as a proxy for race in admissions.

If College Board was worried that somehow people were using the tool as a proxy for race (and they weren’t), well, it wasn’t a very good one. In the most comprehensive study of Landscape being used on the ground, researchers found that it didn’t do anything to increase racial/ethnic diversity in admissions. Things are different when it comes to economic diversity. Use of Landscape is linked with a boost in the likelihood of admission for low-income students. As such, it was a helpful tool given the continued underrepresentation of low-income students at selective institutions.

Still, no study to date found that Landscape had any effect on racial/ethnic diversity. The findings are unsurprising. After all, Landscape was, to quote College Board, “intentionally developed without the use or consideration of data on race or ethnicity.” If you look at the laundry list of items included in Landscape, absent are items like the racial/ethnic demographics of the high school, neighborhood or community.

While race and class are correlated, they certainly aren’t interchangeable. Admissions officers weren’t using Landscape as a proxy for race; they were using it to compare a student’s SAT score or AP course load to those of their high school classmates. Ivy League institutions that have gone back to requiring SAT/ACT scores have stressed the importance of evaluating test scores in the student’s high school context. Eliminating Landscape makes it harder to do so.

An important consideration: Even if using Landscape were linked with increased racial/ethnic diversity, its usage would not violate the law. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board. In declining to hear the case, the court has likely issued a tacit blessing on race-neutral methods to advance diversity in admissions. The decision leaves the Fourth Circuit opinion, which affirmed the race-neutral admissions policy used to boost diversity at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, intact.

The court also recognized the validity of race-neutral methods to pursue diversity in the 1989 case J.A. Croson v. City of Richmond. In a concurring opinion filed in Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) v. Harvard, Justice Brett Kavanaugh quoted Justice Antonin Scalia’s words from Croson: “And governments and universities still ‘can, of course, act to undo the effects of past discrimination in many permissible ways that do not involve classification by race.’”

College Board’s decision to ditch Landscape sends an incredibly problematic message: that tools to pursue diversity, even economic diversity, aren’t worth defending due to the fear of litigation. If a giant like College Board won’t stand behind its own perfectly legal effort to support diversity, what kind of message does that send? Regardless, colleges and universities need to remember their commitments to diversity, both racial and economic. Yes, post-SFFA, race-conscious admissions has been considerably restricted. Still, despite the bluster of the Trump administration, most tools commonly used to expand access remain legal.

The decision to kill Landscape is incredibly disappointing, both pragmatically and symbolically. It’s a loss for efforts to broaden economic diversity at elite institutions, yet another casualty in the Trump administration’s assault on diversity. Even if the College Board has decided to abandon Landscape, institutions must not forget their obligations to make higher education more accessible to low-income students of all races and ethnicities.

Source link

September 22, 2025
A Better Way to Prepare for Job Interviews (opinion)
One of the things that makes interviews stressful is their unpredictability, which is unfortunately also what makes them so hard to prepare for. In particular, it’s impossible to predict exactly what questions you will be asked. So, how do you get ready?

Scripting out answers for every possible question is a popular strategy but a losing battle. There are too many (maybe infinite?) possible questions and simply not enough time. In the end, you’ll spend all your time writing and you still won’t have answers to most of the questions you might face. And while it might make you feel briefly more confident, that confidence is unlikely to survive the stress and distress of the actual interview. You’ll be rigid rather than flexible, robotic rather than responsive.

This article outlines an interview-preparation strategy that is both easier and more effective than frantic answer scripting, one that will leave you able to answer just about any interview question smoothly.

Step 1: Themes

While you can’t know what questions you will get, you can pretty easily predict many of the topics your interviewers will be curious about. You can be pretty sure that an interviewer will be interested in talking about collaboration, for example, even if you can’t say for sure whether they’ll ask a standard question like “Tell us about a time when you worked with a team to achieve a goal” or something weirder like “What role do you usually play on a team?”

Your first step is to figure out the themes that their questions are most likely to touch on. Luckily, I can offer you a starter pack. Here are five topics that are likely to show up in an interview for just about any job, so it pays to prepare for them no matter what:
1. Communication
2. Collaboration (including conflict!)
3. Time and project management
4. Problem-solving and creativity
5. Failures and setbacks
But you also need to identify themes that are specific to the job or field you are interviewing for. For a research and development scientist position, for example, an interviewer might also be interested in innovation and scientific thinking. For a project or product manager position, they’ll probably want to know about stakeholder management. And so on.

To identify these specific themes, check the job ad. They may have already identified themes for you by categorizing the responsibilities or qualifications, or you can just look for patterns. What topics/ideas/words come up most often in the ad that aren’t already represented in the starter pack? What kinds of skills or experience are they expecting? If you get stuck, try throwing the ad into a word cloud generator and see what it spits out.

Ideally, try to end this step with at least three new themes, in addition to the starter pack.

Step 2: Stories

The strongest interview answers are anchored by a specific story from your experience, which provides a tangible demonstration about how you think and what you can do. But it’s incredibly difficult to come up with a good, relevant example in the heat of an interview, let alone to tell it effectively in a short amount of time. For that, you need some preparation and some practice.

So for each of your themes, identify two to three relevant stories. Stories can be big (a whole project from beginning to end), or they can be small (a single interaction with a student). They can be hugely consequential (a decision you made that changed the course of your career), or they can be minor but meaningful (a small disagreement you handled well). What is most important is that the stories demonstrate your skills, experiences and attitudes clearly and compellingly.

The point is to have a lot of material to work with, so aim for at least 10 stories total, and preferably more. The same story can apply to multiple themes, but try not to let double-dipping limit the number of stories you end up with.

Then, for each of your stories, write an outline that gives just enough context to understand the situation, describes your actions and thinking, and says what happened at the end. Use the STAR method, if it’s useful for keeping your stories tight and focused. Shaping your stories and deciding what to say (and not say) will help your audience see your skills in action with minimal distractions. This is one of the most important parts of your prep, so take your time with it.

Step 3: Approaches

As important as stories are in interviewing, you usually can’t just respond to a question with a story without any framing or explanation. So you’ll want to develop language to describe some of your usual strategies, orientations or approaches to situations that fall into each of the themes. That language will help you easily link each question to one of your stories.

So for each theme, do a little brainstorming to identify your core messaging: “What do I usually do when faced with a situation related to [THEME]?” Then write a few bullet points. (You can also reverse engineer this from the stories: Read the stories linked to a particular theme, then look for patterns in your thinking or behavior.)

These bullet points give you what you need to form connective tissue between the specific question they ask and the story you want to tell. So if they ask, “Tell me about a time when you worked with a team to achieve a goal,” you can respond with a story and close out by describing how that illustrates a particular approach. Or if they ask, “What role do you usually play on a team?” you can start by describing how you think about collaboration and your role in it and then tell a story that illustrates that approach.

Though we are focusing on thematic questions here, make sure to also prepare bullet points for some of the most common general interview questions, like “Why do you want this job?” and “Tell us about yourself.”

Step 4: Bring It All Together

You really, really, really need to practice out loud before your interview. Over the years, I’ve found that many of the graduate students and postdocs I work with spend a lot of time thinking about how they might answer questions and not nearly enough time actually trying to answer them. And so they miss the opportunity to develop the kind of fluency and flexibility that helps one navigate the unpredictable environment of an interview.

Here’s how to use the prep you did in Steps 1-3 to practice:
- First, practice telling each of your 10-plus stories out loud, at least three times each. The goal here is to develop fluency in your storytelling, so you can keep things focused and flowing without needing to think about it.
- Second, for each of the bullet points you created in Step 3, practice explaining it (out loud!) a few times, ideally in a couple of different ways.
- Third, practice bringing it all together by answering some actual interview questions. Find a long list of interview questions (like this one), then pick questions at random to answer. The randomness is important, because the goal is to practice making smooth and effective connections between questions, stories and approaches. You need to figure out what to do when you run into a question that is challenging, unexpected or just confusing.
- And once you’ve done that, do it all again.
In the end, you’ve created a set of building blocks that you can arrange and rearrange as needed in the moment. And it’s a set you can keep adding to with more stories and more themes, keep practicing with new questions, and keep adapting for your next interview.

Derek Attig is assistant dean for career and professional development in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Derek is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium, an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.
Source link
September 22, 2025
Online Course Gives College Students a Foundation on GenAI

As more employers identify uses for generative artificial intelligence in the workplace, colleges are embedding tech skills into the curriculum to best prepare students for their careers.

But identifying how and when to deliver that content has been a challenge, particularly given the varying perspectives different disciplines have on generative AI and when its use should be allowed. A June report from Tyton Partners found that 42 percent of students use generative AI tools at least weekly, and two-thirds of students use a singular generative AI tool like ChatGPT. A survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 85 percent of students had used generative AI for coursework in the past year, most often for brainstorming or asking questions.

The University of Mary Washington developed an asynchronous one-credit course to give all students enrolled this fall a baseline foundation of AI knowledge. The optional class, which was offered over the summer at no cost to students, introduced them to AI ethics, tools, copyright concerns and potential career impacts.

The goal is to help students use the tools thoughtfully and intelligently, said Anand Rao, director of Mary Washington’s center for AI and the liberal arts. Initial results show most students learned something from the course, and they want more teaching on how AI applies to their majors and future careers.

How it works: The course, IDIS 300: Introduction to AI, was offered to any new or returning UMW student to be completed any time between June and August. Students who opted in were added to a digital classroom with eight modules, each containing a short video, assigned readings, a discussion board and a quiz assignment. The class was for credit, graded as pass-fail, but didn’t fulfill any general education requirements.

Course content ranged from how to use AI tools and prompt generative AI output to academic integrity, as well as professional development and how to critically evaluate AI responses.

“I thought those were all really important as a starting point, and that still just scratches the surface,” Rao said.

The course is not designed to make everyone an AI user, Rao said, “but I do want them to be able to speak thoughtfully and intelligently about the use of tools, the application of tools and when and how they make decisions in which they’ll be able to use those tools.”

At the end of the course, students submitted a short paper analyzing an AI tool used in their field or discipline—its output, use cases and ways the tool could be improved.

Rao developed most of the content, but he collaborated with campus stakeholders who could provide additional insight, such as the Honor Council, to lay out how AI use is articulated in the honor code.

The impact: In total, the first class enrolled 249 students from a variety of majors and disciplines, or about 6 percent of the university’s total undergrad population. A significant number of the course enrollees were incoming freshmen. Eighty-eight percent of students passed the course, and most had positive feedback on the class content and structure.

In postcourse surveys, 68 percent of participants indicated IDIS 300 should be a mandatory course or highly recommended for all students.

“If you know nothing about AI, then this course is a great place to start,” said one junior, noting that the content builds from the basics to direct career applications.

What’s next: Rao is exploring ways to scale the course in the future, including by developing intermediate or advanced classes or creating discipline-specific offerings. He’s also hoping to recruit additional instructors, because the course had some challenges given its large size, such as conducting meaningful exchanges on the discussion board.

The center will continue to host educational and discussion-based events throughout the year to continue critical conversations regarding generative AI. The first debate, centered on AI and the environment, aims to evaluate whether AI’s impact will be a net positive or negative over the next decade, Rao said.

The university is also considering ways to engage the wider campus community and those outside the institution with basic AI knowledge. IDIS 300 content will be made available to nonstudents this year as a Canvas page. Some teachers in the local school district said they’d like to teach the class as a dual-enrollment course in the future.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

Source link

September 22, 2025
Advocates Worry About McNair Scholars Program

Delays in the distribution of federal grants for undergraduates involved with TRIO, a series of college-access programs, combined with an ongoing lawsuit have raised concerns among proponents for the McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program—a TRIO grant designed specifically for those pursuing graduate school.

Legally, grants don’t have to be awarded for either the TRIO undergraduate programs or McNair until the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. But in most years prior, the Department of Education has notified institutions about the status of awards in late August or mid-September.

That has not been the case so far this year.

Award notifications started to trickle out after Sept. 15 for the undergraduate programs that started Sept. 1, but according to a TRIO advocacy group, most of the college staff members who lead McNair are still waiting to hear from the department, though at least one program got approval Friday.

As with the other TRIO programs, the Education Department says it will issue notices by the end of the month. But with a lawsuit filed last year arguing McNair is discriminatory and President Trump calling to slash TRIO altogether in his recent budget proposal, uncertainty remains rampant.

“All of a sudden, we’re in sort of this panic mode,” one assistant program director said on condition of anonymity, fearing that speaking out could harm the students she serves. “That stress and panic has certainly been building since January, but this definitely accelerated it.”

And while the anonymous director said her program has yet to receive a status update, for some the fear of cancellation has already become a reality.

So far, the Council for Opportunity in Education, a TRIO advocacy group, has tallied 18 grant cancellations out of the more than 200 McNair programs. Collectively, McNair serves more than 6,000 first-generation, low-income and underrepresented students each year.

ED deputy press secretary Ellen Keast said in a statement, “The department plans to issue continuation awards for the McNair Scholars program by the end of the fiscal year,” while also continuing to “evaluate the underlying legal issues raised in litigation.” In an email obtained by Inside Higher Ed, a legislative affairs officer at the department reinforced this statement to a staffer on Capitol Hill, saying that any grantees facing a cancellation would have been notified by Sept. 16.

Still, the director said she is scrambling to devise a backup plan.

“We have less than three weeks to figure out what’s going on, talk to our institutions and make a plan,” she said. “Jobs are going to be lost and students aren’t going to have services.”

‘Unacceptable Delays’

Worries about McNair have existed for months, but they kicked into a higher gear at a COE conference earlier this month.

The program director and COE president Kimberly Jones, both of whom attended the conference, say that Christopher McCaghren, ED’s deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs, spoke about the future of McNair on Sept. 10. And according to both of their recollections, when the secretary was asked if and when grant awards would be allocated, he said the department needed to wait on further rulings from the court before it could administer this year’s awards. (Jones noted that the session was not recorded, at the request of the department.)

Keast said the account of McCaghren’s comments was “unsubstantiated fake news” and reinforced that the department is committed to issuing McNair awards by Sept. 30. She declined, however, to provide a transcript or recording of his remarks.

The lawsuit McCaghren was likely referring to was filed last year by the Young America’s Foundation, a national conservative student group. It alleged the criteria for McNair eligibility was race-based and argued that in order to be constitutional, the program should be open to all students. The case was dismissed by a federal district court, but the plaintiffs have since appealed.

If the government is delaying grant allocation because of the lawsuit, Jones said, it would be an “absolutely unacceptable” practice.

“If the government couldn’t move on something every time they were sued, then they wouldn’t do anything,” she added. “I believe that this is an opportunity they’re taking advantage of to undermine the program and attempt to eliminate it.”

Amanda Fuchs Miller, the Biden administration appointee who previously filled McCaghren’s role, made similar comments.

“Just because there’s pending litigation doesn’t mean that you don’t fund a program that Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for,” she said. “That’s not the role of the executive branch.”

Both Jones and Fuchs Miller pointed to the department’s recent decision to end funding for grant programs that support minority-serving institutions as another reason they are worried about McNair’s future.

The MSI decision stemmed from a similar lawsuit that argued the criteria for Hispanic-serving institutions was illegal. And while no court ruling had been issued, a Justice Department official agreed with the plaintiffs and so did Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who expanded the determination to include similar grant programs.

‘Tapping Into Talent’

Named after Ronald McNair, a first-generation college student and astrophysicist who died during the launch of NASA’s space shuttle Challenger in 1986, the McNair Scholars program started in 1989 and receives about $60 million per year from Congress.

As with other TRIO programs, at least two-thirds of the students served under McNair must be first-generation and low-income. But what has sparked the legal scrutiny of the graduate program is a provision that allows up to one-third of the participating students to be admitted because they are “a member of a group that is underrepresented.”

Proponents for McNair say that this may include characteristics like race or sexuality, but aspects like gender and field of study often play a role as well. In many instances a student will tick all three boxes—first-gen, low-income and underrepresented—at once.

“There’s a perspective that McNair is only for students of color, which it is not,” said Jones. “It particularly looks for a demographic that is not usually sought after in postgraduate education … We’re tapping into talent that we would not have otherwise.”

For example, a white woman from a low-income household who is pursuing a career in STEM could be a prime candidate under the current regulatory statute.

But advocates worry that because of current political tensions, many eligible students of all races could lose access to this critical service.

The program leader who spoke with Inside Higher Ed said that until grant awards are sent out, her rural institution will lack $278,000. As a result, she will likely have to tell 27 students that the classes they have already signed up for, the workshops they were promised and the conferences they planned to attend will not be possible.

“This is the semester that our seniors’ grad applications are due, so to just yank the rug out from underneath them and say, ‘You’re on your own’ in this critical time is just cruel,” she said. “It’s also, in my opinion, a really shortsighted way of the administration understanding national security and participating in the global economy.”

Tara Ruttley, a McNair alumna who studied neuroscience and now works in the space industry, always knew she wanted a Ph.D. but wasn’t sure how to get there before she saw a poster advertising the grant program at Colorado State University. Through McNair she was able to pursue a paid research internship, present her findings at conferences, receive guidance on application essays and then give back to younger students. If funding were to be cut, Ruttley said, other aspiring graduate students won’t be so lucky.

“I’m kind of a scrapper, so I might have figured it out, but it definitely would have been delayed. The entire package wouldn’t have been as strong and it probably would have taken me a lot longer to get to where I was going,” she explained. “There’s a whole generation of scientists we may never see from varied backgrounds across the country.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
What’s Next for Texas A&M?

When Texas A&M University president Mark Welsh resigned amid an academic freedom controversy last week, he became the institution’s second leader to step down due to scandal in two years.

Unlike his predecessor, Kathy Banks, who retired in 2023 after she was caught lying about a hiring scandal, Welsh remained popular on campus; faculty sent the Board of Regents letters of support last week following a controversy that prompted him to fire an instructor, and students rallied on his behalf. But he seemed to lose the support of the deep-red Texas Legislature: Several Republican lawmakers called for his dismissal after a discussion over gender identity between a student and a professor in a children’s literature class was captured on video and quickly went viral.

In the short video, which has racked up more than five million views, a student questions whether an instructor is legally allowed to teach that there is more than one gender, which she suggests is “against our president’s laws.” Welsh initially defended the professor but quickly folded under considerable pressure from lawmakers, firing her and removing two administrators from their duties because they “approved plans to continue teaching course content that was not consistent” with the course’s description, he said in a Sept. 9 statement.

Amid the fallout, the American Association of University Professors and free speech groups accused Texas A&M of stifling academic freedom and bending to conservative political pressure. (Welsh countered that the case wasn’t about academic freedom but “academic responsibility.”)

But the incident also raises questions about what comes next for Texas A&M after legislators accused Welsh—a retired four-star general and former chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force—of spreading “leftist [diversity, equity and inclusion] and transgender indoctrination.”

A Mixed Reaction

Welsh largely skirted the controversy in a statement released Friday, his last day on the job.

“When I was first appointed as President of Texas A&M University, I told then Chancellor John Sharp and our Board of Regents that I would serve as well as I possibly could until it was time for someone else to take over,” he wrote. “Over the past few days, it’s become clear that now is that time.”

He added that serving as president for two years had been “an incredible privilege” and a “remarkable gift” and praised Texas A&M faculty, staff and students in his parting statement. On campus Friday, hundreds of supporters greeted Welsh outside an administrative building, according to social media and local coverage. The Texas A&M Student Government Association encouraged students and others to gather to “express gratitude” for Welsh’s service.

While Welsh’s parting remarks were restrained, state legislators and faculty members have been more passionate—and outraged—as both groups look ahead to the coming presidential search.

Leonard Bright, interim president of the Texas A&M AAUP chapter, told Inside Higher Ed that many faculty members had mixed feelings about Welsh. On the one hand, many professors viewed him as a stable leader who had served the university well since his time as dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, which he led from 2016 until he was appointed interim president in July 2023, before being given the permanent job later that year.

On the other hand, Welsh’s dismissal of English instructor Melissa McCoul, the professor caught up in the gender ideology flap, raised questions about whether he would protect academic freedom. As Bright sees it, when Welsh’s job was threatened, he failed to stand up for academic freedom.

Bright added that he was somewhat surprised by Welsh’s resignation, arguing that “as horrible” as the president’s recent actions were, he thought they had appeased the conservative critics and that “the board did not want to create further upheaval” given recent turnover at the top.

But ultimately, only Welsh’s resignation would satisfy his fiercest critics.

Brian Harrison, a Republican lawmaker and Texas A&M graduate, noted in posts on X following Welsh’s resignation that he had been calling for the board to fire the president for nine months.

“Proud and honored to be the voice for millions of Texans who are fed up with being taxed out of their homes so their government can weaponize their money against them, their values, and their children by funding DEI and transgender indoctrination,” Harrison wrote on X on Friday.

An LGBTQ+ Crackdown?

Like all institutions in the state, Texas A&M has backed away from DEI as instructed by state law. But Welsh’s removal of McCoul for discussing gender identity in class is part of a broader retreat by Texas A&M from LGBTQ+ topics. That effort dates back to at least 2021, according to one anonymous source who previously told Inside Higher Ed they were discouraged from promoting LGBTQ+ materials in the university library’s collection when Banks was president.

Last year Texas A&M cut its LGBTQ studies minor, alongside other low-enrollment programs, after Harrison led a charge against the program, calling it “liberal indoctrination.”

Both the flagship and the Texas A&M system have also taken aim at drag shows.

Texas A&M defunded an annual student drag show without explanation in 2022. West Texas A&M University president Walter Wendler canceled a student drag show in 2023, claiming it was demeaning to women. Earlier this year, the Texas A&M University system Board of Regents passed a resolution banning drag shows across all 11 campuses, only to get hit with a First Amendment lawsuit; a judge ruled against the system in March on free speech grounds.

(Neither Texas A&M University or system officials responded to a request for comment.)

Texas Hiring Trends

With Welsh out of office, Texas A&M will soon begin a search for its next president. Chancellor Glenn Hegar announced Friday that an interim president will be named shortly, and in the meantime, James Hallmark, vice chancellor for academic affairs, will serve as acting president.

Hegar, who has only been on the job since July, is a former Republican politician, one of several hired to lead a Texas system or university in recent months in what is shaping up to be a trend.

Elsewhere in the state, the Texas Tech University system named Republican lawmaker Brandon Creighton as the sole finalist for the chancellor position. During his time in the Legislature, Creighton championed bills to crack down on DEI, restrict free speech at public institutions by banning expressive activities at night and undercut the power of faculty senates.

The University of Texas at Austin also opted for a politico, hiring as president Jim Davis, former Texas deputy attorney general, who had worked in UT Austin’s legal division since 2018. Davis was promoted to the top job after a stint as interim president, a role he had held since February. Similarly, the UT system tapped former GOP lawmaker John Zerwas as its next chancellor.

Recent hiring trends in Texas are beginning to mirror Florida, which has hired multiple former Republican lawmakers and other political figures with connections to Governor Ron DeSantis.

As Texas A&M prepares to launch its search, faculty are calling for an open process.

“The search should be transparent. It shouldn’t be primarily behind closed doors,” Bright said. “The faculty need to be involved. This is academia—this is about teaching, research and service.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
Education Dept. Subjects Harvard to More Financial Oversight

Harvard had a financial responsibility score of 2.8, well over the passing 1.5 required by the Education Department, in fiscal year 2023.

John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

The Education Department announced Friday that it placed Harvard University on heightened cash monitoring, a designation that allows greater federal oversight of institutional finances and is typically reserved for colleges in dire financial straits.

By all accounts, Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, is not.

“It’s harassment,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “Harvard has the money, yes, but it is adding a headache. It’s adding staff. It’s interfering with students’ ability to access federal financial aid … The government’s making it harder for Harvard to support low-income students, which speaks to exactly what the administration’s goals are here—they’re not to help students, they’re not to improve education, they’re not even to address what they see as concerns at Harvard—they’re just to attack Harvard.”

Institutions placed on heightened cash monitoring are asked to put up a letter of credit that serves as collateral for the Education Department if the institution closes, or to award federal financial aid from their own coffers before being reimbursed by the department, explained Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Harvard has been asked to do both.

According to a Friday news release from the Education Department, Harvard must put up a $36 million irrevocable letter of credit or “provide other financial protection that is acceptable to the Department,” department officials wrote.

“Students will continue to have access to federal funding, but Harvard will be required to cover the initial disbursements as a guardrail to ensure Harvard is spending taxpayer funds responsibly,” officials wrote.

The federal government froze $2.7 billion in federal grants for Harvard after the university rejected its sweeping demands in April. Harvard sued, and a judge ruled earlier this month that the freeze was illegal. The university has reportedly received some of the frozen funds, but the Trump administration says it’s still hoping to cut a deal with Harvard.

The release says three events triggered Harvard’s heightened cash monitoring designation: a determination by the Department of Health and Human Services that Harvard violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allegedly allowing antisemitism on campus, accusations that the university isn’t complying with an ongoing investigation by the Office for Civil Rights, and the $1 billion in bonds Harvard has issued to make up for pulled federal funding. Harvard did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Friday.

“Today’s actions follow Harvard’s own admission that there are material concerns about its financial health. As a result, Harvard must now seek reimbursement after distributing federal student aid and post financial protection so that the Department can ensure taxpayer funds are not at risk,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “While Harvard remains eligible to participate in the federal student aid program for now, these actions are necessary to protect taxpayers.”

The department also pointed to layoffs at Harvard and a hiring freeze instituted in the spring. Several other wealthy colleges have frozen hiring and shed staff this year, in part because of the administration’s actions related to federal funding. A few other universities have either issued bonds or taken out loans to get immediate cash. But so far, the department has made no public mention about putting those colleges on heightened cash monitoring.

As of June 1, 538 colleges and universities were on heightened cash monitoring, federal data showed. About one-third of those colleges are private nonprofits, while about 42 percent are for-profit institutions. Most of the institutions—464 of them—are based in the U.S.

Many on the list are private institutions that have low financial responsibility composite scores, Kelchen said. This test assigns institutions a score between -1.0 and 3.0 based on the institution’s primary reserve ratio, equity ratio and net income ratio. To be considered financially responsible, an institution must score at least a 1.5, which Harvard does.

During fiscal year 2023, the latest for which data is publicly available, Harvard’s financial responsibility composite score was 2.8. Harvard’s estimated primary reserve ratio in fiscal year 2023 was 7.6, meaning that the university could operate for about seven and a half years by spending only its existing assets. By comparison, Hampshire College, another private, nonprofit college placed on heightened cash monitoring with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, had an estimated primary reserve ratio of 0.3, meaning it could continue operations for about four months before running out of expendable assets. Drew University, another institution on heightened cash monitoring and also with a financial responsibility composite score of 0.6, has a primary reserve ratio of -1.06.

But beyond the financial responsibility score, there are plenty of reasons an institution can end up on heightened cash monitoring. Some institutions, including Hampshire and Arkansas Baptist College, were put on the list due to a late or missing compliance audit. Others have been put on the list while the department reviews their programs, or because their accreditation was revoked. But, “the department can also just specify that an institution is not financially responsible,” Kelchen said.

The political motivation behind the move is clear, Fansmith said.

“To the extent that there is a problem—and to be clear, there are real problems—it’s not Harvard’s ability to pay their bills or meet their obligations. That’s a problem this administration has created,” he said. “They caused a situation, and then they are blaming Harvard for taking reasonable steps to address that situation. It’s also ironic when they send letters to Harvard using terms like ‘enormous’ and ‘massive’ and ‘colossal’ to describe Harvard’s endowment, and now they’re suddenly determining that they’re worried that Harvard is at financial risk … It is absolutely Orwellian.”

Source link

September 19, 2025
ED Wants Grants to Advance “Patriotic Education”

The Trump administration has made another move that historians say is an attempt to sanitize American history, but one the administration argued is necessary to ensure students have respect for the country.

On Wednesday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon outlined a new plan for how her department would promote “patriotic education” by adding it to the list of priorities that can drive decisions for discretionary grants, including those that support programs at colleges and universities.

“It is imperative to promote an education system that teaches future generations honestly about America’s Founding principles, political institutions, and rich history,” McMahon said in a statement about the new proposal. “To truly understand American values, the tireless work it has taken to live up to them, and this country’s exceptional place in world history is the best way to inspire an informed patriotism and love of country.”

According to the proposal, which is open for public comment until Oct. 17, “patriotic education” refers to “a presentation of the history of America grounded in an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of the American founding and foundational principles”; examines “how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history”; and advances the “concept that commitment to America’s aspirations is beneficial and justified.”

McMahon’s other priorities for grant funding include evidence-based literacy, expanding education choice, returning education to the states and advancing AI in education.

With this latest proposal, the department wants to focus “grant funds on programs that promote a patriotic education that cultivates citizen competency and informed patriotism among and communicates the American political tradition to students at all levels.” That could include projects geared toward helping students understand the “founding documents and primary sources of the American political tradition, in a manner consistent with the principles of a patriotic education,” according to the proposal.

‘Narrow Conception of Patriotism’

However, professional historians who have read the proposal told Inside Higher Ed that the department’s patriotic education push is a politically motivated power grab.

“I agree that American history should be presented with accuracy and honesty, based on solid historical evidence, and doing so does inspire people,” said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. “But the department’s priority statement has a narrow conception of patriotism and patriotic education.”

She said that’s especially evident given the Trump administration’s numerous other policy changes aimed at presenting a version of American history that downplays or ignores the darkest parts of the country’s past, such as race-based slavery, the disenfranchisement of women and African Americans, and codified racial segregation.

“That context tells us that the administration is interested in telling an uncomplicated celebration of American greatness,” Weicksel said. “Doing that flattens the past into a set of platitudes that are not rooted in the broader historical context, conflicts, contingencies and change over time that are central to historical thinking.”

In March, Trump issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” prohibiting federal funding for exhibits or programs that “degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.” That prompted a review of all exhibits hosted by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service, both of which have since removed multiple artifacts that don’t support Trump’s patriotic history push, including several that underscore the brutality of slavery.

And as the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding approaches, the government is in the process of planning commemorative civic education initiatives that advance its definition of patriotic history. To make that happen, it’s largely drawing on the input and expertise of conservative scholars and groups.

The Education Department recently awarded $160 million in American history and civics grants for seminars for K–12 educators and students related to the Declaration of Independence anniversary next year. The agency didn’t specify which institutions got the money but previously said it would give priority to colleges and universities with “independent academic units dedicated to civic thought, constitutional studies, American history, leadership, and economic liberty,” which critics describe as conservative centers.

In remarks at an event hosted by the Federalist Society and the Defense of Freedom Institute on Wednesday, McMahon criticized the state of civics education for students, citing a statistic that only 41 percent of young people say they love America.

“That means the balance doesn’t love America,” she said. “Why don’t they love America? Why aren’t they proud to be Americans? It’s because they don’t know America. They don’t know the foundations, they don’t know the real history of our country … It’s really important that we teach respect for our flag, that we teach respect for our country.”

While she did acknowledge that the Education Department can’t directly control curriculum, she noted that the department can use funding to encourage the types of education or programs it wants to see.

The Education Department also announced Wednesday that it’s launching a coalition of 40 groups—including the conservative Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA, Hillsdale College and the American First Policy Institute—to spearhead the America 250 Civics Education Coalition, which is “dedicated to renewing patriotism.” (McMahon chaired the American First Policy Institute before she became secretary.)

“We celebrate Lincoln for his greatness in recalling the nation to the principles of its birth, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the most beautiful political document in history,” Hillsdale president Larry Arnn said in a statement about the coalition. “It is time to repeat his work and the work of Jefferson and the Founders. We will work together to learn those principles, and for the love of them we will have a grand celebration.”

‘Pure Politics’

But Weicksel with AHA said the government’s directives to omit parts of American history in classrooms, museums and other public spaces will undermine the public’s agency. “If citizens don’t have access to a historically accurate understanding of the past, how will they use that past to chart a new path for the future?”

David Blight, a professor of history and Black studies at Yale University, said he interprets the department’s emphasis on patriotic education as “pure politics.”

“It’s the politics of trying to use history to control people, including children, young people, the people who teach it, the people who write curriculum and the state legislatures that will design this stuff,” he said. “The government is trying to be a truth ministry.”

While there have been other movements to control how the country remembers its history—including by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s and the United Daughters of the Confederacy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—Blight said these moves by the Trump administration are more powerful.

“We’ve never had this come right from the White House, with the power of the executive branch and their control over so much money,” he said, urging educators to voice their opposition. “When federal money depends on pure ideology, we’re in very deep trouble, and that’s what they’re saying. That’s not even close to a democratic society.”

Source link

September 19, 2025