Tag: Higher

  • Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Artificial Intelligence and Critical Thinking in Higher Education: Fostering a Transformative Learning Experience for Students – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Addressing workforce challenges in higher education – Campus Review

    Addressing workforce challenges in higher education – Campus Review

    How empowering academic and administrative staff with HR tech drives employee engagement and retention

    Andy CoxJuly 14, 2025Last Updated: July 3, 2025

    0

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • American Higher Education and the Debt Trap

    American Higher Education and the Debt Trap

    They call it a “path to opportunity,” but for millions of students and their families, American higher education is just Flirtin’ with Disaster—a gamble with long odds and staggering costs. Borrowers bet their future on a credential, universities gamble with public trust and private equity, and the system as a whole plays chicken with economic and social collapse. Cue the screeching guitar of Molly Hatchet’s 1979 Southern rock anthem, and you’ve got a fitting soundtrack to the dangerous dance between institutions of higher ed and the consumers they so aggressively court.

    The Student as Collateral

    For the last three decades, higher education in the United States has increasingly behaved like a high-stakes poker table, only it’s the students who are holding a weak hand. Underfunded public colleges, predatory for-profits, and tuition-hiking private universities all promise upward mobility but deliver it only selectively. The rest? They leave the table with debt, no degree, or both.

    Colleges market dreams, but they sell debt. Americans now owe more than $1.7 trillion in student loans. And while some elite schools can claim robust return-on-investment, most institutions below the top tiers produce increasingly shaky value propositions—especially for working-class, first-gen, and BIPOC students. For them, education is often less an elevator to the middle class than a trapdoor into a lifetime of wage garnishment and diminished credit.

    Institutional Recklessness

    Universities themselves are no saints in this drama. Fueled by financial aid dollars, college leaders have expanded campuses like land barons—building luxury dorms, bloated athletic programs, and administrative empires. Meanwhile, instruction is increasingly outsourced to underpaid adjuncts, and actual student support systems are skeletal at best.

    The recklessness isn’t limited to for-profits like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and the Art Institutes, all of which collapsed under federal scrutiny. Even brand-name nonprofits—think USC, NYU, Columbia—have been exposed for enrolling students into costly, often ineffective online master’s programs in partnership with edtech firms. The real product wasn’t the degree—it was the debt.

    A Nation at the Brink

    From community colleges to research universities, institutions are now being pushed to their financial and ethical limits. The number of colleges closing or merging has skyrocketed, especially among small private colleges and rural campuses. Layoffs, like those at Southern New Hampshire University and across public systems in Pennsylvania, Oregon, and West Virginia, show that austerity is the new norm.

    But the real disaster is systemic. The American college promise—that hard work and higher ed will lead to security—is unraveling in real time. With declining enrollments, aging infrastructure, and increasing political pressure to defund or control curriculum, many schools are shifting from public goods to privatized risk centers. Even state flagship universities now behave more like hedge funds than educational institutions.

    Consumers or Victims?

    One of the cruelest ironies is that students are still told they are “consumers” who should “shop wisely.” But education is not like buying a toaster. There’s no refund if your college closes. There’s no protection if your degree is devalued. And there’s no bankruptcy for most student loan debt. Even federal forgiveness efforts—like Borrower Defense or Public Service Loan Forgiveness—are riddled with bureaucratic landmines and political sabotage.

    In this asymmetric market, the house almost always wins. Institutions keep the revenue. Third-party contractors keep their profits. Politicians collect campaign checks. And the borrowers? They’re left flirtin’ with disaster, hoping the system doesn’t collapse before they’ve paid off the last dime.

    No Exit Without Accountability

    There’s still time to change course—but it will require radical rethinking. That means:

    • Holding institutions and executives accountable for false advertising and financial harm.

    • Reining in tuition hikes and decoupling higher ed from Wall Street’s expectations.

    • Fully funding community colleges and public universities to serve as real social infrastructure.

    • Expanding debt cancellation—not just piecemeal forgiveness—for those most harmed by a failed system.

    • Ending the exploitation of adjunct labor and restoring the academic mission.

    Otherwise, higher education in the U.S. will continue on its reckless path, a broken-down system blasting its anthem of denial as it speeds toward the edge.

    As the song goes:

    “I’m travelin’ down the road and I’m flirtin’ with disaster… I got the pedal to the floor, my life is runnin’ faster.”

    So is the American student debt machine—and we’re all strapped in for the ride.

    Sources:

    • U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid Portfolio

    • “The Trillion Dollar Lie,” Student Borrower Protection Center

    • The Century Foundation, “The High Cost of For-Profit Colleges”

    • Inside Higher Ed, Chronicle of Higher Education, Higher Ed Dive

    • National Center for Education Statistics

    • Molly Hatchet, Flirtin’ with Disaster, Epic Records, 1979

    Source link

  • Despite Reservations, Florida BOG Approves New Accreditor

    Despite Reservations, Florida BOG Approves New Accreditor

    Plans for a new accreditor, announced by Florida governor Ron DeSantis in June, are becoming a reality.

    The Florida Board of Governors voted Friday afternoon to create a controversial new accrediting agency, in coordination with five other state university systems. The decision came after about an hour of heated discussion between board members and the State University System of Florida’s chancellor regarding details of the plan.

    Chancellor Raymond Rodriguez argued that the new accreditor, called the Commission for Public Higher Education, would eliminate the bureaucracy that comes with existing accrediting agencies and focus specifically on the needs of public universities.

    “The Commission for Public Higher Education will offer an accreditation model that prioritizes academic excellence and student success while removing ideological bias and unnecessary financial burdens,” he said. “Through the CPHE, public colleges and universities across the country will have access to an accreditation process that is focused on quality, rooted in accountability and committed to continuous improvement.”

    But before voting in favor of the motion, board members repeatedly pushed back, arguing that the plans for starting an accreditor from scratch were half-baked. They raised a litany of questions about how the CPHE would work in practice.

    Some wanted to hash out the details of the would-be accreditor’s governance structure before voting. According to the CPHE business plan, the Florida governing board would incorporate the accreditor as a nonprofit in Florida and serve as its initial sole member, using a $4 million appropriation from the Florida Legislature for start-up costs. (Other systems are expected to put in similar amounts.) A board of directors, appointed by all the university systems, would be responsible for accrediting decisions and policies.

    But multiple BOG members worried that the roles of the governing board and board of directors were not clearly delineated.

    “With us as the sole member, it appears, or could appear, to stakeholders that the accreditor lacks independence from the institution being accredited,” said board member Kimberly Dunn.

    Alan Levine, vice chair of the Board of Governors, called for a clear “proverbial corporate veil” between the two in corporate documents.

    “Our role is not to govern or direct the activities of this body,” Levine said of CPHE. “It has to be independent or it won’t even be approvable by the Department of Education.”

    Board member Ken Jones pressed for greater detail on the governing board’s “fiduciary or governance obligation to this new entity.”

    “I’m in support of this … I really believe this is the right path,” he said. “I just want to be sure that we all go in, eyes wide-open, understanding what is our responsibility as a BOG? … We’re breaking new ground here, and we’re doing it for the right reasons. But I want to be sure that when the questions come—and I’m sure they certainly will—that we’ve got the right answers.”

    Members asked questions about the accreditor’s future cybersecurity and IT infrastructure, as well as its associated costs. Some asked whether accreditors have direct access to universities’ data systems and raised concerns about potential hacking and the board’s liability; they were given reassurance that colleges themselves report their data. Some board members also asked for budget projections of what CPHE would cost.

    “I have an internal, unofficial estimation around the funds and revenues, but nothing I’d be prepared and comfortable to put forward publicly,” said Rachel Kamoutsas, the system’s chief of staff and corporate secretary, who fielded questions about the initiative.

    The answers didn’t seem to fully satisfy the governing board.

    “I do think the chancellor and team have a lot of work to do to continue to educate this board, to be blunt,” said BOG chair Brian Lamb, “because a lot of the questions that we’re asking—forecast, IT, infrastructure, staffing—every last one of those are appropriate.”

    He emphasized to other board members, however, that voting in favor of the motion would jump-start the process of incorporating the new accreditor and provide seed money for it. But, he added, “not a penny is going anywhere until we have an agreed-upon document on how this money will be spent.”

    Accreditation expert Paul Gaston III, an emeritus trustees professor at Kent State University, raised similar questions in an interview with Inside Higher Ed.

    “The credibility of accreditation really is directly related to whether the public can accept it is an authoritative source of objective evaluation that is in the public interest,” he said. “And the question that I would ask as a member of the public is, how will an accreditor that is created by and that is answerable to the institutions being evaluated achieve that credibility?”

    Despite all the pushback, the BOG ultimately voted unanimously to approve the measure. Now CPHE can file for incorporation, establish its Board of Directors and set out on the multiyear process of securing recognition from the Department of Education.

    Source link

  • Higher Education, High Hopes, and Heavy Bureaucracy

    Higher Education, High Hopes, and Heavy Bureaucracy

    by Phil Power-Mason and Helen Charlton

    UK higher education is pulled between its lofty ambitions for transformative learning and the managerialism that sometimes constrains their realisation. This tension defines the contemporary Higher Education workplace, where the mantras of “more with less” and “highly regulated freedom” collide with the desire for rich, personalised student experiences amidst fiscal belt-tightening, quantification, and standardisation. Bubbling through the cracks in any long-term political or economic vision for the sector is a professional identity steeped in ambivalence of purpose and position, one whose contradictions are nowhere rendered more vividly than in England’s higher and degree apprenticeships (HDAs). Conceived to braid university learning with workplace productivity, HDAs promise the best of both worlds yet must be delivered within one of the most prescriptive funding and inspection regimes in UK higher education. This provision also sits amidst a precarious and volatile political landscape, with continuous changes to funding rules, age limits and eligibility of different levels of study, and ‘fit’ within a still poorly defined skills and lifelong learning landscape.  

    At the heart of this ongoing policy experiment stands an until-recently invisible workforce:  Higher Education Tripartite Practitioners (HETP). These quiet actors emerged as a series of pragmatic institution level responses to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA, now subsumed into the Department of Education) related to progress reviews involving the provider, apprentice, and employer. Yet, as we argued in our paper at the SRHE International Conference in December last year, they have evolved into nuanced, often misunderstood boundary-spanners who simultaneously inhabit academia, industry, and compliance. Part coach, part conduit, part compliance specialist, they facilitate developmental conversations, broker cultural differences, and ensure every clause of the ESFA rulebook is honoured. The quality of this brokerage is decisive; without it even the most carefully designed apprenticeship fractures under audit pressure.

    Consider the core activities of HETPs. Much of their time is spent in close personal engagement with apprentices – fostering professional growth, guiding reflective practice, and offering pastoral support traditionally associated with mentoring. They encourage apprentices to think holistically, integrate theory with workplace reality, and map long-term career aspirations. Almost simultaneously, they must document progress reviews, monitor the evidence of every single hour of learning, and tick every regulatory box along a journey from initial skills analysis through to end point assessment.

    This duality produces a daily oscillation between inspiring conversations and tedious paperwork. The tension is palpable and exhausting, revealing a deeper struggle between two visions of education: one expansive, transformative, and relational; the other restrictive, measurable, and dominated by compliance. Fuller and Unwin’s expansive–restrictive continuum maps neatly onto this predicament, underscoring how universities are urged by policymakers to deliver high-skilled graduates for economic growth while simultaneously squeezed by intensifying regulation and managerial oversight.

    Little wonder, then, that HETPs describe their roles with the language of complexity, ambiguity, and invisibility. They are neither purely academic nor purely administrative. Instead, they occupy a liminal institutional space, mediating competing demands from employers, regulators, apprentices, and colleagues. Esmond captures the resulting “subaltern” status of these practitioners, whose contributions remain undervalued even as they shoulder the brunt of institutional attempts to innovate without overhauling legacy systems.

    Their experiences lay bare the contradictions of contemporary university innovation. Institutions routinely trumpet responsiveness to labour-market need yet bolt new programmes onto structures optimised for conventional classroom delivery, leaving HETPs to reconcile expansive educational ideals with restrictive managerial realities. The role becomes a flashpoint: universities ask boundary-spanners to maintain quality, build relationships, and inspire learners within systems designed for something else entirely.

    Yet amidst these tensions lies opportunity. The very ambiguity of the HETP role highlights the limits of existing support systems and points towards new professional identities and career pathways. Formal recognition of boundary-spanning expertise – relationship-building, negotiation, adaptability – would allow practitioners to progress without abandoning what makes their contribution distinctive. Communities of practice could break the apprenticeship echo-chamber and enrich the wider HE ecosystem, while institutional investment in bespoke professional development would equip practitioners to navigate the inherent tensions of their work.

    Senior leadership must also acknowledge the strategic value of these hidden roles, reframing them not as incidental administrative burdens but as essential catalysts for integrated educational practice. Making such roles visible and valued would help universities reconcile expansive aspirations with regulatory realities and signal genuine commitment to reshaping education for contemporary challenges.

    Policymakers and regulators, too, have lessons to learn. While accountability has its place, overly rigid compliance frameworks risk stifling innovation. Trust-based, proportionate regulation – emphasising quality, transparency, and developmental outcomes – would free practitioners to focus on learning rather than bureaucratic survival. The current neo-liberal distrust that imagines only regulation can safeguard public value inflates compliance costs and undermines the very economic ambitions it seeks to serve.

    Ultimately, the emergence of HETPs challenges HE institutions to decide how serious they are about bridging academic learning and workplace practice. Recognising and empowering these quiet brokers would signal a genuine commitment to integrated, expansive education – an education capable of meeting economic demands without losing sight of deeper human and intellectual aspirations. HETPs are far more than practitioners managing checklists; they are a critical juncture at which universities must choose either to treat boundary-spanning labour as a stop-gap or to embrace the complexity and potential it represents.

    Dr Phil Power-Mason is Head of Department for Strategic Management at Hertfordshire Business School, University of Hertfordshire, where he leads a diverse portfolio spanning executive education, apprenticeships and professional doctorates. A practice-focussed academic with a passion for innovative workforce development, Phil has overseen significant growth in the school’s business apprenticeships, MBA, and generalist provision, while nurturing cross-sector partnerships and embedding work-aligned learning at every level. With a research background in educational governance and strategy, he is a Senior Fellow of Advance HE and co-convenor of national apprenticeship knowledge networks. Phil’s research and sector leadership focus on emerging pedagogic and HE workforce practices, driving collaborative solutions that meet employer, learner and university needs. An invited speaker at national forums and a frequent contributor to sector conferences and publications, he remains committed to transforming vocational and work-ready learning practice for the future. (herts.ac.uk)

    Dr Helen Charlton is Associate Professor of Work Aligned Learning and Head of Executive Education at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, where she leads the school’s business apprenticeships, executive CPD and distance-learning programmes. After almost a decade steering apprenticeship design and compliance, she stays keenly attuned to each fresh regulatory tweak – and the learning opportunities it provides. A former senior HR manager in the arts and not-for-profit sectors, Helen holds a Doctorate in Education and an MSc in Human Resource Management, is a Senior Fellow of Advance HE, a Chartered MCIPD, and a Chartered Manager and Fellow of the CMI. Her research examines how learners, employers and universities negotiate the tripartite realities of degree apprenticeships. (northumbria.ac.uk)

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Why English language testing matters for UK higher education

    Why English language testing matters for UK higher education

    The UK is at a pivotal moment when it comes to the English language tests it uses to help decide who can enter the country to study, work, invest and innovate.  

    The government’s new industrial strategy offers a vision for supporting high-value and high-growth sectors. These sectors – from advanced manufacturing and creative industries, to life sciences, clean energy and digital – will fuel the UK’s future growth and productivity. All of them need to attract global talent, and to have a strong talent pipeline, particularly from UK universities. 

    This summer’s immigration white paper set out plans for new English language requirements across a broader range of immigration routes. It comes as the Home Office intends to introduce a new English language test to provide a secure and robust assessment of the skills of those seeking to study and work in the UK.  

    In this context, the UK faces a challenge: can we choose to raise standards and security in English tests while removing barriers for innovators? 

    The answer has to be ‘yes’. To achieve, as the industrial strategy puts it, “the security the country needs… while shaping markets for innovation,” will take vision. That clearly needs government, universities and employers to align security and growth. There are no short-cuts if we are serious about both.  

    The sectors that will power the industrial strategy – most notably in higher education, research and innovation – are also those most boxed in by competing pressures. These pressures include the imperative to attract world-class talent and the need to show that those they help bring to the country are well-qualified.  

    But these pressures do not have to box us in. We need not compromise on security or growth. We can achieve both.   

    Getting English testing right is a critical part of the solution. That means putting quality and integrity first. We should demand world-class security and safeguards – drawing on the most sophisticated combination of human and artificial intelligence. It also means deploying proven innovations – those that have been shown to work in other countries, like Australia and Canada, that have adjusted their immigration requirements while achieving talent-led growth.   

    Decision-making around English language testing needs to be driven by evidence – especially at a time of flux. And findings from multiple studies tells us that those students who take high-quality and in-depth tests demonstrate greater academic resilience and performance. When it comes to high-stake exams, we should be setting the highest expectations for test-takers so they can thrive in the rapidly changing economy that the country is aspiring to build.  

    The government and high-growth sectors, including higher education, have an opportunity to grow public confidence, prioritise quality and attain sustainable growth if we get this right.  

    Decision-making around English language testing needs to be driven by evidence – especially at a time of flux

    International students at UK universities contribute £42 billion a year to the economy. (As an aside, the English language teaching sector – a thriving British export industry – is worth an additional £2 billion a year, supporting 40,000 jobs.) Almost one-in-five NHS staff come from outside the UK. 

    More than a third of the UK’s fastest-growing startups have at least one immigrant co-founder. Such contributions from overseas talent are indispensable to the country’s future success – and the industrial strategy’s “focus on getting the world’s brightest minds to relocate to the UK” is smart.  

    At Cambridge, we help deliver IELTS, the world’s most trusted English test. Over the decades, we’ve learned that quality, security and innovation reinforce one another. It’s why we draw on our constantly evolving knowledge of linguistics to make sure our tests assess the real-life language skills people use in actual academic and professional environments. 

    Technological innovations and human intelligence must be central to the test-taking experience: from content creation to exam supervision to results delivery. Having one without the other would be reckless.    

    We should deploy the latest data science and AI advances to spot risks, pinpoint potential fraud, and act intelligently to guarantee a system that’s fair for all. IELTS draws on proven AI and data science developments to prevent fraud and improve the information available to institutions like universities, businesses and UKVI.  

    As the government takes its industrial strategy, immigration reforms and English testing changes forward, it’s vital that departments coordinate on the shared opportunities, and tap into the best evidence available.  

    This is complex work. It requires a collaborative spirit, creative thinking and deep expertise. Fortunately, the UK has plenty of that. 

    About the author: Pamela Baxter is managing director, IELTS at Cambridge University Press & Assessment

    Source link

  • George Mason Faces 2 Title VI Investigations

    George Mason Faces 2 Title VI Investigations

    George Mason University in Virginia is under investigation for alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Department of Education announced Thursday.

    Multiple university professors reportedly filed complaints that the institution “illegally uses race and other immutable characteristics in university policies, including hiring and promotion,” according to the news release. 

    The accusations come less than two weeks after the University of Virginia’s president was pressured to resign by the Department of Justice for similar DEI-related complaints. Thursday’s announcement sparked concerns among some higher education professionals that George Mason president Gregory Washington, who is Black, could face similar pressure. This is the second civil rights investigation that the Education Department has opened at George Mason this month. The other one is focused on allegations that university didn’t sufficiently respond to antisemitic incidents.

    “It looks like the Trump administration is trying to force out George Mason’s president,” Robert Kelchen, an education policy professor at the University of Tennessee, wrote on BlueSky.

    “When people ask why Higher Ed presidents aren’t being publicly vocal—here’s why,” responded Dan Collier, a higher education professor at the University of Memphis.

    Department officials said in the news release that the investigation is justified by the university’s “unlawful DEI policies.” The release cited policies aimed at ensuring a diverse applicant pool and that departments at George Mason embrace antiracism and inclusiveness. The department declared race-based programming and activities illegal in guidance earlier this year, but a federal judge blocked that directive.

    “This kind of pernicious and wide-spread discrimination—packaged as ‘anti-racism’—was allowed to flourish under the Biden Administration, but it will not be tolerated by this one,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor in the release.

    Source link

  • Fla. Board of Governors to Vote on Creating New Accreditor

    Fla. Board of Governors to Vote on Creating New Accreditor

    Gov. DeSantis has called the current system an “accreditation cartel.”

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Joe Raedle/Getty Images | ricul/iStock/Getty Images 

    The governing board of the State University System of Florida is set to vote Friday on whether to form a new accrediting agency focused on public universities, known as the Commission for Public Higher Education. While some accreditation experts say the move could be a positive development, they also worry it may lead to undue political influence in the accreditation process.

    If the vote goes as planned, the Florida governing board will create the proposed agency along with five other public university systems: the University System of Georgia, University of North Carolina system, University of South Carolina, University of Tennessee system and the Texas A&M University system.

    “The launching of a new institutional accreditor is a major undertaking, and CPHE’s Founding University Systems have not undertaken it lightly,” reads the business plan for the Commission for Public Higher Education. “Growing dissatisfaction with current practices among the existing institutional accreditors and the desire for a true system of peer review among public institutions have led to this endeavor.” The plan accuses some existing accreditors of “bureaucratic bloat, delays, and increased costs.”

    University of North Carolina system president Peter Hans dropped the news in May that UNC was in talks with other public university systems to launch a new accrediting agency—an idea Inside Higher Ed discovered they’d been discussing for at least a year. The project has taken on distinct political undertones; last month Florida governor Ron DeSantis announced the effort in a speech largely focused on what he calls “woke ideology.”

    “What we’ve seen develop is an accreditation cartel,” he said in his address. “And the accreditors by and large are all singing from the same sheet of music, and it’s not what the state of Florida wants to see reflected in its universities in many different respects.”

    According to the business plan, the new agency “will laser-focus on student outcomes, streamline accreditation standards, focus on emerging educational models, modernize the accreditation process, maximize efficiency without sacrificing quality, and ensure no imposition of divisive ideological content on institutions.”

    How It Would Work

    The Commission for Public Higher Education would be incorporated as a nonprofit organization in Florida, initially funded by a $4 million appropriation from the Florida State Legislature, according to the business plan. Other involved higher ed systems are expected to cough up similar funds. A board of directors representing each of the founding systems would oversee the new accreditor.

    The goal is to accredit six institutions by next summer and secure Department of Education recognition by June 2028, according to the business plan. (A new accreditor typically has two years to prove it is operating in accordance with federal regulations to receive federal approval.)

    In the meantime, higher ed institutions pursuing accreditation from CPHE can retain their current accreditors, the plan notes. Later, when CPHE gains department recognition, they can adopt CPHE as their primary accreditor.

    Accreditation experts say that the time frame is doable but optimistic if the Department of Education maintains the rigor of its current recognition process for new accreditors.

    “The timeline proposed by Florida seems aggressive since in the past, it usually took the [Education Department] more time to approve new accreditors,” Cynthia Jackson Hammond, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, wrote in a statement to Inside Higher Ed.

    But the Trump administration has shown interest in making it easier for new accreditors to form. President Trump signed an executive order in April that spoke of “recognizing new accreditors” among other reforms.

    Mixed Views

    Jackson Hammond said CHEA isn’t against new accreditors, as long as they go through the standard recognition process and show they’re following federal regulations for ensuring institutions’ quality. But she and her colleagues have qualms about the idea of state-sponsored accrediting bodies like the Commission for Public Higher Education.

    “CHEA does not believe that states are likely to be effective accreditors,” she wrote. “Historically, states have not had the staff, experience, or knowledge necessary to create a higher education accreditor. It is critically important that higher education reflects an impartial and unbiased accrediting review process that is focused on student learning outcomes. To date, there has not been a state that has accomplished this.”

    Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, worries the structure of the new accrediting agency may make unbiased evaluations more challenging, given the involvement of state policymakers.

    State university systems are “essentially run by the governors and their appointees,” said Shireman, who was a deputy under secretary at ED during the Obama administration. So “it really detracts from the independence of public institutions from political meddling. This feels like it’s part of an effort for closer political control over colleges and that would just embroil them in culture war issues and sort of the political issue of the day.”

    But he doesn’t rule out the potential positives of having an accreditor focused on public universities. He said such an agency could emphasize college access and affordability in ways that accreditors that oversee private colleges don’t.

    As state higher ed systems, “they’re all government actors,” he said. In an ideal scenario, “they can work together [to say], ‘Let’s be affordable. Let’s make sure students get served.’”

    Jamienne Studley, former president of the WASC Senior College and University Commission, also emphasized that agencies that accredit “like-type” institutions can benefit from their similarities—“as long as the federal oversight of agencies is consistent, the standards are solid and their application is rigorous.”

    Source link

  • Senate Rejects Trump’s Cuts to NSF, Other Science Agencies

    Senate Rejects Trump’s Cuts to NSF, Other Science Agencies

    Sen. Jerry Moran, Republican of Kansas, proposed sending $9 billion to the National Science Foundation.

    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Signs that Congress intends to push back on the Trump administration’s wholesale slashing of federal budgets emerged during a Senate meeting Thursday that kicked off the annual appropriations process.

    Since January, the Trump administration has sought to significantly downsize the federal government via mass layoffs and spending cuts. Additionally, the administration has canceled grants and withheld funding despite laws that require agencies to spend money as directed by Congress.

    However, on Thursday a subcommittee that oversees the budgets for the Justice and Commerce Departments as well as related science agencies proposed only a small cut to the National Science Foundation budget next fiscal year—a far cry from the $5 billion reduction that President Donald Trump wants to see.

    Instead, NSF will get just over $9 billion, a $16 million cut, said Sen. Jerry Moran, the Kansas Republican who chairs the subcommittee. The bill also sends about $10 million more to the National Weather Service and boosts funding for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    Although the science funding received bipartisan support, a fight over funding for the new Federal Bureau of Investigations headquarters could tank the legislation. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat and vice chair of the subcommittee, objected to the Trump administration’s decision to move the headquarters to another building in Washington, D.C., rather than moving forward with a plan approved during the Biden administration to build a facility in Maryland. (Congress previously appropriated money for a new headquarters and set the criteria for the site selection.)

    After the Senate appropriations committee approved an amendment on Thursday from Van Hollen related to the headquarters, some Republicans on the committee changed their vote on the legislation and the panel recessed instead of making a final decision on whether to advance it.

    “I think it’s sad that one issue is sinking a bill that was bipartisan,” said Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and chair of the full appropriations committee.

    Still, Van Hollen said earlier in the meeting that there was “a lot of good news” in the legislation.

    “We were able to make smart and targeted investments to help keep our community safe, keep our country safe, to advance U.S. leadership in science and innovation and to support growth and prosperity of the American economy. We were able to protect agencies and programs like NASA science and STEM, [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and] NSF.”

    Higher education groups and research advocacy organizations had warned that slashing NSF’s budget by more than half would be catastrophic and set U.S. research back by decades. The Trump administration sought to end funding for STEM training and NSF’s education programs and significantly reduce the money available for scholarships and postdoctoral fellowships.

    The committee didn’t release any other information about the budget bill such as the text or a summary, so it’s not clear what the line-item budget for NSF looks like. The available details come from what lawmakers said at Thursday’s meeting.

    Van Hollen and Moran said that NASA would get about $24.5 billion to boost space exploration, whereas the administration has requested $18.8 billion.

    The additional $10 million for the National Weather Service would go toward restaffing an agency that’s lost about 17 percent of its head count—or 600 employees—due to buyouts and layoffs. NWS’s parent agency, NOAA, lost about 11 percent of its staff. The Trump administration requested about $91 million more for NWS and to cut NOAA’s budget by about $1.8 billion.

    After the government imposed significant reductions in force across federal agencies, lawmakers wrangled over details in the proposal that ensure NWS has enough personnel to continue functioning. The bill requires the agency to be fully staffed, but it doesn’t specify what that means aside from requiring the agency have enough employees to fulfill its statutorily required mission. Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, didn’t think that language was strong enough to protect NWS and wanted to set the minimum staffing levels at the number of employees as of Sept. 30, 2024.

    “My judgment and the judgment of a lot of people who work at the National Weather Service is that ‘to fulfill the statutory mandate’ gives a fair amount of room to assert that the current staffing levels and the current layoff process fulfills the statutory mandate,” he said. “It’s clear to me that this administration has already made the judgment that the National Weather Service has too many human beings.”

    Moran said he and Schatz shared the “same desire,” but he didn’t want to specify a number. Other Republicans pointed out that NWS staff has fluctuated over the years. In fiscal year 2024, the agency had about 4,300 full-time employees, according to budget documents. Republicans voted down Schatz’s amendment.

    Moran noted earlier in the meeting that the language in the budget bill should protect NWS employees from furloughs or future reductions in force and end a hiring freeze.

    “This bill protects key science missions that are fundamental to furthering our understanding of the Earth and better stewards of our natural resources, and supports critical programs, not only to drive discovery, but to safeguard the Earth from natural disasters,” Moran said.

    Congress has until Sept. 30 to pass the 12 appropriations bills that make up the federal budget or else the government could shut down. Democrats and some Republicans also want to use this process to reassert Congress’s authority in spending decisions.

    “The challenges we face and the threats to this very process are greater than ever before with the president and administration intent on ignoring the laws that we write and seizing more power for themselves,” said Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington and vice chair of the appropriations committee.

    “But at the end of the day, I do believe these bills are all a good compromise starting point, delivering critical resources to continue key programs and make targeted new investments—rejecting some of the truly harmful proposed cuts by the president and steering clear of the extreme partisan policies he’s requested.”

    Source link

  • Rates of Admitted Students Who Are Black, Hispanic Have Decreased

    Rates of Admitted Students Who Are Black, Hispanic Have Decreased

    The researchers aimed to show demographic changes across the entire “admissions pipeline.”

    skynesher/E+/Getty Images

    In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to ban affirmative action in college admissions, no one knew exactly what the impact on Black and Hispanic enrollment might be going forward. In fall 2024, the numbers varied substantially by institution; Inside Higher Ed’s analysis of 31 institutions’ enrollment data showed massive drops in Black and Hispanic enrollment at some institutions and less drastic decreases—and even slight increases—at others.

    But enrollment data only tells part of the story. A new report from the Urban Institute, which uses data from 18 colleges and universities, highlights how the demographics of college applicants—and admits—shifted after the court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. While the share of applicants who were Black or Hispanic increased from fall 2023 to fall 2024—by 0.47 and 0.65 percentage points, respectively—the portion who were admitted decreased.

    It marked the first time since at least 2018 that the share of admitted students who were Black had declined; Hispanic students hadn’t seen a drop since 2021, when the share of applicants also declined. White students’ share of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students has shrunk every year since 2018, a trend consistent with the declining number of white high school graduates (and of white Americans in general). White graduates are also the only group that consistently make up a larger percentage of admitted students than applicants.

    Jason Cohn, a higher education and workforce research associate for the Urban Institute and one of the report’s authors, said that these numbers shed more light on the impacts of affirmative action than enrollment figures alone.

    “We’ve seen a lot of enrollment numbers in news articles here and there since last fall. In some cases, they stay the same; in some cases, they change. But I think what these data are showing is that that’s not fully reflective of what might actually be happening,” he said. “One of the big takeaways for me is just how much can be hidden if you only look at the enrollment numbers and aren’t seeing what’s happening in the rest of the admissions pipeline.”

    For this study, the researchers partnered with two organizations, the Association of Undergraduate Education at Research Universities and the University of Southern California’s Center for Enrollment Research, Policy and Practice, to solicit data from a diverse group of 18 research universities (which they did not name). Although the sample is small, they said, it’s consistent with similar research conducted by the College Board, whose sample included about 60 institutions, indicating that the data is likely reflective of broader trends.

    It’s difficult to say definitively that the Supreme Court’s decision caused the decline in the share of admitted students from underrepresented backgrounds. That same class of high school seniors faced other barriers, including the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and delays and errors with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Bryan J. Cook, another author of the report and the Urban Institute’s director of higher education policy, noted that colleges in some states had begun rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at that time, including some programs aimed at recruiting students of color.

    “In this particular analysis, we’re not looking to isolate causation, but I think as we continue to look at this type of thing in future years, I think that’ll help us get a little closer,” Cohn said.

    But Robert Massa, a veteran enrollment professional, said he believes the shifts were likely caused in large part by the end of affirmative action.

    “I’m not at all surprised that Black students have increased their representation in the applicant pool and decreased their representation in the accepted pool, because universities are taking careful steps to make sure they don’t use race in and of itself as criteria in the admissions process,” he said.

    (Edward Blum, the president of SFFA, the anti–affirmative action nonprofit that was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, told Inside Higher Ed in an email that the organization has no opinion on the study.)

    The researchers plan to dig deeper into the data, analyzing other demographic information, including gender and family income, as well as academic variables such as the standardized test scores and grade point averages of the applicants and admitted students at these institutions.

    One possible hiccup for future research: The report also showed that post-SFFA, the share of applicants who chose not to identify their race increased, from 3.2 percent in 2023 to 5.1 percent in 2024. If that upward trend continues, Cohn said, it might make it “more difficult, over time, to unpack these trends and see who’s being served by the higher education system.”

    Source link