Tag: Events

  • Education Dept. Opens Up FAFSA Beta Test to All

    Education Dept. Opens Up FAFSA Beta Test to All

    The full version of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid is scheduled to launch Oct. 1.

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

    All students can now access a beta version of the 2026–27 Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the Department of Education announced Wednesday.

    The grant application platform won’t officially launch until Oct. 1, the congressionally mandated FAFSA launch deadline, but for the 12 days between now and then, students and families can start their application by participating in the test model.

    “We’re using this time to monitor a limited number of FAFSA submissions to ensure our systems are performing as expected,” the department’s Federal Student Aid website explains. “This is a common practice in website and software development.”

    The first round of beta testing was opened to a limited number of students in early August. Students who submit their form during the test will only have to submit it once, the department website states.    

    Source link

  • Creighton Receives $100M Gift for Athletics Facilities

    Creighton Receives $100M Gift for Athletics Facilities

    Creighton University has received a $100 million gift from the Heider Family Foundation to launch a nearly $300 million campaign for a sprawling recreational and athletic development on the east side of the Omaha campus.

    Creighton’s Fly Together plan will establish or upgrade athletic facilities and outdoor spaces covering 12 blocks and roughly 700,000 square feet. It includes a new student fitness center, a pedestrian walkway connecting the private Jesuit campus to a downtown business district and a new sports performance center for Creighton’s student athletes.

    “Fly Together will serve students and student-athletes, but importantly, it will serve the Omaha community itself,” said Scott Heider, a university trustee as well as a trustee of the Heider Family Foundation, which was established by his parents, Charles and Mary.

    “We are incredibly grateful to the Heider family and the additional donors who are making this moment possible,” said Creighton president Daniel Hendrickson. “This gift … benefits everyone. It enhances student life, intramurals, premier club sports and intercollegiate athletics. It also strengthens Creighton’s connection to downtown and the broader Omaha community.”

    Source link

  • Censorship Is the Authoritarian’s Dream

    Censorship Is the Authoritarian’s Dream

    On Wednesday ABC announced that it had taken Kimmel’s late-night show off the air “indefinitely.”

    More professors in the United States have been fired for controversial views in the past week than any other week in all of American history. The violations of academic freedom, free speech and due process on campuses in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination have been extraordinary and indefensible.

    The campus firings are too numerous to describe in full, but consider the case of Darren Michael, professor of theater at Austin Peay State University, who was fired because he reposted on social media a 2023 Newsweek headline: “Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth It to Keep 2nd Amendment.” Tennessee’s U.S. senator Marsha Blackburn reposted Michael’s view on X, asking the university to take action.

    Austin Peay administrators declared, “A faculty member of Austin Peay State University reshared a post on social media that was insensitive, disrespectful and interpreted by many as propagating justification for unlawful death. Such actions do not align with Austin Peay’s commitment to mutual respect and human dignity. The university deems these actions unacceptable and has terminated the faculty member.”

    This is an utterly appalling excuse to punish anyone, and certainly not an adequate reason for a university to terminate a professor without any due process. There is absolutely no rule at Austin Peay banning people from being insensitive or disrespectful, since any rule like that would clearly violate the First Amendment. And the idea that posting a headline quoting Kirk’s views would somehow justify his murder is insane. It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize anyone for favoring or opposing gun control. This critique of Kirk is anything but pro-murder.

    The violations of due process involved in these arbitrary firings, with no opportunity for a hearing or a defense, are terrible in themselves. But the justifications for the firings are so insubstantial that they cannot merit any kind of penalty, let alone an immediate dismissal.

    It is perfectly legitimate to criticize and even insult both the dead and the living. Any conservative who thinks Charlie Kirk hated free speech so much that he would want his critics purged from campuses is making a far worse insult against Kirk than what any offensive leftist has written or said.

    Of course, the suppression of free speech goes far beyond academia.

    The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel by ABC on Sept. 17 following FCC chair Brendan Carr’s demands for his removal and threats against broadcast licenses represent an alarming repression of free speech, with the combination of corporate censorship and government suppression.

    On his Sept. 15 show, Kimmel said, “We had some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.” What Kimmel said was, in fact, technically true: Conservatives were doing everything they could to claim that Kirk’s murderer was not one of them. And the murderer was, in fact, a white male college dropout from a Republican family in Utah that taught him to shoot and provided him with guns.

    Of course, conservatives are probably correct to call the murderer a leftist with political motives, and if Kimmel was trying to invoke theories that the killer was actually a right-winger, that seems unlikely now based on evidence released after Kimmel’s show aired. But even if Kimmel was trying to make a dubious claim that has now been discredited, that’s protected by the First Amendment and principles of free speech.

    The second part of Kimmel’s claim—that conservatives were using Kirk’s murder to “score political points”—was never in doubt and has been proven yet again by his removal from the airwaves.

    Kimmel didn’t celebrate any violence or say anything bad about Charlie Kirk. The glorification of Kirk is a cover for an authoritarian agenda to suppress political enemies. Donald Trump immediately celebrated Kimmel’s banishment and called for NBC hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers to also be fired.

    This is the slippery slope of censorship: First they come for those who celebrate murder, then they come for anyone who questions the hagiography of the victim, then they go after anyone who quotes the victim’s own words, then they silence anyone who objects to the repression itself. This is why even offensive and stupid comments about Charlie Kirk must not be punished.

    But when Vice President JD Vance urges everyone to “call their employer” in response to offensive comments, that’s not critique or argument: That’s cancel culture, pure and simple. That’s government-mandated repression.

    The right to free expression must include the right to say horrible and evil things. It protects all of the conservatives (including Donald Trump, his son and Charlie Kirk) who joked about the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi. It protects the Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, who urged mass executions of homeless people.

    As David Letterman noted about Kimmel, “You can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian criminal administration in the Oval Office.”

    Less than two years ago, before he began issuing government commands to silence the media, Carr posted on X, “Free speech is the counterweight—it is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.”

    We are living in the authoritarian’s dream, and it’s a nightmare for free speech and democracy.

    Source link

  • 7 Tips to Keep You Safe From Online Doxing

    7 Tips to Keep You Safe From Online Doxing

    Over the past 10 days, dozens of faculty and staff members have had their personal contact information, photos and sometimes addresses broadcast online by anonymous right-wing social media accounts seeking to punish them for comments they allegedly made about the death of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk. This public campaign of online harassment and intimidation, known as doxing, is “off the charts” right now, said Heather Steffen, an adjunct professor of humanities at Georgetown University.

    Steffen is also the director of Faculty First Responders, a group created by the American Association of University Professors in 2020 to track and help faculty members targeted by right-wing media. Doxing has been on the rise since protests over the Israel-Hamas war fractured campuses in 2023, but educators are increasingly coming under attack in “ideologically motivated efforts” to silence dissent, according to an August report from the National Association of Attorneys General. “This shift signals the evolution of doxxing from isolated conduct to a more coordinated form of digital persecution,” the report said.

    While the attacks are becoming more frequent and sophisticated, higher ed employees can take steps to minimize the risk of doxing, as well as the damage incurred if it does happen.

    1. Keep your personal and work accounts separate.

    Remove employers’ names from all of your personal social media accounts—if it’s in your bio, take it out, Steffen advised. “You can state in your bio on social media that your views do not represent your employer, and you don’t need to name the employer in order to do that,” she said.

    In many cases, work may demand that you list some contact information publicly, but don’t use that information for personal business, said Rob Shavell, CEO and co-founder of DeleteMe, a service that will find and try to wipe members’ personal information from the web. “The data brokers are getting very good at correlating [work and personal] data and putting them into one dossier,” he said. These days, when DeleteMe’s privacy advisers scan the web for members’ information, they return an average of 750 pieces of personally identifying information per person, up from 225 pieces four years ago.

    Also, be aware of what devices, accounts and Wi-Fi networks you’re using, and be sure not to use work-provided equipment or resources for anything other than work, Steffen added.

    2. Scrub your information from data-broker websites.

    Data brokers collect and sell personal information. Companies like DeleteMe and Incogni will remove your personal information from data-broker websites for a fee; DeleteMe charges $129 per member annually. But for anyone who wants to take a do-it-yourself approach, DeleteMe has published free opt-out guides that walk readers through removing their information from the sites, including Experian, TransUnion and CoreLogic. Steffen also suggests following the steps outlined in the Big Ass Data Broker Opt-Out List, a Github project that explains how to scrub your information from data brokers.

    3. Use an email mask or alias when possible.

    “Masked emails or phone numbers or even credit cards allow you to sign up for things or make calls or buy things without revealing to every counterparty your real personal information,” Shavell said. DeleteMe offers masking, as do companies like Apple and NordPass. These services create a faux address that will then forward emails to your real account. Google also offers free alias phone numbers through Google Voice that will forward calls to your personal phone. In addition to better security, masking also decreases spam and phishing risks.

    4. Breathe before you post (and remember the risk of screenshots).

    Even if you’re posting to a private account—say, a “close friends” story on your personal Instagram—anything you put online can still be screenshotted and shared widely, Steffen warned. “Anytime you’re posting or reposting something, a good tool can be to pause and think: Would I be comfortable with my employer, my students and my community knowing that I hold this view, and would I be comfortable with them seeing it expressed in this way?” she said.

    5. Protect your accounts with complex passwords and two-factor authentication.

    It’s boring, but it’s important, said Viktorya Vilk, director for digital safety and free expression at the nonprofit PEN America, which offers digital safety training to colleges and universities and has created a “what to do” resource for people who have been doxed. “If someone hacks into your Facebook or your email, it’s so hard to get that account back. And it’s also incredibly intrusive and unsettling,” she said. “Having a long, secure password and two-factor authentication makes it almost impossible for someone to be able to hack into your account.”

    6. In the event you are doxed: Center yourself, and then secure your physical safety.

    “People often have a fight, flight or freeze response. It can be incredibly traumatizing and so very difficult to take steps or use your judgment about what to do when you’re being doxed,” Vilk said. “And so, counterintuitively, the very first thing to do is to take a minute and try to center yourself. For some people that’s taking some deep breaths. For other people, it’s just, like, moving around, wiggling around.”

    After that, make sure you’re physically safe, she advised. If your address has been shared, consider staying at a hotel or with friends or family until the storm passes. Consider contacting law enforcement to report the threats, file a police report and let them know you’re at increased risk for swatting—a harassment tactic that involves making a false emergency call in order to dispatch law enforcement to a specific location.

    7. Once you are physically safe, document the harassment and lock down your accounts.

    Set your social accounts to private mode if they’re not already, and take any steps to limit visibility of your posts, Vilk said. “That’s very easy to switch back after the storm dies down,” she added. Be careful communicating with unfamiliar accounts, emails or phone numbers, and document any threats or harassment you receive. Don’t download attachments or click on links from unknown senders, and do a quick search online to find out more about them before responding.

    “Take screenshots when you receive them and then report them to the platform where they’re happening. That can be really stressful, so we really recommend that people recruit friends or family or trusted colleagues to help them do that so that they’re not doing it alone,” Vilk said.

    Your cellphone number can also be stolen. “If it starts to circulate online, people will call your cellphone company and pretend to be you and try to reroute traffic,” she said. Protect your number by calling the company and placing a PIN on your account.

    Source link

  • Right-Wing Doxing Campaign Endangers Faculty and Free Speech

    Right-Wing Doxing Campaign Endangers Faculty and Free Speech

    Faculty and staff members at Auburn University, Eastern New Mexico University–Roswell and Coastal Carolina University are among those who have been punished for their comments on Charlie Kirk’s death.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images | Nordin Catic/Getty Images/The Cambridge Union | Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    College faculty and staff members have become popular targets of the right-wing doxing firestorm that ignited in the hours after Charlie Kirk was shot and killed last week during an event at Utah Valley University. As of Thursday afternoon, Inside Higher Ed had identified 37 faculty and staff members who are being harassed online for allegedly critical or insensitive social media posts about Kirk. So far, at least 24 of those employees have been terminated, suspended or put on administrative leave, including employees at Auburn University, Eastern New Mexico University–Roswell and Coastal Carolina University.

    The force and scale of the doxing campaigns—and the speed with which institutions have moved to suspend or terminate their targets—paints a grim picture of free speech rights on public college campuses. Widespread doxing as a political tool to punish universities and academics is not a new phenomenon, but right now it’s particularly virulent, explained Keith Whittington, a professor at Yale Law School and an expert on free speech. “The size of the activity, the pressure campaign and the … short period of time is highly unusual,” he said. “Universities feel like they’re under intense pressure to mollify right-wing activists and try not to draw negative attention from the [Trump] administration.”

    Most of the higher education targets of doxing campaigns have been identified first by users on X, Facebook or other social media sites. Then anonymous accounts broadcast their name, employer, photo and contact information, along with calls for their firing. A group that calls itself the Charlie Kirk Data Foundation has also asked the public to submit via email or online the names, identifying information and screenshots of any person who has criticized Kirk or appeared to celebrate his death. On Sunday, the group claimed to have received more than 63,000 unique names.

    The first call-outs that gained traction were particularly inflammatory. For example, a University of Toronto professor—who has since been placed on leave—posted in a comment on X, “shooting is honestly too good for so many of you fascist cunts.” This type of speech is often “universally condemned,” but it should still be protected by universities committed to First Amendment values, Whittington said. (Or Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.) Now, doxers are attacking even those who engage in mild criticism of Kirk or his supporters, as well as those who merely quote Kirk’s own views on gun control and other topics in juxtaposition to the news of his death.

    “We do seem to see a pattern in which activists are very quickly moving beyond [more egregious] instances to much more marginal cases, where … we might not think that these particular examples of speech violated any widespread view that it is inappropriate or beyond the pale,” Whittington said.

    A staff member at Wake Forest University in North Carolina was doxed and later terminated after posting on social media the lyrics, “He had it coming, he had it coming” from the Chicago song “Cell Block Tango.” One University of South Carolina professor was targeted by doxers for a critical Facebook comment about a state representative who supported Kirk and was later relieved of teaching duties because of it. A faculty member at East Tennessee State University was put on administrative leave after posting, “You can’t be upset if one of those deaths in [sic] yours #charliekirk” in response to a news headline that quoted Kirk saying, “It’s worth [it] to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” Inside Higher Ed has opted not to name employees that haven’t been confirmed by their university in order to prevent further harassment.

    The number of doxing campaigns targeting educators is on the rise. Experts say higher ed employees can stay safe by keeping work and personal accounts separate, using email masks, and removing personal information from data broker sites. For more tips, see our story here.

    So far no higher ed institution has faced as swift and fierce a condemnation from conservatives online as Clemson University, which, in response to the political pressure, has now terminated two faculty members and one staff member over their social media posts about Kirk. An assistant professor at Clemson was among the first to be named and shamed. On Sept. 10, the day Kirk was shot and killed, they posted, “Today was one of the most beautiful days ever. The weather was perfect, sunny with a light breeze. This was such a beautiful day.” Kirk’s supporters interpreted this comment as a celebration of his death. The Clemson professor also reposted jokes about the killing—including “no one mourns the Wicked” and “[N-word] worried about DEI and DIED instead.”

    From there, the doxing machine roared to life. The student group Clemson College Republicans was the first to identify the professor and share their posts, according to U.S. representative Russell Fry, whose Sept. 11 post on X about the professor garnered 1.2 million views. The post was amplified by hundreds of right-wing accounts and other politicians, including U.S. representative Nancy Mace, who has commented on and reposted dozens of similar call-outs. Clemson officials issued a statement on Sept. 12, writing that “the deeply inappropriate remarks made on social media in response to the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk are reprehensible and do not reflect the University values and principles that define our University community.” They made no mention of disciplining the employees involved and noted only that the university will “take appropriate action for speech that constitutes a genuine threat which is not protected by the Constitution.”

    The pressure campaign continued. Two other employees of the public university—a staff member and another professor—were also targeted for their posts about Kirk’s death, and Republican politicians called for their firing, too. Clemson officials issued another statement a day later, stating that an employee had been suspended and reiterating that officials would take action “in cases where speech is not protected under the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.”

    The university did not name any employees or say what the suspended employee posted. However, the posts circulating online from the three Clemson employees in question appear to be protected speech, according to the way most First Amendment scholars interpret it.

    Over the weekend, U.S. representative Ralph Norman, the X account for the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary Republicans and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined in the calls for the employees’ firing, and some politicians called for the State Legislature to defund Clemson. So did President Donald Trump, who reposted a Truth Social post from South Carolina state representative Jordan Pace that said, “Now Clemson faculty is inciting violence against conservatives. It’s time for a special session to end this. Defund Clemson. End Tenure at State colleges.”

    Clemson officials did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. The university’s academic freedom policy for faculty states, “When they speak or write as private persons, faculty shall be free from institutional censorship or disciplinary action, but they shall avoid creating an impression that they are speaking or acting for the University.” The Faculty Handbook doesn’t outline any clear exceptions to this rule but does note that “as professional educators and academic officers, they are aware that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, faculty members should endeavor to be accurate, to exercise due restraint, to show respect for the utterances of others, and, when appropriate, to indicate that they are not officially representing Clemson University.”

    On Monday, Clemson announced it had terminated the staff member and removed both faculty members from their teaching duties. By Tuesday, all three employees had been terminated. South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson told Clemson’s president he had the “full legal authority” to terminate the employees, writing in a statement, “The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not shield threats, glorification of violence, or behavior that undermines the mission of our state institutions.” This contradicts what experts at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and other free speech experts have said in recent days: that speech, even if it’s poorly timed, tasteless, inappropriate, controversial or a nonspecific endorsement of violence, is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

    While these name-and-shame campaigns constitute a particularly harsh attack on campus speech, they are nothing new. In fact, they’ve increased in frequency since 2023, when many pro-Palestinian academics were targeted, said Heather Steffen, a humanities professor at Georgetown University and director of the American Association of University Professors’ Faculty First Responders group.

    “Faculty who speak about certain issues have been more vulnerable to doxing for a long time,” Steffen said. “So anyone who talks about issues of race or racism, gender and sexuality, or Palestine tends to be more likely to be doxed or somehow otherwise attacked in a politically motivated fashion, as do academics who are faculty of color, or queer faculty, or trans faculty or pro-Palestinian faculty.”

    Ultimately, it’s not about what the employees said, Whittington explained. It’s about the political outcomes.

    “This is primarily about exercising political power and trying to silence and suppress people who disagree with you politically,” he said. “It doesn’t matter that the offense is trivial … What matters is you’re identifying people that you politically disagree with and you have a moment in which you can exercise power over those people. And there are lots of people willing to take advantage of those opportunities.”

    Source link

  • What Happens to Dual Enrollment Credits After High School?

    What Happens to Dual Enrollment Credits After High School?

    Dual enrollment is often described to high school students and their families as a way to get an early college experience at a significantly reduced cost. These students will earn college credit—sometimes even an associate degree or other college credential—before graduating high school, potentially reducing the time and cost of earning a bachelor’s degree.

    At least that’s the promise. But what happens when the path after high school isn’t so clear?

    For us, both former DE students (or, as we call ourselves, “stealth transfers”), transferring to a bachelor’s program after high school wasn’t straightforward. And our stories aren’t uncommon. Too often, DE students leave high school without guidance on transfer pathways, and even fewer understand the complexities of credit transfer or the financial implications of their DE choices in high school. What happens to former DE students’ credits after high school? What challenges do these students face? How can we better support them?

    Stealth Transfers: Unforeseen Challenges With Credit Mobility

    As dual-enrollment students, we assumed transfer would be a simple handoff: The credits we earned in high school would transfer to any college or university we planned to attend, apply directly to our program of study and help us graduate sooner while saving money. In reality, it isn’t always this seamless. Here are a few reasons why:

    1. Students may not be aware, or advised on, whether their DE courses will be accepted for credit toward a bachelor’s or other credential in their major field of interest. Among the more than 4,000 DE students from 17 colleges who participated in the pilot of the Dual Enrollment Survey of Student Engagement (DESSE), fewer than half reported ever interacting with a college adviser, and 88 percent reported never having utilized the college’s transfer credit services.
    2. Researchers have used national data to track transfer outcomes generally; however, there is still limited research on the extent of the challenges of DE credit transfer and how colleges and K–12 partners can ensure that DE credits are seamlessly transferred and applied to students’ degree programs. Community college students face challenges in transferring credits toward a major field of interest—challenges that could be compounded for DE students due to a lack of understanding of credit transfer and infrequent use of transfer supports.
    3. After enrolling in a university, former DE students may feel poorly supported because they are right out of high school, yet have advanced academic standing, so they don’t fall so neatly into first-year or transfer student populations (and the support services designed for them). As such, stealth transfers may miss out on dedicated advising, scholarships and clear information on how to advocate for themselves during the credit-evaluation process.

    The Support That Traveled With Me: Akilah’s Story

    As a double transfer—first through DE in high school, then from community college to a private university—I always knew my path was right, even when others doubted it. While DE wasn’t as heavily promoted by my high school as other academic programs, I knew it was a valuable and accessible opportunity to prepare me for college and my future goals. However, the guidance from my high school and community college advisers wasn’t always clear and often felt generic. Instead, I leaned on the support from my faith and family. Thanks to my father’s research, I was aware of which credits would and wouldn’t transfer, helping me make informed decisions. After transferring to my university, it was affirming to have the university adviser recognize the effort my family and I put into mapping out my plan. In the end, 57 of my 65 credits transferred.

    Many students like me turn to faith, family and community to bridge gaps in information and support. My story urges colleges to recognize the supports and resources transfer students draw on while providing clear pathways and dedicated advising for them.

    Racing Through College Without a Road Map: Aurely’s Story

    When I graduated high school with an associate degree and 68 college credits, I thought being ahead of my peers would be an advantage, especially since I couldn’t afford to pay for college. I only applied to one in-state university because it accepted 60 college credits and had a scholarship for former DE students. DE prepared me for the rigor of college coursework, but not what it would feel like to be a junior-level student at 18 years old. My focus was graduating quickly to start making an income, so I met with my adviser monthly to stay on track—but I didn’t take advantage of internships or networking opportunities because I wasn’t advised of their importance and had little time left after balancing a heavy course load with part-time jobs.

    Like many low-income students, I had the encouragement to pursue a higher education, but not the guidance on how to leverage it for my goals or career. Looking back, a dedicated community for stealth transfers could have helped me catch up on the social, professional and developmental experiences that typically occur over several years in college.

    What Can We Do to Support the DE Transfer Experience? 

    The growth of DE nationally means more students will arrive on college and university campuses as stealth transfers. When these students’ transfer journeys are hidden, they may miss out on dedicated advising, strategies to reduce the cost of completing their degree and guidance on how to advocate for themselves in higher education and beyond. As former DE students who now research DE and transfer, we offer recommendations below grounded in both our lived experiences and national research.

    1. Collect data on credit transfer and experiences of former DE students. Too little information is available on what happens to DE credits after high school. Educators can better support stealth transfers by participating in surveys, like the DESSE, and tracking outcomes for former DE students, including how many credits are lost and which courses are often not transferable. These data should be disaggregated to identify gaps (e.g., race, income) and discussed with K–12, community college and university partners during professional development and planning meetings to improve transfer outcomes.
    2. Provide clear major-specific pathways and guidance for stealth transfers. Many former DE students transfer more than once after high school, yet information on these pathways is not always accessible (or understandable) to students and their families. Educators should publish clear guidance on K–12, community college and university websites for students who attend a community college after DE. In high school, students should be informed if they are taking DE courses from multiple institutions and to save their DE course syllabi so they can be better equipped in advocating for the transferability of their coursework in the future.
    3. Improve financial guidance for former DE students. Former DE students may be unfamiliar with the costs of attending college after DE. Educators can ensure that scholarship opportunities at various transfer destinations are available to former DE students and deadlines are communicated during their senior year in high school.
    4. Support stealth transfer experiences as part of college transfer support services. As dual-enrollment programs expand nationally, there will be more stealth transfer students entering higher education after high school. Educators can make transfer support services, like transfer centers, more inclusive by surveying stealth transfers to understand their needs, creating former DE affinity groups, providing dedicated supports for former DE students, fostering peer connections and hosting events or networking opportunities for this population.

    As dual enrollment continues to grow, college and university leaders must recognize that more students will arrive as stealth transfers. By making stealth transfers visible, we can ensure that the promise of DE is fulfilled—not lost in transition.

    Source link

  • Fewer College Staff Say They’ll Likely Seek New Jobs in 2025

    Fewer College Staff Say They’ll Likely Seek New Jobs in 2025

    Nearly 3,800 respondents took the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources Higher Education Employee Retention Survey.

    About a quarter of nonfaculty higher ed employees told an April survey that they were likely or very likely to look for new jobs in the next year—a drop from the third of such workers who indicated in 2023 they would go job hunting.

    The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources released this week the results of its latest Higher Education Employee Retention Survey, which had nearly 3,800 respondents, 96 percent of whom said they’re full-time employees and 75 percent of whom said they’re overtime-exempt workers. The respondents hailed from 505 different colleges and universities.

    Greater rates of nonsupervisors, men and employees of color reported they were seeking to change jobs compared to their counterparts. And, out of the various types of offices—such as academic affairs and admissions, enrollment and financial aid—the CUPA-HR report says “external affairs appears to be the most stable area, with nearly two-thirds (62%) of employees indicating they are unlikely or very unlikely to look for a new job.”

    Employees who are eyeing new jobs aren’t necessarily seeking to leave academe, or even their current employers. Around 72 percent of those who said they intend to job hunt said they plan to look at other colleges or universities. Nearly half want to explore new roles at their current institutions. The same share plan to look at non–higher ed nonprofits, while 60 percent are eyeing private, for-profit companies. (Respondents who say they are job hunting could pick multiple options.)

    Why are they seeking new jobs? Around 70 percent ranked higher pay in their top three reasons for leaving, a far higher percentage than any other impetus. The next most common reason was seeking promotion, at 39 percent, followed by desiring a different workplace culture and reducing stress, each around 33 percent. Then came remote work opportunities, at 28 percent, and job security concerns, at 26 percent.

    Job security concern “was particularly pronounced among employees in research and sponsored programs/institutional research,” the report says.

    Despite employees’ wishes for more money, the report says feelings of belonging and of purpose in work, along with senses of being valued by others at work and engaged with work, “are stronger predictors of retention than is the perception of fair pay.”

    Source link

  • Why Students Participate in Dual Enrollment

    Why Students Participate in Dual Enrollment

    Over the past three years, the number of high school students taking college courses has increased more than 20 percent, making them a growing share of all undergraduates, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

    Dual enrollment can help high school students get a head start on their college degree. In addition to expediting the amount of time it takes to complete a two- or four-year degree, concurrent-enrollment courses may be cheaper or subsidized for high school students, reducing the costs associated with a college degree.

    A recent study by Tyton Partners investigates why students participate in dual enrollment and how the experience shapes their perceptions of college.

    Students say: A majority of surveyed students participating in dual enrollment were high school seniors (76 percent); 24 percent were juniors.

    Most high schoolers took only one or two college courses (58 percent); just 19 percent were enrolled in four or more. While one-third of students took courses online, two-thirds attended in person at a local college.

    The primary motivation for students to engage in dual enrollment was to get ahead on college credits and reduce tuition costs (51 percent). One in five students said they were looking for more advanced coursework.

    The data also pointed to dual enrollment’s role as a pipeline to higher education. Three in five students said they strongly agree with the statement “My dual-enrollment experience is preparing me for college,” and a similar share indicated they feel like they belong at their college.

    Dual-enrollment students worry about affordability in higher education; one in five said they do not feel they have the resources to pay for college. Research shows that dually enrolled students are more likely to receive grants and scholarships when they attend college, compared to their peers who are not concurrently enrolled.

    Over half of dual-enrollment students said the experience made them more motivated to attend college (57 percent), while one-third said their interest in higher education remained unchanged; 6 percent said the experience was a turnoff that made them less interested in college.

    One notable trend was that dual-enrollment participants who later enrolled in college full-time were more likely to pursue natural and physical sciences compared to the general undergraduate population. Thirty-seven percent of current college students who had taken college courses while in high school said they were studying natural and physical sciences, compared to 29 percent of their peers without concurrent-enrollment credits. Conversely, non-dual-enrollment students elected humanities and social science majors at higher rates (37 percent) than their dual-enrollment peers (31 percent).

    “While this may reflect the interests of students who opt into dual enrollment, it also highlights the potential of dual enrollment pathways to attract and support learners aiming for more technical or science-focused careers,” according to the report.

    Looking ahead: More colleges have implemented or expanded dual-enrollment offerings since 2020, in part to reverse flagging enrollment numbers, but also to expand access to higher education. However, equity gaps still persist in terms of who is aware of or participating in concurrent enrollment.

    In a survey of academic advisers and administrators, 45 percent of respondents said they expect their institution to increase resources for dual enrollment support over the next three years.

    College staff and leaders identified college transition programs (28 percent) and academic planning tailored to future degree pathways (28 percent) as the most impactful supports for dual-enrollment students.

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

    Source link

  • ASU Police Reportedly Assisted DHS With Arrest

    ASU Police Reportedly Assisted DHS With Arrest

    yongyuan/iStock/Getty Images

    Arizona State University police assisted in arranging the violent arrest of a staff member by Department of Homeland Security officials earlier this week, The Phoenix New Times reported.

    The ASU chapter of the National Lawyers Guild alleged in an Instagram post that ASU police officer James Quigley arranged a meeting with a staff member, who was not named, “under the pretense of discussing a ‘concern’ about a social media post.” After a brief meeting, the employee was then arrested by multiple plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, according to the group.

    A purported video of the encounter was later posted on X. The video shows several men with badges, one of whom identifies himself as “a special agent with Homeland Security” twisting an individual’s wrist before kneeing him in the back. In the video, the arrested individual, who is the employee in question, according to the post, asks, “What did I do?” as he is arrested.

    The employee was later released, according to the newspaper. 

    In the aftermath of the arrest, the ASU chapter of the National Lawyers Guild called on the university and President Michael Crow to publicly denounce the incident, end all cooperation with ICE and enact policies “to prevent future targeting and harm” to community members.

    “ASU must protest the safety and dignity of its staff and students—not partner with agencies that terrorize them,” the organization wrote online.

    ASU spokesperson Jerry Gonzalez told Inside Higher Ed that the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security had questioned an employee after receiving an anonymous tip.

    “In order to remain informed about a matter involving an ASU employee, an ASU police officer accompanied a DHS investigator to a meeting with the employee at a coffee shop off campus,” Gonzalez wrote.

    He confirmed that the employee was later released.

    (This article has been updated with a comment from ASU.)



    Source link

  • McMahon Calls for Improving Efficiency, Civilizing Discourse

    McMahon Calls for Improving Efficiency, Civilizing Discourse

    McMahon said the department’s plan to move career and technical education programs to the Labor Department is one way to show that other agencies can run Education Department programs more efficiently.

    Connor McLaren for the Ronald Reagan Institute

    Washington, D.C.—Education Secretary Linda McMahon made clear at a series of policy summits this week that while she remains committed to one day shuttering her department, there’s still much work left to be done.

    “You don’t just shut off the lights and walk out the door if you are trying to return education to the states,” McMahon said at one event Wednesday, adding that offices like Civil Rights and Federal Student Aid can’t simply be eliminated. “Really, what we’re trying to do is to show how we can move different parts of the Department of Education to show that they can be more efficient operating in other agencies.”

    Throughout her remarks at both events—the Education Law and Policy Conference hosted by the Federalist Society and the Defense of Freedom Institute on Wednesday and the Reagan Institute Summit on Education on Thursday—the secretary stressed that a key way to test this concept is by moving workforce development programs to the Department of Labor.

    “Let’s be sure that we are not moving hastily, but that we are taking the right steps at the right pace for success,” McMahon told the Federalist Society audience. “And if we show that this is an incredibly efficient and effective way to manage these programs, it is my hope that Congress will look at that and approve these moves.”

    However, some advocates for students, institutional lobbyists, Democrats in Congress and left-leaning policy analysts have taken issue with the plan to move adult, career and technical education programs to the Labor Department, arguing that it’s illegal and will create more headaches for the providers who rely on the money.

    Regardless, the Trump administration is moving forward with its plans. ED signed an interagency agreement with the Department of Labor earlier this spring and has more recently moved many of its staff members to the DOL office. (Funding for the salaries of these employees and the programs they lead, however, will still come from the Education Department budget.)

    On Thursday at the Reagan Institute, McMahon noted that the combined staff is working on a new learning and employment report as well as a “skills wallet” that will help show employers what students have learned and students what employers are looking for.

    “It’s an exciting time in labor development in that country, but it’s a challenge and a real responsibility for us to not get stuck,” she said.

    Aside from career and technical education and some of her other priorities, such as cracking down on alleged campus antisemitism and racial preferencing, much of the conversation both days was centered around the recent shooting of conservative figurehead Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University and how to prevent political violence on campus.

    McMahon was quick to describe the Turning Point USA president’s death as a travesty and to charge colleges with the responsibility of promoting more healthy civic discourse. At both events, she cited Kirk himself as a prime example of what such debate looks like, saying that while his approach was at times “aggressive,” he was always “very polite” and “civil.”

    “He wasn’t antagonistic, but he was challenging. And there’s a clever art to being able to do that,” she said. “I don’t think that we show our students how to do that enough.”

    Thursday, she denounced the faculty, staff and students who appeared to have been apathetic toward or allegedly celebrated Kirk’s death, building upon comments she made in a social media video earlier this week. But just as she suggested condemning certain individuals for crossing an “ethical line,” she added that “if you shut down the speech of one side to allow the freedom of speech for another, you’d have actually compromised the entire principle, and that we cannot have.”

    She closed on Thursday by urging educators to foster their students’ compassion.

    “We’ve lost a little of our humanity,” she said. “Let’s make sure we grab that back in peace and show it through leadership.”

    Source link