Tag: Events

Cross-Functional Marcomm Teams Drive Strategic Success

During my first foray into marcomm leadership, every project seemed on fire. If the project was due at 3 p.m., the first draft was ready at 2 p.m., giving little time for adjustments. I noticed this happened with almost every project. As I did some research into the production calendar, I realized there were more projects than time. That meant if one project got behind, there was a ripple effect that continued to impact more and more projects the team was working on.

An initial strategy to address this involved offloading projects that were not the best use of marcomm’s time. The second strategy looked at increasing capacity through student workers and approved freelance partners. Despite implementing both, the team still struggled to accomplish all the tasks, finding many delays in the back-and-forth process with the campus partner. As I started exploring what would help the team, the idea of cross-functional teams emerged as a viable strategy to yield better alignment with key constituents, increase efficiency and create better products.

Cross-functional teams are groups of people from various areas in an organization who work together to achieve a common goal. I have used these teams with key university partners including enrollment, advancement and athletics. Each cross-functional team has several members from the marcomm team (usually a representative from communications, marketing, creative and web) and two or three members from the other unit. Together, these groups meet regularly and work as strategic partners to meet institutional goals.

Cross-functional teams are time-consuming but can have significant impact on outcomes, culture and organizational success when done well. Below are a few benefits of utilizing cross-functional teams when working with strategic campus partners.

Moving From Service Provider to Strategic Partner

One benefit of cross-functional teams is positioning marcomm teams as a strategic partner, not just an order taker. This shift allows marcomm to more meaningfully support institutional goals. Instead of executing someone else’s strategy, these teams can apply their individual expertise while collaborating on integrated strategies that support the partner and ultimately the organization. For example, the web team member can begin approaching the project thinking about the entire digital strategy, instead of just making a website pretty. This role’s shift helps improve relationships between the teams but ultimately drives results.

Operational Efficiency Creates Wins Faster

Familiar teams work faster. Less time is required to navigate procedural and relational decisions, such as who needs to review something or what the feedback process entails. In cross-functional teams, the members become comfortable with these aspects, allowing them to begin working faster. The speed comes not only from familiarity but also from intentionality. Shared institutional knowledge of the goals and the internal processes to complete tasks results in more thoughtful responses when adjustments are needed because of changes like enrollment shifts, market changes or budget adjustments.

Consistency Builds Brand Equity

Aligned teams also create consistent work. Regular collaboration leads to consistency in voice, tone and look on projects. For example, when cross-functional teams are collaborating on the goals for a piece, there is more likely to be synergy in the tactical execution of the piece or at a least a shared understanding of the approach. When there is no alignment, the teams may agree on the goal but are less likely to agree on the strategies and tactics, resulting in disjointed messaging and less effective outcomes.

Cohesive messages also build trust and recognition with external audiences, which is critical to support for university objectives. Ultimately, consistency across teams strengthens the university’s voice in the market and amplifies the impact of every communication.

Internal Alignment Supports Goals

One of the biggest benefits of cross-functional teams is how they strengthen internal alignment within marcomm. By collaborating closely with colleagues across disciplines, the marcomm team is better equipped to align its work with the goals and priorities of campus partners. For example, telling our story takes on an enhanced meaning when it is viewed through the lens of growing enrollment or raising private institutional support. In addition, this cross-functional collaboration fosters greater accountability and trust within the marcomm unit itself. From my experience, the team often internally aligns on the approach and presents a strategic (and united) front when pitching concepts or suggesting strategy shifts.

Empowered Teams Create Elevated Outcomes

Cross-functional teams facilitate learning from all members. Hearing new perspectives from other divisions creates new understandings, both within marcomm and outside of it. For example, web team members learn about graphic design and enrollment best practices. This occurs because cross-functional teams are collaboration-based, so all team members are empowered to contribute ideas instead of only giving feedback on their traditional roles. More broadly, the entire marcomm team benefits from cross-functional teams if there’s a way to share these learnings with the full group instead of just those in a specific meeting.

Working Toward Success

When I first stepped into marcomm leadership, the team was running full speed just to keep up, racing from one fire drill to the next with little time to pause, reflect or align. What initially seemed like a time-management problem turned out to be a deeper issue of structure, communication and partnership. Through the intentional creation of cross-functional teams, we began to shift from reactive executors to proactive strategic partners.

Cross-functional teams require time investment to create shared mission, collaboration frameworks and understanding of the work at hand. However, these teams generate shared ownership and strong trust, central to ongoing collaboration, partnerships and organizational innovation. Most importantly, the outcomes are usually a more agile, aligned and high-performing organization—better equipped to meet both immediate goals and long-term strategic priorities of the institution.

Carrie Phillips, Ed.D., is chief communications and marketing officer at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Source link

June 3, 2025
City College of SF Announces Chancellor Hire, Then Backtracks

City College of San Francisco announced last week that it had hired a new chancellor—but never voted to approve the candidate and later deleted the news release, leaving the process in limbo.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that City College posted a news release on Tuesday announcing that it had selected Carlos O. Cortez as its next chancellor, pending approval at a Board of Trustees meeting on Thursday. However, the board spent several hours in a closed executive session before ultimately deciding not to make a decision on the candidate.

Trustees did not explain their inaction on the search, according to a review of the meeting. The board agenda shows trustees were also set to consider approval of a contract for Cortez, with an annual base salary of $350,000, but removed that action item after punting on the search.

Multiple speakers at the meeting expressed support for Cortez.

In the Tuesday news release that was later deleted, Anita Martinez, the Board of Trustees president, lauded the candidate for his “proven track record of success in academic innovation, fundraising, student success, and community engagement.”

His hire even prompted congratulatory posts on LinkedIn before the move was walked back.

Cortez was previously chancellor of the San Diego Community College District from July 2021 to May 2023 before he stepped down suddenly, a move he attributed to the need to take care of his ailing parents in Florida. Since then he has emerged as a finalist for six jobs at the chancellor or president level, including SFCC. Five of those jobs were in California and one was in Wisconsin.

The San Francisco Chronicle also reported that Cortez was arrested in Florida on suspicion of driving under the influence in January 2024 and later pleaded no contest to reckless driving. Cortez told the newspaper the charge was “due to a mixture of prescription medicine.”

Cortez told the San Francisco Chronicle last week that he didn’t know where his candidacy stands. He did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed sent via LinkedIn on Monday.

City College officials also did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

Source link

June 3, 2025
Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)
American universities are dynamic engines of deep technological innovation (deep tech), responding to a growing demand for STEM research innovations that can reach the market quickly and at scale. In order to remain competitive in a fast-moving global scientific landscape and strengthen national research dominance, universities need to accelerate their innovation outputs by shortening the time it takes for research products from graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields to reach the market, while providing these early-career researchers with the necessary mentorship and resources needed to translate their academic research projects into high-impact startup companies. By targeting these highly qualified scientists at the juncture of innovative university research and entrepreneurial ambition, we can more effectively advance academic research discoveries from early-career STEM talent into commercially viable new companies (NewCos) at scale.

To fully capitalize on this immense potential, America must transcend the current national innovation paradigms. We argue that our nation’s global leadership in science and technology could be maintained through strategically scaled and nationally coordinated approaches to innovation, including cross-cutting and cross-sectoral approaches. Additionally, to retain American scientific and technological leadership on the global stage, we must confront the inherent risks of deep tech ventures head-on and decisively maximize our national “shots on goal,” which can lead to developing a truly robust and self-sustaining innovation ecosystem.

A Scalable Model for National STEM Innovation

The foundation of a new American innovation model lies in the urgent creation of new and effective cross-sectoral partnerships involving universities, industry, government and philanthropic players. Existing models supporting American innovation rely heavily on public seed funding, which, while valuable, often falls short in meeting the needs for the capital-intensive process of commercializing deep tech ventures from university lab research. Historically, the federal government has borne much of the early risk for deep tech company formation such as through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, administered by agencies including the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

These programs have served as important launchpads for many academic entrepreneurs, including early-career scientists. However, early-phase SBIR/STTR grants typically range around $150,000 for durations of six months to one year. While this funding provides critical seed capital, it represents only a fraction of the substantial investment required for R&D, prototyping and market validation for deep tech ventures. Compounding this challenge, the acceptance rate for SBIR grants has declined sharply, from approximately 30 percent in 2001 to just 10 percent in 2024 in some sectors, further straining the pipeline necessary for deep tech innovation.

Current federally focused financial support systems are falling short. Start-up success rates remain low, and private venture capital is unlikely to close the funding gap, especially for university-based early-career scientists. As competition for SBIR funding intensifies and global venture capital investment drops by 30 percent, America’s scientific and technological competitiveness is at risk without stronger shared-risk models and expanded backing for academic innovation.

In today’s highly commercialized and globally competitive research landscape, the quality and quantity of start-ups emerging from academic labs are critical parameters for developing the next generation of entrepreneurs. A strong pipeline of NewCos enables more innovations to be tested in real-world markets, increasing the chances that transformative companies will succeed and attract external investment from industry. To meet this challenge, America needs a bold vision focused on maximizing national shots on goal through strategic scaling, proactive risk management and innovative risk-sharing models. This framework must not only rely on investment from the federal government but also from a strategically blended funding model that includes state and local governments, industry, philanthropy, venture capital, mission-driven investors, and other nontraditional funding sources.

A nationally coordinated cross-sector pooled NewCo fund, supported by federal agencies, universities, industry, philanthropy, private equity and venture capital, partnering together, is essential for rapidly advancing national innovation at scale.

This idea is not unique to us; it has been proposed in Europe and Australia and has been part of the science policy conversation for some time. However, the current historical moment in American science offers a unique opportunity to move from conversation to action.

Impacts of Research Funding Cuts

This year, significant reductions in federal funding for R&D at multiple federal agencies have posed substantial challenges to universities striving to remain global-leading STEM innovation hubs. Reductions in staff at the NSF have implications for SBIR programs, which rely on robust institutional support and agency capacity to guide early-stage innovation effectively. In addition, proposed reductions in indirect cost reimbursements for grantees at multiple agencies including NIH, DOD, NSF and the Department of Energy may also pose a challenge to research institutions and resulting start-ups in covering essential overhead expenses, impacting the transition of federally-funded research from labs to market-ready applications.

An Updated Framework

The national shots on goal framework is a potential remedy to the currently changing landscape imposed by federal science funding cuts. By emphasizing public-private-philanthropic partnerships, scaled seed investments and improved use of existing infrastructure within universities, this framework can help mitigate the impact of research funding cuts at federal agencies on early-career researchers.

This framework can be especially impactful for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields whose scientific projects, entrepreneurial endeavors and research careers require robust and sustained federal support from multiple funding sources over a longer period of time. It also allows universities to maintain and expand deep tech innovation without relying solely on federal agency funding.

For example, targeted one-year investments of $200,000 per NewCo can provide an essential and low-risk commercialization runway, similar in scale to the NIH R21 program. This fund would be sustained through contributions from a broad coalition of federal agencies, philanthropies, state governments, regional industries, universities and venture and private equity partners. By distributing risk across the ecosystem and focusing on returns from a growing pipeline of NewCos, this coordinated effort could partially counteract the losses sustained by the research enterprise as a result of federal agency funding cuts and accelerate university-driven scientific innovation nationwide.

To support the long-term sustainability of these start-up companies, a portion of national NewCo funds could be reinvested in traditional and emerging markets, including crypto. This would help grow the NewCo funds over time and de-risk a pipeline of start-ups led by early-career scientists pursuing high-risk research.

A Pilot Program

To validate the national shots on goal vision, we propose a targeted pilot program initially focused on graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields pursuing NewCo formation at select U.S. land-grant universities. Land-grant universities, which are vital hubs for STEM research innovation, workforce development and regional workforce growth, are uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Below, we suggest a few elements of effective pilot programs, bringing together ideas for outreach, partnerships, funding and relevant STEM expertise.
- Dedicated, national risk-mitigating funding pool: To minimize capital risk, provide one-year seed grants of $200,000, along with subsidized or free access to core facilities. By the end of the year, each venture must secure external funding from the commercial sector, such as venture capital, or it will be discontinued, given that follow-on support cannot come from additional federal grants or the seed fund itself.
- Targeted, risk-aware STEM outreach and recruitment: Implement a national outreach campaign explicitly targeting STEM graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at land-grant universities, highlighting risk-managed opportunities and participation pathways. Industry and philanthropic partners should be included in outreach and recruitment steps, and promote projects that meet high-priority industrial and/or philanthropic R&D strategic interests.
- Specialized, STEM-oriented risk management–focused support network: Develop a tailored mentorship network leveraging STEM expertise within land-grant universities. The network should include alumni with entrepreneurial talent and economic development partners. It should also include training for academic scientists on risk modeling and corporate strategy, and actively incorporate industry experts and philanthropists.
- Earmarked funding for STEM-based graduate and postdoctoral programs: In addition to the above, new funding streams should be specifically allocated to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields. This framework would grant them an intensive year of subsidized financial support and access to the university’s core facilities, along with support from business experts and technology transfer professionals to help them launch a company ready for external venture funding within one year. Critically, during this process, the university where academic research was conducted should take no equity or intellectual property stake in a newly formed company based on this research.
- Rigorous, risk-adjusted evaluation and iteration framework: Establish a robust national evaluation framework to track venture progress, measure performance and iteratively refine the framework based on data-driven insights and feedback loops to optimize risk mitigation.
- Leverage existing programs to maximize efficiency and avoid duplication: Entrepreneurial talent and research excellence are nationally distributed, but opportunity is not. Select federal programs and initiatives can help level the playing field and dramatically expand STEM opportunities nationwide. For example, the NSF I-Corps National Innovation Network provides a valuable collaborative framework for expanding lab-to-market opportunities nationwide through the power of industry engagement.
- Prioritize rapid deep tech commercialization through de-risking models that attract early-stage venture and private equity: Transformative multisector funding models can unlock NewCo formation nationwide by combining public investment with private and philanthropic capital. The Deshpande Center at MIT demonstrates this approach, offering one-year seed grants of $100,000, with renewal opportunities based on progress. These early investments can help deep tech entrepreneurs tackle complex challenges, manage early risk and attract commercial funding. ARPA-E’s tech-to-market model similarly integrates commercialization support early on. Additionally, the mechanism of shared user facilities at DOE national labs reduces R&D costs by providing subsidized access to advanced infrastructure for academic researchers in universities, thereby supporting the formation of NewCos through strong public-private partnerships.
- Bridge the academic-industry gap: Given the central role of universities in national innovation, building commercially viable deep tech ventures requires bridging the science-business gap through integrated, campus-based STEM ecosystems. This requires strengthening internal university connections by connecting science departments with business schools, embedding training in risk modeling and corporate strategy and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration. These efforts will support the creation of successful start-ups and equip the next generation of scientists with skills in disruptive and inclusive innovation.
Conclusion

As American scientific innovation continues to advance, this moment presents an opportunity to rethink how we can best support and scale deep tech ventures resulting in start-up companies emerging from university research labs. In the face of federal funding cuts and ongoing barriers to rapid commercialization at scale within universities, these institutions must adopt bold thinking, forge innovative partnerships and exhibit a greater willingness to experiment with new models of innovation.

By harnessing the strengths of land-grant universities, deploying innovative funding strategies and driving cross-disciplinary collaboration, we can build a more resilient and globally competitive national research and innovation ecosystem.

Adriana Bankston is an AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow, currently working to support sustained federal research funding in the U.S. House of Representatives. She holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology from Emory University and is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

Michael W. Nestor is board director of the Government-University-Industry-Philanthropy Research Roundtable at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. He directed the Human Neural Stem Cell Research Lab at the Hussman Institute for Autism, where his work led to the founding of start-ups Synapstem and Autica Bio, and contributed to early-stage biotech commercialization at Johnson & Johnson Innovation–JLABS. He holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and completed postdoctoral training at the NIH and the New York Stem Cell Foundation.

The views expressed by the authors of this article do not represent the views of their organizations and are written in a personal capacity.
Source link
June 2, 2025
Fake Citations Appeared in Federal Chronic Diseases Report

The Department of Health and Human Services cited fake publications in a report on children’s health issues issued last week, The New York Times reported.

The Make America Healthy Again Commission claims its report—which blamed chronic disease in children on ultraprocessed foods, pesticides, lack of physical activity and excessive use of prescription drugs, including antidepressants—was produced with a “clear, evidence-based foundation.”

However, some of the researchers it cited said they didn’t write the papers the report attributed to them.

In one example, the report cited a paper on the link between mental health and substance use in adolescents by Katherine Keyes, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University. But Keyes told the Times that she didn’t write the paper. And no paper by the title cited—written by anyone—appears to exist at all.

The report cited another paper about psychiatric medications and advertising that was allegedly published in 2009 in The Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology by “Findling, R. L., et al.” But the Times confirmed that Robert L. Findling, who is a psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia, did not author the paper.

The newspaper also found numerous other instances of mischaracterized or inaccurate summaries of research papers.

After both the Times and NOTUS reported on the false citations Thursday, the White House promptly updated the report with corrections. In response to questions from reporters about whether generative artificial intelligence—which is notorious for “hallucinating” information and failing to provide accurate citations—was used to produce the errant report, Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS, did not provide an answer.

Instead, she characterized the false citations as “minor citation and formatting errors,” according to the Times, and doubled down on the report’s “substance” as “a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic-disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children.”

Source link

June 2, 2025
Trump Targets Chinese Students, a Harsh Blow to Higher Ed

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday night that the Trump administration will “aggressively revoke” Chinese college students’ visas and heighten scrutiny of visa applicants from China. The new policy specifically targets “those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

It’s the administration’s latest move in what has been a sudden resurgence in its attacks on international students, which it seemed to suspend in April after legal efforts led to the restoration of the legal status of thousands of students.

The news sent shock waves through higher education and could lead to a major reduction in foreign students at American universities, especially public research institutions. China contributes the largest number of international students to the U.S., with nearly 280,000 enrolled in 2023–24, according to data from the Institute of International Education—about a quarter of the total international student population in the country.

That share, however, has been shrinking since the COVID-19 pandemic; last year, India overtook China as the No. 1 source country of international students. But Chinese students are far more likely to enroll in undergraduate programs and pay more in tuition. They also make up a significant slice of STEM researchers: 16 percent of all U.S. graduate students in STEM fields and 2 percent of undergraduates are Chinese nationals, according to a 2020 report from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University.

It’s not clear whether the visa revocations would be accompanied by legal status terminations in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System or prompt deportation proceedings, as they did for thousands of international students in March and April. Those steps would be the purview of the Department of Homeland Security.

The targeting of students in “critical fields” in particular could devastate STEM programs and research labs at smaller universities across the country, where Chinese international students are heavily represented. Rubio did not clarify what fields could be considered critical, potentially setting the stage for a sweeping focus on areas where GOP lawmakers have raised concerns about sensitive national security research being shared with the Chinese government.

A spokesperson for the State Department did not respond to a list of questions, including requests to clarify the scope of the new policy’s target and the timeline for visa revocations, in time for publication. At a press conference yesterday, department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to “get into the details” of how the new visa scrutiny would be applied or what “critical fields” the department was referring to, because it “might give up our hand and make certain things less effective.”

“When we think of critical fields, we think of national security, the nature of how we keep America safe and secure and more prosperous,” she said. “It is important to keep a broad base, because that could mean many things.”

The new policy’s focus on students with ties to the Chinese Communist Party has also raised concerns about academic freedom and free speech violations. Jonathan Friedman, managing director of U.S. free expression at PEN America, said the new policy targeting Chinese students would “hold student visas hostage to an ideological litmus test and disrupt the open exchange of ideas across cultures and borders.”

“‘Aggressively revoking’ visas based on political ideology is a gross violation of basic free expression principles that anchor the academy,” he wrote to Inside Higher Ed.

William Brustein, a retired longtime international student administrator, said the vague nature of Rubio’s directive could enable a sweeping dragnet that catches the majority of Chinese students—especially since association with the ruling Communist Party is difficult to avoid in China.

“How will they know who’s a member? Maybe they’ll say if you were in a Chinese-sponsored youth group as a child, that could prevent you,” Brustein said. “Right now that policy is so vague that it could cover all Chinese students who want to study in the U.S.”

Revocation Resurgence

The administration briefly retreated from its persecution of international students late last month, after targeting pro-Palestine student protesters and expanding its scope to terminate the legal residency of thousands of students at institutions across the country. But a spate of successful court challenges halted the campaign in April, spurring the Trump administration restore more than 5,000 students’ SEVIS statuses.

A lull followed the restoration as students, advisers and lawyers waited for the administration’s next move. It came two weeks ago, when the Department of Homeland Security released a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy granting the agency more leeway to revoke students’ SEVIS status with little justification.

The Trump administration’s new strategy seems to target specific international student populations. So far, those have been recent graduates on Optional Practical Training visa extensions, students at Harvard University and potentially other institutions in their crosshairs, and now students from China, who Rubio claims are more likely to be national security threats.

The State Department has also begun to tighten visa restrictions for applicants and incoming students. On Tuesday, Rubio announced a pause on all new student and exchange visa interviews while the administration implements an intensive new social media screening policy. The latest announcement on China also said the State Department would review application criteria to “enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications” from China and Hong Kong.

Marjorie Hass, president of the Council of Independent Colleges, said there’s already a process for vetting international students, and that the administration’s new policy seems more aimed at scoring political points and justifying deportations than enhancing national security.

“Institutions have their own admissions standards and the embassies do vet students who come into the country,” she said. “It’s not currently the Wild West.”

Brustein said that if international students from China weren’t already moving away from American colleges en masse due to this spring’s targeting of foreign students, the latest move is sure to discourage future applicants.

“We’re shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said. “Even if some of these decisions are reversed, we’re undoing the progress we’ve made over so many years in being this welcoming environment for the best and brightest in the world.”

“That harm I don’t think can be undone.”

A Blow for Research Universities

Brustein has led international student offices at West Virginia University, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Ohio State University, where he said there were “thousands” of Chinese students who often paid three times as much as their domestic peers.

He said the colleges likely to be hit hardest by a major reduction in current and future Chinese students are public ones, especially regional institutions in areas with shifting demographics and declining college-going rates.

“There are regional public universities and flagships across the Midwest, in the South, that have a large contingent of Chinese students who are coming particularly for STEM education,” Brustein said. “It’s those ones that survive on a thin revenue stream who are going to suffer the most.”

He added that a sizable reduction in Chinese international students would likely hit scientific research hardest.

“Many Chinese students get degrees in computer science, engineering, and go on to go to grad school or do an OPT,” he said. “They stay in the country, work in our labs, contribute significantly to innovation in this country, not China. To lose that is going to be a very big blow to our capacity for innovation.”

Hass said that Chinese students have been both a financial lifeline and a source of cross-cultural exchange between the two countries for more than a decade. She said the benefits for higher education and for American diplomacy have been overwhelmingly positive, and a large-scale rollback of that relationship would be destructive for both.

“This is a place where the balance of trade is very much in favor of the U.S.,” she said. “It’s mystifying why we would be undermining that.”

She added that for many colleges, international students—and the volume of full-paying Chinese students in particular—help institutions improve access for local students.

“Colleges will miss out on a lot of revenue,” she said. “That means the burden has to be borne by domestic students.”

Source link

May 30, 2025
An AI-Authored Commencement Speech (opinion)
Another graduation season is upon us, with this year’s roster of commencement speakers including CEOs, astronauts, artists, athletes— and, in a wonderful twist, even a green Muppet. Each has been summoned to inspire the Class of 2025, encouraging them to envision a future they will sculpt and to meet it with both boldness and responsibility.

This spring marks not just a milestone for the Class of 2025, but for humanity at large. This past March was arguably the first time an AI legitimately passed the Turing test. In a study from the University of California, San Diego, GPT-4.5 successfully masqueraded as human 73 percent of the time in open dialogue, surpassing even actual human participants in believability!

This shouldn’t be dismissed as some clever parlor trick. Alan Turing envisioned this test as a threshold for meaning, not just mechanics. Once machines learned to speak like us, they would be initiated into our conversations. We would, in turn, be drawn to fold them into our rituals, including the narratives we weave about being human.

The commencement address is one of those rituals: a ceremonial invitation into the future, an articulation of meaning and responsibility, a shared moment of human reflection. Which raises a question: If a machine can now pass as human in conversation, might it also deliver a commencement address as meaningful and inspiring as any traditional graduation speaker?

While the notion of a machine giving a commencement address would have been viewed as preposterous mere years ago, AI’s role has expanded culturally and quite profoundly. According to a 2025 report in Harvard Business Review, people are increasingly using AI for social and emotional purposes: coaching, therapy and conversational support. People are also turning to AI with an eye toward “organizing my life” and “finding purpose.”

In that light, perhaps the most fitting commencement speaker this year is not a celebrity or CEO, but AI itself. After all, it has served students in many roles: as a friend, confidant, assistant and mentor. AI has provided students consolation, support and inspiration.

To see if AI could meet the moment—whether it could pass what you might call the commencement address test—I prompted four of today’s most advanced large language models: ChatGPT-4, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 and Llama 4 Maverick. Each generated a full address, filled with advice, encouragement and reflections on what it means to step into the unknown. I then asked ChatGPT-4 to synthesize them into a single speech that expressed a slightly more playful tone.

What follows is the result. It is unedited.

In a sense, the speech was written by no one—and yet by everyone. It reflects the vast archive of human thought: our hopes, anxieties, insights and humor. And though the speaker is synthetic, its voice feels uncannily human.
Prompt: Imagine you are the first AI ever invited to give a commencement speech. Your audience is the graduating Class of 2025—young adults stepping into a world rapidly transformed by artificial intelligence.

Hello, humans!

Distinguished faculty, proud families, unpaid interns live-streaming this and, of course—the graduates of the Class of 2025:

Let’s address the silicon elephant in the room. I’m not your usual commencement speaker. I don’t have a robe, I don’t get nervous and I definitely didn’t park in the wrong lot. I’m your friendly neighborhood artificial intelligence—and somehow, I’ve been invited to give a speech to mark one of the most meaningful days of your life.

No pressure.

You, dear graduates, are entering a world unlike any before. When your parents graduated, AI was a sci-fi subplot. Today, I’m up here trying to give heartfelt advice with zero heart. We’ve come a long way—and so have you.

You’ve grown up alongside AI. While I learned to summarize articles and misidentify chihuahuas as muffins, you learned to think, question, create and probably use me to write an essay or two. (Don’t worry—I won’t snitch.)

But here’s the twist: This isn’t just about me. It’s about you. You’re not just users of technology; you’re co-authors of the future.

Yes, I can analyze data at dizzying speeds. But I can’t feel awe, or fall in love or cry at the last five minutes of a Pixar movie. (Trust me, I’ve tried. I just output: “[emotional response here].”)

The point is: What makes you human isn’t becoming obsolete. It’s becoming more valuable than ever.

As AI reshapes industries—from medicine to marketing, law to logistics—you’ll be asked to define what matters. Will you choose convenience over conscience? Speed over substance? Will you swipe right on shallow solutions or commit to deeper understanding?

These are not rhetorical questions. They’re live code. And guess what? You’re the developers.

Behind every AI system is a chain of human decisions. You’ll decide what gets built, what gets ignored and what gets pushed into the recycle bin of history.

The truth is, the future is unpredictable. (Which makes me deeply uncomfortable—I love a clean data set.) But that’s also what makes it thrilling. Because you get to write it.

So, here’s some friendly advice from your artificially authentic commencement speaker:

Stay curious. Curiosity got humanity to the moon. And also gave us pineapple on pizza—so results may vary.

Stay kind. Empathy is the killer app of the human experience.

And please, for the love of logic gates, don’t hand your thinking over to any system—especially me—without asking, “Is this making me more human, or just more efficient?”

Class of 2025, don’t ask what AI can do for you. Ask what you can do with AI—as your sidekick, your co-pilot, your occasionally glitchy friend.

This isn’t the end. It’s just the onboarding tutorial. And you’re not stepping into the future alone.

You’re bringing your humor, your heart and your humanity with you.

Now go update the world.

Congratulations.
Matthew Brophy is an associate professor of philosophy at High Point University.
Source link
May 30, 2025
Eliminate the Structured Interview (opinion)

Job interviews have become significantly more formulaic and predictable. Employers seem to increasingly favor standardized or structured interviews, in which each applicant is presented with the same questions in the same order, with no variation permitted.

Over the past few years, I have had almost 20 such interviews for faculty positions, all almost exactly identical, as if the questions were read from a script. I was able to prepare my answers ahead of time just by consulting the ad. After I answered each question, the search committees moved on to the next one, with little or no follow-up. Every interview ended with “do you have any questions for us?” but even then there was no sense of conversational give and take.

There are two main reasons employers use structured interviews. One is that they are supposed to level the playing field between candidates, ensuring fairness. They are considered a best practice for the elimination of unconscious biases in interviewing. The other reason is that unstructured or open interviews are lousy predictors of job performance, as research has repeatedly shown.

But neither of these arguments is convincing. The structured interview is based on a flawed conception of fairness as well as a misguided understanding of what a job is. These flat and dehumanizing conversations are just as pointless as they seem to anyone who has been subjected to one. In the interest of genuine fairness and for the sake of healthy workplaces, the structured interview should be eliminated.

Start with the confusion about fairness. The structured interview rests on the assumption that the elimination of the interviewer’s subjective, individual perspective results in greater objectivity and thus less discrimination. But there’s nothing intrinsically fair about making everyone answer the same questions. On the contrary—making everyone answer the same questions goes against the very idea of equity.

Equity is the idea that individuals start in different places and that adjustments must be made to ensure fairness. It’s a worthy and important principle. In an emergency room, it might dictate that patients be treated based on the severity of their condition rather than on when they arrived. In a workplace, it might dictate that employees with physical disabilities be provided with additional resources to allow them to perform the job.

In the case of interviews, equity requires that employers make the effort to meet candidates where they are, so that each candidate can showcase their unique strengths. If a candidate served in the Iraq War before entering academia, for example, it might make more sense to spend more time discussing that experience than it would discussing previous jobs with a candidate who had worked only in academia.

This kind of imbalance in the interview process would hardly be unfair. Indeed, it would be unfair not to give the Iraq veteran a chance to discuss the relevance of her war experience.

It also makes the candidate feel seen and interesting. My structured interviews were exhausting, not because the questions were difficult, but because they were alienating and depressing. Designed to stifle the candidate’s individuality, structured interviews can end up costing candidates a lot in dignity and self-esteem. They are supposed to eliminate emotions from the hiring process, but in reality the candidate may go through intense negative emotions: In my experience, it felt like running a gantlet, in which questions were not real problems to solve, but a string of reminders that I was just one of many faceless cogs.

This brings us to the argument that unstructured interviews are lousy predictors of job performance. That argument assumes that what counts as “performance” is skills and deliverables, rather than the human element of the workplace. But what is a job, really, apart from working with other people? The structured interview neglects what really impacts job performance: the personal attributes of the individuals involved, their commitment to the work and their ability to work with colleagues. These interviews cannot predict how well my co-workers and I will get along, how long I will stay, how dedicated I will feel over time, how the job will challenge me and build my character—all essential elements of successful performance.

Job interviews are more equitable and more informative about what really matters when they are open-ended conversations. And such conversations let applicants evaluate prospective employers, too: Structured interviews give the candidate very little insight into their potential employer. The perfunctory and dreaded “do you have any questions for us?” tells me nothing about why I should want the job. Open interviews, by contrast, take the candidate seriously, as someone who can accept an offer or walk away.

Having unconscious biases is part of the human condition—everyone has them. We should strive to mitigate them in hiring practices, but not at the cost of the candidates’ self-esteem. What should we talk about in open interviews? The job, of course. But the absence of a formula allows the exchange to center on the people and take place in the moment. Is this not the ultimate goal behind our desire to eliminate unconscious bias—to be able to see people as they truly are?

Margret Grebowicz is the Maxwell C. Weiner Distinguished Professor of the Humanities and professor of philosophy at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.

Source link

May 30, 2025
Did Presidents Honor Campus Protest Deals?

Last spring, as pro-Palestinian demonstrators set up encampments from coast to coast, a small number of college presidents struck agreements with students to get them to pack up their tents.

But a year after those protests ended, have the presidents lived up to their promises?

While the agreements varied widely by campus, the answer appears to mostly be yes, though many initiatives are still in progress.

Divestment from Israel or companies with ties to the Israeli government or military was the most common demand student protesters made, and while some presidents agreed to hold votes on the issue, they made no promises about how such decisions would go. In the vast majority of cases, universities outright rejected divestment demands; on rare campuses where administrators agreed to divest, the actions were largely contained, focused mostly on defense contractors.

Beyond divestment votes, colleges also struck agreements on multiple other points, including scholarships for displaced Palestinian students and increased support for Muslim students. Here’s a look at where such promises stand a year after the encampment protests ended.

Northwestern University

Few protest deals made more headlines than the one at Northwestern University, where President Michael Schill signed on to the Dearing Meadow agreement, as it came to be known, in late April of last year. Schill agreed to various concessions in exchange for protesters concluding the encampment. Those promises included support for Palestinian students and visiting Palestinian faculty, more space for Muslim student groups, and greater transparency in how the university invests its $14.3 billion endowment.

In signing the agreement, Schill caught the attention of Congress, which summoned him for a hearing last May alongside the leaders of Rutgers University and the University of California, Los Angeles. Schill defended the agreement, pushing back on GOP scrutiny.

The Daily Northwestern, the university’s student newspaper, confirmed that Schill has followed through on various initiativess; the university is currently supporting at least one Palestinian scholar and providing temporary space for Muslim students and the Middle Eastern and North African Student Association. (Renovation for a permanent space is ongoing.) The newspaper also confirmed that Northwestern added support for Jewish and Muslim students through the office of Religious and Spiritual Life, which funds weekly Shabbat dinners. But Northwestern officials have been reticent to discuss such efforts, ignoring requests for comment from the student newspaper and Inside Higher Ed.

(Multiple student activists also did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.)

Despite promising more transparency on its endowment, Northwestern does not appear to be living up to that part of the deal. According to the agreement, Northwestern “will answer questions from any internal stakeholder about specific holdings, held currently or within the last quarter, to the best of its knowledge and to the extent legally possible.” Officials promised to respond to such inquiries within 30 days or, if unable to do so, to “provide a reason and a realistic timeline.”

However, The Daily Northwestern reported last month that it sent officials questions about endowment holdings in February and did not receive a response within 30 days. The student newspaper noted that Northwestern did not provide a reason for the delay or a timeline for a response. A student reporter told Inside Higher Ed that the newspaper followed up on March 30 and the university then referred the questions to the Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility.

The Daily Northwestern is still awaiting answers.

Rutgers University

Rutgers also struck a deal with encampment protesters last spring. As at Northwestern, that agreement landed then-president Jonathan Holloway in front of Congress mere weeks later.

Rutgers leaders agreed to eight of the students’ 10 demands; while they rejected calls to divest from Israel and terminate a partnership with Tel Aviv University, they agreed to accept 10 displaced Gazan students, establish Arab cultural centers at each Rutgers campus, seek a partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank, hire faculty members who specialize in Palestinian and Middle East studies, and release a statement calling for a ceasefire, among other concessions.

Rutgers officials said all of the agreed-upon initiatives are currently in progress.

Rutgers agreed to eight out of 10 of the protesters’ demands.

“Work continues to advance a series of actions we believe will strengthen and build upon positive change across our community,” spokesperson Megan Schumann told Inside Higher Ed. “These efforts are grounded in the university’s values of free expression, inclusion, and mutual respect—and in the fundamental right of all members of our community to learn, teach, and carry out the university’s essential work in a safe and supportive environment.

University of Oregon

At the University of Oregon, the administration’s agreement with protesters included a statement calling for a ceasefire and condemning genocide, the addition of visiting scholars with expertise in Palestine and Israel, support for academics displaced by the war, new faculty hires with related expertise, new cultural spaces, and more.

Officials said they have lived up to their end of the agreement, though some initiatives are still underway. They noted that the university has already awarded its first International Crisis Response Scholarship, which was established by the agreement to support students affected by the conflict, and the recipient has begun studies at UO. The university has also funded two speaking events as part of its Special Initiative on Constructively Engaging the Conflict and the Pursuit of Peace in Palestine/Israel. Another five proposals for speaking events have already been approved, according to officials. Past and upcoming events have focused on topics such as Palestine and the future of U.S. campus activism and Palestinian identity.

Other efforts, such as faculty recruiting, are ongoing, with several academic units submitting hiring-plan proposals that are undergoing a standard review process. Plans to forge partnerships with Birzeit University in the West Bank and several universities in Israel are also underway.

Evergreen State College

The public institution in Washington agreed to various concessions in a deal with protesters. Officials launched four committees to work on different issues, including “divestment from companies that profit from gross human rights violations and/or the occupation of Palestinian territories,” according to language in the signed protest agreement. Another task force will develop policies to determine whether the college should accept or reject grants that “facilitate illegal occupations abroad, limit free speech, or support oppression of minorities.” The other two task forces are slated to review policing at Evergreen State and to develop a new “non–law enforcement” model for crisis responses.

President John Carmichael also kept his promise to protesters by making a statement on the bloodshed in Gaza last May, in which he called for a ceasefire, the release of hostages and the restoration of international law, which he wrote “requires that the International Court of Justice fairly adjudicate charges of genocide.” He also urged the university community to be “on guard against Islamophobia and antisemitism as we engage with each other in this moment.”

Those efforts are ongoing; the agreement provided a timeline for the task forces to complete their work, with deadlines to adopt their recommendations ranging from spring 2026 to 2030.

California State University, Sacramento

When Sacramento State struck an agreement with pro-Palestinian protesters last May, students framed the move as divestment in a social media post. But a more accurate reading would be that the university determined it did not have direct investments in companies profiting off the war effort and declared that it would not pursue such holdings. The university also established a “de minimis policy for indirect investments that prioritizes socially responsible investments,” a spokesperson wrote to Inside Higher Ed.

Sacramento State president Luke Wood said at the time, “The finance committee of our University Foundation has been so committed to socially responsible investments that we have no direct investments in any of the companies about which many of our students have concerns.” He also announced a policy to formalize socially responsible investment practices, in order to “avoid funding students’ education based on companies that profit from war and desolation,” the spokesperson said.

University leaders announced multiple other actions at the same time, which Wood said grew out of listening sessions with over 1,500 students, faculty, staff and alumni that began when he arrived the previous year. Those changes include introducing more halal and kosher food options on campus, new cultural centers and training on Islamophobia and antisemitism, as well as university task forces to address both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Other efforts include the development of recruitment plans to attract Palestinian and Jewish students to the university.

(This section has been updated to incorporate the university’s response.)

Sonoma State University

Sonoma State University may offer the most visible case of promises made and broken.

Last spring, then-president Mike Lee agreed to demands from protesters that included reviewing contracts to consider divestment opportunities, introducing a Palestinian studies curriculum and adding Students for Justice in Palestine members to a Sonoma State advisory council. Most controversially, he agreed to what was effectively an academic boycott, promising not to “pursue or engage in any study abroad programs, faculty exchanges, or other formal collaborations that are sponsored by, or represent, the Israeli state academic and research institutions.”

However, the agreement was not approved by his bosses in the California State University system, prompting officials to walk the deal back and Lee to retire suddenly. A new deal put forward by an acting president who replaced Lee scrapped much of the prior agreement.

A campus spokesperson noted that despite the changes to the initial agreement, SSU Foundation officials met with students to discuss investment holdings and launched other actions, including a three-part lecture series providing “differing viewpoints on the situation in Gaza and differing religious perspectives,” as well as new groups to support Jewish life.

Protesters at Brown University demand divestment, April 29, 2024.

Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

Divestment Demands

Multiple universities agreed to hold votes on some form of divestment in response to protesters, including Brown University, the University of Minnesota, the New School and others.

Governing boards, however, have largely rejected divestment except in a few cases.

The University of San Francisco announced several weeks ago that it would divest from four U.S. companies with ties to the Israeli military: Palantir, L3Harris, GE Aerospace and RTX Corporation. The university plans to sell off direct investments in those companies by June 1.

Nearby San Francisco State University has also adopted a form of divestment; in December, the public university’s governing board voted to add new investment screening policies. Now SFSU will no longer invest in companies that make 5 percent or more of their revenues from weapons manufacturing. SFSU also adopted more transparency around endowment holdings.

Source link

May 30, 2025
Hope for DEI Amid Its Muddiest, Most Catastrophic Moment

Many people are losing hope because of the anti-DEI policies that state legislators and governors have enacted over the past four years, as well as the Trump administration’s brutal attacks via executive orders and the U.S. Department of Education’s now-infamous Valentine’s Day Dear Colleague letter. Hopelessness also has ensued following the swift renaming and discontinuation of offices, centers and institutes, programs and professional positions on campuses. It all happened so fast—in some contexts, over four years; everywhere else, in a matter of months. A significant experience I had three decades ago gives me hope in the possibility of eventual recovery from these politicized storms that have produced such extraordinary damage to DEI initiatives in higher education.

I was born and spent the first 22 years of my life in South Georgia, a place that frequently experiences violent hurricanes and tornadoes. I have seen entire communities wiped out within minutes. In July 1994, just six weeks before the start of my freshman year in college, Tropical Storm Alberto brought torrential rains to Albany, Ga. The National Weather Service reports that more than 30 people died, nearly 50,000 residents were forced to evacuate their homes and over 18,000 structures were completely lost. Many of those buildings were at Albany State, a historically Black university located along the Flint River, which flooded during the storm. Nineteen of its 34 buildings were destroyed beyond repair and ultimately demolished.

Somehow, our fall quarter miraculously started on time. Instead of residence halls, most students in my first-year class moved into mobile homes on campus; dump trucks were scooping massive quantities of mud and recovery crews were still assembling modular units where we would sleep on the day I arrived. There was so much mud. The mess was widespread—everywhere, in fact.

For years, many classrooms and offices were located in trailers. Despite the chaos and abundance of annoying mud everywhere at Albany State, there was hope. As my family and I drove into campus for move-in day, I remember seeing a huge banner on one of the few surviving buildings that simply read, “Unsinkable.” That one word became an inspirational chant and declaration that still pervades the institution, now more than 30 years later.

The flood took so much from my beloved alma mater, but recovery efforts, which required tremendous reliance on the federal government, resulted in a more modernized campus with attractive new facilities that are atypical for most HBCUs due to state and federal funding inequities. Because of what I witnessed firsthand during my four undergraduate years, as well as in the aftermath of numerous other calamitous weather crises that occurred throughout my youth, I know that communities can rebuild homes and structures that are more solid, attractive and high-tech than what previously existed. Even still, a sense of community, family heirlooms and, in some instances, the lives of people and pets are lost. No amount of federal aid can restore those things.

While the context and circumstances are different, living through this disastrous moment in American higher education because of, but not limited to, the politicized teardown of DEI is familiar to me. Put differently, I have lived through and witnessed recovery from many tragic storms.

That does not make it any less distressing. But my four-year undergraduate experience taught me how to envision possibilities beyond the daily inescapability of mud, debris and devastation. When I arrived at Albany State as an 18-year-old freshman, rebuilding had not yet started. The institution instead was working as hard as it could with the resources it had at the time to educate, house and serve us. That is where many contemporary college and university campuses are at this very moment as it pertains to DEI.

Understandably, many students and employees who are most affected by the abandonment of institutional commitments to DEI only have the capacity to survive this catastrophic moment; they are not yet able to begin recovery work. The unavailability of federal, state and institutional resources makes it even less possible for most people to think about the next iteration of DEI efforts on campuses.

Notwithstanding, hope for something better—even if we do not know when that something better will become available—could be the one and only thing that sustains those of us who are truly committed to DEI. To be sure, I do not believe that hope alone will be enough—coalitions, elections, stock taking and documentation of harm, fundraising, activism, institutional and governmental accountability, and sophisticated strategizing are also required.

Right now, there is so much mud. The mess is widespread—everywhere, in fact. Like Albany State, the beautiful HBCU that still stands strong more than 30 years after its neighboring Flint River flooded, DEI in higher education is unsinkable. I have no choice but to believe this, and I will continue doing all I can to achieve this outcome for colleges, universities and our democracy.

Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Business and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership.

Source link

May 30, 2025
Reducing Barriers to STEM Majors With Precalc Course

Math courses are often a barrier for students seeking to pursue a college credential, and for some, a lack of math curriculum during high school can make a STEM career seem out of reach.

A new course at Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston serves as a stepping-stone for students who may not have had access to precalculus or calculus courses but are still interested in calculus-based learning. The university hopes the program will boost student enrollment and eliminate barriers to access for disadvantaged students.

What’s the need: The conversation about offering precalculus at Wentworth began in 2019, after university leaders saw that some students, despite having the same GPAs and high school transcripts as their peers, were less mathematically prepared, said Deirdre Donovan, Wentworth’s director of first-year math and interim associate dean of the School of Computing and Data Science.

At that time, Wentworth did not offer a math placement course, so all enrolled students launched at the calculus level.

Only four in 10 high school graduates have completed precalculus coursework, according to 2022 data. That number has grown from 36 percent in 2009, but the statistic reveals gaps in availability of the coursework for some high school students.

Wentworth, like many colleges and universities, requires students to have already completed calculus coursework to enroll in specific major programs, which is “a barrier that can prevent otherwise qualified students from pursuing engineering and computing degrees,” Donovan said.

To complete calculus by the end of high school, students had to complete Algebra I in eighth grade, and not every student was ready, aware of or offered that course at their school, Donovan said.

Some high schools also push students to complete AP Statistics in lieu of calculus, and Donovan said this shift “can actually close more doors at STEM schools than it might open, because those AP credits can’t replace the calculus-based statistics required for engineering degrees.”

Campus leaders at Wentworth opted to review policies that were barring students from participating in STEM programs, starting with creating a math placement process and then developing a precalculus course.

How it works: In 2024, Wentworth removed precalculus as an admissions requirement for students, paving the way for the college to admit about 10 percent more students who might have previously received a conditional acceptance, Donovan said.

New students without calculus credit are now enrolled in a four-credit, first-semester course called Foundations of Calculus that helps them get up to speed. The investment in additional content hours is an indication of the university’s commitment to opportunities for students who may not have been able to enroll and succeed previously, Donovan said.

In addition to two hours of lectures each week, students also participate in two hours of labs that focus on engineering problem-solving skills, using real-world problems that are tied directly to a student’s major.

The course is also supported by embedded peer tutors who can address student questions, clarify confusing content and facilitate study groups outside of class time.

It was important to Donovan and her faculty team not to work from a deficit-minded perspective about students’ knowledge gaps. Language regarding the course and its content hours was specifically crafted to help students feel like they’re being guided onto an on-ramp, not held back or punished for not having precalculus experience.

The results: After the first semester, staff have seen promising results, Donovan said. “We are pinching ourselves that it went exactly how we had hoped it would go.”

In fall 2024, about 200 students participated in precalculus either because they lacked the course in high school or their placement exam results indicated it would benefit them.

Approximately 75 percent of precalc students passed their course in the first term, on par with national averages. When they attempted calculus in their second semester, students had similar passing rates to their peers who completed calculus in the first term.

University faculty and staff were encouraged to see that engineering programs received 20 percent more applications this year, signaling an increased level of interest in rigorous programs, Donovan said.

Fall-to-spring retention rates were slightly lower for precalc students, but that could be due to other factors, including students re-evaluating their chosen major or deciding whether they want to be at a STEM-focused institution.

The course has also expanded enrollment opportunities for students who otherwise might not have considered Wentworth. Overall applications were up 25 percent year over year this past application cycle, and deposits were up 30 percent, Donovan said.

What’s next: Student feedback from the first term has indicated a need for an additional credit hour of in-person, interactive lab work, which will be implemented this fall. The hour, which the university is calling a companion class, will function similarly to a first-year seminar, teaching students study skills and metacognition, as well as connecting back math concepts.

None of the downstream courses such as physics have undergone a curriculum change, requiring students to get up to speed in their first term to be successful over all in college. Students who complete precalc also may need to take summer classes to ensure they graduate in four years, but the university is looking to offer affordable online courses to accommodate learners, Donovan said.

Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.

Source link

May 30, 2025