Tag: Higher

  • Hiring Flat for 2026 Grads

    Hiring Flat for 2026 Grads

    fizkes/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Forty-five percent of employers consider the job market to be “fair,” and they are projecting a 1.6 percent year-over-year increase in hiring for the Class of 2026, according to a new report from the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

    The last time a plurality of employers gave the job market a “fair” rating was in 2021, when hiring projections were also flat. During the four interim years, most employers rated the job market as “good” or “very good,” the report shows.

    About 60 percent of the 183 employers NACE polled for the 2026 Job Outlook Survey said they are planning to keep the number of people they hire stable next year. A quarter of employers said they plan to increase the number of hires, primarily citing a commitment to succession planning and the talent pipeline, as well as company growth, as key reasons. The top five industries for projected hiring growth are miscellaneous professional services; engineering services; construction; finance, insurance and real estate; and management consulting.

    About 14 percent of employers said they plan to decrease the number of people they hire next year, citing reductions in business needs and projects, an uncertain economy and budget cuts. These employers are primarily concentrated in the chemical pharmaceutical manufacturing, transportation, wholesale trade, food and beverage manufacturing, and miscellaneous manufacturing industries.

    NACE surveyed employers between Aug. 7 and Sept. 22 of this year for their thoughts on the job market, hiring trends and salaries. About 40 percent of employers plan to increase salaries for bachelor’s degree holders in 2026, and 28.3 percent will do the same for master’s degree holders. No employers reported plans to decrease salaries for either group next year, the report states.

    Skills-based hiring remains popular—69.5 percent of employers reported they use the approach. Asked how students can best prepare for a skills-based hiring process, employers primarily said applicants should “prepare for interviews that demonstrate their skills,” “participate in experiential learning or work during college” and “translate college coursework into a skills language.”

    Meanwhile, fewer employers care about applicants’ GPAs—only 42.1 percent of employers plan to screen GPAs in 2026, compared with 73.3 percent in 2019. Academic majors, industry experience and internships, and internships at the employer’s organization are top decision-making factors for employers that don’t screen for GPAs.

    Artificial intelligence is also top of mind, but many employers are still figuring out exactly how AI will integrate into their business, said Christine Cruzvergara, chief education strategy officer at the job and internship platform Handshake. NACE data reflects a similar sentiment toward AI among employers—nearly 59 percent said they are not planning to or unsure whether they’ll augment entry-level jobs with AI, and 25 percent said they’re currently discussing it. About 13 percent of jobs require AI skills, the report shows, and 10.5 percent of entry-level jobs include AI in their descriptions.

    “I think the majority of employers are still experimenting with how AI will supplement or augment the work that their employees are doing from entry level all the way to more senior folks,” Cruzvergara said. “And I think some functions have probably already started to figure that out a little bit more, like in some of the technical roles, or marketing is another big one, versus customer success or some of the other types of roles that people have. It’s a varied spectrum that you’re seeing at the moment.”

    The percentage of fully hybrid jobs has declined since spring 2025, from 47 percent to 42 percent, while the percentage of fully in-person jobs increased from 43 percent to 48 percent, the report shows. The percentage of fully remote jobs has held steady at 10 percent. More entry-level jobs are fully in-person—50 percent—and fewer are fully remote, 6 percent.

    Ashley Mowreader contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Ky. Professor “Reassigned” After Call for War on Israel Sues

    Ky. Professor “Reassigned” After Call for War on Israel Sues

    BD Images/iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus

    The University of Kentucky law professor who was removed from teaching amid his calls for a global war on Israel to end its existence as a state is now suing his institution and the U.S. education secretary.

    On his website, antizionist.net, Ramsi Woodcock asks fellow legal scholars to sign a “Petition for Military Action Against Israel.” He says Israel is a colony and war is needed to decolonize, and he calls for the war to continue until “Israel has submitted permanently and unconditionally to the government of Palestine everywhere from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”

    In his lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Woodcock asks a judge to order the university and top officials to restore his normal teaching and other duties, allow him back into the College of Law building, end the university’s investigation of him, and pay monetary damages. But he also asks the judge to order Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “refrain from requiring or using” the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism when enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    The IHRA says antisemitism “might include the targeting of the state of Israel,” “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” or claims “that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” Earlier this year, Kentucky state lawmakers ordered public universities to use the IHRA definition in their policies combating antisemitism. Woodcock is also asking the judge to declare that that order violates the First Amendment.

    His lawsuit alleges the state and federal actions are related to his “suspension,” saying the university’s tolerance of his speech “ended in summer 2025” after the federal government threatened to withdraw funding from universities and moved to enforce the IHRA definition. He also cited the passage of the state legislation that “enabled and pressured administrators to suppress speech critical of Israel and Zionism.”

    The Education Department didn’t respond to requests for comment Friday. A university spokesperson said Woodcock hasn’t been suspended but was “reassigned pending the outcome of an investigation,” adding that the university will be “limited in our comments while that investigation is ongoing.”

    In an email to Inside Higher Ed, Woodcock responded, “Israel is a colonization project that practices apartheid and is currently exterminating two million Palestinians in Gaza. The scandal is not that I am calling for immediate military action to end Israel but that the university is willing to violate our nation’s constitution in order to preserve Israel. Every American scholar has a First Amendment right to oppose Israel and I look forward to holding the university accountable for breaking the law.”

    Source link

  • Faith-Based Colleges Swept Up in Higher Ed Policy Changes

    Faith-Based Colleges Swept Up in Higher Ed Policy Changes

    Leaders of faith-based colleges and universities have spoken out on a slew of political issues in recent months, sometimes standing alongside secular universities and at other times differentiating themselves and defending their unique standing and missions.

    The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities signed on to an October statement from the American Council on Education opposing the administration’s higher education compact, for example. Over the summer, CCCU also came out with a statement on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that echoed those of secular associations and institutions, expressing concern that “it ultimately falls short in supporting student access and success.”

    ACE’s Commission on Faith-Based Colleges and Universities was among the higher ed groups that lobbied hard against Pell Grant cuts, later dropped from the bill. At the same time, the University of Notre Dame and other faith-based institutions fought for an exemption for religious institutions from the higher education endowment tax, ultimately left out of the legislation’s final version.

    Like their secular peers, faith-based colleges and universities have been buffeted by the rapid-fire policy changes roiling higher ed this year. Some leaders of religious colleges say their institutions are enjoying renewed support that they hope sets a precedent for future policymakers across party lines. At the same time, some advocates fear religious colleges—and their missions—are suffering collateral damage in Trump’s war against highly selective universities, and they’re making careful decisions about when and how to speak out.

    “I knew change would be coming,” said David Hoag, president of CCCU, “but I never expected the pace to be this fast.”

    Raising Concerns

    Under any administration, CCCU’s job is to “make it possible for our institutions to achieve their missions,” Hoag said. But some recent policy changes pose an obstacle to that.

    Christian colleges—which tend to be small, enrolling about 2,500 students on average—can’t afford to join Trump’s proposed compact for higher ed, he said. He believes some of the compact’s demands, such as freezing tuition for five years, are a tall order with campus expenses on the rise. He also opposes the compact’s standardized test mandate when so many Christian colleges offer broad access, and he’s concerned by the possibility that government could have some control over curriculum, though he said the compact was unclear on that score.

    “On the curriculum side, most of our institutions are conservative. We have a solid Christian mission,” Hoag said. “I’m fine with civics being a part of some of the work that we do, but it, to me, starts to … step over academic freedom.”

    Christian colleges are also balking at the new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas, which these institutions use to bring in visiting professors from other countries.

    “Our institutions can’t afford anything like that,” Hoag said. Such a fee might be more easily affordable for tech or other industries that use H-1B visas to hire foreign employees, he said, “but for nonprofit colleges and Christian colleges, that’s a big financial burden.”

    He’s also alarmed by some of the provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including the requirement that programs prove students will earn more than high school graduates in order to access federal loans. Hoag worries that won’t bode well for institutions where a significant portion of students go into ministry, social work or other public service jobs that don’t necessarily pay high wages. He said the end of the Grad PLUS program is also poised to hurt Christian colleges; graduate students borrowed about $460 million annually to attend CCCU institutions, he said. Now he expects many will struggle to pay. Caps on loans for professional school students are also going to affect those earning master’s degrees in divinity.

    Donna Carroll, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, said Catholic institutions are hardly “immune” to the challenges rocking the rest of higher ed. She said her nonpartisan organization has decided to speak up on a particular set of policy issues, including financial aid and supports for low-income students, autonomy for faith-based institutions, and immigration policy and access for international students. For example, the association signed on to a statement by U.S. bishops condemning “indiscriminate mass deportation” as an “affront to God-given human dignity.”

    “There are some issues and situations where there is consensus and a unity across Catholic institutions,” Carroll said. “There are other situations where different institutions have different perspectives.”

    In a similar vein, Clark G. Gilbert, commissioner of the church educational system for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and chair of the Commission on Faith-Based Colleges and Universities, said members of his coalition had mixed views on parts of the bill involving federal loans—he’d like to see colleges drop their prices—but they collectively pushed hard against proposed cuts to Pell Grants, which didn’t make it into the legislation.

    “We’re concerned about first-generation and low-income students. That’s not a partisan issue,” Gilbert said.

    ‘Not Like Some of These Ivies’

    A mounting frustration for some faith-based institution leaders is the blowback their campuses face from Trump administration policies targeting expensive, highly selective private universities, even though they view their missions as distinct.

    Hoag pointed out that, while some Christian colleges are pricier, the average tuition costs about $30,600 per year, not including room and board, and the average tuition discount rate is about 52 percent.

    “Christian schools are very affordable, and we’re not like some of these Ivies that have tuition from $80,000 to $100,000 a year,” Hoag said. Yet “I do feel that they’re … putting everybody in the same category.”

    Some faith-based institutions, led by the University of Notre Dame, sought to distinguish themselves from other higher ed institutions when they pushed for a religious exemption from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s endowment tax.

    Gilbert said Brigham Young University joined that effort because university leaders viewed the situation as a religious freedom issue.

    “We feel like there are public goods of faith-based schools that are often ignored,” such as research from faith-based perspectives, he said. “Without the internal funding at these schools, it wouldn’t happen. We feel like there is a religious liberty issue at stake there.”

    “I’m sure secular schools would feel their unique missions need that protection, too—that’s not my job to write and defend that,” he added.

    Gilbert said he feels a particular need to advocate on behalf of religious colleges, compared to higher ed as a whole, because he believes faith-based institutions are too often maligned. He said such institutions are doing research on topics ignored by their secular counterparts—like how family structures affect intergenerational poverty or how faith and religious community resources affect health outcomes—but these projects struggle to get federal funding or recognition from secular peers. He also stressed that these institutions provide a campus climate religious students can’t find elsewhere.

    “Many Jewish students do not feel safe at Columbia and at Harvard and at UCLA. Many LDS students do not feel welcome in certain programs,” he said. “Faith-based schools do feel like they need to preserve their rights.” He emphasized that doesn’t mean he wants to see any university lose out on cancer research funding, for example, but “faith-based scholars are doing things that no one else is doing, and why isn’t that getting the attention, the funding and the support, regardless of who the administration is?”

    Despite their policy disagreements, some leaders of faith-based institutions believe the Trump administration is offering them a warmer reception than they’ve perhaps received in the past. The president issued an executive order in February founding a task force on eradicating “anti-Christian bias” within government. In May, Trump’s Education Department also rescinded a $37.7 million fine levied by the Biden administration on Grand Canyon University, a private Christian institution, for allegedly misleading doctoral students about its cost. And the Trump administration recently partnered with Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian campus in Michigan, on a series of videos for the country’s 250th anniversary. The president of Yeshiva University, Rabbi Ari Berman, gave the benediction at Trump’s inauguration.

    Amid renewed outreach to faith-based institutions under Trump, Gilbert said he’s trying to walk a fine line, advocating for more attention and resources for faith-based institutions’ research but doing so in a way that remains apolitical.

    “We don’t care about party politics. We care about the American family. We care about alleviating poverty,” he said. “We’re going to continue to help shine a light on the contributions these schools make in the current climate, but not so overboard that when things may change, and they will, that we can’t make the same arguments using the same principles with a different administration.”

    Source link

  • Belonging Intervention Improves Pass Rates

    Belonging Intervention Improves Pass Rates

    Sense of belonging is a significant predictor of student retention and completion in higher education; students who believe they belong are more likely to bounce back from obstacles, take advantage of campus resources and remain enrolled.

    For community colleges, instilling a sense of belonging among students can be challenging, since students often juggle competing priorities, including working full-time, taking care of family members and commuting to and from campus.

    To help improve retention rates, the California Community Colleges replicated a belonging intervention developed at Indiana University’s Equity Accelerator and the College Transition Collaborative.

    Data showed the intervention not only increased students’ academic outcomes, but it also helped close some equity gaps for low-income students and those from historically marginalized backgrounds.

    What’s the need: Community college students are less involved on campus than their four-year peers; they’re also less likely to say they’re aware of or have used campus resources, according to survey data from Inside Higher Ed.

    This isolation isn’t desired; a recent survey by the ed-tech group EAB found that 42 percent of community college students said their social life was a top disappointment. A similar number said they were disappointed they didn’t make friends or meet new people.

    Methodology

    Six colleges in the California Community Colleges system participated in the study, for a total of 1,160 students—578 in the belonging program and 582 in a control group. Students completed the program during the summer or at the start of the term and then filled out a survey at the end.

    Moorpark Community College elected to deliver the belonging intervention during first-semester math and English courses to ensure all students could benefit.

    How it works: The Social Belonging for College Students intervention has three components:

    1. First, students analyze survey data from peers at their college, which shows that many others also worry about their academic success, experience loneliness or face additional challenges, to help normalize anxieties about college.
    2. Then, students read testimonies from other students about their initial concerns starting college and how they overcame the challenges.
    3. Finally, students write reflections of their own transition to college and offer advice to future students about how to overcome these concerns or reassure them that these feelings are normal.

    The goal of the exercise is to achieve a psychological outcome called “saying is believing,” said Oleg Bespalov, dean of institutional effectiveness and marketing at Moorpark Community College, part of the Ventura Community College District in California.

    “If you’ve ever worked in sales, like, say I worked at Toyota. I might not like Toyota; I just really need a job,” Bespalov said. “But the more I sell the Toyota, the more I come to believe that Toyota is a great car.” In the same way, while a student might not think they can succeed in college, expressing that belief to someone else can change their behaviors.

    Without the intervention, students tend to spiral, seeing a poor grade as a reflection of themselves and their capabilities. They may believe they’re the only ones who are struggling, Bespalov said. Following the intervention, students are more likely to embrace the idea that everyone fails sometimes and that they can rebound from the experience.

    At Moorpark, the Social Belonging for College Students intervention is paired with teaching on the growth mindset, explained Tracy Tennenhouse, English instructor and writing center co-coordinator.

    “Belonging is a mindset,” Bespalov said. “You have to believe that you belong here, and you have to convince the student to change their mindset about that.”

    The results: Students who participated in the belonging program were more likely to re-enroll for the next term, compared to their peers in the control group. This was especially true for students with high financial need or those from racial minorities.

    In the control group, there was a 14-percentage-point gap between low- and high-income students’ probability of re-enrolling. After the intervention, the re-enrollment gap dropped to six percentage points.

    Similarly, low-income students who participated in the intervention had a GPA that was 0.21 points higher than their peers who did not. Black students who participated in the exercise saw average gains of 0.46 points in their weighted GPA.

    To researchers, the results suggest that students from underrepresented backgrounds had more positive experiences at the end of the fall term if they completed the belonging activity. Intervention participants from these groups also reported fewer identity-related concerns and better mental and physical health, compared to their peers who didn’t participate.

    What’s next: Based on the positive findings, Moorpark campus leaders plan to continue delivering the intervention in future semesters. Tennenhouse sees an opportunity to utilize the reflection as a handwritten writing sample for English courses, making the assignment both a line of defense against AI plagiarism and an effective measure for promoting student belonging.

    Administrators have also considered delivering the intervention during summer bridge programs to support students earlier in their transition, or as a required assignment for online learners who do not meet synchronously.

    In addition, Tennenhouse would like to see more faculty share their own failure stories. Research shows students are more likely to feel connected to instructors who open up about their own lives with students.

    How does your college campus encourage feelings of belonging in the classroom? Tell us more here.

    Source link

  • The political centre of gravity continues to shift towards higher education sceptics

    The political centre of gravity continues to shift towards higher education sceptics

    Declining trust in institutions is a defining trend of our times. Universities are certainly not immune to it, with the idea of the deteriorating “social licence to operate” of the university now a common item of discussion.

    Some point to the negative press coverage universities have faced in recent years. However, our recent report by UCL Policy Lab and More in Common highlights that something more fundamental is going on in our politics that universities must grapple with: the political centre of gravity has moved towards voters who are more sceptical of universities.

    Since 2016 it is well understood that political attention has shifted towards working class or “left-behind” voters (depending on your preferred characterisation) and to seats in the Midlands and northern England. These voters tend to be non-graduates and are now more commonly those seeing Reform as a potential answer to their frustrations. What our analysis found was a striking gap between how they view universities compared to the remainder of the country.

    Gap analysis

    Graduates are overwhelmingly positive about universities – 81 per cent say universities have a positive impact on the nation. Among non-graduates, that figure drops to just 55 per cent. This is reflected in the wider set of concerns non-graduates have about higher education. Non-graduates are more likely to believe universities only benefit those who attend them and that the system is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful. They are also less convinced that universities have become more accessible to working-class students over the past 30 years.

    It is their concerns that are driving the fact that a majority of voters emphasise the importance of vocational education over degrees and are worried about there being too many “Mickey Mouse” courses (although even graduates agree on that later point). Fewer than half are even fully aware that universities conduct research.

    The graduate gap is in part what creates the more direct political challenge universities face. Reform voters are markedly more sceptical of universities than any other voter group. Less than half believe universities are good for the country. More than a third think they only benefit attendees, and nearly one in ten believe they benefit no one at all. Reform voters overwhelmingly did not go to university. If a key battleground of British politics over the next four years is to be Labour vs Reform, universities will need to engage with these voters’ concerns if they going to find their place in the conversation.

    Reaching the sceptics

    This challenge is not insurmountable. There is as much to be positive about as concerned. Our polling showed the clear majority, 61 per cent, see universities as a positive influence, both nationally and locally and the cynicism regarding some aspects of what universities are delivering is not as dire as that faced by many other institutions. Despite their relative scepticism, 45 per cent of Reform voters still see universities as benefiting the country.

    Those we spoke to in focus groups were not unpersuadable. We found some scepticism, but not hostility. Another recent report by More in Common and the UCL Policy Lab ranked universities as “medium-high” in terms of how trusted they are by voters. In the turbulent times we are in, that is not a bad position.

    As well as outlining where the challenges lie, our report shows how universities might go about maintaining trust and reaching more sceptical voters. Three lessons stood out.

    The first is addressing the sense that universities are not supporting the skills needs of the country. The biggest concern we found about universities is the declining perception of the value of a degree. Focus groups bore out what this meant – degrees not resulting in a good job. There are two arguments which played out in focus groups that might help convince sceptics. Either that more degrees have a clear path, like those for teachers, lawyers and doctors, or by explaining the value of a degree in broadening minds and “opening doors” – that is, leading to a good job that may not relate to the content studied. Regardless, the public want confidence that universities are training the next generation of skilled professionals.

    The second is by demonstrating the value of research, and the innovation and civic engagement it allows, to those who do not attend university. On this point there is much potential. When asked, the public are highly supportive of universities’ role in R&D and see it as a core purpose. In focus group discussions, a sense emerged of the benefits of university research – seen as carried out with a long term and neutral perspective. Yet few raise research unprompted, and less than half of non-graduates in our poll were even fully aware that universities do research. Articulating this role and how it benefits lives is a clear imperative.

    Third is the local role. We found many see universities as a source of local pride, with the idea that universities support local business – and make their areas more vibrant – resonating. At the same time there are concerns, for example around housing and anti-social behaviour. A focus on enhancing the former and acting as a good neighbour on the latter would therefore be advisable.

    All this sits in a wider context of how the public sees universities, which was at the core of what we found. In the public imagination, universities are national institutions with clear responsibilities. Indeed, Reform voters are the most likely to say that universities should focus on their national responsibilities as opposed to their international connections. Showing how these responsibilities are being met – for the whole country, not just those who study for a degree – is how the sector can maintain public trust, and meet the political challenge it faces.

    Source link

  • Trump Can’t “Blanket” Deny UC Grants or Demand Payout

    Trump Can’t “Blanket” Deny UC Grants or Demand Payout

    A judge ordered federal agencies Friday to end their “blanket policy of denying any future grants” to the University of California, Los Angeles, and further ruled that the Trump administration can’t seek payouts from any UC campus “in connection with any civil rights investigation” under Titles VI or IX of federal law.

    The ruling also prohibits the Department of Justice and federal funding agencies from withholding funds, “or threatening to do so, to coerce the UC in violation of the First Amendment or Tenth Amendment.” In all, the order, if not overturned on appeal, stops the administration’s attempt to pressure UCLA to pay $1.2 billion and make multiple other concessions, including to stop enrolling “foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions or harassment” and stop “performing hormonal interventions and ‘transgender’ surgeries” on anyone under 18 at its medical school and affiliated hospitals.

    The administration’s targeting of the UC system came to the fore on July 29. That’s when the DOJ said its months-long investigations across the system had so far concluded that UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its response to alleged antisemitism at a spring 2024 pro-Palestinian protest encampment.

    Federal agencies—including the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and Department of Energy—quickly began freezing funding; UC estimated it lost $584 million. But UC researchers sued and, even before Friday’s ruling, U.S. District Court judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California ordered the restoration of almost all of the frozen funding.

    Friday’s ruling came in a case filed this fall by the American Association of University Professors, the affiliated American Federation of Teachers and other unions. Lin again was the judge.

    “Defendants did not engage in the required notice and hearing processes under Title VI for cutting off funds for alleged discrimination,” she wrote.

    “With every day that passes, UCLA continues to be denied the chance to win new grants, ratchetting [sic] up Defendants’ pressure campaign,” she wrote. “And numerous UC faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how Defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the UC system. They describe how they have stopped teaching or researching topics they are afraid are too ‘left’ or ‘woke,’ in order to avoid triggering further funding cancellations by Defendants. They also give examples of projects the UC has stopped due to fear of the same reprisals. These are classic, predictable First Amendment harms, and exactly what Defendants publicly said that they intended.”

    Source link

  • Jim Ryan Breaks Silence on UVA Resignation

    Jim Ryan Breaks Silence on UVA Resignation

    Former University of Virginia president Jim Ryan has broken his silence concerning his abrupt resignation, accusing the Board of Visitors of dishonesty and complicity in his ouster, which came amid federal government scrutiny over the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices.

    In a 12-page letter to the UVA Faculty Senate on Friday, Ryan wrote that he was “stunned and angry” over the board’s lack of honesty as it faced pressure from the federal government to force him out due to an alleged failure to dismantle DEI initiatives. Ryan also wrote that recent letters by UVA rector Rachel Sheridan and Governor Glenn Youngkin do not “present an accurate accounting of my resignation,” which prompted him to release his own statement.

    Inside Higher Ed has uploaded Ryan’s full letter below.

    Ryan’s letter follows a message Sheridan sent to the UVA Faculty Senate on Thursday. In that letter, Sheridan downplayed the pressure from the federal government to force Ryan out. While she acknowledged that the Department of Justice “lacked confidence in President Ryan to make the changes that the Trump Administration believed were necessary to ensure compliance,” she disputed the notion that his resignation was part of the agreement that the university recently reached with the federal government to pause investigations into DEI practices.

    The full text of that letter is available below.

    Also on Thursday, Youngkin sent a letter related to Ryan’s departure to Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger, who has called for UVA to halt its ongoing presidential search until her board picks are in place. The Republican governor pushed back on his Democratic successor’s claims that Ryan was ousted as a result of federal overreach and accused her of interfering in the search. Youngkin also accused Ryan of “not being committed to following federal law.”

    That letter has been uploaded in full below.

    This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

    Source link

  • Underrepresented Applicants Grow, Foreign Applicants Drop

    Underrepresented Applicants Grow, Foreign Applicants Drop

    New early-applicant data from the Common App found that applications from Black, low-income, first-generation and rural potential students are all up compared to this point last year. However, international applications dipped, and the most selective institutions are experiencing the smallest application growth compared to other types of institutions. Applicants are also increasingly choosing to submit standardized test scores.

    The Common App report, released Thursday, is the first in a series of monthly research briefs on college applicant trends typically released between November and March. The November brief showed that applicants, and applications, rose over all compared to this time last year, with notable growth among particular groups.

    For example, applications from those who identified as Black or African American increased 16 percent and multiracial applicants rose 11 percent compared to the same time last application season. The report also found that applicants who identified as first-generation grew by 12 percent, while low-income applicants, who qualified for a Common App fee waiver, increased at more than twice the rate of other applicants. Rural applicants grew by 15 percent compared to last year, while those from metropolitan areas grew only 6 percent.

    But the number of international students applying dropped 9 percent compared to this point last year, driven by a 14 percent drop in applicants from India, which has historically been the second-biggest source of international applicants on the Common App platform after China. Applicants from Asia broadly and from Africa also dropped significantly, 9 percent and 18 percent respectively, with a whopping 43 percent decline in applicants from Ghana. These trends suggest the Trump administration’s policies, including international student visa delays and denials, may be deterring students.

    At a time when highly selective institutions are under new political pressures, the report found that colleges and universities with admit rates of 25 percent or below had the slowest application growth, at 4 percent. Applications to other types of institutions grew at two or three times that rate.

    The return of standardized test requirements at some institutions is also driving more applicants to submit test scores. Notably, applications reporting scores rose 11 percent compared to this time last year. However, students who identify as underrepresented minorities or first-generation or who qualify for a Common App waiver were less likely to share their scores.

    Source link

  • No Cost for Undergrads With Family Income Below $100K

    No Cost for Undergrads With Family Income Below $100K

    Johns Hopkins University announced Thursday that it’s eliminating tuition, fees and living expenses for its Homewood campus undergraduates whose families make less than $100,000 a year; students whose families earn up to $200,000 will pay no tuition. It joins a wave of other institutions—especially private, selective ones—that have announced tuition guarantees.

    In a news release, the university said the change “means students from a majority of American families, including middle-class families earning above the national median household income of $87,730, can attend Hopkins at no expense.”

    Further, Hopkins said, “Most families with incomes up to $250,000 will continue to qualify for significant financial aid. Even those with annual incomes exceeding $250,000 may qualify, especially when there are multiple children in college at the same time.”

    Most of the university’s undergrads study on the Homewood campus, in North Baltimore. The release said the new aid levels “will go into effect for eligible current students in the spring 2026 semester and for new, incoming students next fall.”

    In a message to the university community, JHU president Ron Daniels said that since businessman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $1.8 billion to the university in 2018, Hopkins’s share of Pell Grant–eligible students rose from 15.4 percent to 24.1 percent, the highest proportion in university history.

    “Our financial aid investment has continued to grow, inspired by Mayor Bloomberg’s transformative gift, with generous contributions by more than 1,200 donors who have given $240 million for financial aid at Hopkins over the last several years,” Daniels wrote. “We are in their collective debt.”

    Source link

  • Vermont’s Sterling College to Close

    Vermont’s Sterling College to Close

    Sterling College will close at the end of the spring semester, officials announced Wednesday.

    The small college in Craftsbury Common, Vt., will cease operations in May due to “persistent financial and enrollment challenges,” according to a statement posted on its website

    “We understand that this news is difficult and deeply personal for every member of our community. Sterling College has always been more than a place of learning; it has been a home where curiosity, creativity, and compassion thrived,” officials wrote in the closure announcement.

    Sterling, which offered “transdisciplinary, experiential, competency-assessed educational programs,” according to its website, historically capped enrollment at 125 students. Founded in 1958, Sterling is one of a few U.S. work colleges, a model that allows students to keep tuition down via campus labor. Residential students at Sterling work five hours per week in different roles.

    Federal data shows that Sterling only had a head count of 78 students in fall 2023. 

    While the college managed to eke out modest surpluses in recent years, it had a meager endowment of just over $1.1 million, much of that restricted, according to financial documents.

    Sterling is now the second institution to announce a closure this month, following Trinity Christian College in Illinois, which is shutting down next year due to similar challenges.

    Source link