Tag: Higher

  • How the Trump Administration’s FSA Notice Doubles Down on Student Debtors While Privileging the Higher Education Racket

    How the Trump Administration’s FSA Notice Doubles Down on Student Debtors While Privileging the Higher Education Racket

    The U.S. Department of Education, under the renewed influence of the Trump Administration and its deep-pocketed friends in the for-profit and debt collection industries, has issued a chilling reminder of just how little it cares for the tens of millions of Americans drowning in student debt. Cloaked in bureaucratic language and peppered with sanctimonious calls for “shared responsibility,” the Department’s latest notice is, in truth, a battle cry in its war to privatize higher education, scapegoat the vulnerable, and enrich corporate cronies at the expense of working families.

    Let’s call this what it is: a renewed assault on the student debtor class—the adjunct professors, the first-generation college students, the single mothers, the underemployed graduates who were sold a dream of economic mobility and handed a lifetime of debt servitude.

    According to the Department, only 38% of borrowers are current on their loans, and nearly a quarter of all loans are in default or severe delinquency. Rather than treating this figure as evidence of systemic failure—ballooning tuition, predatory lending, lack of loan forgiveness—the Department responds by resuming draconian collection measures like the Treasury Offset Program and Administrative Wage Garnishment. This means that the government will begin seizing tax refunds and garnishing wages of those already pushed to the economic brink.

    Worse, the Department has the audacity to wrap this cruelty in the rhetoric of “support” and “outreach.” Borrowers are told that they’ll be reminded of their “repayment obligations” as if they have simply forgotten—not that they’ve been buried under compound interest, stagnating wages, and fraudulent institutions that peddled worthless degrees. The supposed “enhancements” to income-driven repayment plans are little more than PR spin, insufficient to address the tidal wave of suffering inflicted by a broken system.

    Then comes the most insulting part: the Department deflects blame onto institutions while simultaneously pressuring them to track down and guilt-trip former students. Colleges are urged to contact former enrollees and remind them they’re obligated to pay. Why? Not out of concern for their welfare—but because high cohort default rates (CDRs) might threaten those institutions’ eligibility for federal aid money.

    So we see the real game here: this isn’t about protecting students. It’s about protecting the federal loan program as a revenue engine and shielding the reputations of colleges—especially the for-profit diploma mills that flourished under prior Republican administrations. These institutions can continue hiking tuition and churning out underprepared graduates because the government, under Trump and his Department of Education appointees, would rather collect on unpayable loans than hold schools accountable.

    Even more dystopian is the Department’s plan to publicly release “loan non-payment rates by institution.” While transparency sounds virtuous, this move will undoubtedly be weaponized—not to shut down abusive schools but to further stigmatize borrowers, especially those from marginalized backgrounds who attended underfunded schools with few resources.

    Nowhere in this document is there any meaningful discussion of debt relief, student protections, or reining in college costs. Nowhere is there a reckoning with the fact that federal student aid has been transformed from a tool of opportunity into a tool of coercion. Instead, the Trump Administration signals it is open for business—the business of extracting wealth from the poor and funneling it into the private sector.

    This notice is more than a policy update. It is a declaration of values. And those values are clear: Profit over people. Compliance over compassion. Privatization over public good.

    The Higher Education Inquirer stands with the debtors. We see through the lies of “fiscal responsibility” and “integrity.” And we will continue to expose every cynical maneuver designed to crush the educated underclass in the name of neoliberal orthodoxy.

    To student borrowers: You are not alone. You are not a failure. You are a victim of a system that was never built to serve you.

    Here’s the actual post from the US Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, dated May 5, 2025:

     

    The
    United States faces critical challenges related to the federal student
    loan programs. According to estimates from the U.S. Department of
    Education (Department), only 38% of Direct Loan and Department-held
    Federal Family Education Loan Program borrowers are in repayment and
    current on their student loans. We also estimate that almost 25% of the
    entire portfolio is either in default or a late stage of delinquency. 

    Given these challenges, the Department is taking immediate steps to
    engage student borrowers and support the repayment of their federal
    student loans. As announced in an April 21, 2025, press release,
    today, the Department will resume collections on its defaulted federal
    student loan portfolio with the restart the Treasury Offset Program and,
    later this summer, Administrative Wage Garnishment. The Department has
    also initiated an outreach campaign to remind all borrowers of their
    repayment obligations and provide resources and support to assist them
    in selecting the best repayment plan for their circumstances. The
    Department has also launched an enhanced income-driven repayment (IDR) plan process,
    simplifying how borrowers enroll in IDR plans and eliminating the need
    for many borrowers to manually recertify their income each year. 

    Maintaining the integrity of the Title IV, Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA)
    loan programs has always been a shared responsibility among student
    borrowers, the Department, and participating institutions. Although
    borrowers have the primary responsibility for repaying their student
    loans, institutions play a key role in the Department’s ongoing efforts
    to improve loan repayment outcomes, especially as the cost of college
    set solely by institutions has continued to skyrocket. Institutions are
    responsible for providing clear and accurate information about repayment
    to borrowers through entrance and exit counseling, and colleges and
    universities are responsible for disclosing annual tuition and fees and
    the net price to students and their families on the costs of a
    postsecondary education. The financial aid community has demonstrated
    its commitment to providing direct advice and counsel to students
    regarding their borrowing, but institutions must refocus and expand
    these efforts as pandemic flexibilities come to an end.

    Under section 435 of the HEA, institutions are required to
    keep their cohort default rates (CDR) low and will lose eligibility for
    federal student assistance, including Pell Grants and federal student
    loans, if their CDR exceeds 40% for a single year or 30% for three
    consecutive years. The Department reminds institutions that the
    repayment pause on student loans ended in October 2023, and CDRs
    published in 2026 will include borrowers who entered repayment in 2023
    and defaulted in 2023, 2024, or 2025. The Department further reminds
    institutions that those borrowers whose delinquency or default status
    was reset in September 2024 could enter technical default status / be
    delinquent on their loans for more than 270 days beginning in June and
    default this summer. As such, we strongly urge all institutions to begin
    proactive and sustained outreach to former students who are delinquent
    or in default on their loans to ensure that such institutions will not
    face high CDRs next year and lose access to federal student aid. 

    Given
    the urgent need to ensure that more student borrowers enter repayment
    and stay current on their loans, the Secretary urges each participating
    institution to provide the following information to all borrowers who
    ceased to be enrolled at the institution since January 1, 2020, and for
    whom they have contact information: 

    • Remind
      the borrower that he or she is obligated to repay any federal student
      loans that have not been repaid and are not in deferment or forbearance;

    • Suggest that the borrower review information on StudentAid.gov about repayment options; and 

    • Request that the borrower log into StudentAid.gov
      using their StudentAid.gov username and password to update their
      profile with current contact information and ensure that their loans are
      in good standing. 

    The
    Department urges that this outreach be performed no later than June 30,
    2025. We do not stipulate how institutions reach out to borrowers, nor
    the specific information provided, as long as it covers the three
    categories described above. 

    We also encourage institutions to focus their initial outreach on
    students who are delinquent on one or more of their loans in order to
    prevent defaults. We will provide additional information in the future
    to assist schools with identifying and communicating with these
    borrowers.

    The
    Department is committed to overseeing the federal student loan programs
    with fairness and integrity for students, institutions, and taxpayers.
    To that end, the Department believes that greater transparency is needed
    regarding institutional success in counseling borrowers and helping
    them get into good standing on their loans. 

    The Department maintains data on the repayment status of federal
    student loan borrowers and in the past has provided information in the
    College Scorecard about the status of each institution’s borrowers at
    several intervals after they enter repayment. The Department plans to
    use this data to calculate rates of nonpayment by institution and will
    publish this information on the Federal Student Aid Data Center later
    this month. The Department will provide more information about this
    publication process soon. 

    Thank you for your continued efforts to maintain the integrity of the Title IV, HEA
    loan programs. The Department values its institutional partners and
    looks forward to continued collaboration to place borrowers on the path
    to sustainable repayment of their loans.

    Source link

  • Talking the talk: language for learning in higher education

    Talking the talk: language for learning in higher education

    by Estefania Gamarra, Marion Heron, Lewis Baker and Harriet Tenenbaum

    Do you remember when you started university, and you were expected to use a whole new language? We don’t just mean new nomenclature such as ‘seminars’ or ‘tutorials’, but language that can help you make a clear argument or disagree politely with a classmate. This language, or educational dialogue, and in particular disagreeing politely, is critical to be an engaged citizen in a healthy democracy, without otherwise descending into unhealthy practices such as ‘cancel culture’ as recently highlighted in the media. In this blog post, we argue that universities have a responsibility not only to teach students how to talk in an academic context, but also for this teaching to be discipline-specific and embedded in the disciplinary study where possible.

    There is a long-held misperception that all students who start university are able to talk the talk of the university, that is, they have the language skills, the terminology, and the confidence to articulate their opinions from their first day. This is just simply not true for many undergraduate students. Having English as a first language is also not necessarily an advantage. Bourdieu et al (1994, p8) said, “academic language… is no one’s mother tongue, not even that of children of the cultivated classes”.

    What do we mean by language here? We have drawn on the pedagogy and research from compulsory school education, namely the work of scholars at Cambridge University. Their work on educational dialogue has been successfully incorporated into school teaching with impressive results. Educational dialogue here refers to communicative acts such as agreeing, disagreeing, reasoning and expressing ideas. Research in school settings has shown that encouraging such dialogue can boost academic attainment. One study highlighted the relationship between elaborating on ideas and attainment in reading, spelling, punctuation and grammar. Despite this compelling evidence, similar strategies have been underexplored in higher education.

    In our university classrooms, we hear students say things such as: ‘I know the answer, but don’t know how to phrase it’ and ‘I need to learn how to express my answer like that’. So, if students are themselves noticing a need for academic language, why are we so behind in the higher education context? And more importantly, what language do these students need? Do they all need the same academic language to confidently talk the talk? This is exemplified by the dialogue below between two engineering students working on answering multiple-choice questions together, an excerpt from our forthcoming research:

    Student A:  Yeah, listen, we need to be able when we say “force”, to say why.  

    Student B:  Yeah, to flip it.  

    Student A:  Because we were right, like, C is incorrect, but we don’t say why it is not incorrect.  

    Student B:  I don’t know how to word it, you know.

    In our current research project, supported by a Nuffield Foundation grant, we explore whether pairs of Foundation Year students across Engineering, Psychology and Bioscience, engaging in discipline-specific multiple-choice questions, can learn to develop these academic language skills and the extent to which they can do this in an academic year-long intervention programme.

    Our early findings indicate that while students are capable of using academic language, the forms they adopt vary by discipline. For example, consider one of the most basic interactions in academic discussions – giving and asking for reasons. Typically, the default marker for requesting justification is “why?”. The following extract from a psychology discussion illustrates this:

    Student A:  Why do you think that is?

    Student B:  Because, uh, if you got negative emotion, you know, so that is not called positive psychology. Yep, yeah, so I’m thinking about understanding like how to prevent negative emotions.

    In contrast, in science courses such as biology or engineering, it was more common to use “how?” rather than “why?” when asking for reasoning. Consider this extract from an engineering discussion:

    Student A:  Yes. Then the same as D.

    Student B:  D? How?

    Student A:  And then it’s…

    Student B:  Oh.

    Student A:  And this is…

    Student B:  So the arrow goes this way…

    Student A:  So then P goes this way…

    Here, Student B not only asks for the reasoning by using “how?”, but the response unfolds as a sequence of steps outlining the reasoning process. This example also highlights another subject-specific difference: while psychology students typically expand on each other’s arguments or examples, engineering students more frequently build on each other’s equations, often with the assistance of pen and paper.

    So, based on these snippets of authentic student dialogues, let’s return to the question posed at the beginning. Yes, all students can and do need to learn academic language to talk to each other and develop understanding, but the type of language depends on the discipline. Disciplinary differences can be seen in the way students build on each other’s ideas (eg long turns, short turns) as well as the words and phrases used. The evidence from our project shows this.

    We argue that learning to talk the language of higher education should not be considered a prerequisite but instead, should be an essential feature of the higher education curriculum embedded within disciplinary studies.

    Why is this important? Integrating academic language training into the curriculum can enhance students’ academic confidence, foster a stronger sense of belonging, and ultimately improve retention rates. In a post‐COVID world, where student engagement is waning, this conversation‐based approach may also help rebuild the social and collaborative fabric of university life.

    Moreover, the skills developed through such training are highly transferable beyond academia. Students acquire essential discussion and teamwork abilities that prove invaluable in their future careers. It is important to emphasise that developing these skills requires deliberate training; we must not assume that students will acquire them without practice and guidance.

    Although students may already use discipline‐specific language, targeted training helps them become accustomed to engaging in – and, more importantly, listening to – disagreement. These conversational practices become part of their repertoires, enabling them to generalize these skills across various contexts. As noted earlier, we must all learn to engage in constructive disagreement to counteract cancel culture. While the manner of such discourse may vary by discipline, developing these skills is essential for active participation in a healthy, thriving democracy.

    Estefania Gamarra Burga is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Surrey. Her research interests include educational dialogue, discourse analysis, gender, and spatial cognition in STEM and higher education.

    Marion Heron is Associate Professor of Educational Linguistics in the Surrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey. She supervises doctoral students on topics in the field of applied linguistics and higher education. She researches in the areas of language and education, with a particular interest in classroom discourse, genre and doctoral education.

    Lewis Baker is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences and a Chartered Science Teacher. His research interests include teaching pedagogy and science education, often within a foundation year context.

    Harriet Tenenbaum is Professor of Social and Developmental Psychology. Her research focuses on social justice in young people, everyday conversations, and teaching and learning across the lifespan.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Illinois Tech Establishes First U.S. Campus in India

    Illinois Tech Establishes First U.S. Campus in India

    On Wednesday, the Illinois Institute of Technology announced it had reached an agreement with India’s University Grants Commission to establish a branch campus in Mumbai, opening to students in fall 2026. It will be the first degree-granting U.S. institution on Indian soil and Illinois Tech’s first international branch campus.

    For decades, a complicated legal and tax system prevented U.S. institutions from opening campuses in India. Then, in 2020, the Indian government issued a new National Education Policy paving the way, officials promised, for a much easier pathway to fruitful academic partnerships.

    India is a major growth market for U.S. higher education; this year the country surpassed China for the first time as the top origin country for international students in the U.S. Establishing a beachhead in India could help institutions carve out a dominant space for themselves in the lucrative international recruitment market, especially since the vast majority of Indian international students come to the U.S. for postgraduate study.

    When the Indian government announced the NEP 2020 plan, officials envisioned the “top 100 universities in the world” setting up shop in the country. So far, that hasn’t happened.

    Illinois Tech is not a globally renowned university; it’s not even one of the better-known institutions in Chicago. Its undergraduate population numbers only around 3,000 students, and the postgraduate population isn’t much larger. So how did it get ahead of name-brand research universities that have been dipping their toes in the Indian market, like Johns Hopkins and Rice?

    Philip Altbach, professor emeritus at the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College and a longtime expert on academic internationalization, said American institutions have been hesitant even in recent years to invest in Indian branch campuses due to a mix of bureaucratic complications and uncertain financial returns.

    “There hasn’t exactly been a rush to the gates in India from American institutions, and I don’t think there’s going to be anytime soon,” Altbach said. “The challenges of doing business there are still pretty high, and that puts a lot of foreign universities off.”

    Illinois Tech president Raj Echambadi said his university is taking the long view. As the spending power of India’s burgeoning middle class grows along with demand for highly trained workers—especially in engineering and technology—he sees the Mumbai campus as an early investment in a partnership that will become central to American institutions’ global strategies in the years to come. His institution has already begun to see the importance of Indian students to their bottom line: The share of Indian master’s students has risen by nearly 75 percent over the past five years.

    “The potential upside is huge, which means if you get in early the ride is going to be phenomenal,” he said. “In the next 25 years, we’re going to be catching that elephant’s tail.”

    Illinois Tech had a head start on the competition: The institution has been active in the Indian education market since 1996, during a period of rapid technological innovation.

    When demand for skilled workers in exploding fields like communications technology skyrocketed in the mid-1990s, Illinois Tech offered an early version of distance learning, shipping VHS-tape lessons to engineers in Bangalore who wanted to earn credentials that the Indian higher education system had yet to develop.

    Now, Echambadi says, Illinois Tech is meeting new demands in a changing Indian economy; its Mumbai campus will offer 10 degree programs in growth fields like semiconductor engineering. It even has some built-in brand recognition: It’s known as IIT in Chicago, the same acronym as India’s main university system, the Indian Institutes of Technology.

    “India can’t build universities fast enough to meet the growing demand,” Echambadi said. “That’s where we come in.”

    Colleges Hang Back

    Many colleges that wanted to explore opening a campus in India simply may have struggled to navigate the complex application system, even after the NEP was issued. Rajika Bhandari, a longtime international education strategist and the founder of the South Asia International Education Network, said the 2020 NEP took years to translate into practice.

    “U.S. institutions have been trying to enter the Indian market for years, well before the NEP. But the Indian bureaucracy and strict regulations have always been a challenge,” she wrote in an email. “Even with the NEP, it has likely taken a while to implement aspects of the policy and actually get things going.”

    Having a 30-year presence in India, Echambadi said, helped ease the process. He added that it helped that both he and Mallik Sundharam—Illinois Tech’s vice president for enrollment management and student affairs, who led the Mumbai project—are of Indian origin; both attended college there before moving to the U.S. for their graduate degrees. They said their understanding of their home country’s byzantine bureaucracy helped them navigate the system quicker than their competition.

    Sundharam said there’s also a much more receptive attitude in India toward foreign universities and a simpler system. They applied to establish the Mumbai campus earlier this year, and the entire process, from submission to acceptance, took two months. More than 50 foreign institutions have applied to set up a campus in India this year.

    “The Indian government has come a long way,” he said.

    Altbach said U.S. colleges are more likely to establish joint degree programs with Indian universities than full branch campuses. Virginia Tech established the first of these in 2023, also in Mumbai. Other institutions, including Johns Hopkins and Purdue University, have stuck to research partnerships and exchanges. Rice, which was an early proponent of Indian-American higher ed collaboration, established a research center in Kanpur in early 2020, months before the new NEP was introduced. Altbach said he thinks branch campuses will remain the territory of “low- to midlevel research institutions” seeking to boost enrollment.

    But Bhandari, an Indian immigrant and a close observer of the country’s booming education market, said Illinois Tech may be on the vanguard of a new push in academic internationalization.

    As international enrollment in the U.S. staggers from President Trump’s policies to deport student visa holders and crack down on global academic partnerships, Bhandari said physical programs in growth countries like India will become increasingly important. There’s already evidence that Indian student mobility to the U.S. is on the decline: F-1 visa applications from India are down 34 percent from this time last year, according to a recent analysis by Chris Glass, a professor at Boston College’s Center for International Higher Education.

    “Other universities are operating under the assumption that international markets will stay the same, but they won’t,” Sundharam said. “Students may not want to be mobile in five to 10 years. They will want quality higher education at their doorstep.”

    Source link

  • Scholarship Thrives on Peripheral Vision (opinion)

    Scholarship Thrives on Peripheral Vision (opinion)

    The problem with scholarly focus is that it leads where you intend to go. And this is a problem because when you get there, you’re likely to find that your destination isn’t all that interesting. In practice, scholarship is not about effectively carrying out a plan but about exploring a terrain and developing the plan that is warranted by what you discover in that terrain.

    This issue with the act of scholarship in particular is really just an extension of what we know about the act of writing in general. Namely, writing is not the process of explaining the argument that is embedded in your outline but instead the process of finding out what that argument should be. If your paper follows your outline from beginning to end, it’s clear that you haven’t learned anything in the course of writing that paper. You found what you were looking for rather than what was actually out there waiting to be found.

    This reminds me of a question that my friend David Angus used to ask candidates for faculty positions at the University of Michigan College of Education: “Tell me about a time that your research forced you to give up an idea you really cared about.” If you discover something that upsets your thinking, that’s an indicator that you’re really learning something in the course of carrying out your study. This in turn suggests that the reader is likely to learn something from reading your paper on the subject, instead of just confirming a previous opinion.

    Scholars need an intellectual starting place for a piece of research—an established conceptual framework that provides us with a promising angle of approach into a complex intellectual problem space. But the danger is getting trapped within the confines of the conceptual framework in a manner that predetermines the conclusions we reach. Instead, we need to be open to the possibility that our favored framework needs to adapt to the demands of the data we encounter. Perhaps we need to add an additional perspective to this framework or adapt or even discard parts of the framework that don’t seem to be validated by the data at hand. After all, getting things wrong and then correcting them in light of evidence is at the heart of the discipline we call science.

    The need to open ourselves to perspectives that are beyond the scope of our established conceptual frameworks is what calls for us to deploy our peripheral vision. As I used to tell my students, the book you’re looking for may not be the one you need to read, which may be a few books down on the shelf. In this manner, scholarship becomes a process of continually evolving your conceptual framework over time, as each study nudges you in new directions. This is what can make academic pursuits so stimulating, as you bump into problems your current perspective can’t resolve and construct a new perspective that allows you to move forward in developing an argument. You can’t predict where you’re going to end up, but you’ll know that it’s going to be interesting—both for you and for your reader.

    David Labaree is a professor emeritus at Stanford Graduate School of Education. He blogs at davidlabaree.com and his recent books include Being a Scholar: Reflections on Doctoral Study, Scholarly Writing, and Academic Life (2023, Kindle Direct Publishing).

    Source link

  • Why First-Year Comp Classes Give Me Hope (opinion)

    Why First-Year Comp Classes Give Me Hope (opinion)

    First-year composition courses, which are required of incoming students at many colleges and universities, lack cachet. No student gets excited about a comp class, and the faculty who teach these classes usually occupy the low rungs on the academic ladder. And right now, as crisis after crisis batters the country, and the world, first-year composition may seem even less important than usual. But in my 30 years of college teaching, it’s first-year comp classes that give me hope, because they offer the possibility of change.

    These small, discussion-based classes give students much-needed practice in how to disagree without disrespect, and—if these classes were embedded more firmly into university curricula—they could radically reshape not only how students learn but how they participate in public life.

    My students often come into their comp class with a chip on their shoulder: Why should they have to “learn to write”? They got themselves into college, after all, and if they get stuck on a writing assignment, there’s always ChatGPT. First-year writing is a waste of time, they think; they’re in college to take “real” classes, courses that matter.

    I harbor a secret affection for these reluctant students, because I know that their resistance will melt when they discover the immensely practical importance of finding the right words for their ideas—and the accompanying sense of power that comes with being able to express themselves so that others understand them. Universities tell students that comp classes aren’t “content courses,” because writing courses aren’t discipline-specific. But then again, neither is the world we live in: Most of us live, work and think in multiple, overlapping contexts.

    For many students, the composition class is the first (and for some, the only) place in college where they experience a seminar-style class that emphasizes process as much as (or more than) product. The paradigm of a composition course involves a reset: It’s not about “the right answer”; it’s about prioritizing curiosity over certainty and about students discovering not only that they have a voice, but that they can use this voice to explore their world. In the 21st-century university, in which faculty are asked for their “course deliverables,” as if learning were an assembly-line widget, comp classes exemplify an alternative to the sludgy tide of university corporatization.

    Composition classes encourage questions, welcome mistakes and revisions, and value messiness and curiosity. During peer workshops, which are an integral part of these courses, I remind students that grades aren’t pie: Everyone can, conceivably, get an A in the course, so their workshop task is helping one another create more effective writing, not to tear each other’s drafts to shreds. Their success, in other words, does not depend on someone else’s failure.

    There are other disciplines where students work iteratively and collaboratively—computer science, for example. But in composition workshops, students learn to ask the kinds of questions that promote reflection and refinement. They’re quick to pick up on one another’s sweeping generalizations—“throughout history, men and women have always disagreed”—and explain why those sorts of generalizations aren’t effective.

    As they talk, they see how their own experiences might be radically different from those of the people reading their work, and they begin to understand how their experiences, consciously or not, have shaped how they see the world. In classroom conversations and workshops, they learn to disagree without rancor and to understand that how they chose to explain (or not explain) an idea has consequences for how they are understood. In a recent essay in The New York Times, Greg Weiner, president of Assumption University, writes that college campuses “are places where dissenting views deserve an elevated degree of respectful and scholarly engagement.” That’s a tall order for U.S. colleges these days, it seems, but it’s one of the underlying principles of composition classrooms.

    “How could I say this better?” is a question I hear writers ask, to which their readers reply, “What do you really want to say, and why?” Students ask one another to explain the evidence for their claims, to examine their assumptions and to think about alternative ways of presenting their ideas. Composition courses help people become more effective writers because they help people become better listeners: Students learn to disagree without dismissiveness or disrespect. And as they help one another, they see ways to improve their own work; it’s a feedback loop that helps them find critical distance, which is essential for revision. Quite literally, students have to re-see their ideas and consider the impact of those ideas on their audience.

    I remember when a male student from Shanghai read an essay written by a female student from the Persian Gulf about her struggles to be a dutiful daughter. “She totally read my mind,” the Shanghai student proclaimed. “Being a good son, trying to keep my parents happy—it’s exhausting!” His comment prompted a class discussion about the generational struggles they all shared, albeit across wildly divergent cultural experiences. Their differences prompted questions that led to connections; difference became an opportunity for exploration rather than a threat. Students were excited to write the essays that emerged from this conversation; they were invested in examining their own experiences in order to open those experiences to others.

    That’s what reading and writing can give us: moments of connection with other people’s lives, which then help us see ourselves in a new light. Connection and distance, empathy and self-reflection: These are the qualitative moves that students practice in composition class. These are the deliverables.

    These deliverables, however, don’t translate into status for composition teachers, who are typically not tenure-track or tenured; they are often called lecturers rather than professors, despite having a Ph.D. Most of us are what’s known as contingent faculty because we work on renewable contracts (sometimes semester to semester, sometimes in longer increments).

    To be a composition teacher, then, means working in the trenches of the university rather than its ivory towers. I’ve been teaching some version of first-year writing for more than 30 years, and while I might hope otherwise, I know that only one or two semesters of writing instruction isn’t enough to create lasting change, even though the most resistant students admit to feeling like more confident and competent writers by the end of the course.

    If universities had the courage to put composition at the center of their missions, however, they could create real change: What if students had expository writing classes every year for four years, regardless of their majors? Four years of slow, reflective, process-based writing about the world outside their specific subjects, with an emphasis on exploration and curiosity, rather than “the right answer”? What if the ability to reflect and reconsider, the twinned abilities at the heart of critical thinking, were the deliverables that mattered?

    Imagine those students bringing that training into the public sphere. People who are eager to ask questions and interrogate assumptions (including their own), people who think in terms of process rather than product: These are the basic tenets of almost any composition class and yet, increasingly, these attitudes seem almost radical. People trained in this way could re-shape public discourse so that it becomes conversation rather than a series of point-scoring contests.

    First-year comp is a content course. We just need to see that content as valuable.

    Deborah Lindsay Williams is a clinical professor in liberal studies at New York University. She is author of The Necessity of Young Adult Fiction (Oxford University Press, 2023) and co-editor of The Oxford History of the Novel in English: Volume 8: American Fiction Since 1940 (Oxford, 2024).

    Source link

  • Education Dept.’s Penn Demands Show Shift in Title IX

    Education Dept.’s Penn Demands Show Shift in Title IX

    The Department of Education’s demands that University of Pennsylvania “restore” swimming awards and honors that had been “misappropriated” to trans women athletes and apologize to the cisgender women who had lost to them offer a glimpse into how the second Trump administration could use Title IX to force certain changes at colleges, experts and attorneys say.

    The demands, issued April 28 in the form of a proposed resolution agreement, would resolve a civil rights investigation that found Penn violated Title IX by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.” The Office for Civil Rights didn’t offer specifics, but officials were likely referring to trans swimmer Lia Thomas, who competed on the university’s women’s team in the 2021–22 academic year.

    Today is the deadline for Penn to either agree to the proposed demands or potentially face consequences. Department officials said they would refer to the case to the Justice Department for possible enforcement—a process that could end with the university losing access to federal funding—if Penn didn’t comply. (Penn has already lost $175 million in federal funding over this issue, though White House officials said that decision was separate from the Office for Civil Rights inquiry.)

    Penn is among several colleges and K-12 schools, including San José State University, facing investigations over policies related to trans athletes, but Penn is the first college to be the target of such public demands. Experts say the speed of the investigation, OCR’s unusual demands and the fact that Penn was in compliance with Title IX at the time Thomas competed there reflect a shift toward a more aggressive use of Title IX to further President Donald Trump’s anti-trans agenda.

    The crazy part of all of this is they may be asking Penn to discriminate in doing so, because the Trump administration has its interpretation, but that’s not definitive.”

    —Brett Sokolow, former president of the Association of Title IX Administrators

    Opposing Interpretations

    The administration’s forceful attack on institutions that have been home to high-profile trans women athletes fits with its overall playbook, which includes using any tools at its disposal to advance Trump’s agenda.

    In the case of trans athletes’ participation in athletics, the weapon of choice is Title IX, the 52-year-old law passed to guarantee women equal opportunity to education, which has since been interpreted as a broad tool to address sex-based discrimination and harassment on campus.

    In recent years, though, the relationship between trans students’ rights and Title IX has become complicated. Those on the left argue that the nature of Title IX is to protect students from gender-based discrimination, and that includes discrimination against trans and nonbinary individuals. (Such protections were included in the Biden administration’s short-lived Title IX regulations.) But those on the right argue that allowing trans women to participate women’s sports and to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms violates the rights of their cisgender teammates—a perspective the Trump administration squarely aligns with.

    “The previous administration trampled the rights of American women and girls—and ignored the indignities to which they were subjected in bathrooms and locker rooms—to promote a radical transgender ideology,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement when the Penn investigation was first announced.

    For those in the former camp, Trump’s demands of Penn are just another example of the president using any means possible to erode trans people’s rights.

    “The news out of Penn, to me, was just another example of the way they are, unfortunately, using [Title IX] as a battering ram to beat down safe and inclusive school environments for trans students,” said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at Advocates for Youth, a youth sexual health and LGBTQ+ equality advocacy organization.

    Conservative organizations, though, have applauded the proposed resolution agreement, with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that has repeatedly sued to prevent trans women from playing on women’s sports teams and using women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, calling it “another step in the right direction to restore fairness and safety in women’s sports.”

    An Aggressive Tack

    Since taking office in January, Trump has rolled back trans students’ rights, including signing an executive order banning trans student athletes from playing on the teams that align with their gender. That order prompted the Penn investigation, but at the time that Thomas was competing, trans women who met certain requirements related to hormone therapy—as Thomas did—were permitted by the NCAA and governmental regulations to compete on women’s teams.

    The NCAA has since changed that rule. But despite the NCAA’s stance and the executive order, current Title IX regulations do not disallow trans women from playing women’s sports. In fact, the regulations are the exact same set of rules, passed by the first Trump administration in 2020, that were in place when Thomas swam for Penn. This raises the question, experts say, of whether Penn should be penalized under Title IX despite the fact that the institution was following those regulations to the best of its ability.

    “That’s the interesting challenge, and probably where Penn will hang its hat if it fights this: ‘There was an interpretation of Title IX in place at the time that Penn followed. And there’s an interpretation of Title IX that’s different now. How is it fair to impose today’s interpretation of Title IX on a previous time period?’” said Brett Sokolow, former president of the Association of Title IX Administrators and chair of the crisis management consulting and law firm TNG Consulting.

    This is just one element of the aggressive tack the Trump administration appears to be taking against institutions that allowed trans women to play women’s sports. Multiple experts also pointed out the quick, almost dizzying timeline of OCR’s investigation into Penn.

    Timeline of Penn Investigation

    Feb. 5: Trump signs executive order prohibiting trans athletes from playing on teams that match their gender identity.

    Feb. 6: Trump launches investigation into Penn. NCAA ends policy allowing trans athletes to play on teams that match their gender identity.

    March 19: Trump administration pauses $175 million in federal funds to Penn.

    April 28: OCR says Penn violated Title IX and must “restore” swimming honors given to trans women.

    Ordinarily, investigations can take years to conclude—something that has often been a pain point for victims’ rights advocates, who argue that those timelines can seriously impede victims’ ability to complete their studies.

    But OCR launched this investigation within a month of Trump entering office—and just two days after he signed the EO related to trans athletes—and resolved it less than three months later.

    It’s also unusual for OCR to target a specific student with a resolution agreement, Sokolow said; most such agreements are stripped of names and identifying details. Although Thomas is not named in the department’s press release, it does call out her sport, swimming, and there have been no other out trans athletes at Penn.

    “It’s very indicative of this administration—and concerning—that they’re targeting one person and demonizing them,” he said.

    Experts also say the demands marks a sharp contrast from how OCR has resolved such cases in the past. Levine said that the requirements in resolution agreements are meant to “meaningfully impact a culture of sex-based harassment,” but she feels that OCR’s demands wouldn’t do that—if such a culture even exists at Penn.

    Title IX ‘Pendulum Swing’

    If Penn fights the demands, the case could put the war between those who seek to protect trans athletes from discrimination and those who want to see them excised from their sports teams to the test. And until courts settle the question, students and institutions will be in limbo.

    “The crazy part of all of this is they may be asking Penn to discriminate in doing so, because the Trump administration has its interpretation, but that’s not definitive,” Sokolow said. “It does not have the force of law. If a court were to rule on this that Lia Thomas had rightfully won whatever competition the Trump administration is concerned about, any move to force to Penn to remove those victories could be discriminatory against a person who’s trans.”

    Lia Thomas, a swimmer at University of Pennsylvania, left, and Riley Gaines of the University of Kentucky tied for fifth place in the 200 freestyle at the NCAA swimming championships in March 2022.

    Icon Sportswire/Contributor/Getty Images

    Patricia Hamill, co-chair of the Title IX and campus discipline practice at Clark Hill, a Washington law firm, told Inside Higher Ed via email that the case “highlights the pendulum swing of Title IX in its enforcement and interpretation as well as in the government priorities over the last decade. Institutions are continuously being challenged on how to best to handle these very difficult situations on ground that continues to shift both because of Administration changes but also because of societal changes.”

    Penn had not publicly commented on the proposed resolution agreement as of Wednesday evening. When news broke that the government was suspending its federal funds, Penn officials stressed in a statement that its “athletic programs have always operated within the framework provided by the federal government, the NCAA and our conference.”

    Title IX experts expect that if the university does challenge the proposed agreement in court, it will focus on that very argument—that when Thomas was competing on Penn’s swim team, the university was, in fact, complying with NCAA rules and the department’s guidance.

    Source link

  • Beyond the AI Hype: Strategic AI Implementation in Higher Education

    Beyond the AI Hype: Strategic AI Implementation in Higher Education

    The buzz around AI in higher ed is undeniable. The topic dominated conference discussions at ASU + GSV, with nearly every booth, breakout, and keynote referencing AI somehow. When AI gets tossed around so often, it can be hard to differentiate between what’s real and what isn’t.  

    While the transformative promise of AI is exciting, successful AI implementation requires more than fast adoption. The more important question is: How can institutions move from ideas to impact? 

    The reality is that achieving meaningful results with AI requires more than just purchasing the latest tool. That’s often the easiest part, but it can also be a trap. Tool and tech procurement, absent a well-informed implementation strategy, can add to your technical debt. It’s critical to look beyond the buzzword and first define where you want your institution to be in the future. With your north star in place, you can determine how AI can play a role in a holistic solution. 

    Operationalizing AI for Real Impact 

    Many discussions around AI for higher ed focus on its evolving capabilities to generate content, automate tasks, engage and support students, and handle other critical functions. But what is the impact you’re looking to make, and how are you going to measure the return on investment? Those questions tend to be missing from higher ed’s ongoing AI conversation. Don’t implement tactics (or tools) until you know their role in your broader tech strategy. Too often, there is a heightened sense of urgency to implement and not enough focus on the complexities of weaving these tools into the intricate fabric of an institution. There is no easy button in AI. 

    Trying to catch the AI hype without having a strategic AI implementation plan is like buying state-of-the-art lab equipment before you’ve decided what type of science courses you are going to offer.  Effective integration involves significant change management, process design, and ongoing investment.  

    For example, many schools already use AI-powered agents to assist with student recruitment by answering prospects’ questions and suggesting next steps. These bots can scale engagement significantly — but to be effective, they require meticulous training, constant monitoring, and attentive human oversight to ensure the interaction is aligned with a school’s culture and values. As technology evolves, the operational model must adapt. Without constant care and feeding, AI tools can become outdated, provide incorrect information, or fail to align with the institution’s unique voice and mission. Remember, technology and tool outputs are only as good as the inputs.  

    And the investment isn’t just the initial software cost. The investment also includes ongoing commitment to deployment, integration, training, and ensuring the technology drives the desired outcomes. Many underestimate this operational heavy lifting in the rush to adopt AI, yet it’s the linchpin for success. 

    Start with Strategy, Not Just Software 

    A more effective, pragmatic approach to AI implementation in higher education begins by identifying the institution’s core challenges and strategic objectives. 

    Are you focused on reversing enrollment declines? Improving student retention rates? Enhancing support services? Increasing operational efficiency? By defining your goals and measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) from the outset, you’re in the best position to strategically evaluate how AI — alongside other data, technology, and talent resources — can contribute to a solution that supports the entire student lifecycle. 

    Without this clarity, institutions risk spending significant resources without achieving tangible returns. It’s about focusing efforts, perhaps starting with a contained, controllable area where impact can be carefully monitored and measured, rather than attempting to boil the ocean. 

    Leveraging AI Strategically 

    Currently, many institutions are grappling with important discussions around AI ethics, academic integrity, and preventing misuse by students to cheat. It’s important not to get stuck there. Students who want to circumvent rules will find a way. AI is simply the newest tool. Focusing excessively on policing AI use means missing the boat on its strategic potential. 

    The real opportunity lies in leveraging AI across the entire student lifecycle — from recruitment and enrollment to engagement, support, and retention. AI can personalize outreach, provide 24/7 advising support, identify at-risk students earlier, and automate administrative tasks, freeing up staff for higher-value interactions. It will almost certainly be part of effective solutions, but it shouldn’t be the only part. 

    The Indispensable Human Element  

    In the race to apply AI, we must not forget the crucial role of human intelligence (HI). AI tools, even sophisticated ones, require human oversight. They must train on the correct data and the institution’s values, mission, and unique persona.   

    Humans are essential for guiding AI, correcting its inevitable errors and ensuring its outputs align with institutional standards. Furthermore, education remains a fundamentally human endeavor. While AI can enhance efficiency and scale, it cannot replace true empathy, mentorship, and social-emotional connection, which are vital to student success and belonging. The most effective approach combines the power of AI with the irreplaceable value of human talent — a synergy Collegis champions through its focus on data, tech, and talent. 

    Moving Fast, But Moving Smart 

    The desire to rapidly adopt AI in higher ed is understandable. However, a rushed implementation without a clear strategy is likely to falter. Stepping back to define objectives, plan the integration, and establish metrics is the best way to accelerate the path to meaningful impact. 

    This more deliberate, strategic approach enables institutions to harness AI’s power effectively, ensuring it serves their unique mission and drives measurable results. It’s about moving beyond the hype and focusing on the pragmatic steps needed to make AI work for higher ed, creating sustainable value for the institution and the students it serves. The journey requires careful navigation, a focus on operational reality, and often, a partner who understands how to bridge the gap between potential and practice. 

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • College students — and those not enrolled — see the value in higher education

    College students — and those not enrolled — see the value in higher education

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Nearly all surveyed college students, 95%, viewed at least one type of degree or higher education credential as very or extremely valuable, according to research released Wednesday by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation. Among former students who had stopped out, 93% said the same.
    • The survey also found that students believed their future degrees would provide a good return on investment. Nearly nine out of 10 students, 86%, said they were confident or very confident that their degree or credential would help them make enough money to live comfortably.
    • These findings, released amid growing concerns about higher education’s ROI, suggest U.S. adults still see value in college and believe it will help them enter their desired careers.

    Dive Insight:

    Focus on the ROI of higher education has spiked along with concerns about college costs and student debt levels. Other recent surveys report student concerns about entering into a competitive job market and artificial intelligence diminishing the value of their degrees.

    However, Gallup and Lumina’s annual State of Higher Education report suggests students still have confidence in college. The report is one of the sector’s largest nationally representative surveys and offers a deep look into how U.S. adults without a higher ed credential view the sector.

    In October, researchers surveyed almost 14,000 people between the ages of 18 and 59 who had graduated from high school but had not earned a college degree. Of them, 6,000 students were enrolled in a postsecondary program, just under 5,000 had stopped out before earning an associate or bachelor’s degree, and about 3,000 had never enrolled in college.

    Across all three groups, 72% of respondents said a two- or four-year degree is just as important — or even more so — to career success today than it was two decades ago.

    “That so many adults without a degree or credential continue to value some form of education after high school likely relates to the influence they believe higher education, and particularly degrees, can have on career outcomes,” the report said.

    Among students pursuing bachelor’s degrees, 91% reported feeling confident or very confident their diplomas would teach them the skills needed to get their desired job. A strong majority of students in associate and certificate shared that confidence — 89% and 86%, respectively.

    The survey’s results also could bode well for colleges seeking to enroll nontraditional students. 

    Following 2025, the number of high school graduates is expected to begin dropping, according to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. This long-anticipated decline, dubbed the demographic cliff, has forced many colleges to reevaluate their enrollment pipeline and think beyond recruiting traditional-aged students.

    A third of respondents who have not attended college previously, 34%, said they were likely or very likely to pursue higher education in the next five years. That share was 57% among former students who had stopped out.

    The report also found that fewer students were weighing leaving college, either temporarily or permanently, before completing their program than in previous years.

    The share of students who considered stopping out has dropped from 41% in 2022 to 32% in 2024. But their potential reasons for leaving have remained largely unchanged, with students most frequently citing mental health and stress over the past few years.

    Among students who considered stopping out in recent months, 49% said it was due to emotional stress and 41% cited personal mental health reasons. Almost a quarter, 24%, pointed to the cost of college and a sense of not belonging.

    Source link

  • Universities Sue NSF Over Indirect Research Cost Policy

    Universities Sue NSF Over Indirect Research Cost Policy

    A coalition of universities and trade groups is suing the National Science Foundation over the independent federal agency’s plan to cap higher education institutions’ indirect research cost reimbursement rates at 15 percent. 

    In the lawsuit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the same day the NSF’s new policy went into effect, the coalition argued that a cut would risk the country’s standing “as a world leader in scientific discovery” and “the amount and scope of future research by universities will decline precipitously.”

    It warned that “vital scientific work will come to a halt, training will be stifled, and the pace of scientific discoveries will slow” and that “progress on national security objectives, such as maintaining strategic advantages in areas like AI and quantum computing, will falter.”

    Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and 13 universities, including Arizona State University, the University of Chicago and Princeton University.

    They attest that the NSF violated numerous aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, including bypassing Congress to unilaterally institute an “arbitrary and capricious” 15 percent rate cap and failing to explain why it’s only imposing the policy on universities.

    The NSF awarded $6.7 billion to some 621 universities in 2023.

    Indirect costs fund research expenses that support multiple grant-funded projects, including computer systems to analyze enormous volumes of data, building maintenance and waste-management systems. In 1965 Congress enacted regulations that allow each university to negotiate a bespoke reimbursement rate with the government that reflects institutional differences in geographic inflation, research types and other variable costs.

    Typical negotiated NSF indirect cost rates for universities range between 50 and 65 percent, according to the lawsuit.

    And while the Trump administration has claimed that indirect cost reimbursements enable wasteful spending by universities, the plaintiffs note that an existing cap on administrative costs means that universities already contribute their own funds to cover indirect costs, “thereby subsidizing the work funded by grants and cooperative agreements.” In the 2023 fiscal year, universities paid $6.8 billion in unrecovered indirect costs, the lawsuit read.

    The NSF is the third federal agency that has moved to cap indirect research costs since President Donald Trump took office in January; federal judges have already blocked similar plans from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.

    “NSF’s action is unlawful for most of the same reasons,” the lawsuit read, “and it is especially arbitrary because NSF has not even attempted to address many of the flaws the district courts found with NIH’s and DOE’s unlawful policies.”

    Source link

  • Campuswide Showcase Highlights Student Learning, Achievement 

    Campuswide Showcase Highlights Student Learning, Achievement 

    On Wednesday, April 30, the University at Albany’s campus buzzed with energy as students, faculty and staff bounced between poster fairs, musical performances, student presentations and other exhibitions. Showcase Day, a newer campus tradition, reserves one day in the spring term to celebrate various student achievements from the year, including dance performances, internship experiences and scientific research.

    In addition to boosting campus engagement, the initiative highlights the important work of the University at Albany and invites outside groups to partner with the institution, Provost Carol Kim said.

    The background: Kim was inspired to create Showcase Day after kick-starting a similar initiative at her previous institution, the University of Maine. After a few delays due to COVID-19, the University at Albany launched Showcase Day in 2023.

    “Post-COVID, our campus felt an ennui,” Kim said. National research shows decreased levels of student participation in campus activities, including faculty-led research, since 2020. “How do we energize or develop more engagement on campus, get people excited again? This event has made a huge difference.”

    Many colleges and universities host research symposia in the spring to honor and demonstrate student achievement throughout the academic year, typically in STEM courses or faculty-led research.

    UAlbany’s event, however, engages undergraduate and graduate students across colleges, exposing students to opportunities within their discipline and beyond, as well as in graduate studies. Around 37 percent of UAlbany students are first generation, and they may be unaware of the various avenues of experiential learning or research at the institution, Kim said.

    The initiative also breaks disciplinary silos, exposing individuals to different kinds of academic work in ways that build campus culture, Kim said. “It’s natural for many faculty, staff and students to stay in their college, in their departments, and many times they don’t know what their colleagues and peers are doing.”

    How it works: Showcase Day is a one-day event that unites various student presentations, including posters, artistic performances and demonstrations, under one umbrella.

    The day is integrated into the calendar as a no class academic day, which means that while classes are not canceled, professors typically assign students work related to Showcase Day. That could include a review of a theatrical demonstration or a summary of a poster presentation.

    One of the most important elements of establishing a campuswide symposium was getting buy-in from campus leadership and the University Senate, Kim said. The event requires the support of hundreds of volunteers, making outside support through sponsorships and community partners another essential element.

    Photos by Brian Busher/University at Albany

    This year, 2,200 students participated in the event, with over 1,300 unique presentations delivered to an audience of faculty, staff, prospective students, donors, legislators and industry leaders, as well as middle and high school students.

    Student projects ranged from research presentations on air quality and native plants to an orchestra performance and robotics demonstration. Many colleges assign an end-of-term project within courses or majors that lend themselves to a Showcase presentation, Kim said; others are student-prompted creations such as internship work experience reflections.

    Showcasing Student Success

    Other innovative approaches colleges and universities have taken to highlight student achievement include:

    • At the University of Dayton, an interdisciplinary partnership between graphic design and biology students produces high-quality research posters.
    • A centralized hub breaks barriers for students interested in experiential learning and research opportunities to identify open positions and engage at San Francisco State University.
    • A statewide research journal for undergraduate students in Florida provides greater opportunities for learners to share their research beyond institutional journals.
    • A research festival at Tennessee Tech University celebrates student work in English composition courses.

    What’s next: Since Showcase Day launched in 2023, hundreds of students have participated in the event. Student and staff feedback shows that the event has been a positive influence on campus culture, inspiring pride in the participants and the work being done at the institution, Kim said.

    “From facilities to student affairs and academic affairs, they’re very proud of their part in contributing to this showcase,” Kim said.

    In the future, university leaders would like to see more engagement with potential employers, embedding career development or engagement as a piece of the event. Kim also sees potential in extending the event to multiple days, allowing campus members to participate in a greater number of activities.

    Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link