Tag: Higher

How Senate Republicans Want to Hold Colleges Accountable

More than a week after the Senate education committee released its draft plan to overhaul the federal student aid system, higher education leaders across the sector are still breathing a sigh of relief over key provisions concerning how to hold colleges accountable for student outcomes.

The high chamber’s proposal, which ties a university’s access to federal loans to how much their students earn after graduation, is simpler and more productive than the House proposal, known as risk-sharing, which would require colleges to pay an annual penalty based on their students’ outstanding loan balances, they say.

“More than any other factor, a program having low earnings is the thing that is most connected with the prevalence of students defaulting or struggling to pay down their loans,” said Jordan Matsudaira, director of the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University. “This is a serious and sensible proposal to establish what I think of as a very necessary accountability in the higher education space.”

The Senate plan seems to be based on an existing regulation known as gainful employment, which uses students’ earnings and debt to measure whether for-profit and non-degree programs adequately prepare their students for the workforce. But Republicans who sponsored the bill and expanded its reach to all degree programs have been wary of drawing attention to the overlap, as lawmakers have avoided calling it anything like “gainful employment 2.0” or “gainful for all.”

Republicans have historically opposed the Democratic policy, which was first put in place during the Obama administration, saying it unfairly targeted for-profit programs and that a free market would be the best way to regulate the quality of academic programs. (The first Trump administration rescinded the policy, and then the Biden administration enacted a stricter version that remains in place today.)

But now, as congressional Republicans grow increasingly concerned about student debt and skeptical of higher education, some have started to change their tune.

Some say the Senate’s proposed earnings test is likely to succeed and become law, as it’s the lesser of two evils and aligns more with a conservative federalist ideology when compared to the House’s plan. But others view this new accountability measure as just that—new.

“They’re not looking at the Biden gainful-employment rules and saying, ‘Oh, this was a good thing. Let’s do it like they did.’ They’re taking a different approach,” said Jason Altmire, president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, the national trade association representing for-profit institutions, which criticized the Biden regulations. He also noted that including all types of colleges is “a huge difference from the way the two last Democratic administrations approached gainful employment.”

Either way, the provision is now up for consideration as part of a broader legislative package—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—that would cut spending in order to finance Trump’s tax cuts and immigration policies. The House bill passed by a one-vote margin last month; now, senators are aiming to pass their version by July 4.

Since lawmakers are using a process known as reconciliation, they only need 51 votes to pass the bill in the Senate, down from the typical 60 votes. But it also means the legislation has to adhere to a specific set of rules.

Some policy experts question whether the Senate’s accountability measure for colleges will pass the sniff test. If it does, they expect the proposal to be included in the final bill.

How Does It Work?

The crux of the Senate’s accountability measure is tracking the median earnings of students program by program and comparing them to the average earnings of adults ages 25 to 34 with only a high school diploma. If students don’t earn more than adults without a college degree for two out of three consecutive years, then the program would lose access to federal loans for at least two years.

Earnings for baccalaureate degree programs will be measured four years after a student leaves the program regardless of age—a time frame that some experts say is too short to truly gauge a program’s value. Meanwhile, the median income of high school graduates would not be evaluated until they hit at least 25 years old, or seven years after the typical high school graduation. Some higher ed lobbyists say that comparison isn’t fair.

“You’re comparing a 23-year-old, let’s say, cosmetology graduate just getting started with her book of business to a 34-year-old flight attendant who’s been on the job for 16 years who only has a high school diploma,” Altmire said.

A similar process would be used for graduate and professional programs, except the income level would be compared to adults with a bachelor’s degree and earnings will be evaluated further out from when the student left the program.

The Senate hasn’t released any data on its plan, but studies on the Biden gainful-employment rule offer some insights into which types of college programs could be affected most.

Data collected by the Department of Education in 2022 showed that about 1.3 percent of programs not currently subject to gainful employment would fail. About half of the programs failed because of the earnings test, according to an Inside Higher Ed analysis of department data.

Other studies show that of those programs, the ones most impacted will likely be graduate studies and for-profit bachelor’s degrees. For example, about 20 percent of students in each of these sectors failed the Biden earnings test, said Matsudaira, who worked for the Department of Education during the Biden administration and is very familiar with gainful employment. That’s compared to only about 4 percent of nonprofit bachelor programs.

Altmire, from CECU, however, disagreed. He pointed to a 2023 study conducted by Monroe College, a for-profit institution, which showed that nearly 90 percent of the undergraduate degree programs that would fail the earnings test are at public and private nonprofit colleges.

But just because more nonprofit colleges fail doesn’t mean they have a high rate of failure proportionally, Matsudaira responded.

“About 90 percent of enrollment is in the nonprofit sector, and only 10 percent of enrollment is in the for-profit sector, so of course, that should tilt in the direction of the nonprofit sector,” he said. “I would think about it a little bit more within each one of those sectors.”

A Fairer Gainful?

The Senate plan does keep the current gainful-employment rules in place while House Republicans want to repeal them. The Trump administration is currently defending the regulations in federal court, but a judge could throw them out.

Still, policy experts cautioned against thinking of the Senate proposal as an add-on to Biden’s version of gainful employment.

“I think it would be inaccurate to say the Senate took the Biden gainful-employment rules and tinkered around the edges,” Altmire said. “They took one concept from the Biden rules but then did a lot of other things that greatly improved that concept and made it more fair across all schools.”

Beyond covering all degree programs, the Senate plan doesn’t specifically include credential programs, which currently fall under gainful employment. That’s a change that some experts say is a mistake, especially when the Senate is looking to expand the Pell Grant to cover some of these credentials. However, that plan comes with its own guardrails.

“Certificates, beyond any other type of program, are most typified by extremely low earnings, and having those low earnings leads to a lot of loan defaults over all. So the fact that the Senate proposal ignores the certificate space altogether is baffling,” Matsudaira said.

The Senate also changed the test itself. This version only measures a student’s earnings, while the Biden rule measures both income and whether students can pay off their loans. Furthermore, the Senate’s calculation includes all program enrollees, regardless of whether they completed their degree. The current gainful-employment regulations only count completers.

Of these changes, the most debated has been whether to include in the earnings calculation students who stopped out before completing their degrees.

Some policy experts argue that it’s fair to hold colleges accountable only for the earnings of students who complete their degree programs. If the goal is also to increase degree completion, that’s great, they say, but it should be handled through a separate provision than the one focused on return on investment.

“If the goal is to actually measure the ROI, we should be looking specifically at those who earned a degree,” said Craig Lindwarm, senior vice president for governmental affairs at the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. “There are a lot of other ways of supporting efforts to boost college completion, like investment in the Postsecondary Student Success Grant program.”

But others say it is entirely fair.

“You shouldn’t be rewarded when a student chooses your school, takes a bunch of financial aid, doesn’t complete the program,” said Altmire from CECU. “That makes no sense.”

That said, higher education leaders from all sectors of the industry are generally pleased with the proposal and say it shows that the Senate has been listening to their concerns.

“We’re encouraged that the Senate is heading down a more productive path,” one collegiate lobbyist said. “This is a much fairer, simpler and [more] effective approach to accountability.”

Source link

June 20, 2025
Swiss University, CIC to Help International Students

Following the Trump administration’s crackdown on international students, Franklin University Switzerland is opening up its doors to some of those who won’t be able to re-enter the United States.

About 40 slots are open to the students who attend institutions that are part of the Council of Independent Colleges, according to an email from CIC president Marjorie Hass. Franklin University is one of the association’s international members and is accredited in the United States and Switzerland. Students can receive an $11,250 scholarship per semester.

This partnership with Franklin University is just one way that colleges are working to support students amid the travel bans and visa restrictions. Experts have suggested that colleges could establish branch campuses in other countries as another option.

Hass wrote that she hopes students will be able to return to their original U.S. institution when possible, but the Franklin option could help them continue their studies in the meantime.

“I am proud to see an international member step up to offer this enriching academic opportunity to students at other CIC institutions,” she wrote. “I’d like to express my appreciation to Samuel Martín-Barbero, president of Franklin University Switzerland, for recognizing the plight of US CIC institutions and for stepping forward with a collegial offer of support.”

Since CIC announced the Franklin University partnership, Al Akhawayn University in Morocco and American University of Nigeria have alaso agreed to offer a similar deal to CIC member institutions.

Source link

June 20, 2025
Helping Students Navigate Transitions, Addressing Teacher Shortages
Across Texas, students entering dual-credit programs with the goal of becoming educators often face unclear pathways and unnecessary obstacles. But in the North Texas region, a multisector group is working to change that—starting as early as high school.

Through programs like Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH) and early-college high schools, students can begin working toward their teaching credentials before they graduate. The Acceleration to Credential (A2C) Working Group—convened by Educate Texas—brings together local independent school districts, Dallas College and four-year university partners to create clearly defined pathways that connect high school, community college and bachelor’s-level educator preparation.

While the intention behind many dual-credit programs is to offer students more opportunity, the reality is that inconsistent requirements across institutions often create confusion. A student may graduate high school having earned college credits, only to find those credits don’t transfer toward a four-year degree. Or they may complete an associate degree that doesn’t align with bachelor’s programs in education.

To address this, A2C partners designed a coordinated model known as Target Pathways, which:
- Aligns associate degree pathways to all bachelor’s education programs in the region.
- Meets both high school graduation and Texas Core Curriculum requirements.
- Creates space for local adaptation within a unified regional framework.
- Provides students with clear maps of all degree and certification requirements.
These streamlined pathways aim to improve student outcomes, reduce excess credit accumulation and increase the number of teacher candidates completing their degrees on time and with less debt.

The associate of art in teaching (A.A.T.) degrees that students earn in these P-TECH programs have shown promising outcomes when it comes to entering education careers. Between 2010 and 2023, 49 percent of A.A.T. earners in Dallas–Fort Worth became paraprofessionals or teachers or advanced into education leadership positions, according to an analysis by Wesley Edwards at the University of North Texas (Wesley Edwards, AAT Analysis, University of North Texas, April 23, 2024, and Sept. 21, 2024). As these pathways expand across more high schools, partners across the state should continue investing in the supports students need to enter the education workforce.

“Developing a robust pathway for high school students to not only earn credentials but also gain valuable exposure to industry is critically important as we look to meet workforce needs,” said Robert DeHaas, vice provost of the School of Education at Dallas College.

This work is about more than academic alignment—it’s about building the relationships and trust needed to create meaningful change.

“This work requires close coordination between large systems that haven’t always worked together,” DeHaas said. “The collaborative has helped foster the coalition-building needed to break down these historical silos and create a college road map that supports the upward economic mobility of our students.”

Educate Texas will continue supporting A2C by helping school districts implement these pathways and facilitating collaboration with higher education partners. By investing in regional alignment and early access, the A2C model offers a promising solution for expanding the teacher pipeline in Texas and beyond.

Joseph Reyes is deputy director of teaching and leading at Educate Texas, an initiative of Communities Foundation of Texas. In this role, he manages programs that increase access to high-quality educator preparation and works with school districts and higher education partners to strengthen the teacher workforce across the state.
Source link
June 20, 2025
What’s With the Em Dash/AI Anxieties? (opinion)

In recent months, a curious fixation has emerged in corners of academia: the em dash. More specifically, the apparent moral panic around how it is spaced. A dash with no spaces on either side? That must be AI-generated writing. Case closed.

What might seem like a minor point of style has, in some cases, become a litmus test for authenticity. But authenticity in what sense—and to whom? Because here is the thing: There is no definitive rule about how em dashes should be spaced. Merriam-Webster, for instance, notes that many newspapers and magazines insert a space before and after the em dash, while most books and academic journals don’t. Yet, a certain kind of scholar will see a tightly spaced dash and declare: “AI.”

This tells us less about punctuation and more about the moment we are in. It reflects a deeper discomfort within academic knowledge production—about writing, authority and who gets to speak in the language of the academy.

Academic writing has long been a space of exclusion. Mastering its conventions—its structures, tones and unwritten rules—is often as important as the content itself. Those conventions are not neutral. They privilege those fluent in a particular kind of English, in a particular kind of intellectual performance. And while these conventions have sometimes served a purpose—precision, nuance, care—they have also functioned to gatekeep, obscure and signal belonging to a small circle of insiders.

In that context, generative AI represents a real shift. Not because it replaces thinking—clearly, it does not—but because it lowers the barriers to expressing ideas in the right register. It makes writing less labor-intensive for those who are brilliant thinkers but not naturally fluent in academic prose. It opens possibilities for scholars writing in their second or third languages, for early-career researchers who have not yet mastered the unwritten codes and for anyone who simply wants to get to the point more efficiently. This is not a minor intervention—it is a step toward democratizing academic expression.

And in that lies both the opportunity and the anxiety.

I have read academic work recently that likely used AI writing tools—either to help organize thoughts, smooth expression or clarify argument. Some of it has been genuinely excellent: clear, incisive and original. The ideas are coherent and well articulated. The writing does not perform difficulty; it performs clarity. And in doing so, it invites more people in.

By contrast, a fair portion of traditionally polished academic writing still feels burdened by its own formality—long sentences, theoretical throat-clearing prose that loops and doubles back on itself. It is not that complexity should be avoided, but rather that complexity should not be confused with value. The best writing does not show off; it shows through. It makes ideas visible.

Needless to say, I am not about to cite examples—whether of the work I suspect was AI-assisted or the work that could have done with a bit of help.

So why, then, do so many in academic circles focus their attention on supposed telltale signs of AI use—like em dashes—rather than on the substance of the ideas themselves?

Part of the answer lies in the ethics discourse that continues to swirl around AI. There are real concerns here: about transparency, authorship, citation and the role of human oversight. Guidance from organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, and emerging policies from journals and universities, reflect the need for thoughtful governance. These debates matter. But they should not collapse into suspicion for suspicion’s sake. That’s because the academic world has never been a perfectly level field. Those with access to time, mentorship, editorial support and elite institutions have long benefited from invisible scaffolding.

AI tools, in some ways, make that scaffolding more widely available.

Of course, there are risks. Overreliance on AI can lead to formulaic writing or the flattening of style. But these are not new issues—they predate AI and are often baked into the structures of journal publishing itself. The greater risk now is a kind of reactionary gatekeeping: dismissing writing not because of its content, but because of how it looks, mistaking typography for intellectual integrity.

What is needed, instead, is a mature, open conversation about how AI fits into the evolving ecosystem of scholarly work. We need clear, consistent guidelines that recognize both the benefits and limitations of these tools. Recent statements from major institutions have begun to address this, but more are needed. We need transparency around how AI is used—without attaching shame to its use. And we need to refocus on what matters most: the quality of the thinking, the strength of the contribution and the clarity with which ideas are communicated.

The em dash is not the problem. Nor is AI. The problem is a scholarly culture still too often wedded to performance over substance—one where form is used to mask or elevate, rather than to express.

If we are serious about making knowledge more inclusive, more global and more just, then we should embrace tools that help more people take part in its production. Not uncritically, but openly. Not secretly, but responsibly.

What we should be asking is not “Was this written with AI?” but rather, “Is this work rigorous? Is it generous? Does it help us think differently?”

That is the kind of scholarship worth paying attention to—em dash or not.

Joseph Mellors is a research associate for FUTOURWORK at Westminster Business School at the University of Westminster, in the U.K.

Source link

June 20, 2025
Data Shows Uptake of Statewide Digital Mental Health Support

In 2023, New Jersey’s Office of the Secretary of Higher Education signed a first-of-its-kind agreement with a digital mental health provider, Uwill, to provide free access to virtual mental health services to college students across the state.

Over the past two years, 18,000-plus students across 45 participating colleges and universities have registered with the service, representing about 6 percent of the eligible postsecondary population. The state considers the partnership a success and hopes to codify the offering to ensure its sustainability beyond the current governor’s term.

The details: New Jersey’s partnership with Uwill was spurred by a 2021 survey of 15,500 undergraduate and graduate students from 60 institutions in the state, which found that 70 percent of respondents rated their stress and anxiety as higher in fall 2021 than in fall 2020. Forty percent indicated they were concerned about their mental health in light of the pandemic.

Under the agreement, students can use Uwill’s teletherapy, crisis connection and wellness programming at any time. Like others in the teletherapy space, Uwill offers an array of diverse licensed mental health providers, giving students access to therapists who share their backgrounds or language, or who reside in their state. Over half (55 percent) of the counselors Uwill hires in New Jersey are Black, Indigenous or people of color; among them, they speak 11 languages.

What makes Uwill distinct from its competitors is that therapy services are on-demand, meaning students are matched with a counselor within minutes of logging on to the platform. Students can request to see the same counselor in the future, but the nearly immediate access ensures they are not caught in long wait or intake times, especially compared to in-person counseling services.

Under New Jersey’s agreement, colleges and students do not pay for Uwill services, but colleges must receive state aid to be eligible.

The research: The need for additional counseling capacity on college campuses has grown over the past decade, as an increasing number of students enter higher education with pre-existing mental health conditions. The most recent survey of counseling center staff by the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD) found that while demand for services is on the decline compared to recent years, a larger number of students have more serious conditions.

Over half of four-year institutions and about one-third of community colleges nationwide provide teletherapy to students via third-party vendors, according to AUCCCD data. The average number of students who engaged with services in 2024 was 453, across institution size.

Online therapy providers tout the benefits of having a service that supplements on-campus, in-person therapists’ services to provide more comprehensive care, including racially and ethnically diverse staff, after-hours support and on-demand resources for students.

Eric Wood, director of counseling and mental health at Texas Christian University, told Inside Higher Ed that an ideal teletherapy vendor is one that increases capacity for on-campus services, expanding availability for on-campus staff and ensuring that students do not fall through the cracks.

A 2024 analysis of digital mental health tools from the Hope Center at Temple University—which did not include Uwill—found they can improve student mental health, but there is little direct evidence regarding marginalized student populations’ use of or benefits from them. Instead, the greatest benefit appears to be for students who would not otherwise engage in traditional counseling or who simply seek preventative resources.

One study featured in the Hope Center’s report noted the average student only used their campus’s wellness app or teletherapy service once; the report calls for more transparency around usage data prior to institutional investment.

The data: Uwill reported that from April 2023 to May 2025, 18,207 New Jersey students engaged in their services at the 45 participating institutions, which include Princeton, Rutgers, Montclair State and Seton Hall Universities, as well as the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Stevens Institute of Technology. Engaged students were defined as any students who logged in to the app and created an account.

New Jersey’s total college enrollment in 2022 was 378,819, according to state data. An Inside Higher Ed analysis of publicly available data found total enrollment (including undergraduate and graduate students) among the 45 participating colleges to be 327,353. Uwill participants in New Jersey, therefore, totaled around 4 percent of the state’s postsecondary students or 6 percent of eligible students.

The state paid $4 million for the first year of the Uwill contract, as reported by Higher Ed Dive, pulling dollars from a $10 million federal grant to support pandemic relief and a $16 million budget allocation for higher education partnerships. That totals about $89,000 per institution for the first year alone, or $12 per eligible student, according to an Inside Higher Ed estimate.

In a 2020 interview with Inside Higher Ed, Uwill CEO Michael London said the minimum cost to a college for one year of services is about $25,000, or $10 to $20 per student per year.

New Jersey students met with counselors in more than 78,000 therapy sessions, or about six sessions per student between 2023 and 2025, according to Uwill data. Students also engaged in 548 chat sessions with therapists, sent 6,593 messages and requested 1,216 crisis connections during the first two years of service.

User engagement has slowly ticked up since the partnership launched. In January 2024, the state said more than 7,600 students registered on the platform, scheduling nearly 20,000 sessions. By September 2024, Uwill reported more than 13,000 registered students on the platform, scheduling more than 49,000 sessions. The most recent data, published June 6, identified 18,000 students engaging in 78,000 sessions.

Over 1,200 of Montclair State’s 22,000 students have registered with Uwill since June 2023, Jaclyn Friedman-Lombardo, Montclair State’s director of counseling and psychological services, said at a press conference, or approximately 6 percent of the total campus population.

The state does not require institutions to track student usage data to compare usage to campus counseling center services, but some institutions choose to, according to a spokesperson for both the office of the secretary and Uwill. The secretary’s office can view de-identified campus-level data and institutions can engage with more detailed data, as well.

Creating access: One of the goals of implementing digital mental health interventions is to expand access beyond traditional counseling centers, such as after hours, on weekends or over academic breaks.

Roughly 30 percent of participants in the Uwill partnership completed a session between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. on a weeknight or on the weekends. Over the 2024–25 winter break, students engaged in 3,073 therapy sessions. More than 90 of those took place outside New Jersey. Students also used Uwill services over summer vacation this past year (9,235 sessions from May 20 to Aug. 26, of which 10 percent took place outside New Jersey).

A majority of users were traditional-aged college students (17 to 24 years old), and 32 percent were white, 25 percent Hispanic and 17 percent Black. The report did not compare participating students’ race to those using on-campus services or general campus populations.

About 85 percent of New Jersey users were looking for a BIPOC therapist, and 9 percent requested therapists who speak languages other than English, including Hindi and Mandarin.

Postsession assessment completed by students who do schedule an appointment has returned positive responses, with a feedback score of 9.5 out of 10 in New Jersey, compared to Uwill’s 9.2 rating nationally.

Unanswered questions: Wood indicated the data leaves some questions left unanswered, such as whether students were also clients at the on-campus counseling center, or if the service had improved students’ mental health over time from a clinical perspective.

“Just because a student had four sessions with a telehealth provider, if they came right back to the counseling center, did it really make an impact on the center’s capacity to see students?” Wood said.

The high cost of the service should also give counseling center directors pause, Wood said, because those dollars could be used for a variety of other interventions to create capacity.

The data indicated some benefits to counseling center capacity, including diverse staff and after-hours support. But to create a true return on investment, counseling centers should calculate how much capacity the tele–mental health service created and its direct impact on student wellness, not just participation in services.

“It would be ideal to compare the number of students receiving services (not just creating an account) through the platform to the number of students who would likely benefit from receiving treatment, as identified by clinically validated mental health screens on population surveys,” said Sara Abelson, assistant professor at the Hope Center and the report’s lead author.

What’s next: New Jersey renewed its contract with Uwill first in January 2024 and then again in May, extending through spring 2026. State leaders said the ongoing services are still supported by pandemic relief funds.

On May 2, New Jersey assemblywoman Andrea Katz from the Eighth District introduced a bill, the Mental Health Early Access on Campus Act, which would require colleges to implement mental health first aid training among campus stakeholders, peer support programs, mental health orientation education and teletherapy services to ensure counseling ratios are one to every 1,250 students per campus. The International Accreditation of Counseling Services recommends universities maintain a ratio of at least one full-time equivalency for every 1,000 to 1,500 students.

“We know that mental health services that our kids need are not going to end when we change governors,” Katz said at a press conference. “We need to make sure that all of this is codified into law.”

Source link

June 20, 2025
Higher education postcard: Queen Alexandra’s House

Greetings from South Kensington!

I’ve told elsewhere the story of how the Imperial Institute was founded following the Great Exhibition of 1851, and how the South Kensington site became a hub for colleges, museums and culture. And naturally, where there are students, there is a need to house students.

And one group of students, in particular, exercised the Victorian imagination: women. Let’s take a look at The Era, of July 5, 1884:

It’s clearly no use training the girls to be high class governesses, if you can’t keep them safe from the predations of that London.

Step forward, Francis Cook. He was a rich man – head of Cook, Son and Co, traders in fabric and clothes – and became one of Britain’s richest men. He gave £40,000 to fund the construction of a hall of residence for women studying in South Kensington, which meant, at that time, at the Royal College of Art, the Royal College of Music, or the Royal College of Science. (It’s also worth noting another fact or two relating to Cook. His second wife, Tennessee Celeste Claflin was an American suffragist, clairvoyant and medium, who with her sister was one of the first women to open a Wall Street brokerage firm. The sister – Victoria Woodhull – was the first woman to run for the presidency of the United States, in 1872.)

The hall was to provide 100 bedrooms, each two connected by a shared sitting room. Plans included a concert hall, gymnasium, library and common room. The concert hall would be used by the Royal College of Music, and there were music practice rooms and art studios too. A truly magnificent residence. There are images on the Queen Alexandra’s House website.

It was named for Alexandra of Denmark, then Princess of Wales, who had taken a keen interest in the project. After the death of her husband King Edward VII, Alexandra became the Queen Mother, and suggested in 1914 that Alexandra House be renamed Queen Alexandra’s House.

Also in 1914, a little scandal took place. Here’s a clipping from the Daily Chronicle of February 6 that year:

The Ulster Volunteers were a paramilitary force, established in 1912, dedicated to the overthrow of Home Rule for Ireland. (And not to be confused with the unionist Ulster Volunteer Force which was active between 1966 and 2007, although they clearly shared a lot of aims and values!)

As “Imperial Student” wrote, “I have known Irish women, Roman Catholics, Jewesses, Non-conformists there, and can safely say that all shades of opinion have been sheltered there. Are they expected to support such an entertainment as is to be held next Monday?” (To be clear, the scandal was the support for the Ulster Volunteers, not for the Student Christian Movement.) The correspondent continued:

One feels sure that Queen Alexandra has no knowledge of the fact that an entertainment is to be held there in support of a hospital for volunteers armed to fight the forces of the Crown. It is to be hoped that this may be called to her Majesty’s attention and that she may intimate her disapproval of such a proceeding.

I am sure you will be relieved to know that the Bucks Advertiser and Aylesbury News reported on 14 February that “the unfortunate incident at Queen Alexandra’s House has passed without causing trouble in Court of other circles.”

Queen Alexandra’s House continues to serve today as when it was founded; it is an independent charity, still providing residential accommodation for female students, in a very desirable part of London.

It’s royal connection continues; as shown in this February 1963 photograph in the Illustrated London News. I think that the Princess Alexandra in the photograph is the great granddaughter of the Alexandra after whom the House is named.

The postcard was sent on 13 September 1914 – not long after the outbreak of World War I, to Miss Bates in Horsted Keynes, Sussex.

Dear Winnie, Just a card of our house – no such houses at Horsted Keynes. Write soon, love from Gladys.

And here’s a jigsaw.

Source link

June 19, 2025
The Complicity of Higher Education in Slavery

New Jersey’s legacy as a “slave state of the North” is often overlooked, especially in the sanitized histories of its most prestigious universities. Yet a closer examination reveals that the state’s institutions of higher education—particularly Princeton University and Rutgers University—were not only complicit in slavery, but were active beneficiaries of racial exploitation. Their histories are deeply intertwined with a system that built wealth and social power through the bondage of Black people.

This article is based on the findings of For Such a Time as This: The Nowness of Reparations for Black People in New Jersey, a landmark report from the New Jersey Reparations Council. The report is an urgent call for transformative change through reparative justice. It draws a direct throughline from New Jersey’s foundational embrace of slavery, through its Jim Crow era and more recent forms of structural racism, to today’s reality of “Two New Jerseys”—one Black, one white, separated by a staggering $643,000 racial wealth gap between median Black and white family wealth.

Princeton University: Built by the Enslaved, for the Elite

Founded in 1746 as the College of New Jersey, Princeton University’s early leadership reads like a roll call of slaveholders. Nine of its first presidents enslaved Black people. At least five brought enslaved individuals to live and labor on campus—including Aaron Burr Sr., who in 1756 purchased a man named Caesar to work in the newly built President’s House. Another, John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence and president from 1768 to 1794, kept two people in bondage and spoke out against emancipation, claiming that freeing enslaved people would bring “ruin.”

Financially and culturally, Princeton thrived on slavery. Many of its trustees, donors, and faculty enriched themselves through plantation economies and the transatlantic slave trade. Historian Craig Steven Wilder has shown that the university’s enrollment strategy was deliberately skewed toward elite southern families who owned enslaved people. From 1768 to 1794, the proportion of southern students doubled, while the number of students from New Jersey declined. Princeton became a finishing school for the sons of America’s racial aristocracy.

Slavery was not just in the background—it was present in the daily life of the institution. Enslaved Black people worked in kitchens, cleaned dormitories, and served food at official university events. Human beings were bought and sold in full view of Nassau Hall. These men and women, their names often lost to history, were the invisible labor force that built the foundation for one of the wealthiest universities in the world.

The results of this complicity are measurable. Princeton graduates shaped the American Republic—including President James Madison, three U.S. Supreme Court justices, 13 governors, 20 senators, and 23 congressmen. Many of them carried forward the ideologies of white supremacy and anti-Black violence they absorbed in their youth.

Rutgers University: Queen’s College and the Profits of Enslavement

Rutgers University, originally established as Queen’s College in 1766, shares a similarly grim legacy. The college’s early survival depended on donations and labor directly tied to slavery. Prominent among its early trustees was Philip Livingston, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who made his fortune by trading enslaved people and operating Caribbean plantations.

Enslaved labor helped build Rutgers, too. A man named Will, enslaved by the family of a college trustee, is among the few individuals whose name has survived. His work helped construct the early physical campus, though his story, like so many others, is only briefly mentioned in account books and correspondence.

The intellectual environment of Queen’s College mirrored the dominant racial attitudes of the time. While some students and faculty opposed slavery, their voices were overwhelmed by an institution that upheld the social, political, and economic status quo. Rutgers, like Princeton, prepared white elites to rule a society built on racial exclusion.

Toward Reparative Justice

The For Such a Time as This report from the New Jersey Reparations Council underscores that the legacy of slavery is not a relic of the past—it is embedded in the material realities of today. New Jersey’s racial wealth gap—$643,000 between Black and white families—is not accidental. It is the result of centuries of dispossession, disinvestment, and discrimination.

The state’s leading universities played a formative role in that history. Acknowledgment of this fact is only a first step. True reckoning means meaningful reparative action. It means directing resources and power toward the communities that have been systematically denied them. It means funding education, housing, healthcare, and business development in Black communities, and making structural changes to how wealth and opportunity are distributed.

Princeton and Rutgers are not just relics of the past; they are major economic and political actors in the present. As institutions with billion-dollar endowments and vast influence, they have both the means and the moral obligation to contribute to a just future.

The question now is whether they will answer the call.

Source link

June 19, 2025
AI in Higher Education Marketing
An Argument With Myself

Reaping the benefits of AI also means addressing the concerns and challenges of using it.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already made significant inroads into higher education, transforming various aspects of campus life and academic processes. Since becoming part of the mainstream lexicon two years ago, AI has rapidly evolved from a subject of concern regarding academic integrity to an integral tool for enhancing educational experiences. Today, AI is influencing everything from recruitment strategies to long-term student success, with institutions using advanced analytics to predict outcomes, optimize operations, and improve decision-making. Our 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices for Undergraduate Students Report details some of the ways colleges and universities have incorporated AI in higher education marketing and enrollment operations.

However, the integration of AI in higher education is not without its challenges and ethical considerations. As we examine the pros and cons of utilizing AI in higher education marketing, it’s crucial to understand that this technology is no longer a future prospect but a present reality shaping the landscape of colleges and universities across the nation.

The pros of AI in higher education marketing

AI offers transformative benefits for higher education marketing by enabling personalized and data-driven strategies. Key advantages include:
- Personalized outreach: AI analyzes vast datasets to tailor content and communication for prospective students, increasing engagement and conversion rates. For example, predictive analytics can identify high-value leads and anticipate drop-off points in the enrollment process. And since Ann Taylor, Target, Netflix and a host of other brands are utilizing AI to serve me content that is specifically tailored to my tastes, my buying behaviors, and my blood sugar level/impulse control, it is imperative that higher ed keep up with the rest of the content consumer driven market.
- Automation: AI automates repetitive tasks like email campaigns, social media posts, and chatbot interactions, freeing up staff to focus on strategy and relationship-building. This reduces costs and improves operational efficiency. Higher ed leaders continue to lament the talent/staff crisis on campus, particularly in smaller cities and rural areas where the available talent may be shallow and work-from-home opportunities are not widespread. Instead, we must maximize the time of the staff we have and utilize them for the activities and outcomes that are truly reliant on human interaction, while automating, outsourcing, or eliminating the rest.
- Real-time support: AI-powered chatbots provide 24/7 support, answering student inquiries instantly and improving the overall student experience. Digital assistants engage with your prospective students, parents, alumni, and supporters when it’s best for THEM, rather than best for you. International student populations may not be in your time zone and may be unable to connect during U.S. business hours. Parents and prospective parents may be researching during off-hours. The RNL Compass digital assistant provides that round-the-clock engagement that directly integrates and feeds data to your CRM while also protecting your data in a closed environment.
- Scalability: Institutions can scale their marketing efforts across diverse demographics and platforms without requiring proportional increases in resources, helping smaller teams achieve broader reach.
Potential cons with AI in higher education marketing

Despite its advantages, AI in higher education marketing could pose significant risk or create unforeseen challenges if not managed with care:
- Data privacy issues: The use of AI requires collecting and analyzing large amounts of personal data, raising concerns about compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR or FERPA. Data security, privacy, and management are top concerns on campuses. It is incredibly important that you are utilizing tools that not only secure your data but that you are managing that data ethically. AI governance requires thoughtful planning and ongoing management. RNL works closely with partners who wish to devise a governance framework whether or not you are implementing AI tools.
- Bias in algorithms: AI systems may inadvertently perpetuate biases present in training data, leading to unfair targeting or exclusion of certain student groups.
- Round peg, square hole syndrome: Many AI solutions are not created for higher ed and do not account for the specific, complex needs that colleges and universities have compared to other consumer or B2B industries.
- Loss of human touch: Over-reliance on AI can make interactions feel impersonal, potentially alienating prospective students who value human connection. Working with your team to talk about appropriate uses for AI, proper proofreading, and quality control is key. My colleague Dr. Raquel Bermejo discussed the need to balance technology and human connection with students.
- Implementation costs: While AI promises cost savings over time, initial setup costs for advanced tools and training staff can be prohibitive for some institutions. Work closely with a trusted partner/vendor to ensure you are getting the best bang for your buck. Embracing AI may require investment, but it should yield so much more in return.
Be aware of all the pros and cons as you evaluate your AI options

In summary, while AI enhances efficiency and personalization in higher education marketing, institutions must navigate ethical challenges, potential biases, and implementation hurdles to maximize its benefits responsibly.

We cannot, however, let the possible risks prevent our institutions from maximizing this tremendous capacity-building tool. As a 50+ year veteran in higher education, RNL has a unique understanding of your campus environment, the likely trepidation, the potential hurdles to adoption, and the risk of inaction. That is why we are investing in AI development that is built just for you, your students, and your campus needs. Coupled with RNL’s renowned consulting expertise, governance support, strict attention to data privacy, and industry-leading marketing and enrollment solutions, we can help you and your campus use AI to advance your mission and achieve your goals while minimizing risk and campus pushback.

Discover RNL Edge, the AI solution for higher education

RNL Edge is a comprehensive suite of higher education AI solutions that will help you engage constituents, optimize operations, and analyze data instantly—all in a highly secure environment that keeps your institutional data safe. With limitless uses for enrollment and fundraising, RNL Edge is truly the AI solution built for the entire campus.

Ask for a Discovery Session
Source link
June 19, 2025
State Department Screening Visa Applicants’ Social Media

Rubio paused visa interviews last month while the State Department created rules for the social media screenings.

John McDonnell/Getty Images

The U.S. State Department is rolling out sweeping new rules for vetting student visa applicants using their social media presence, according to Politico.

The new process will include screening for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States,” according to an internal State Department cable.

Department officials will also look for posts that signal “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to national security” and “support for antisemitic harassment or violence,” specifically citing support for Hamas—a charge commonly levied against student protesters advocating for Palestinian rights—as grounds for rejection. The cable also directs officials to cull applicants who “demonstrate a history of political activism.”

The news comes a few weeks after Secretary of State Marco Rubio paused all student visa interviews in order to implement a new screening policy focusing on students’ online activity. The Associated Press reported that the department rescinded the pause, but applicants who don’t allow the government to review their social media accounts could be rejected.

The cable is the Trump administration’s latest effort to curtail the flow of international students to the U.S., as tens of thousands of foreign students await approval of their visas after months of delays and with only weeks until the start of the fall semester.

State Department spokespeople did not respond to a list of questions from Inside Higher Ed in time for publication.

Source link

June 18, 2025
Quiet Moments Before Another Interview with James Lang – Teaching in Higher Ed

I’m sitting quietly this morning, reflecting in the final minutes before my interview with Jim Lang. Our conversation will focus on his latest book, Write Like You Teach. In the book, Jim suggests that we ought to be good company in our writing. He has embodied this guidance since I first met him more than a decade ago.

Jim has been good company through his many books as I’ve yearned to be gentle with myself, resisting the urge to reinvent each class I teach with every new semester (Small Teaching). He’s helped me wrestle with what it might look like to ignite students’ imaginations rather than control their behaviors (Distracted). He transformed the way I think about academic integrity, encouraging me to focus on fostering intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy while cultivating the conditions in which mastery and deep learning can thrive (Cheating Lessons).

The last time Jim was on Teaching in Higher Ed, he shared a piece he had written: Voltaire on Working the Gardens of Our Classrooms. He invites slowness and stresses:

In the meantime, the gardens need tending. If you continue to believe in the value of the plants that have always flourished in your garden, keep growing them.

In Jim’s eighth appearance on Teaching in Higher Ed, I have no doubt he will once again be good company. I’m thankful for all the ways he has shaped my teaching, my learning, and this podcast over the years.

Source link

June 18, 2025