Tag: Higher

  • Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) for Higher Education

    Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) for Higher Education

    Preparing for an AI-Powered Evolution in How Students Search

    If you’ve ever been involved in your institution’s digital marketing efforts, you’ve undoubtedly heard of search engine optimization — otherwise known as SEO. 

    But after more than a decade of optimizing keywords and backlinks in content for search engines like Google and Bing, we’re now at the dawn of a new age spurred on by artificial intelligence (AI) and a new approach is required: generative engine optimization (GEO). 

    As prospective students turn to AI tools and large language models (LLMs) to guide their college search, traditional SEO tactics are no longer enough. Digital marketing teams must also incorporate new GEO-focused tactics into their strategies.

    In an increasingly competitive and LLM-driven world, institutions must now rethink their visibility, branding, and recruitment strategies for a digital landscape that continues to evolve.

    Understanding Generative Engines and Their Impact on Students’ Search Behavior

    Generative engine optimization is emerging as a critical response to the way AI is reshaping how prospective students find and evaluate colleges. Unlike traditional search engines, generative engines powered by large language models deliver conversational, synthesized responses — often without requiring users to click through to a website. 

    This shift is impacting how institutions need to approach their digital visibility and student engagement efforts.

    The Rise of LLMs

    As students move away from traditional search engines toward AI search tools, LLMs and LLM-powered tools like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Google’s Gemini and Search Generative Experience (SGE) are leading the way. 

    These platforms generate real-time, AI-powered answers that summarize information from across the web — often citing sources, but not always linking to them directly. Their growing popularity signals a move away from standard search engine results toward fluid, question-driven discovery.

    The Impact of LLMs on Students’ Search Experiences

    Prospective students are already turning to generative engines to ask nuanced questions such as, “What are the top 20 online MSW programs?” or “Which colleges have the best student support services for veterans?” 

    Instead of having to navigate a list of blue links, they’re receiving direct, synthesized answers to their questions. This introduces key shifts that digital marketers must consider, including: 

    • Fewer clicks to their institution’s website
    • A higher priority for being cited in credible content
    • Reduced visibility in traditional search engine results pages (SERPs) 

    For colleges and universities, adapting to this new behavior is essential to staying prominent in students’ minds during their decision-making process.

    SEO vs. GEO in Higher Education

    Search engine optimization and generative engine optimization share a common goal: to ensure content is discoverable, relevant, and credible. Both approaches rely on strategic keyword usage, high-quality content, and data-driven refinement to increase visibility.

    SEO was built for traditional search engines that return ranked lists of links. GEO is designed for AI-powered engines that synthesize information and deliver complete answers. 

    For universities, this change requires a new, blended approach — one that takes both SEO and GEO into account when creating admissions materials, program pages, and search rankings-focused content such as blog posts.

    SEO vs. GEO: A Side-by-Side Comparison
    Category SEO (Search Engine Optimization) GEO (Generative Engine Optimization)
    Primary Goal Ranks web pages in search engine results pages Surfaces content in AI-generated, conversational responses
    Keyword Strategy Optimizes for exact-match and high-volume keywords Focuses on semantic relevance and contextual cues
    User Experience Prioritizes site structure, navigation, and readability Prioritizes clear, structured content that AI can easily parse
    Content Standards Emphasizes E-E-A-T: experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness Maintains E-E-A-T and adds AI-ready language and contextual richness
    Technical Focus Site speed, mobile responsiveness, crawlability Site speed, structured data, natural language processing (NLP)-friendly formatting, AI interpretability
    Authority Signals Backlinks, domain authority, on-page trust signals Source citations in LLM responses, content credibility
    Measurement and Analytics Tracks rankings, organic traffic, bounce rate, keyword performance Tracks AI referrals, citation frequency, inclusion in LLM answers
    Content Strategy Page-level optimization for ranking Multisource optimization for synthesis in AI-generated content
    Adaptability Requirement Evolves with search algorithm updates Evolves with AI behavior, model updates, and platform preferences
    User Search Experience List of blue links with snippets Zero-click answers, direct responses, and conversational recommendations

    How Generative Engines Pull and Rank University Content

    Generative engines like ChatGPT and Google’s SGE don’t rank web pages the same way traditional search engines do. Instead, they synthesize information from multiple sources to deliver a single, cohesive answer. 

    To be included in these AI-generated responses, university content needs to strike a balance between academic credibility and an accessible, student-friendly structure. AI prioritizes information that is well-organized, clearly written, and backed by authoritative sources, such as: 

    • Research publications 
    • Program pages 
    • Institutional blogs 

    Institutions that prioritize clarity and credibility in their content are more likely to be cited and surfaced in generative search results.

    Key GEO Strategies for Colleges and Universities

    To stay visible in AI-driven searches, institutions need to adopt innovative content strategies tailored to how generative engines interpret and deliver information. Here are some core GEO tactics:

    Showcase Faculty Within Content

    • Highlight faculty expertise in program pages, blog posts, and FAQs.
    • Link to faculty bios and published research to boost credibility.
    • Feature quotes, profiles, or insights to personalize academic offerings.

    Ensure AI- and LLM-Friendly Structure and Markup

    • Use schema (structured data) markup to help AI understand the content’s context.
    • Organize pages with clear subheadings that mirror common student questions.
      • Example: “Is an Online EdD Respected?”
    • Boldface key points and use callout boxes to surface important information.
    • Design site architecture for easy crawling and content parsing.

    Create Concise and Clear Content

    • Use conversational, student-centered language.
    • Write in short, scannable paragraphs with clear takeaways.
    • Address common and next-level questions.
      •  Examples: “How long does it take to complete this degree?” and “What can I do with my degree after graduation?”

    Use Content Formats That Perform Well in GEO

    • Incorporate career outcome and salary tables.
    • Include degree comparisons.
      •  Example: “MBA vs. MPA”
    • Use visuals and guides that explain steps for processes such as admissions, licensure, and the student journey.

    Build Brand Authority and Trust

    • Invest in public relations campaigns to generate credible mentions and citations.
    • Maintain consistent messaging across the web, social media, and paid media.
    • Grow visibility through strategic content distribution and strong social media channels.

    Measuring GEO Performance in Enrollment Marketing

    As with every digital marketing initiative, it’s not enough to just roll out a GEO strategy — institutions need to measure its success. Here’s how it’s done in the GEO world:

    Create LLM-Focused Dashboards via GA4 and Looker Studio

    Institutions can build LLM-focused dashboards using Google Analytics 4 (GA4) and Looker Studio by creating filters for platforms like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Claude. 

    Google currently doesn’t provide direct data for AI Overview referrals, and they have been neutral in response to questions on if they will ever release AI Overview data.  

    While LLMs are still evolving, isolating referral traffic from these tools can provide institutions with early insight into how students are discovering their content through AI.

    Use Attribution Models for AI-Influenced Student Journeys

    To fully understand how GEO affects students’ enrollment behavior, marketers need to evolve their attribution models, or how enrollment conversions are attributed to different channels. AI-generated responses often play a role at the top of the enrollment funnel, influencing students before they ever land on a university’s website. 

    Measuring that influence through multitouch attribution and long-view funnel analysis will become increasingly important as AI tools reshape how students explore, compare, and commit to higher education programs.

    Challenges and Ethical Considerations

    As generative engines continue to shape how students discover universities, inherent challenges will likely arise. 

    AI tools can misrepresent data or present outdated information, raising concerns about their accuracy and whether they can be trusted. There’s also the risk that well-resourced, elite institutions may disproportionately dominate generative search results, reinforcing existing inequities. Lack of transparency in how algorithms surface and prioritize content makes it difficult for institutions to ensure they are receiving fair and accountable representation.

    Future Trends in Higher Education GEO

    When it comes to emerging digital marketing techniques like GEO, early investments can help institutions stay ahead of the curve.  

    Multimodal Optimization for Virtual Campus Tours and Visual Content

    As generative engines evolve, optimizing for multimodal content — such as images, video, and virtual tours — will become increasingly important. 

    This goes beyond traditional desktop experiences. In Meta’s first quarter 2025 earnings call, Mark Zuckerberg predicted that smart glasses will eventually replace smartphones, describing them as ideal for AI and the metaverse. 

    With Meta already partnering with Ray-Ban on AI-integrated eyewear, higher ed marketers need to start preparing content that’s not just LLM-friendly but also immersive, interactive, and wearable-ready.

    AI-Driven Personalization for Students

    Rather than relying on static rankings or one-size-fits-all search experiences, AI is ushering in a wave of hyperpersonalization. Prospective students may soon interact with personalized advisors, see school rankings tailored to their goals, and receive customized digital content that aligns with their academic and career interests. 

    This shift will push institutions to deliver flexible, student-centered content that adapts to each individual’s intent and pathway.

    Search by Outcome, Not Degree

    Generative tools are beginning to trace backward from desired career outcomes by identifying what roles successful professionals hold, then linking those roles to specific programs, professors, and institutions. 

    For colleges and universities, this means alumni outcomes, employer partnership information, and job title visibility are essential signals. Institutions that surface these elements clearly will be better positioned to show up in outcome-based searches and AI-generated guidance.

    Ready to Get Ahead of the Curve? 

    The use of AI and large language models in search is only going to increase, fundamentally reshaping how students discover, evaluate, and engage with higher education institutions. 

    Developing a strong generative engine optimization strategy is essential. GEO needs to be seamlessly integrated into your existing SEO and digital marketing efforts to ensure your institution stays visible and relevant in a rapidly shifting landscape.

    With generative engines evolving at an unprecedented pace, now is the time to prepare for how you’ll reach the next generation of students.

    Want to talk through how GEO fits into your broader enrollment strategy? Contact Archer Education to start the conversation.

    Sources 

    Search Engine Journal, “How LLMs Interpret Content: How to Structure Information for AI Search”

    Search Engine Land, “What Is Generative Engine Optimization (GEO)?”

    The Verge, “Why Mark Zuckerberg Thinks AR Glasses Will Replace Your Phone”

    Yahoo Tech, “What Mark Zuckerberg Said About Smartglasses This Week Reveals His Opinion on AI”

    Subscribe to the Higher Ed Marketing Journal:

    Source link

  • Risk-based quality regulation – drivers and dynamics in Australian higher education

    Risk-based quality regulation – drivers and dynamics in Australian higher education

    by Joseph David Blacklock, Jeanette Baird and Bjørn Stensaker

    Risk-based’ models for higher education quality regulation have been increasingly popular in higher education globally. At the same time there is limited knowledge of how risk-based regulation can be implemented effectively.

    Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) started to implement risk-based regulation in 2011, aiming at an approach balancing regulatory necessity, risk and proportionate regulation. Our recent published study analyses TEQSA’s evolution between 2011 and 2024 to contribute to an emerging body of research on the practice of risk-based regulation in higher education.

    The challenges of risk-based regulation

    Risk-based approaches are seen as a way to create more effective and efficient regulation, targeting resources to the areas or institutions of greatest risk. However, it is widely acknowledged that sector-specificities, political economy and social context exert a significant influence on the practice of risk-based regulation (Black and Baldwin, 2010). Choices made by the regulator also affect its stakeholders and its perceived effectiveness – consider, for example, whose ideas about risk are privileged. Balancing the expectations of these stakeholders, along with their federal mandate, has required much in the way of compromise.

    The evolution of TEQSA’s approaches

    Our study uses a conceptual framework suggested by Hood et al (2001) for comparative analyses of regimes of risk regulation that charts aspects respectively of context and content. With this as a starting point we end up with two theoretical constructs of ‘hyper-regulation’ and ‘dynamic regulation’ as a way to analyse the development of TEQSA over time. These opposing concepts of regulatory approach represent both theoretical and empirical executions of the risk-based model within higher education.

    From extensive document analysis, independent third-party analysis, and Delphi interviews, we identify three phases to TEQSA’s approach:

    • 2011-2013, marked by practices similar to ‘hyper-regulation’, including suspicion of institutions, burdensome requests for information and a perception that there was little ‘risk-based’ discrimination in use
    • 2014-2018, marked by the use of more indicators of ‘dynamic regulation’, including reduced evidence requirements for low-risk providers, sensitivity to the motivational postures of providers (Braithwaite et al. 1994), and more provider self-assurance
    • 2019-2024, marked by a broader approach to the identification of risks, greater attention to systemic risks, and more visible engagement with Federal Government policy, as well as the disruption of the pandemic.

    Across these three periods, we map a series of contextual and content factors to chart those that have remained more constant and those that have varied more widely over time.

    Of course, we do not suggest that TEQSA’s actions fit precisely into these timeframes, nor do we suggest that its actions have been guided by a wholly consistent regulatory philosophy in each phase. After the early and very visible adjustment of TEQSA’s approach, there has been an ongoing series of smaller changes, influenced also by the available resources, the views of successive TEQSA commissioners and the wider higher education landscape as a whole.

    Lessons learned

    Our analysis, building on ideas and perspectives from Hood, Rothstein and Baldwin offers a comparatively simple yet informative taxonomy for future empirical research.

    TEQSA’s start-up phase, in which a hyper-regulatory approach was used, can be linked to a contextual need of the Federal Government at the time to support Australia’s international education industry, leading to the rather dominant judicial framing of its role. However, TEQSA’s initial regulatory stance failed to take account of the largely compliant regulatory posture of the universities that enrol around 90% of higher education students in Australia, and of the strength of this interest group. The new agency was understandably nervous about Government perceptions of its performance, however, a broader initial charting of stakeholder risk perspectives could have provided better guardrails. Similarly, a wider questioning of the sources of risk in TEQSA’s first and second phases could have highlighted more systemic risks.

    A further lesson for new risk-based regulators is to ensure that the regulator itself has a strong understanding of risks in the sector, to guide its analyses, and can readily obtain the data to generate robust risk assessments.

    Our study illustrates that risk-based regulation in practice is as negotiable as any other regulatory instrument. The ebb and flow of TEQSA’s engagement with the Federal Government and other stakeholders provides the context. As predicted by various authors, constant vigilance and regular recalibration are needed by the regulator as the external risk landscape changes and the wider interests of government and stakeholders dictate. The extent to which there is political tolerance for any ‘failure’ of a risk-based regulator is often unstated and always variable.

    Joseph David Blacklock is a graduate of the University of Oslo’s Master’s of Higher Education degree, with a special interest in risk-based regulation and government instruments for managing quality within higher education.

    Jeanette Baird consults on tertiary education quality assurance and strategy in Australia and internationally. She is Adjunct Professor of Higher Education at Divine Word University in Papua New Guinea and an Honorary Senior Fellow of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne.

    Bjørn Stensaker is a professor of higher education at University of Oslo, specializing in studies of policy, reform and change in higher education. He has published widely on these issues in a range of academic journals and other outlets.

    This blog is based on our article in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 29 April 2025):

    Blacklock, JD, Baird, J & Stensaker, B (2025) ‘Evolutionary stages in risk-based quality regulation in Australian higher education 2011–2024’ Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 1–23.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • This Is a Summer to Organize (opinion)

    This Is a Summer to Organize (opinion)

    We’re entering what would normally be the long-awaited reprieve of summer—a time to write, think, travel, to escape the demands of the academic year. But this will not be a normal summer.

    Faculty may long for a break, but the government is actively operationalizing Project 2025, a blueprint for remaking every public institution, with higher education being the crown jewel of its antidemocratic agenda. At his 100-day rally in Michigan, Donald Trump declared, “We’ve just gotten started. You haven’t even seen anything yet.” Christopher Rufo, architect of the right-wing culture war, promises to plunge higher education still further into “an existential terror.”

    We should be prepared for a potential wave of coordinated assaults on higher education this summer: reductions in Pell Grant eligibility for low-income students and slashed student loans, more dismantlement of scientific research funding, politicized accreditation crackdowns, new endowment taxes, expanded intimidation of international students and scholars, and further weaponization of Title VI and Title IX enforcement.

    We recommend mobilizing on two simultaneous fronts this summer: by operationalizing mutual academic defense compacts (MADCs), and through direct activism. We must forge powerful alliances for mass protest. We suggest one often-overlooked but deeply strategic constituency— veterans.

    Recent opinion polls show that most Americans oppose the Trump administration’s approach to higher education. This public sentiment gives us a crucial opening—and we must seize the momentum as we move into summer.

    1. Mobilize and Form Unlikely Alliances

    Faculty can take simple, student-centered actions this summer—sharing stories of student impact over social media using #DegreesForDemocracy, or highlighting the real-world outcomes of their teaching and research with #WhatWeBuild—to demonstrate the value of higher education and help galvanize public support. Op-eds and blog posts that highlight how higher ed strengthens local communities, drives economic growth and improves American public health and well-being are also powerful tools.

    In addition, faculty must begin to mobilize on the streets for mass peaceful protest. This will require reaching beyond our usual circles and forming big-tent coalitions. Now is not the time for ideological purity or partisan hesitation. The threat we face at this point goes beyond conventional liberal-versus-conservative disagreement; it is an attack on democratic institutions, civil liberties and public education itself.

    One particularly powerful, and perhaps surprising, potential partner in this moment is the veteran community. As a start, we urge faculty to consider aligning with veterans this Friday for the June 6 D-Day anniversary protest: Veterans Stand Against Fascism Nationwide at the National Mall, as well as at more than 100 other venues across the country. This is a great way for higher ed to show up in the lead-up to the June 14 No Kings Day protests.

    Why Join With Veterans?

    The shared legacy of the GI Bill links veterans and higher education. A public alliance with veterans has the potential to lend more political credibility to faculty and foster broader public empathy that will disrupt the Trump administration’s strategy of divide and conquer.

    From Black WWII veterans who catalyzed the civil rights movement to anti–Vietnam War resistance, veterans have consistently served on the front lines of social change. Today, they are standing up to deep budget cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs; the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and dangerous reductions to the veteran workforce—issues that mirror the assaults on higher education.

    Professors and veterans are natural allies in more ways than many realize. Since the passage of the GI Bill in 1944, millions of veterans have earned college degrees and experienced upward mobility through higher education. Veterans are a protected class under antidiscrimination law and recipients of DEI programming. The veterans’ centers and services we have created to support them are now under threat from the Trump administration’s ideological dismantling of DEI. While trust in most American institutions—including higher education—has declined, polling shows that the military remains one of the few institutions still trusted by a majority of Americans. This trust is rooted in the military’s demographic breadth: Its members come from every region, ethnicity, income bracket and political background.

    In contrast, higher education suffers from an image problem—often caricatured as elite, out of touch and overly partisan. Yet many of the most trusted professionals in society—nurses, teachers, first responders, small business owners and veterans themselves—were trained and mentored in our classrooms. Building visible alliances with veterans can help reshape public perceptions of academia, challenging the dominant narratives that seek to isolate and delegitimize higher education.

    1. Operationalize Mutual Academic Defense Compacts

    While public protest builds pressure, cross-institutional coalition building creates networks for effective resistance. Faculty and university senates across the country are approving mutual academic defense compact resolutions, which call for universities to join in shared defense of any participating institution that comes under government attack. But this is just the beginning. We need more, and these resolutions need to be operationalized through the creation of MADC task forces of administrators and faculty on as many campuses as possible. Presidents and chancellors need to endorse both the compacts and the task forces.

    We must use this summer to refine model MADC resolution language to align with institutional legal and financial requirements, to prepare for the passage of resolutions and creation of MADC task forces in the early fall, and to build the infrastructure that will allow these coalitions to function as coordinated networks of protection, resistance and shared strategy.

    That’s why we co-founded Stand Together for Higher Ed, a growing national movement to help faculty organize in defense of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. After beginning with a letter signed by about 5,000 professors in all 50 states calling on institutions to unite in a proactive common defense, we are now building a network of MADCs, campus task forces and shared strategies. This summer, Stand Together is offering model resolutions, organizing tools and communications support to help campuses build capacity for the fights ahead.

    We’ve been struck by how many faculty members lack formal structures for self-governance on their campuses. Shared governance is a foundational pillar of academic freedom—though often overshadowed by the more visible right to pursue scholarship free from interference. We’re working with campuses to strengthen existing faculty governance organizations with the establishment of Stand Together groups, and where none exist, we’re helping to establish American Association of University Professors and other advocacy chapters to fill that crucial gap.

    This summer, we must think strategically—and expansively. This summer calls for alliance building across our sister institutions of higher ed and across diverse nonacademic interest groups. The stakes are nothing less than the future of democracy.

    Jennifer Lundquist is a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Kathy Roberts Forde is a professor of journalism at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Together, the authors co-founded Stand Together for Higher Ed.

    Source link

  • Encouraging Alumni to Assist in Career Development

    Encouraging Alumni to Assist in Career Development

    Networking events with alumni give students the chance to learn more about life after graduation and build career skills.

    A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 29 percent of respondents believe their college or university should prioritize connecting students to alumni or other potential mentors. However, not every student has this opportunity before graduating; only one-third of graduates said their institution helped them to network with alumni while they were students, according to a 2024 National Alumni Career Mobility survey.

    Administrators don’t always recognize this disconnect between current and former students; a 2024 survey of student success leaders found that 56 percent believe their career center effectively connects students with the institution’s alumni network.

    Inside Higher Ed compiled six ways colleges and universities can invite alumni to partner with them to enhance students’ career development.

    1. Mentorship Programming

    Pairing students with graduates, particularly those in the same discipline or with similar career goals, is a common way to foster feelings of belonging among classes and with the institution.

    Survey Says

    A 2025 survey from Gravyty found that 80 percent of alumni engagement teams invite alumni to participate in community or networking events, but just over one-quarter ask alumni to become active volunteers. A survey of alumni also by Gravyty found that alumni who have served as mentors say they are 200 percent more likely to donate in the future.

    The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth hosts a Meet and Mentor mixer to introduce current and past students, building organic relationships in an informal setting. Syracuse University extends mentorship opportunities for alumni far from campus through virtual mentorship meetings. The university has coordinated over 1,000 meetings between students and alumni mentors over the past five years.

    In some cases, alumni can provide insights into evolving industries in ways that career services pros may be less equipped to.

    Worcester Polytechnic Institute created a mentorship program for students interested in green or sustainable jobs and industries, in part to help them keep up with the rapid changes in the field. The program has found more mentors than mentees so far, including alumni from a variety of industries such as architecture and design, waste reduction, consulting, and energy.

    1. Office Hours Programs

    Establishing an informal space for students to meet with alumni allows them to create connections and helps students build confidence for venturing into more professional networking spaces. Clemson University’s business school invites alumni to participate in drop-in office hours to review résumés, provide career advice or engage in a casual conversation with students.

    Some colleges and universities designate alumni in residence who provide one-on-one guidance, give presentations, engage in networking receptions and more, as needed. The University of Connecticut’s career center asks alumni in residence to devote at least four hours per month for virtual office hours and to participate in several career events and programs.

    1. Job Shadows

    While many students may know what field they’re interested in working in, understanding the day-to-day responsibilities of an industry professional can feel out of reach. Alumni connections can address the transition to work and help students establish work-life balance. Kalamazoo College connects students with local alumni for a short-term job shadow during spring break, showcasing local businesses and industries that hire graduates.

    Grinnell College also taps alumni around the globe each spring to provide job shadows and homestays, giving soon-to-be graduates a deeper look at what their future may be after college. The visits, which can last from a day to a week, connect students to new cities, professional networks and careers.

    1. Microinternships

    Microinternships have grown as a way to engage students in project-based experiential learning connected to a potential employer. At Goucher College, microinternships also introduce students to alumni who share their career interests. The six-week virtual experiences take place across the winter break and January term, and students are paid a stipend by the university, reducing barriers for participation.

    Projects vary depending on the needs of alumni, and in the past students have edited books, organized data, created presentations or conducted market research. The goal is to enable the student to walk away with a portfolio piece they can talk about in future interviews.

    1. Early Alumni Engagement

    Colleges can also help graduating students make the transition to being engaged alumni by establishing programs for recent graduates.

    Boise State University created BOLD, short for Broncos of the Last Decade, an alumni group specifically for students who graduated in the past 10 years, which holds tailgate events and a champagne reception for new grads during commencement weekend. BOLD also offers discounts on football and basketball season tickets, helping alumni maintain connections to the institution even after graduation.

    West Virginia University and Marshall University partnered to create a talent-development pipeline, called First Ascent, for recent graduates to reduce brain drain in the state and connect recent alumni to peers and mentors.

    1. Financial Support

    Alumni can also build institutional capacity and help sustain programs for current students through financial gifts and endowed resources. Supported through alumni donations, Brandeis University’s World of Work fellowship program provides stipends of up to $6,000 for students to participate in unpaid or underpaid experiential learning opportunities, helping build their career skills.

    Many career centers are also endowed by alumni, including the University of Central Florida’s Kenneth G. Dixon Career Development Center, named for the 1975 alumnus who donated $5 million in 2024.

    Do you have a career-focused intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Cross-Functional Marcomm Teams Drive Strategic Success

    Cross-Functional Marcomm Teams Drive Strategic Success

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

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

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

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

    Moving From Service Provider to Strategic Partner

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

    Operational Efficiency Creates Wins Faster

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

    Consistency Builds Brand Equity

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

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

    Internal Alignment Supports Goals

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

    Empowered Teams Create Elevated Outcomes

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

    Working Toward Success

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

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

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

    Source link

  • City College of SF Announces Chancellor Hire, Then Backtracks

    City College of SF Announces Chancellor Hire, Then Backtracks

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

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

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

    Multiple speakers at the meeting expressed support for Cortez.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)

    Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)

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

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

    A Scalable Model for National STEM Innovation

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Impacts of Research Funding Cuts

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

    An Updated Framework

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

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

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

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

    A Pilot Program

    To validate the national shots on goal vision, we propose a targeted pilot program initially focused on graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields pursuing NewCo formation at select U.S. land-grant universities. Land-grant universities, which are vital hubs for STEM research innovation, workforce development and regional workforce growth, are uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Below, we suggest a few elements of effective pilot programs, bringing together ideas for outreach, partnerships, funding and relevant STEM expertise.

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    The views expressed by the authors of this article do not represent the views of their organizations and are written in a personal capacity.

    Source link

  • Fake Citations Appeared in Federal Chronic Diseases Report

    Fake Citations Appeared in Federal Chronic Diseases Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • What we’ll be talking about at The Festival of Higher Education 2025

    What we’ll be talking about at The Festival of Higher Education 2025

    We’re not going to lie, we had to think really hard about what we want this year’s Festival of Higher Education to be about.

    If you’ve been to the event – returning to the University of London’s iconic Senate House this November – you’ll know by now to expect thoughtful analysis, discussion of the biggest issues facing higher education, and to hear from some key people who are leading and influencing the policy and political landscape. You can also expect to connect with people outside your professional area of work, find out about something new, drink buckets of coffee, and enjoy a jolly good party, if that’s your thing.

    None of that’s changing, obviously. Our reflections have been much more about the journey the HE sector has been on in the last year, and the potentially tough road ahead. The Westminster government has promised a package of higher education reform, possibly pegged to an annual inflationary uplift in undergraduate tuition fees, but there will most likely be no major injection of public funds. The straws in the wind from the last few years suggest that the steady trend in recruitment towards growth in home and international students is ebbing.

    When will there be good news?

    That means that across the UK higher education institutions are having to think hard, perhaps harder than they ever have before, about their core purpose and mission, about securing quality and excellence in education, continuing cutting edge research and scholarship, and deepening their compacts with their communities and regions to make the value of that education and research real to people.

    There is both potential and pain in that journey. If the HE sector was going to transform it would rather not be doing it under these circumstances. But with the right ideas and energy higher education should be able not just to cling on but to thrive – with a renewed sense of purpose and new ways of achieving the core mission for the generations to come.

    We think that potential can better be achieved through connection – with external perspectives, with the articulation of shared challenges, and with people and ideas who might be able to help. And that’s what we will be focused on as we develop the agenda for this year’s Festival of Higher Education. We can guarantee that this year’s agenda will be packed full of fresh ideas, innovation and inspiration!

    The Festival should offer the chance to hear from voices outside the sector who can speak to the wider public policy imperatives and global trends that UK higher education will need to think through. It should create space for deep reflection and new perspectives on the organisational challenges higher education is grappling with. And it should open up new thinking about the connections and relationships inside institutions and how to sustain and enhance academic community during times of change.

    Thematic, systematic

    Making that concrete, we think there are several really key policy themes that need to be unpacked.

    Economic growth and regional/national development – the number one priority of not just the Westminster government but arguably of all governments. Higher education is one of the most important tools available in efforts to create flourishing economic ecosystems but we need a stronger articulation of the role of higher education in developing skilled graduates, how institutions connect up in their regions and nationally, and how the innovation grown in universities is seeded in the wider economy.

    The regulatory environment and the relationship between the state and higher education institutions – with a new chair at the Office for Students, Medr implementing a new regulatory framework in Wales and reorganisation of FE/HE sector agencies in Scotland there are wide open questions about how best to find the balance between public accountability for quality, access and governance, and institutional freedom to innovate and offer something distinctive and sustainable – including deciding what not to do.

    The future student learning experience – as labour market opportunities for graduates evolve in response to AI, costs of study put increasing pressure on the traditional HE route and on students’ wellbeing, and governments consider how to upskill and reskill to increase opportunity throughout individuals’ lives, higher education institutions will need to think about the kind of educational and personal development experiences future students will need to help them build the lives they want.

    Organisational effectiveness of higher education institutions – it doesn’t sound that inspiring when you put it that way, but looking at challenges around effective governance and leadership for the current moment, the drive for efficiency and better use of data to inform decisions, and most importantly how higher education professionals experience their working environment, and are meaningfully engaged in change agendas, you realise just how important a theme this is. Evolution and adaptation might not be enough for many institutions – leadership teams and governing bodies will need to equip themselves to drive transformational change.

    Higher education in an increasingly uncertain world – while the Trump administration attacks US universities the shockwaves are being felt in the UK and beyond. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine; the growing risk of conflict between China and Taiwan; conflict in Gaza and wider Middle East tensions all have an impact on campuses in the UK. How can UK universities chart a path through this global turmoil?

    We’re certainly not claiming that a single event will answer all these challenges in their entirety. But we think these are the issues that are driving higher education change – and for that change to be experienced as renewal rather than decline, there’s still plenty of value in taking the time to talk and think about them outside your normal day to day.

    We remain immensely hopeful about the future for UK higher education – and we promise to create an event that you can sign up to now, confident that we’ll be working to build two days of insight, inspiration and fun that will be a highlight of your year. Join us – you won’t be disappointed.

    Reduced rate early bird tickets for the Festival of Higher Education are available until Friday 20 June and thereafter at the normal rate – click here for more information and to buy your ticket.

    Source link

  • Why Global Talent is Turning Away from U.S. Higher Education—and What We’re Losing – Edu Alliance Journal

    Why Global Talent is Turning Away from U.S. Higher Education—and What We’re Losing – Edu Alliance Journal

    In 2025, much of my professional focus has been on small colleges in the United States. But as many of you know, my colleague and Edu Alliance co-founder, Dr. Senthil Nathan, and I also consult extensively in the international higher education space. Senthil, based in Abu Dhabi, UAE—where Edu Alliance was founded was asked by a close friend of ours, Chet Haskell, about how the Middle East and its students are reacting to the recent moves by the Trump Administration. Dr. Nathan shared a troubling May 29th article from The National, a UAE English language paper titled, “It’s not worth the risk”: Middle East students put US dreams on hold amid Trump visa crackdown.

    The article begins with this chilling line:

    “Young people in the Middle East have spoken of their fears after the US government decided to freeze overseas student interviews and plan to begin vetting their social media accounts. The directive signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and sent to diplomatic and consular posts halts interview appointments at US universities.”

    The UAE, home to nearly 10 million people—90% of whom are expatriates—is a global crossroads. Many of their children attend top-tier international high schools and are academically prepared to study anywhere in the world. Historically, the United States has been a top choice for both undergraduate and graduate education.

    But that is changing.

    This new wave of student hesitation, and in many cases fear, represents a broader global shift. Today, even the most qualified international students are asking whether the United States is still a safe, welcoming, or stable destination for higher education. And their concerns are justified.

    At a time when U.S. institutions are grappling with enrollment challenges—including a shrinking pool of domestic high school graduates—we are simultaneously sending signals that dissuade international students from coming. That’s not just bad policy. It’s bad economics.

    According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2023–2024 academic year and supported 378,175 jobs across the country. These students fill key seats in STEM programs, support local economies, and enrich our campuses in ways that go far beyond tuition payments.

    And the stakes go beyond higher education.

    A 2024 study found that 101 companies in the S&P 500 are led by foreign-born CEOs. Many of these executives earned their degrees at U.S. universities, underscoring how American higher education is not just a national asset but a global talent incubator that fuels our economy and leadership.

    Here are just a few examples:

    • Jensen Huang: Born in Taiwan (NVIDIA) – B.S. from Oregon State, M.S. from Stanford
    • Elon Musk: Born in South Africa (Tesla, SpaceX) – B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania
    • Sundar Pichai: Born in India (Alphabet/Google) – M.S. from Stanford, MBA from Wharton
    • Mike Krieger: Born in Brazil (Co-founder of Instagram) B.S. and M.S. Symbolic Systems and Human-Computer Interaction, Stanford University
    • Satya Nadella: Born in India (Microsoft) – M.S. from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, MBA from the University of Chicago
    • Max Levchin: Born in Ukraine (Co-founder of PayPal, Affirm), Bachelor’s in Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
    • Arvind Krishna: Born in India (IBM) – Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
    • Safra Catz: Born in Israel (Oracle) – Undergraduate & J.D. from University of Pennsylvania
    • Jane Fraser: Born in the United Kingdom (Citigroup) – MBA from Harvard Business School
    • Nikesh Arora: Born in India  (Palo Alto Networks) – MBA from Northeastern
    • Jan Koum: Born in Ukraine (Co-founder of WhatsApp), Studied Computer Science (did not complete degree) at San Jose State University

    These leaders represent just a fraction of the talent pipeline shaped by U.S. universities.

    According to a 2023 American Immigration Council report, 44.8% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children, including iconic firms like Apple, Google, and Tesla. Together, these companies generate $8.1 trillion in annual revenue and employ over 14.8 million people globally.

    The Bottom Line

    The American higher education brand still carries immense prestige. But prestige alone won’t carry us forward. If we continue to restrict and politicize student visas, we will lose not only potential students but also future scientists, entrepreneurs, job creators, and community leaders.

    We must ask: Are our current policies serving national interests, or undermining them?

    Our classrooms, campuses, corporations, and communities are stronger when they include the world’s brightest minds. Let’s not close the door on a future we have long helped build.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on international partnerships and market evaluations.

    Source link