Tag: Grad

  • Some Grad Schools Open to Admitting 3-Year Degree Holders

    Some Grad Schools Open to Admitting 3-Year Degree Holders

    Madeleine Green, executive director of the College-in-3 Exchange, called the findings “a positive indicator.”

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Chris Ryan/OJO Images/Getty Images

    As a handful of colleges debuted 90-credit degrees this fall, one of the questions most top of mind for students, institutions and accreditors alike was whether graduate schools would admit students with these unusual degrees.

    Now, the College-in-3 Exchange, an organization that advocates for the creation of such programs, has compiled some evidence that they will. The nonprofit conducted a study interviewing 10 graduate school admissions leaders from a range of institution types about how they would hypothetically respond if an applicant had a bachelor’s degree with fewer than the traditional 120 credits. The study was led by Christa Lee Olson, a senior program specialist with College-in-3.

    The majority of respondents said their policies currently preclude reduced-credit degrees, but several said they could see that changing in the future, especially as three-year degrees become more common. Two of the interviewees reported that their institutions had changed their policies to accommodate international three-year degrees, which are common in countries like the U.K. Some also indicated that while they don’t accept reduced-credit degrees, they have mechanisms to make exceptions for specific applicants, especially at the request of a faculty member.

    It’s an important step for College-in-3. As accreditors and state higher education leaders evaluate whether to allow institutions to launch three-year programs, one of their top concerns has been whether employers and graduate schools will accept the shortened degrees. Madeleine Green, the executive director of College-in-3, said she believes this report will serve as evidence to institutions, accreditors and state leaders that graduate programs are open to considering these degrees.

    “Because College-in-3 is such a young movement, and we don’t have evidence of what happens to the graduates … this is suggestive evidence,” she said. “We plan to disseminate this, share it with the states, share it with our members and use it as a positive indicator.”

    The recent surge in three-year programs seems to have shifted the perspectives of some of the admissions leaders included in the report. One respondent noted that institutions near them are creating reduced-credit degrees; when asked if their institution will consider accepting these three-year degrees, “the respondent replied that the value of the bachelor’s degree is not based on the arbitrary length of the degree but rather on how the program enables a student’s learning and development,” the report noted.

    Three respondents also said that their own institution was considering or in the process of developing reduced-credit programs.

    But not every participant felt positively about three-year degrees; one “expressed caution” about the programs and said they’re taking their cues from accreditors, according to the study. (Many accreditors have begun accepting 90-credit degrees, although in some cases, the programs are considered pilots that will be evaluated for their efficacy in several years.)

    The question of whether graduate schools would admit students with a reduced-credit degree speaks to one of the most fundamental challenges of graduate admissions, said Julie Posselt, a scholar of higher education at the University of Southern California and the author of Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping (2016, Harvard University Press): How does one translate the information on a transcript into information about a student’s knowledge and abilities?

    Posselt told Inside Higher Ed she could imagine master’s programs—many of which are revenue generators for their institutions—being open to admitting students with three-year degrees. But she has doubts that doctoral programs, especially at selective institutions, would be as welcoming.

    “A fundamental challenge of selection is that no two humans are created equal or have fundamentally equivalent records. All we have is the information the applicant gives us. Professors have a tendency when making decisions, and admissions decision-makers of all kinds have a tendency, to rely on the metrics they have in front of them,” she said. “Especially in the current environment and in selective programs, I think it’s unlikely to be that any three-year program is likely to generate the same perceived competence, excellence and academic preparation.”

    For that to change, the degrees would not only have to become significantly more common, she said; they would have to crop up at institutions perceived as prestigious.

    One of the respondents in the College-in-3 report shared a similar perspective, emphasizing “the value of engaging high-profile institutions in this conversation to elevate the status of these degrees.”

    The report concludes with recommendations about how to support students in three-year programs who hope to pursue graduate education. Along with continuing to familiarize the higher education world with the idea of three-year degrees, the report’s author also encouraged programs to prepare their students to explain the structure of their degree to graduate schools. In addition, it floated the idea of creating agreements between three-year degree programs and graduate programs.

    “Conventional wisdom tells us that colleges and universities are very slow to change but change they do,” the report concludes. “Although ten interviews did not provide exhaustive information, the willingness of the respondents to consider different pathways to graduate studies suggests that master’s and even doctoral degrees will not be beyond the reach of 3-year degree program graduates.”

    Source link

  • Grad Programs Brace for Loan Caps

    Grad Programs Brace for Loan Caps

    Most of the colleges with the largest graduate programs in the country don’t have clear plans for how they’ll deal with new loan caps, set to kick in next July. And if they do, they aren’t taking publicly about it.

    For years, students could borrow essentially unlimited funds to pay for graduate education, thanks to a program known as Grad PLUS that capped loans at the cost of attendance. Republicans in Congress and other critics have argued that colleges took advantage of this program and raised their prices, fueling the student debt crisis. Loans for grad students make up nearly half of the federal loan portfolio.

    Along the way, colleges have begun to rely on graduate education to fund their university operations, higher ed experts say.

    But now that two-decade-old system is ending. Congress eliminated Grad PLUS over the summer and will cap how much students can borrow for graduate education. Lawmakers also limited Parent PLUS loans, which were also previously uncapped and offered families a way to make up the gap and pay for college. Both changes came out of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    Beginning next summer, most graduate programs will have a federal loan cap of $100,000, with exceptions for a scaled-down number of professional programs with a limit set at $200,000. Those changes have created uncertainty for graduate schools and students who are navigating a changing landscape with fewer resources. Experts say graduate schools could face enrollment declines and some could shutter, thanks to the new limits.

    Even before the loan caps, graduate education was facing a reckoning, particularly after the Trump administration clamped down on federal research funding. Colleges paused graduate admissions for doctoral programs, and sometimes rescinded offers. Meanwhile, colleges are starting to rethink their approaches to humanities doctoral programs, among other shifts in this space.

    Planning for Change

    To better understand how universities are planning ahead, Inside Higher Ed reached out to 20 of the largest graduate programs in the nation. Most did not respond. Those that did emphasized a mix of increased corporate engagement and expanded loan options, among other measures.

    But for the most part, many appear to still be figuring it out.

    “We’re spending a lot of time this year looking at diversifying the streams of funding for graduate students,” said Bonnie Ferri, vice provost for graduate and postdoctoral education at Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Ferri noted that while Georgia Tech already has corporate partnerships that sponsor projects, which in turn help fund students, the university is doubling down on those efforts this year and “focusing on being more systematic” to spread those dollars across more graduate programs.

    At a recent University of Florida Board of Trustees meeting, Vice President and Chief Enrollment Strategist, Mary Parker, said UF will “have to figure out how to fill the gap for our students” as loan options diminish. She noted UF is rolling out Scholarship Universe, a tool to help students find internal and external scholarships. Parker said UF is also “looking at the expansion of our institution loan program” and the university will also help students identify private loan options.

    University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign spokesperson Patrick Wade told Inside Higher Ed by email that Illinois is still in the planning process and it is too early to share specific details. But Wade added that university officials “are directing units to begin developing contingency plans and to communicate proactively with current and prospective students, particularly in professionally oriented programs, where we expect recent changes to have the greatest impact.”

    Several other institutions said it was too early to share details about how they’ll fill loan gaps.

    Grad Enrollment Fallout

    Some experts believe the changes to federal loans will leave students scrambling.

    “I think when we get to July 1 next year, when these caps are scheduled to go into place, there will be a lot of students who are going to need to come up with another way of paying for graduate school than what’s been true in the past,” Jordan Matsudaira, director of the Postsecondary Education & Economics Research at American University, told Inside Higher Ed.

    Research led by Matsudaira projects that programs such as dentistry, osteopathy and medicine will be particularly squeezed by the changes.

    And given the many other pressures on university budgets, such as federal research funding challenges, federal efforts to limit international enrollment, and the looming demographic cliff, Matsudaira doesn’t expect universities to lower graduate tuition or significantly increase aid.

    “I just think institution budgets are going to be under so much pressure from so many different things that it is just incredibly optimistic thinking, bordering on fantasy, to believe that they’re going to come up with substantial sources of funding to be able to either cut their graduate school prices or be able to fund their own loan program to enroll students,” he said.

    (Some experts have suggested that states should get involved by providing low or no-interest loans as the Grad Plus loan option goes away.)

    Matsudaira expects a “very rough transition period over this coming year” for students. He also expects graduate enrollment to decline.

    “The question is how much does it reduce the number of students pursuing graduate school,” Matsudaira said.

    Private loans are one option students are likely to turn to. He believes private loans will surge, with the market growing from around $3 billion a year currently to $10 billion in the near future.

    But even private loans may prove difficult to obtain for some students.

    “If I had to make predictions, I would guess that private student loan providers will make loans available to students attending programs with a good track record of earnings and loan repayment, but it is less certain whether students in programs that tend to lead to lower earnings and/or worse loan repayment outcomes will be able to access private student loans,” Lesley Turner, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, wrote by email.

    She added private loans will have “fewer protections and less flexibility in repayment terms.”

    Turner expects that the fallout of the changes to graduate school funding will not only decrease enrollment but may even prod some institutions to shutter such programs as headcount falls.

    Credit rating agencies have also taken a dim view of what the changes will mean.

    “Institutions with a greater proportion of graduate students will likely face more pronounced impacts from these policy changes, particularly if they serve disproportionately high levels of aid- and loan-dependent students,” Fitch Ratings concluded in its 2026 sector outlook, which it described as deteriorating. “While private loan providers can fill gaps created by federal limits, private offerings may nevertheless deter students, as private loans will likely be offered with less favorable rates and limited flexibility compared to what was available under federal programs.”

    Source link

  • Purdue Allegedly Rejecting Chinese, Other Grad Students

    Purdue Allegedly Rejecting Chinese, Other Grad Students

    Purdue University is allegedly rejecting large numbers of Chinese graduate student applicants.

    wanderluster/iStock/Getty Images

    Current and prospective Purdue University graduate students say the institution rejected a slew of Chinese applicants from its grad programs for this academic year. Also, one grad student says the university told grad admissions committees in the past couple of months that it’s highly unlikely to accept students from any “adversary nation” for next year.

    Faculty were told those countries are China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela, said Kieran Hilmer, a teaching assistant on the leadership committee of Graduate Rights and Our Wellbeing (GROW), a group trying to unionize Purdue grad workers. That list broadly matches the commerce secretary’s catalog of foreign adversaries.

    Hilmer said the university conveyed this prohibition verbally. “They didn’t write any of this down,” he said.

    Purdue isn’t commenting on the allegations. The university has faced scrutiny from members of Congress about its ties to China. In May, the Trump administration briefly said it would revoke Chinese students’ visas nationwide. The president has since changed his tune and said he would welcome more students from China.

    A Chinese student who wished to remain anonymous because he’s still trying to get into Purdue told Inside Higher Ed he received an offer to be a research assistant last February, meaning his funding was secure to become a Purdue grad student this academic year. But, in April or May, he said, the Office of Graduate Admissions told him that his application was denied.

    The redacted two-paragraph letter that he provided to Inside Higher Ed said admission “is competitive and many factors are carefully considered,” but “we are not able to provide specific feedback.”

    The student, who said he got his master’s degree in the U.S. and wishes to remain here, said he had already moved to West Lafayette, where Purdue’s flagship campus is, signed a lease and turned down other institutions’ offers. He said the rejection could impact his visa.

    “I may get deported,” he said.

    He said he learned through social media that at least 100 other Chinese students were similarly rejected.

    Purdue spokespeople also didn’t provide a response to the Lafayette Journal & Courier and the Exponent student newspaper when asked about this issue. The Journal & Courier, which first reported the story, cited four faculty members from “a wide range of departments” who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retribution from the university.

    Multiple heads of graduate admissions committees didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday; one who answered the phone referred a reporter to the press office, which didn’t respond. Emails sent to Office of Graduate Admissions employees went unanswered.

    While Purdue won’t explain what actions it’s taking or why, the U.S. House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party said in a September report that it’s been investigating Purdue and five other universities—Stanford and Carnegie Mellon Universities and the Universities of Maryland, Southern California and Illinois at Urbana-Champaign—all year “regarding the presence and research activities of Chinese national students on their campuses.”

    Hilmer said Purdue is rejecting Chinese applicants in “a specific attempt to comply with the U.S. Select Committee.” (The committee didn’t comment Thursday on whether it pressured Purdue to go as far as it allegedly has.) But Hilmer also said the “hostility and malice” the university is showing these students goes further than what the committee requested.

    “As Purdue said in its response to the House Select Committee, international students are fully vetted by the United States government when they apply for their visas,” Hilmer said. “And, on top of that, in order to work on projects related to national security, they need to get further security clearance. So there’s no reason for Purdue to make this unilateral extralegal decision to ban all of these students.”

    He said many of these students were already in the U.S.

    “This policy is obviously discriminatory and immoral, and, on top of that, it violates Purdue’s policy on nondiscrimination,” he said. The Chinese student told Inside Higher Ed that he doesn’t accept the committee pressure rationale, because Purdue wasn’t the only university under investigation.

    If Purdue is responding to the committee’s pressure, it’s another example of a selective American institution bending to the federal government’s efforts to reduce international enrollment and to particularly target Chinese students and scholars. During President Trump’s first term in office, the Justice Department launched the controversial China Initiative, which investigated faculty ties to China.

    Republicans said the initiative sought to counter espionage, but Democrats, education lobbyists and Asian American advocates argued it was ineffective and instead justified racial profiling and discrimination. A study suggested the initiative’s investigations may have caused valuable researchers of Chinese descent to leave the U.S. for China.

    Hilmer said Purdue’s rejection of Chinese students will harm its reputation and ability to recruit the best students and workers.

    “Even if they’re not international students, they’re going to say, ‘Why would I ever accept an offer from Purdue if there’s no guarantee that it’s actually an offer?’” he said. “Why would they ever feel comfortable accepting an offer from Purdue if they could go anywhere else?”

    Source link

  • Is Grad School Worth the Money?

    Is Grad School Worth the Money?

    With tuition costs on the rise, it’s only natural to question whether the time, money and effort of graduate school will pay off. So, how do you determine if it’s worth the investment?

    There is no one answer to that question. Your path to grad school — and the value you gain from it — can vary greatly. You may be set on going to a prestigious or renowned school that may come with a high price tag, or you may choose a more economical option. You may be eligible for a scholarship, or maybe your employer will sponsor part of your schooling.

    Before you make the big decision, ask yourself the following big questions to determine if your desired grad school program is worth the investment for you.

    Questions to Ask Yourself Before Going to Grad School

    Why do I want to go to grad school?

    Start by clarifying your motivation and prioritizing your reasons for attending grad school. After all, it’s hard to assess the value of a degree if you don’t first determine what you want to get out of that degree. Are you hoping to boost your earnings, pivot careers, deepen expertise, or gain more personal fulfillment? Your “why” will help you evaluate whether the investment makes sense.

    Grad school may also be a requirement for the career you’ve chosen — such as becoming a doctor, a dentist, or a lawyer. Chances are if you aim to have one of these careers, you will need to attend a graduate program to become certified or credentialed to pursue that career path.

    What will I do with my degree?

    It’s one thing to earn an advanced degree — it’s another to have it align with a career path that pays off. Research your field’s demand, salary potential and required credentials. Some master’s degrees raise earning potential substantially, while others may not. According to the U.S. Social Security Administration, men with graduate degrees earn $1.5 million more in median lifetime earnings than those with a high school diploma, and $620,000 more than those with a bachelor’s degree. Women with graduate degrees earn $1.1 million more in median lifetime earnings than their peers with a high school diploma, and $430,000 more than other women with just a bachelor’s degree.

    What will grad school cost?

    It’s easy to get sticker shock when looking at tuition costs for grad school, but before you panic, remember that you aren’t likely to have to pay full price for many schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the average total cost of graduate school is roughly $43,620 per year. However, different programs could cost less or more depending on their specific requirements. Generally, dentistry programs will be more expensive than veterinary programs, for example.

    Talk with the financial aid office at the university to see what they offer for scholarships, grants, and other “free” aid. Be sure to find out the criteria for maintaining that aid and whether that aid is renewable each year that you’re enrolled. Employer support may also be a viable option for paying for graduate school. Consider how long it takes to graduate, cost of living, and additional expenses you could incur during your time in grad school.

    How soon do students graduate from my top school?

    This will depend on what you’re attending grad school for. Medical school is typically four years, but you could be in a learning environment for longer if you pursue a specialization like surgery. On the other hand, an MBA program can typically be completed in two years. The time to graduation is determined by your program or field of study and your specific school. Check with specific grad schools you’re applying to about their program durations.

    Is “prestige and fame” more important to me than a “good deal” when it comes to my grad school?

    High price doesn’t always guarantee higher quality. Value can be found at less expensive schools, especially if they offer strong support, outcomes and networking. On the other hand, the reputation of the school may be more important to you. If you know what matters most to you personally, you can make the best decision for yourself.

    What percentage of students are gainfully employed in their chosen field the year they graduate?

    If you have student loans entering repayment, you may be especially interested in the job outcome rate of attending grad school. Each grad school should be able to provide some data on employment status and salaries for their graduates. These outcomes can help you evaluate return on investment.

    What networks & connections will I gain through my time at the university?

    Beyond coursework, your university’s reputation, alumni network, industry connections and experiential opportunities can make a big difference in how valuable your graduate degree and school of choice becomes.

    When should I go to grad school?

    Some choose to head straight into grad school after undergrad, while others recommend gaining a few years of professional experience first. Real-world work can make you a stronger applicant, help clarify your goals, and often enrich the value you’ll get from a program.

    If you’re considering delaying graduate school, you might want to talk with the admissions counselor at the school you’re considering to discuss the pros and cons and think about when to apply. For example, there are some universities that will allow you to apply now and defer admission for one to two years.

    The Value of Grad School Isn’t Just Financial

    Getting a degree isn’t just about earning potential. Graduate school can deepen your intellectual curiosity, enhance personal growth, broaden your professional skills, and lead to greater satisfaction in your work and life.

    In short: Make sure you’re clear on your goals, realistic about costs and outcomes, and attentive to both tangible and intangible benefits. If done thoughtfully, a graduate degree can absolutely be worth the investment — but it’s not guaranteed.

    Ready to take the next step investing in grad school? If grad school feels like the right move, we can help you make it happen. Explore College Ave’s graduate student loans designed to fit your goals and budget — so you can focus on your future, not just the finances.

    Source link

  • UT Austin Muzzles Grad Student Assembly’s Political Speech

    UT Austin Muzzles Grad Student Assembly’s Political Speech

    The Graduate Student Assembly had planned to consider resolutions against two Texas laws.

    Officials at the University of Texas at Austin blocked the Graduate Student Assembly from considering two resolutions against Texas state laws last week, arguing that the student-run body must follow institutional neutrality policies. 

    Mateo Vallejo, a first-year master’s student and representative in the GSA for the School of Social Work, drafted two resolutions for the assembly to consider: one condemning Texas SB 17, which bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at Texas public institutions, and another against Texas SB 37, a state law that, among other changes, put faculty senates at public institutions under the control of university presidents and boards. 

    On Oct. 10, GSA president David Spicer submitted the two resolutions to Associate Dean for Graduate Studies Christopher J. McCarthy for approval. According to the assembly bylaws, the dean of students’ office must approve all proposed GSA legislation before it can be considered by the full assembly, effectively giving the office an opportunity to veto, Vallejo explained. Once a bill is submitted to the dean’s office, the assembly cannot make any changes to the text. Vallejo, Spicer and the GSA vice president were careful to follow the bylaws during the drafting process to give administrators as little reason as possible to shut the resolutions down.

    Five days later, McCarthy nixed them.

    “[Vice President for Legal Affairs] considers the legislation to be political speech that is not permitted to be issued by a sponsored student organization in their official capacity,” McCarthy wrote in an email to Spicer, which Inside Higher Ed obtained. “This legislation should not be permitted to go forward.”

    Spicer followed up, asking why the GSA was prohibited from engaging in political speech when others have done so in their official capacity at UT Austin. He pointed to an op-ed by Provost William Inboden in the conservative magazine National Affairs and a statement from University of Texas System Board of Regents chairman Kevin P. Eltife, who said the university was “honored” to be among the institutions “selected by the Trump Administration for potential funding advantages” under Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” 

    “Their speech was on ‘political and social’ matters, so I do not know how they escape the neutrality requirement whereas GSA cannot,” Spicer wrote in his response to McCarthy. In addition, UT Austin’s undergraduate student government recently put out a statement of support for the university’s new president, Jim Davis, which Spicer argued is also political speech. 

    “Like attacks on the Faculty Council, silencing GSA through institutional neutrality is an attack on the notion of shared governance,” Spicer said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “GSA appoints students to university-wide committees and, previously, Faculty Council committees. GSA is the one space at UT Austin where students can voice issues impacting their graduate education.”

    When asked about the double standard, UT Austin spokesperson Mike Rosen told Inside Higher Ed that the resolution in support of Davis is not political speech because he was appointed by a nonpartisan board and not by an elected official. Members of the University of Texas System Board of Regents are appointed by the Texas governor. 

    “UT Austin exercises institutional neutrality consistent with a policy approved by the UT System Board of Regents, which prohibits System institutions from expressing positions on political matters or issues of the day. As a sponsored student organization, GSA acts as an extension of the University and cannot act to cause the University to violate the UT System policy,” Rosen wrote in an email. 

    Vallejo’s resolutions against SB 17 and SB 37 would not be the first attempt by the GSA to address Texas politics. In 2022, the Assembly passed a resolution in response to Texas attorney general Ken Paxton’s opinion and Gov. Greg Abbott’s directive to the Department of Family and Protective Services that gender-affirming medical care for minors could be treated as child abuse. In its resolution, the Assembly urged campus officials not to adopt that definition for campus reporting purposes.

    Source link

  • Grad v. Professional Programs a Key Issue for ED Panel

    Grad v. Professional Programs a Key Issue for ED Panel

    Despite the possibility of a government shutdown next week, the Education Department is slated to begin the complicated endeavor of determining how to carry out the sweeping higher ed changes in Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    The agenda for the weeklong meeting, which kicks off Monday, includes hammering out details about loan repayment plans and how to help struggling borrowers return to good standing. The key issue on the table, though, will likely be determining how best to differentiate between graduate and professional degree programs for future borrowers.

    The terms “graduate” and “professional” were once nothing more than a trivial self-prescribed classification. But under the Republicans’ new law, they have become critical labels that could alter which college programs get more federal aid. For example, under the new plan, student borrowers in a graduate program will be limited to $20,500 per year or $100,000 total, whereas those enrolled in a professional program will be able to borrow more than double that.

    And while lawmakers on Capitol Hill gave the department a foundational definition of what qualifies as professional in the bill, it’s up to Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent and the negotiated rule-making advisory committee to write rules that detail how that definition will work in practice. (The committee is scheduled to meet for another weeklong session in November, and only after that can the department finalize its proposal and open the floor for public comment.)

    Some university lobbyists and career associations want the department to include more programs in the professional bucket and make a comprehensive list of those that qualify. Others recommend using a broad definition and then letting institutions sort the programs. Consumer protection advocates, however, are urging the department to stick to the original, more narrow definition in an effort to prevent greater levels of student debt.

    The department’s initial proposal, released this week, stuck largely to the 10 programs cited in the existing definition but added a catch-all clause to add “any other degrees designated by the Secretary through rulemaking.”

    To Clare McCann, a former Education Department official and now managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University, the initial proposal shows that the department doesn’t quite know how it wants to define a professional program.

    “This is a really complicated issue,” she said. “So it seems clear to me that the department is planning to use this first session to gather ideas and feedback but is not planning to come to the table with a real proposal of its own.”

    Further complicating the issue, McCann and others say, it’s going to be difficult for the department to finalize its rule fast enough to give students and institutions enough time to prepare. (Currently, the new loan caps are slated to kick in as of July 1, 2026.)

    As McCann explained, the earliest colleges and universities could expect to see a proposed rule—let alone a finalized one—would be later this fall. And at that point, many prospective students have already started receiving acceptance letters.

    “There will be many people making decisions about whether and where they’re going to graduate school, and they’ll be doing that in a vacuum, without final rules about what they’ll be able to borrow and how they’re going to be able to repay it,” she said. “So this whole regulatory process is going to be an incredible time crunch.”

    Current Definitions

    The current definition of “professional,” which is laid out in the Higher Education Act of 1965, states that in order to qualify as professional a degree must signify that a student has the skills necessary beyond a bachelor’s degree in order to practice a specific profession.

    Later it adds that “professional licensure is also generally required,” and provides a short but nonexhaustive list of programs that could fit the bill, including: pharmacy, dentistry, medicine, osteopathy, law, optometry, podiatry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic medicine and theology. (That list served as the foundation for the department’s proposal.)

    Some groups, like the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, made clear in their public comments that they interpret this definition to be an intentionally “flexible” and “inclusive approach.” And based on that, they encouraged the department to maintain a broad definition and allow institutions to self-certify their programs with periodic review from the department.

    Jordan Wicker, the senior vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs at Career Education Colleges and Universities, a lobbying group for for-profit institutions, added that the economy and higher education landscape are constantly evolving—pointing to the need for a broader definition.

    “I don’t know that you want to re-regulate a comprehensive list any time curriculums or programs change,” he told Inside Higher Ed.

    Others, including the American Council on Education, agree that the interpretation should be broad but say the best way to ensure that is the case is by creating a more complete list of eligible programs. “At the very least,” ACE said in its comment letter, the list should include dozens of clinical and health science programs highlighted under an existing regulation known as financial value transparency. On top of that, it also urges the department to include about 15 additional programs, including architecture, accounting, social work, education and word languages.

    Halaevalu Vakalahi, president of the Council on Social Work Education, agreed, arguing that many programs like hers meet the current definition.

    “We’ve always identified ourselves as a profession,” she said. “There’s licensure, there’s accreditation—all of the things that we have as part of the social [work] profession are also in the list that currently exists on what is a profession.”

    But Third Way, a left-of-center think tank, drew the exact opposite conclusion, arguing that Congress intended for the definition to be stringent and address “unnecessary student debt.” (Graduate student debt accounts for nearly half of the student loan portfolio, raising concerns for lawmakers and advocates.)

    “While this list is not exclusive, Congress did not indicate that it intended to include any other fields in crafting the OBBBA loan limits,” senior policy adviser Ben Cecil wrote in a recent blog post about the distinction. “By codifying this list as written, the Department can best enforce the legislative intent of ensuring that students aren’t overborrowing for graduate school and have manageable debt compared to their program’s earnings.”

    High-Stakes Talks

    With the different proposals on the table, those interviewed agreed that it will be rather difficult for the committee to reach consensus. If the committee doesn’t reach an agreement, the department is free to interpret the definition cited in OBBBA however it wants.

    McCann from PEER, who worked at the department during the Obama and Biden administrations, said that until she starts to see the debate play out, it’s hard to know which approach will win. But no matter what, she added it will likely be an uphill climb.

    “It’s a challenging issue for negotiators, and there are a lot of competing interests with pretty high stakes attached,” she said. So “this is going to be a difficult committee on which to get that kind of agreement.”

    Todd Jones, president of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio and a former Republican staffer in the department, said that he expects the Trump administration will lean toward a more narrow definition if the committee doesn’t reach consensus. At that point, he added, it will be up to the individual types of programs to lobby for why they should be added to the list.

    “The question is, what has the administration already decided that they are going to give on?” Jones said. “And the things I’ve heard while I was in D.C. over the past few months indicate that there may not be support for some of these social science higher degrees being considered professions and instead simply being considered master’s.”

    Source link

  • More Colleges Promise Grads Employment, Grad School Placement

    More Colleges Promise Grads Employment, Grad School Placement

    For some students, enrolling in college can feel like a gamble due to the high cost and lack of a clear career at the end of the program. But a growing number of colleges and universities are guaranteeing students will land a job or graduate program slot within months of graduation.

    Bethel University in St. Paul is the latest to make such a promise; Bethel’s Career Commitment provides students in the College of Arts & Sciences with additional assistance if they are still unemployed or not enrolled in graduate school six months after graduation—including by offering a tuition-free spot in a graduate-level Bethel course or a staff job at the university. 

    The trend indicates a growing awareness among institutions of their responsibility to provide students with career-development opportunities, as well as their recognition that a lack of institutional support can impact the college’s perceived value.

    State of play: Nationally, institutions of higher education are struggling to demonstrate value to the public, including prospective students, parents and lawmakers. Much of the trepidation comes from a lack of transparency regarding colleges’ high cost of attendance and the mountain of student loan debt Americans hold, as well as high unemployment and underemployment rates among graduates.

    A recent survey by Tyton Partners found that among students who believe college is worth the cost, 95 percent think higher education is preparing them well for jobs and careers.

    In general, students give fair ratings to the work campuses are currently doing to prepare them for their professional lives. A 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that the plurality of students rate their institution’s efforts in career development as “average” (34 percent), 44.6 percent combined consider their college “good” or “excellent,” and 18 percent said poor or below average.

    Today’s college students are also eyeing a competitive job market during an economic downturn, as well as pressures from evolving technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, that threaten entry-level roles.

    Embedding career development throughout the curriculum or as a graduation requirement is becoming more common, encouraging students to think about life after college earlier and in more meaningful ways so they aren’t caught unprepared when senior spring rolls around.

    Previous research shows that students engaged in career development are more likely to secure a job; a 2022 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that students who engaged with their career center received more job offers than their peers who didn’t. But some structural barriers can hinder students’ ability to participate in career activities, including off-campus work, caregiving responsibilities or lack of awareness of services. Internships are also increasingly competitive, leaving some students behind.

    How it works: A key piece of the Bethel Career Commitment is that students must undertake significant measures to advance their own career before the university will open additional doors of support.

    Students must complete four “phases” of career preparation prior to graduation to be eligible for a spot in Bethel’s career commitment plan. The elements include creating a Handshake profile, meeting with a career-development coach and participating in an internship. And after they earn their degree, students must meet with a career coach monthly and apply for at least 20 jobs per month to complete the final phase.

    In addition, students must have a minimum 3.0 GPA, be in good financial standing with the university and be willing to relocate.

    For students who don’t meet all the eligibility requirements, the university provides postgraduation career support in the form of coaching, Bethel University president Ross Allen told Inside Higher Ed.

    “Today, 99 percent of Bethel graduates are employed or in graduate school within a year, so we expect a small number of graduates will need the additional postgraduation support,” Allen said.

    He anticipates that graduate-level credits will often be “the most helpful next step vocationally,” but the university may offer short-term employment opportunities to students based on staffing needs, Allen said.

    A national picture: Other institutions, including Thomas College in Maine, Davenport University in Michigan, Curry College in Massachusetts and the University of Tulsa, guarantee their graduates employment, also on the condition that students participate in career development while enrolled.

    At Davenport, for example, students in select majors who earn a 3.0 GPA, complete an internship or experiential learning opportunity, and participate in extracurricular activities are supported by the DU Employment Guarantee. The plan allows students to enroll in 48 additional credits tuition-free in a graduate, undergraduate or professional program at the university, as well as participate in career coaching and recruitment efforts.

    At Curry College, students who opt into the Curry Commitment receive assistance with federal student loans for up to 12 months. They are also given a paid internship or a tuition waiver for six credits of graduate studies at the institution. To be eligible, a student must participate in career advising, workshops and résumé development; earn at least a 2.8 GPA; and graduate within four years.

    None of these institutions differentiates among the types of job a student may secure—making no distinction between a part-time role or one that doesn’t require a bachelor’s degree—leaving some questions about the underemployment of college graduates.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Staff Members Fired, Grad Student Punished for Cheering Charlie Kirk’s Death

    Staff Members Fired, Grad Student Punished for Cheering Charlie Kirk’s Death

    Right-wing social media accounts have embarked on a widespread name-and-shame campaign to out any college employees who have celebrated or spoken insensitively about Kirk’s death.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | skynesher/E+/Getty Images

    Two administrators are now out of a job and a graduate student lost an internship after making comments online that downplayed or celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk, the influential conservative founder of the campus-focused Turning Point USA. 

    In the 36 hours since Kirk was shot and killed during an event at Utah Valley University, right-wing social media accounts have screenshotted and circulated several social media posts, likes and reposts from college faculty and staff members related to Kirk’s death. In addition to the firings, the campaign to name and shame these individuals has led to death threats, Wired reported.

    Late Wednesday, a student affairs administrator at Middle Tennessee State University was fired after posting “insensitive” remarks on Facebook in response to Kirk’s death. “We take great pride in the professionalism of our staff; in my long tenure with this university I’ve never before had to dismiss someone for so carelessly undermining the work and mission of this fine institution,” Middle Tennessee State president Sidney McPhee wrote in a statement Thursday. A university spokesperson confirmed the employee was Laura Sosh-Lightsy, an associate dean of student care and conduct who had worked at the university since 2005. 

    “Looks like ol’ Charlie spoke his fate into existence. Hate begets hate. ZERO sympathy,” Sosh-Lightsy wrote in a Facebook post that has been circulated widely by right-wing accounts on social media. A university spokesperson did not confirm whether or not that specific post led to her firing but noted that “her termination was related to her insensitive social media posts related to the horrific death of Mr. Kirk.” Tennessee senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican, called for Sosh-Lightsy’s firing on X, writing that she “should be ashamed of her post.” Sosh-Lightsy did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment.

    On Thursday afternoon, University of Mississippi chancellor Glenn Boyce confirmed the firing of an unnamed staff member who he said “re-shared hurtful, insensitive comments on social media regarding the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk.”

    Boyce didn’t provide specifics but noted that “these comments run completely counter to our institutional values of civility, fairness and respecting the dignity of each person.” 

    At Baylor University, officials distanced the university from a graduate student who wrote “this made me giggle” in response to a social media post sharing the news of Kirk’s death.

    “We are aware and greatly disappointed by a social media comment from a Baylor graduate student regarding the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk. To make light of the death of a fellow human being is completely inappropriate and completely counter to Baylor’s Christian mission. Baylor strives to be a community in which every individual is treated with respect—in life and in death,” a university statement said.

    The graduate student—whose online username includes “coach”—is not a member of the faculty nor a part of the athletics program, the statement clarified. Midway Middle School, where the graduate student was student teaching, also removed him from teaching there, KWTX reported. 

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is monitoring which universities are censoring employee speech, said Lindsie Rank, director of campus rights advocacy at FIRE. “It may not be moral to speak ill of the dead, but it is protected by the First Amendment so we’re going to be keeping our eyes open for those situations,” she said.

    Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Brown to Fund Grad Students Who Lost Grants

    Brown to Fund Grad Students Who Lost Grants

    The university has vowed to honor financial commitments made to M.F.A. and Ph.D. students.

    Brown University will give money to some of its graduate students whose federal research grants were cut by the Trump administration, The Brown Daily Herald reported. 

    “We want to make sure that we’re able to give each of you all of the attention and support that you need to get through comfortably [and] well supported,” Janet Blume, interim dean of the graduate school, said at a Graduate Student Council meeting Wednesday. She said the university will honor the financial commitments of M.F.A. and Ph.D. students who lost their grants. 

    The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies have terminated thousands of academic researchers’ grants—including many at Brown—that don’t align with the Trump administration’s ideological agenda. 

    Blume said Brown is also reducing its graduate student admissions target this year to allow “time to work out issues of the federal financial landscape and also shifts in the job market.”

    In addition to canceling research grants, numerous federal agencies have put forth plans to cap the amount of money they reimburse universities to cover indirect research costs, which universities say will hurt their budgets and slow innovation. Brown is among the institutions suing the government over its changes to indirect cost reimbursement rates, which are on pause during ongoing litigation. 

    Brown, which had a $46 million deficit before President Trump took office in January, has also faced targeted scrutiny from the Trump administration. The university implemented a hiring freeze in March. In April, the government froze $510 million of Brown’s federal research dollars in retaliation for the university’s alleged failures to address antisemitism on campus.

    In June, administrators warned of the potential for “significant cost-cutting” measures amid the “deep financial losses” resulting from grant cuts, increased endowment taxes and threats to international student enrollment.

    The following month, Brown and the government came to an agreement, and the frozen grant money is coming back to the university. However, the deal did not restore the grants of researchers whose funding was terminated as part of the broader ideologically driven policy changes.

    Source link

  • Columbia Ends Some Teaching Roles for Grad Students

    Columbia Ends Some Teaching Roles for Grad Students

    Columbia’s graduate student union is in the middle of negotiating a new contract with the university.

    DNY59/iStock/Getty Images

    Less than a month before the start of the semester, Ph.D. students at Columbia University in New York were told with little explanation that they would no longer be teaching this fall.

    The catalyst for this change is unclear. The university said it’s an effort to reduce the teaching load on Columbia graduate students and allow them to finish their degrees in six years rather than seven. The students said it’s a move to weaken the labor power of their union, which is in the middle of tense negotiations with the university to renew its contract, which expired June 30.

    The students, who are members of the graduate student union Student Workers of Columbia, will still be paid. However, instead of receiving a biweekly teaching stipend, they’ll get a lump sum at the start of the semester. To pay both the Ph.D.s and their replacements, “the cost to the university likely runs to millions of dollars,” estimated Michael Thaddeus, a mathematics professor at Columbia and vice president and acting president of the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors. In July, Columbia agreed to a $221 million settlement with the federal government in order to restore hundreds of millions in federal research funding.

    Columbia has traditionally tapped sixth- and seventh-year graduate students to teach foundational courses and some of the undergraduate college’s Core Curriculum classes, which includes courses, like University Writing and Frontiers of Science, that all first-year students are required to take. The work is more time-consuming than a regular TA job; as the so-called instructors of record, the Ph.D. students must teach two two-hour lectures and attend a pedagogy seminar each week, on top of all of the reading and prep time that goes on behind the scenes. The workload sidelines their research and writing, a representative from SWC explained. But it offers valuable teaching experience, and Ph.D. candidates are usually guaranteed a seventh year of funding when they sign on to teach a core class.

    But this teaching expectation is unusually large for graduate students, according to Columbia officials.

    “Columbia doctoral students have typically been required to teach more than Ph.D. students at peer institutions, which often means delays in their time to degree,” a university spokesperson wrote in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “After discussions with some departments about teaching requirements and instructional staffing, we have released some graduate students from teaching obligations for the fall—while continuing to offer them the same funding and benefits. These students will have more time to complete academic requirements or advance their dissertation research and writing.”

    Neither the students nor some faculty buy this explanation. Students say they didn’t receive any formal communication about changes to the graduate student teaching structure and that the move to dismiss or deny Ph.D.s from the teaching positions is an effort to undermine the labor power of the union, which had been planning a strike for the fall. As TAs and members of SWC, the students would still be able to participate in a work action, but it wouldn’t have as big an impact as lecturers walking out of class.

    More than 100 students are affected by this change, according to the union. Columbia officials said the figure was much lower but declined to share an exact figure and noted that the number of Ph.D. core instructors varies year to year.

    Columbia’s AAUP chapter denounced the university’s action in an Aug. 19 statement.

    “We do not agree with the claim that this step has been taken to help graduate students. Rather, it clearly has to do with the looming contract negotiations. The timing makes this clear,” said Thaddeus. “Students applied for preceptor positions back in November, and then they heard nothing at all for many months. If this were being done to help graduate students, then it would have made sense to notify them promptly.”

    The move will also damage the quality of Columbia’s doctoral and M.F.A. programs, Thaddeus argued.

    “Practical experience with setting assignments and exams, giving final grades, and so on is invaluable to those graduate students who pursue a career in teaching,” he added.

    One sixth-year Ph.D., who wished to remain anonymous to prevent retaliation from the university for speaking out, applied for a core teaching position in December. Over the next eight months, she received no communication about the position and finally received an offer for a TA position July 30. It wasn’t until Aug. 6, the day she was originally supposed to sign and return the teaching assistant appointment letter, that she heard back about the core position. She’d been rejected, the email said, and it included no explanation or information about the widespread changes to graduate teaching duties at Columbia.

    The abrupt change is “really disrupting people in the later stage of the program, like myself, who thought that this was not going to be my last year,” says the Ph.D. student. “Now I’m having to go on the academic job market basically at the last minute.”

    To fill the now-vacant teaching jobs, Columbia is recruiting for one-year lectureships and advertising the roles to adjuncts, postdocs and New York–based graduate students at other universities.

    “I wanted to share with you a posting we’ve just made for full-time lecturer positions teaching all across our Core curriculum—in Art, Music, Literature, and Contemporary Civilization—where we are expecting a larger entering class that we’d originally thought,” Columbia officials wrote in a message that was passed along to faculty at the University of Chicago and obtained by Inside Higher Ed. Columbia has also sent the position to Yale University.

    Source link