Tag: feet

  • US students are voting with their feet – and global universities are ready

    US students are voting with their feet – and global universities are ready

    A record number of American students are applying to UK universities, with applications up nearly 14% over last year. The shift reflects something deeper than academic preference. It’s a response to uncertainty – political, cultural, and institutional – within the US higher education system.

    Students are assessing the climate as carefully as the curriculum, and for many, overseas options are starting to look more stable, more supportive, and more aligned with their values.

    For years, US institutions have concentrated on drawing international students into their classrooms and research labs. These efforts have been crucial to advancing STEM research, sustaining graduate-level enrolment, and feeding innovation pipelines. That trend continues, but the story is evolving.

    An outbound shift is now underway, with a growing number of American students pursuing degrees abroad. They’re no longer just participating in short-term exchanges or postgraduate fellowships, they’re committing to full undergraduate and master’s programs in other countries.

    This change matters – and it signals both a loss of tuition revenue and a weakening of domestic confidence in US higher education itself.

    Global competitors are moving decisively

    Universities in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands have responded to this moment with strategy and urgency. They’ve expanded international recruitment offices, developed targeted campaigns for US students, and aligned their degree programs with global employment pathways.

    Tuition transparency, faster visa timelines, and the option to work post-graduation are all part of a larger value proposition. These countries have positioned themselves as predictable, inclusive, and serious about talent retention.

    When American students earn degrees abroad, they begin forming professional relationships, research collaborations, and employment ties in other countries

    The messaging stands in sharp contrast to the environment many students perceive at home in the US, where they’re regrettably familiar with ongoing threats to federal research funding, campus free speech tensions, and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Legislative actions in some states, such as restrictions on DEI programs or faculty tenure, further complicate the picture for students who see higher education as a place of openness and critical inquiry.

    Even where the academic offering remains strong, the broader social climate is giving students pause. Many now fear that attending university in the US could come with limitations on expression, uncertainty around institutional support, or even diminished international credibility. These concerns are pushing more prospective students, both international and domestic, to weigh their options with increasing care.

    The landscape is becoming borderless

    Higher education is no longer a domestically bounded experience. Today’s students are growing up in a digital-first world where comparison is constant and information is immediate. They can browse course catalogs from universities in five countries before lunch.

    They’re watching lectures on TikTok from professors in London, Melbourne, and Berlin. They’re discussing housing, scholarships, and career prospects with peers on Reddit, Discord, and WhatsApp. The idea of applying to college abroad no longer feels radical or risky – it feels strategic.

    At the same time, the financial argument for international study has grown stronger. In the UK and parts of Europe, undergraduate degrees often take three years instead of four. Tuition is fixed, predictable, and, in some cases, lower than the out-of-state rates at US public universities.

    Students can begin building global networks immediately, with exposure to cross-cultural collaboration built into the experience. That combination of efficiency, affordability, and international orientation is hard to ignore.

    Consequences will extend beyond enrollment trends

    If this shift continues, the implications go well beyond enrolment figures. When American students earn degrees abroad, they begin forming professional relationships, research collaborations, and employment ties in other countries. That international experience can strengthen global literacy, which is good in theory, but it may also weaken long-term institutional connections to the US – particularly if graduates choose to live, work, and innovate elsewhere.

    This becomes especially relevant in sectors where talent mobility drives economic growth. If a critical mass of globally minded US students pursue AI, climate tech, public health, or diplomacy degrees abroad and then launch their careers overseas, the domestic pipeline for advanced skills and leadership becomes harder to sustain. These are early signs of a broader trend, and we should treat them with urgency.

    The same applies to the soft power of US education. For decades, American universities have served as platforms for international exchange, not only bringing foreign students in, but equipping domestic students to become global ambassadors. If that dynamic begins to fade, so does the country’s influence in shaping global norms around research, ethics, and innovation.

    Prioritising stability and trust 

    Reversing this trend will require more than competitive admissions packages. US institutions – and the policymakers who shape their environment – must work to restore trust. That means safeguarding academic freedom, ensuring transparent financial support structures, and publicly affirming the value of international engagement.

    Students are listening closely. They are attuned to leadership choices and the broader societal signals surrounding higher education. If they sense instability or retreat, they will continue to look abroad.

    Universities also need to communicate more effectively with prospective students about their long-term value. That includes articulating what makes a US education distinctive, and doing so without leaning solely on prestige or nostalgia. There must be a renewed emphasis on civic purpose, global relevance, and practical opportunity. The next generation is looking for clarity, meaning, and alignment between their educational investment and the world they hope to shape.

    The US can lead again, if it chooses to

    The United States still possesses unmatched institutional capacity in research, innovation, and cultural reach. But influence is not a static asset. It depends on the willingness to adapt and lead with principle. The current wave of outbound student mobility should not be dismissed as an anomaly. It’s a signal. How US higher education responds – at both the institutional and national levels – will determine whether it remains a magnet for talent or becomes just one option among many.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Department of Education Continues to Drag Feet on Borrower Defense

    Trump’s Department of Education Continues to Drag Feet on Borrower Defense

    On June 26th, the US Department of Education was brought to the Ninth District Court (and Judge Alsup) to show how many the Borrower Defense to Repayment cases that have been resolved per court order.  While we wait for a transcript of the latest episode of Sweet v McMahon, what we can tell you is that the Trump government continues to drag its feet in paying back debtors who have been defrauded.  

    Source link

  • UC Irvine is crusading over student doormats — and wiping its feet on the Constitution

    UC Irvine is crusading over student doormats — and wiping its feet on the Constitution

    You don’t think much about doormats unless you’re at HomeGoods, but they serve many purposes — a place to wipe your shoes, a way to distinguish otherwise identical-looking apartments, and a vessel for personal expression, whether serious or funny. 

    Graduate student Amelia Roskin-Frazee chose the last of these. Her UC Irvine apartment doormat read, “No Warrant. No Entry.”

    For that alone, UC Irvine is now subjecting Roskin-Frazee and other students to disciplinary proceedings, ordering them to remove personalized doormats or face punishment.

    “Doesn’t UC Irvine have anything better to do than to censor my doormat?” said Roskin-Frazee. “The university should refocus its energy where it belongs: on educating its students.”

    Administrator admits to selective policy enforcement

    The dispute dates back to late 2023, when Roskin-Frazee emailed an administrator to express her concerns about a university policy banning “any signage in windows or on doors facing outside that have words on them.” She (rightly) argued the rule could violate students’ expressive rights and raised concerns about censorship — particularly regarding speech about LGBT issues and sexual assault awareness.

    In response, the coordinator cited an even broader university housing policy that prohibits “[a]ll outward‐facing signs, decorations, and expressions in windows/on doors.” While restricting certain types of signs or flags in windows for fire safety reasons may be reasonable under the First Amendment, this total ban is not narrowly tailored to those specific concerns.

    Worse, the coordinator added that the policy is selectively enforced based on content, explaining that the office probably wouldn’t ask someone to remove a holiday snowflake display but that it has asked “people to take down things like Pride flags, country flags, and advertisements for businesses.” 

    This is classic content discrimination. 

    Back in 2005, Pastor Clyde Reed of Good News Community Church put up a few signs directing people to his Sunday service in Gilbert, Arizona. But the town’s sign code restricted how large signs could be and how long they could stay up depending on what they said. So Reed sued, and 10 years later in the landmark case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Supreme Court said that if a law treats speech differently based on its content, it’s probably unconstitutional.

    Free speech means free speech. You don’t get to play favorites based on what the message says. Reed helped remind the country that the First Amendment isn’t just a suggestion. But apparently, UC Irvine never got the memo.

    Students threatened with punishment for doormats

    On April 14, 2025, the same administrator notified Roskin-Frazee that her doormat could violate yet another onerous university policy that says only doormats “without words or images” are allowed — and ordered her to remove it.

    It’s hard to imagine this sort of content discrimination serves a compelling university interest, because it’s not about the actual doormat—it’s about the expression on the doormat. If doormats present a risk to safety in the hallways, for instance, by impeding the ability of emergency services to move in the hallway, shouldn’t any doormat pose that kind of risk? Why does the message on the doormat matter?

    FIRE wrote to the university on April 21 explaining that the UC Irvine cannot “maintain speech-restrictive policies that it enforces only when staff or administrators disapprove of the content or viewpoint of speech,” and urging it to refrain from punishing or threatening to evict Roskin-Frazee from her apartment because of her doormat.

    The university responded to us on April 23, telling us that it was not threatening Roskin-Frazee with eviction. That’s a relief. But our concerns about these policies and their enforcement remain. 

    Flawed policies lead to flawed enforcement

    FIRE wrote to the university again on May 14, taking issue with its broader policies on displays. As we told the university, it “has discretion to impose restrictions on unprotected speech, such as obscenity or images for which the university holds a copyright. But banning any expressive doormat, regardless of whether the doormats pose any safety concerns or otherwise violate university policy or the law, is not a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction of protected speech.”

    Targeting doormats for removal based on their content violates the First Amendment. Period. 

    The university’s policies on outward-facing displays are similarly flawed. Why would an outward-facing display in an apartment pose a different safety or fire risk than an inward-facing display? Delineating between displays like signs or posters based on whether or not they’re visible from the outside, as opposed to whether or not they pose fire or safety risks, is a restriction on student expression, plain and simple.  

    Chancellor Howard Gillman knows this better than most. After all, he wrote his doctoral thesis on constitutional ideology. This isn’t hard. UC Irvine must reform its policies to align with the First Amendment. 

    Source link