Tag: Higher

Ex-NIH Director Says Trump Silenced Him, Others

A former director of the National Institutes of Health—who resigned in February—told CBS ’s 60 Minutes that working at the agency became “untenable” after President Donald Trump started his second term Jan. 20.

Like “every other scientist, I was not allowed to speak in any kind of scientific meeting or public setting,” Francis Collins, a geneticist who had worked for the biomedical research agency since the 1990s, said during an episode that aired Sunday. He believed staying at the agency wouldn’t have helped. “I would have been pretty much in the circumstance of not being able to speak about it.”

Over the past few months, the Trump administration has announced sweeping budget cuts and ideologically driven policy changes at numerous agencies across the federal government, including at the $47 billion NIH. The NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, sending about 80 percent of its budget to universities, medical colleges and other institutes in the form of extramural grants that support research on fatal diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.

But scientists and medical research advocates say the work of the NIH—and the millions of patients it supports—is in jeopardy.

In late January, the NIH temporarily froze spending and communication and halted most reviews of grant applications; so far in 2025 it’s awarded about $2.8 billion less than usual at this point over the past five years. It’s also announced a plan to cap indirect research cost rates, which universities say would create gaping budget holes and slow the pace of medical breakthroughs. (A federal judge has since blocked the guidance.)

The agency has also fired some 1,300 employees and terminated roughly $2 billion in grants—many focused on the health of women, LGBTQ+ people and racial minorities—that no longer effectuate “agency priorities.” (Researchers have since sued over the grant terminations). And earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that an internal White House budget proposal outlined plans to cut $20 billion from NIH’s annual budget and consolidate the NIH’s 27 institutes and centers into eight.

Although research advocates have protested the cuts, the drastic changes have created an environment of fear and anxiety for both university scientists and the remaining NIH employees who support them and conduct their own medical research.

“I’ve never seen the morale of an institution change so abruptly to where we feel fear,” said an NIH researcher who spoke to 60 Minutes on the condition of anonymity. “You can’t run an organization as complicated as NIH without a support system … That has now been decimated … This doesn’t feel like a strategic plan to make the NIH better and more efficient. It feels like a wrecking ball.”

Source link

April 29, 2025
Renewing the Social Contract for Higher Education

Higher education is at a crossroads.

Most Americans recognize that our nation’s colleges and universities contribute enormously to the nation’s economy and the welfare of its people. For over a century, the sector has been an essential driver of innovation, discovery, job creation and economic mobility.

There is unambiguous evidence linking postsecondary education to increased lifetime earnings, better health outcomes and greater participation in civic life. Higher education is not only a valuable commodity, it is an American treasure.

And yet, none of these arguments seem to gain purchase in the American imagination.

There are myriad reasons for this, many of which came along well before the administration put research universities in the crosshairs. The cost of college has been out of reach for many families for decades. Student debt has soared to excessive levels. Legacy acceptances advantage wealth and bloodlines, making a mockery of “merit-based” admissions. Most problematic, only 60 percent of students who start a degree actually complete one.

As a result, public confidence in the sector has dropped precipitously over the last decade.

So, what might be done?

If colleges and universities are to remain relevant in the 21st century, we need a renewed social contract between institutions of higher education and the American people, focused on student success. Put another way, student outcomes should be at the center of the way we understand an institution’s place in the landscape.

To these ends, the Carnegie Foundation and the American Council on Education last week announced the new Student Access and Earnings Classification, a unique approach to describing the contributions of postsecondary institutions nationwide.

Specifically, we will compare similar institutions across the nation, identifying whether they provide access to students in communities they serve, and whether those students go on to successful, wealth-generating careers in the regions in which they live and work. Importantly, the Student Access and Earnings Classification tracks both students who complete their degrees and those who do not, so institutions are accountable for all students, not just those who graduate.

We have identified 479 Opportunity Colleges and Universities nationwide, places that are engines of the American Dream. They come in all sizes and types, and they can be found in all four corners of the nation. They include institutions long recognized for their contributions to economic mobility—places like Arizona State University, Spelman College, Texas A&M and Xavier University. They also include institutions that receive little fanfare—places like Ball State in Indiana, Texas Southmost College, Utah Valley University, Wheeling University in West Virginia and Blackfeet Community College in Montana.

Looking forward, the Carnegie Classifications for Institutions of Higher Education—the nation’s gold standard for organizing the postsecondary sector—will determine institutional excellence not simply based on prestige, student selectivity or degrees awarded, but based on how well schools set their students up for success in the real world.

Whether you are a parent, student, policymaker or institution leader, Opportunity Colleges and Universities warrant recognition, understanding and investment. For if we establish more places like them in the years ahead, and ensure that the postsecondary sector is accountable for student success, we will create more opportunities for everyone. And that, we think, is something most Americans will rally behind.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

April 28, 2025
RFK Jr.’s Autism Misinformation Undermines Equity—and the Role of Higher Education

Dr. Yolanda WigginsRobert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent claims about rising autism rates directly contradict the findings of a rigorous, peer-reviewed study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While the CDC attributes the increase to better diagnostic tools and broader awareness—especially among historically underdiagnosed populations—Kennedy has revived a discredited suggestion that environmental factors, including vaccines, may be responsible.

This isn’t just political theater. It’s part of a broader and troubling pattern: a sustained attack on scientific research, the public institutions that produce it, and the higher education system that trains the researchers behind it.

As a sociology professor at a public university, I’ve watched with concern as public trust in science and expertise has eroded. The pandemic magnified these trends, but they have long been in motion—accelerated by social media, political polarization, and the growing popularity of conspiratorial thinking. The resurgence of autism misinformation is just the latest iteration.

The CDC’s study represents the best of public-facing science: it’s evidence-based, transparent, and focused on improving equity. The data show that more children—especially Black, Latino, and low-income children—are finally being diagnosed and receiving support. For decades, these children were overlooked in clinical research and excluded from early intervention programs. Their families often lacked access to diagnostic services, and cultural stigma around disability further compounded delays in recognition and care.

That makes this progress all the more important. It means health and education systems are becoming more responsive to the needs of diverse communities. It’s a win for public health, for special education, and for racial equity. But Kennedy’s remarks obscure that progress and instead imply institutional deceit, further corroding the already fragile relationship between the public and research institutions.

This moment should concern everyone in higher education. When research is publicly undermined by powerful voices, it isn’t just scientists or health experts who lose credibility—it’s the entire academic enterprise. Faculty working in controversial or misunderstood fields face online harassment. Public universities face funding cuts. Politicians introduce legislation to restrict what can be taught, who can be included, and which research is “acceptable.” These are not isolated attacks. They are part of a broader campaign to delegitimize the role of higher education in a democratic society.

We’ve seen it before. Climate science, gender studies, and even basic public health data have been politicized and distorted. In many cases, these attacks are racialized, aimed at scholars of color or those researching topics related to race, equity, and social justice. The goal is not simply to disagree with findings—it’s to sow public doubt about the legitimacy of the research process itself.

If higher education wants to defend its role in shaping public understanding and policy, we must do more than produce knowledge—we must also protect it. That means publicly pushing back when bad actors distort science. It means communicating our research clearly and accessibly, especially in communities where trust in institutions has historically been low. And it means preparing the next generation of students not only to be critical thinkers, but to be defenders of fact in an era that increasingly devalues it.

The consequences of not responding are far-reaching. When misinformation takes root, it influences public health decisions, erodes confidence in life-saving vaccines, and increases distrust in institutions we rely on during crises. The damage isn’t abstract—it’s measurable in declining vaccination rates, increased health disparities, and growing skepticism toward experts in medicine, climate science, and education. The ripple effects extend into classrooms, clinics, and communities, where the stakes are all too real.

It also threatens the progress being made in autism awareness and support, particularly in communities that have only recently gained access to diagnostic and therapeutic services. When Kennedy promotes falsehoods about the cause of autism, he doesn’t just mislead the public—he makes it harder for families to trust medical providers, harder for schools to advocate for neurodiverse students, and harder for researchers to do their work without facing backlash.

Kennedy’s remarks may seem like a fringe view to those of us working in higher ed. But their reach—and their harm—are real. If we remain silent, we risk allowing misinformation to fill the vacuum we leave behind. That vacuum won’t remain empty. It will be filled with falsehoods that, once embedded in public consciousness, are incredibly difficult to reverse.

This is a time for the academic community to speak clearly and often. We must show that science is not about dogma—it’s about rigor, peer review, and accountability. We must reaffirm that public universities serve not just students, but society. And we must reclaim our role in informing the public—not just in lecture halls and labs, but in newspapers, social media, and public discourse.

We can’t afford to treat this moment as politics as usual. It’s a test of our collective commitment to truth, equity, and the public good. The integrity of science—and the credibility of higher education—depends on it.

Dr. Yolanda Wiggins is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at San José State University.

Source link

April 28, 2025
Higher Education Inquirer : Maximus AidVantage

[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

Diminished Consumer Protections

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers’ union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

Source link

April 28, 2025
Beware Illusions of Campus Normalcy This Spring (opinion)

It’s nearing the end of the academic year at Harvard University, where I teach in the Graduate School of Education. Students are preparing for final exams and finishing up capstone projects. Awards ceremonies are being held and celebrations, formal and informal, have begun. The weather has finally warmed up in Cambridge, and the outdoor tables at restaurants and coffee shops are crowded. The women’s tennis team clinched the Ivy League title.

It all feels normal. Yet it all feels discordant, like a scene in a M. Night Shyamalan movie that infuses the quotidian with a barely detectable feeling of dread.

This discordance is of course especially powerful at Harvard, the current epicenter of a ferocious and lawless attack on higher education that might make Viktor Orbán blush. But it is not unique to Harvard. At colleges and universities across the country, classes continue, clubs meet and Frisbees are being tossed even as the government sows fear and confusion by revoking, then restoring, then warning that it might again revoke the visa statuses of more than 1,800 international students.

Lawyers continue to do what lawyers do, while large firms are essentially signing on to be instruments of the government, individuals are being targeted because the president of the United States holds a grudge, bigly, and court orders are being ignored.

Doctors continue to treat patients while billions of dollars of funding for medical research and experimental trials are being withheld and the secretary of Health and Human Services is declaring that autism is preventable and the measles vaccine is maybe, sort of OK.

We get in our cars or on our bicycles and go off to work while the government is pressing before the courts an argument that would allow it to send anyone, citizen or noncitizen, to a foreign prison without cause or legal recourse.

When many of us think about authoritarian takeovers, we imagine military coups and declarations of martial law. But the truth is that the most powerful tool of the aspiring authoritarian is not shock, but normalcy. How bad can things be if we can still shop at Costco or take our families out for Italian food? How bad can they be if we can still download Maya Angelou onto our Kindles or watch Jimmy Kimmel Live!? How bad can they be if I can still publish a piece like this one, critical of the federal government?

Look around not only at the campuses, but at the streets and bars and hardware stores in any city or town in America and it appears to be the same as it was last year and the year before. The NBA playoffs have begun and there’s a new film starring Michael B. Jordan. Normal.

Except it is not, in ways of which we are vaguely aware but unable or unwilling to fully credit.

For most people—the ones not scooped off the street by men in masks or ousted from their jobs with the federal government without cause or forced to stop their research because of the loss of National Institutes of Health funding—life feels more or less the way it did when we were a reasonably functional democracy. This is the way it works: Keep 99 percent of the lives of 99 percent of the people undisturbed for as long as possible so that they will remain unaware of or indifferent to what is happening at the margins. By the time they recognize that the edges of normalcy have drawn closer, it will be too late to do anything about it because the guardrails will have been destroyed.

Begin with the least sympathetic targets. Who will shed tears for the fate of Venezuelan gang members (real or imagined)? Does anyone really like Big Law? Government employees are the problem, not the solution. Harvard, with its giant endowment and Ivy League arrogance, is rarely anyone’s idea of an underdog. Why should we concern ourselves with any of this on the way to McDonald’s or Starbucks? I work at Harvard and most of the time I find it difficult to take seriously the reality that the federal government is trying to destroy a private university simply to prove that it can and because its appetite for both control and chaos appears to have no limits.

Be sure to cite rules and regulations that few people care to understand. What is 501(c)(3) status anyway? “Indirect costs” seem sort of like a scam. The “Alien Enemies Act” sounds like something pulled from the latest Marvel movie. Then cloak it all in the guise of causes to which it seems difficult to object—fighting antisemitism, because Donald Trump and the party of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the Proud Boys are the first things that come to mind when one thinks about protecting Jews. Or perhaps national security, given the threat to the republic posed by international students co-authoring op-eds for the campus newspaper.

Above all, lie. Constantly, relentlessly, shamelessly lie. Since most people don’t spend a majority of their time lying about a majority of things, they appear to find it difficult to recognize when other people do. It’s hard to question a time-tested strategy.

The fight against our current level of inertia is painfully difficult because the allure of the normal, the desire to believe that things are just fine, is so powerful. A tank in the street is hard to ignore. A steady eroding of legal and ethical norms just beyond the limits of our daily vision is easy to miss.

Our greatest hope might be the tendency of authoritarians and those without any moral compass to overreach. If they can change life by 1 percent without much resistance, why not five or 10 or 20? If they can, through executive actions, free hundreds of convicted felons and strip away environmental protections, why not impose arbitrary and irrational tariffs? What made the reaction to tariffs different and what has, at least for the moment, slowed their progress is the fact that they tore a hole in the illusion of normalcy. Plummeting retirement accounts and worries about the cost of groceries will disrupt the normal in a way that canceling student visas or defunding Harvard will not. It was a mistake, and they will, out of arrogance and stupidity, make more.

The set of demands sent to Harvard, for instance, which Harvard refused to comply with, resulting in headlines around the globe, was apparently sent in error. You could make that up, but no one would believe you.

Meanwhile, I wonder whether we can afford to wait. Is it sufficient to hope that they will make things abnormal enough for a large enough group of people to provoke resistance, or do we have to do the difficult work of wrenching ourselves, somehow, out of the reassuring comforts of familiar routines? David Brooks, hardly a radical, has called for a “comprehensive national civic uprising” to counter the war being waged on our national civic fabric. Do people, organizations and institutions in the United States, so certain for so long about the permanence of its democracy, even have the energy or the will? Can that happen here or is it something that happens in Seoul or Istanbul and is shown on CNN?

Meanwhile, I have laundry to do and a class to teach this week. Maybe I’ll catch something on Netflix. Pretty normal stuff.

Brian Rosenberg is president emeritus of Macalester College, a visiting professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education and author of Whatever It Is, I’m Against It: Resistance to Change in Higher Education (Harvard Education Press, 2023).

Source link

April 28, 2025
Colleges, Students Prefer Inclusive Access Models for Books

College affordability is one of the chief concerns of students, families, taxpayers and lawmakers in the U.S., and it extends beyond tuition prices.

Costly course materials can impede student access and success in the classroom. Over half of college students say the high price of course materials has pushed them to enroll in fewer classes or opt out of a specific course, according to a 2023 survey.

A new report from Tyton Partners, published today, finds that affordable-access programs that provide necessary materials can save students money and improve their outcomes. The report pulls data from surveys of students, administrators and faculty, as well as market research on the topic.

The background: Affordable-access programs, also called inclusive-access programs, bill students directly for their textbooks as part of their tuition and fees. Through negotiations among publishers, institutions and campus bookstores, students pay a below-market rate for their course materials, which are often digital.

This model ensures all students start the term with access to the required textbooks and course materials, allowing them to apply financial aid to textbook costs, which removes out-of-pocket expenses at the start of the term. A 2023 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found that over half of respondents have avoided buying or renting a book for class due to costs.

The first federal regulations for affordable-access programs were set in 2015 to help cap course material costs and spur utilization of inclusive access on campuses. In 2024, the Biden administration sought to redefine inclusive access by making models opt-in to provide students with greater autonomy, but the plan was ultimately paused. Most colleges have an opt-out model of affordable-access programs, requiring students to elect to be removed, according to Tyton’s report.

Critics of affordable-access programs argue that an across-the-board rate eliminates students’ ability to employ their own cost-saving methods, such as buying books secondhand or using open educational resources. Students often lose access to digital resources at the end of the term, limiting their ability to reuse or reference them.

Findings from Tyton Partners’ research point to the value of day-one course materials for student success, which can be provided through opt-out inclusive-access models.

The report: Affordable-access programs are tied to lower costs for participating students, according to the report. The average digital list price for course materials per class was $91, but the average price for course materials for students in an inclusive-access program was $58 per class. (A 2023 survey found the average student spent about $285 on course materials in the 2022–23 academic year, or roughly $33 per item.)

Opt-out affordable-access models have also placed downward pricing pressure on the market; the compound annual growth rate of course materials declined from 6.1 percent to 0.3 percent since the 2015 ED regulations.

A student survey by Tyton found that 61 percent of respondents favor affordable-access models compared to buying (13 percent), renting (11 percent) or borrowing (10 percent) course materials.

Another Angle

The Tyton Partners report identifies opt-out affordable access as one intervention that can ensure all students have access to course materials on day one, which is tied to better student outcomes.

Open educational resources, which are not mentioned in the report, are another method of ensuring students have access to digital course materials at the start of the term at no additional cost to the student.

Among students participating in inclusive access, 84 percent said they felt satisfied or neutral about their user experience, according to a survey by the National Association of College Stores. Students who had a positive view of inclusive access cited the convenience of not shopping for materials (80 percent), day-one access (78 percent) and knowing all their course materials are correct (71 percent) as the top benefits.

Among colleges that do offer inclusive access, those with opt-out models see higher student participation than those with opt-in models (96 percent versus 36 percent, respectively). Administrators report that some students, especially first-year and first-generation students, are less likely to engage in opt-in models and may then struggle because they lack the required materials, which researchers argue enables gaps to persist in student outcomes.

Researchers compared two community colleges and found that students who participated in an opt-out equitable-access program had higher course completion and lower withdrawal rates, compared to their peers who opted in. Learners from underrepresented minority backgrounds, including Black and multiracial students, saw greater gains as well.

While a majority of students indicated a preference for inclusive-access models, it’s still paramount that institutions help students fully understand the benefits of participation and offer them seamless opportunities to opt out, according to Tyton’s report.

After adopting inclusive access, institutions were likely to increase offerings and expand the number of courses within the model. A majority of surveyed faculty members (75 percent) said their institution should maintain or increase affordable-access model usage.

Report authors noted a higher administrative burden in an opt-in model, because costs are applied and resources given to each individual student who opts in, rather than simply removing students who opt out. “Since no technology currently automates the opt-in process, most institutions would need to expand their academic affairs, faculty affairs and information technology teams to handle the increased workload under opt-in models,” according to the report.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

Source link

April 28, 2025
Redefining Student Success in Higher Education
The old scorecard for student success in higher education was simple: graduate on time with good grades. But in 2025, that definition feels as outdated as a flip phone.

Today’s colleges and universities are wrestling with a more complex question: What does student success mean in an era where traditional 18-year-old first-year students are no longer the norm and when career paths look more like jungle gyms than ladders?

In the 2025 Effective Practices for Student Success, Retention, and Completion study, RNL asked student success and retention professionals to define student success in their own words.

Their answers reflect how profoundly higher education has evolved and tell a fascinating story about how institutions adapt their missions, metrics, and support systems to serve an increasingly diverse student population.

Gone are the one-size-fits-all definitions of decades past, replaced by nuanced frameworks that acknowledge the complexity of modern student journeys. All institutions, regardless of their type, flavor the conversation. Private institutions emphasize personal growth and character development. Public universities tend to speak the language of data and systems, focusing on measurable outcomes. Two-year institutions? They’re the ultimate pragmatists, defining success through real-world impact – whether landing a job or successfully transferring to a four-year program.

But here’s what’s interesting: beneath these surface differences, five core themes kept showing up:

The completion conversation has changed

Gone are the days when graduation rates were the only metric that mattered. Yes, completion still counts—but institutions are getting more nuanced about what that means.

A community college student who completes a certification and lands a better job might be just as successful as one who transfers to a four-year university. Private institutions look at how graduation connects to personal transformation, while the public tracks how different pathways to graduation affect long-term outcomes.

Consider these representative definitions:
- Private: “Student retention, graduation, and subsequent placement with a transformative experience.”
- Public: “Students who successfully persist through their progression points in a timely manner”
- Two-year: “Curriculum completion rates evaluated along three separate avenues: graduation rates, credit accumulation, and persistence”
Holistic development takes center stage

Universities finally acknowledge what employers have said for years: technical skills alone don’t cut it. Success increasingly means developing the whole person—emotional intelligence, adaptability, cultural competence, and even that buzzword-worthy quality: resilience.

Consider these representative definitions:
- Private: “Our university defines student success as thriving in various aspects of life, including engaged learning, academic determination, positive perspective, social connectedness, and diverse citizenship”
- Public: “Students being successful in all aspects of their well-being – academically, socially, emotionally, financially”
- Two-year: “Achievement of academic, personal, and professional goals by students”
Career outcomes matter more than ever

With student debt in the spotlight and ROI under scrutiny, institutions are paying closer attention to what happens after graduation. But it’s not just about salary data anymore. Schools look at career satisfaction, professional growth, and how well graduates adapt to changing industry demands.

Their definitions reflect this priority:
- Private: “Students complete their degree program and become gainfully employed in a field related to their degree”
- Public: “End up with a career path that is rewarding and supports the desired lifestyle of the student”
- Two-year: “Either secure employment and/or transfer to a four-year institution”
Student goals drive the definition

The most significant shift is recognizing that each student’s success looks different. A single parent completing their degree part-time while working full-time might have very different metrics for success than a traditional full-time student. Institutions are learning to flex their support systems accordingly.

As these institutions expressed:
- Private: “Student success is defined differently for each student and their identified goals”
- Public: “Student success is different for each student – for some, it may be passing a test or a course, and for others, it is completing their degree”
- Two-year: “That the student achieves their goals (i.e., transfer to 4-yr, enter the job market, expand skills)”
Reimagining support systems

The most thoughtful definitions of success in the world mean nothing without the infrastructure to support them. Schools are rethinking everything from academic advising to mental health services, creating more integrated and accessible support networks.

The most thoughtful success definitions emphasize the institution’s role in providing support:
- Private: “Giving students the support they need to achieve their goals while identifying and helping them overcome barriers to persistence”
- Public: “Creating environments and opportunities that contribute to retention while providing academic and social services”
- Two-year: “We define student success as helping students clarify, define, and reach their educational and career goals”
The road ahead

Measuring success becomes more complex when you are tracking personal growth alongside GPA. Resource allocation gets trickier when success means different things to different students.

But here’s the exciting part: this new way of thinking about success might help more students succeed. When we expand our definition of success, we create more paths to achievement. We acknowledge that the 22-year-old who graduates in four years with a 4.0 GPA isn’t the only success story worth telling.

The institutions that will thrive in this new landscape can balance accountability with flexibility and standardization with personalization. They are building systems that can adapt to changing student needs while delivering measurable results.

What this means for higher education’s future

The shift in defining student success reflects a broader evolution in higher education. We are moving away from a one-size-fits-all model toward something more dynamic and responsive. This isn’t just about keeping up with changing times – it’s about creating an educational system that serves today’s students.

For institutional leaders, the message is clear: your definition of student success shapes everything from strategic planning to daily operations. It’s worth taking the time to get it right.

For students and families, these changes mean more options, support, and responsibility to define what success means for them. And for society at large? We might finally be moving toward a higher education system that measures what truly matters—not just what’s easy to measure.
Source link
April 28, 2025
Higher Ed Wins a SEVIS Battle, Not the Visa War

International students, colleges and advocates caught a break Friday after weeks of confusion and disruptions. After thousands of students had learned their Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS) status was revoked, they were relieved to hear that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement was restoring students’ statuses nationwide.

“I was in class when the news broke, and there was a sense of relief,” said Chris. R Glass, a professor at Boston University’s Center for International Higher Education. “But it’s not the kind of relief that things are getting better, just that they’re not getting worse.”

The Trump administration’s reversal was a key win in dozens of lawsuits across the country that argued that eliminating thousands of students’ SEVIS records without notice was unconstitutional. But threats against international students still loom large, experts say. The most pressing question: will this happen again?

In its notice to a federal judge, the administration did not say that it was finished eliminating students’ SEVIS records, just that “ICE will not modify [a] record solely based on the NCIC [National Crime Information Center] finding that resulted in the recent SEVIS record termination,” according to the court filing. And ICE is working a policy framework for terminating SEVIS records.

Reactivating students’ records doesn’t erase questions about the genesis of “this unlawful policy,” said Miriam Feldblum, co-founder, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. “We need to understand why it happened and what is the policy structure.”

The Presidents’ Alliance filed a lawsuit Thursday night, challenging the SEVIS record terminations, arguing that students “were stripped of valid status without warning, individualized explanation, and an opportunity to respond,” and that the government’s actions harmed member institutions’ ability to attract, retain and serve international students. The Presidents’ Alliance asks the court to enjoin DHS from future terminations affecting students at member institutions.

“We are gratified to see this change of directions to restore records,” Feldblum said. “That does not erase the need for national, systemic litigation.”

The Trump administration’s decision to reinstate student visas also does not negate the legal grounds for cases to continue, said Elora Mukherjee, Director of the Columbia Law School Immigrant Rights Center. Federal courts have the power to enjoin the executive branch on an issue that’s capable of repetition to stop the harm from occurring in the future, which in this case would be another sweeping removal of students’ legal standings, she added.

The Presidents’ Alliance hopes to learn more about the administration’s intentions, policy structure and plans through its lawsuit, Feldblum said.

Advocates for international students emphasized that while students may have regained legal standing to study and work in the U.S., the change in their status can have greater effects on their immigration status.

The federal government said it would restore terminated SEVIS records, but some students had their visas revoked, said Fanta Aw, CEO and executive director of NAFSA, the association of international educators. Students will have to visit an embassy to receive their visa, facing long wait-times, and there’s no guarantee that they’ll be able to regain it.

For those who didn’t lose their visas, terminations can have serious implications for students’ continuity of time in the U.S., Aw said. The stated reason for SEVIS termination and notation in their records can similarly have negative long-term consequences, Feldblum said.

On campuses, administrators and students are still confused about what comes next, but there’s a clear feeling of relief, Feldblum and Aw said.

As of Friday, Inside Higher Ed identified over 1,840 students and recent graduates from more than 280 colleges and universities who have reported SEVIS record shifts.

Most institutions didn’t receive notification when students’ records changed initially, and they’re not getting notice when they’re reauthorized, Aw said. Just like with revocations, staff are checking SEVIS regularly to see if there’s been a status change.

A few colleges—including Harvard University, Rice University, Stanford University, Tufts University, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the University of California, Berkeley—reported that some of their impacted students have had visas or SEVIS statuses restored. Some students still have terminated records.

The slow restoration is possibly tied to the tedious nature of the work, Aw said, as federal workers have to manually restore each student’s status.

NAFSA is starting to track visa restorations and will report numbers on Monday, Aw said, including the number of restorations and institution type.

The Presidents’ Alliance will be in touch with member institutions to provide updated guidance on how to proceed, Feldblum said.

This reversal doesn’t eliminate the harm the policy caused, experts noted. Students who left the country based on communication from the Trump administration or their own colleges and universities will possibly face challenges returning. Others were told to stop attending class, working or conducting research. With restored SEVIS records, students will be able to resume those activities, but it doesn’t fix everything.

Over the past month, international students have experienced high levels of anxiety and stress and a lack of psychological safety, which can impact their personal well-being and retention in higher education.

“You can’t get that time back, that lack of sleep back, that anxiety back,” Aw said. “Trust is broken for students that this is a system that is fair and consistent and transparent. I don’t have to tell you how hard it is to rebuild that.”

Tonight, at least, some students can get a good night’s sleep, Aw said.

Source link

April 25, 2025
UC Berkeley Faces Foreign Gifts Investigation

The Education Department is investigating the University of California, Berkeley, regarding compliance with a federal law that requires colleges to disclose certain foreign gifts and contracts.

It’s the first such review launched since President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday aimed at increasing transparency over the “foreign influence at American universities.”

A notice of the investigation and corresponding records requests were sent to UC Berkeley on Friday morning after the department found that the university’s disclosures might be incomplete.

“There have been widespread media reports over the last several years of Berkeley’s very substantial—in the hundreds of millions of dollars—receipt of money from foreign governments, in this case, particularly China,” a senior Education Department official said on a press call Friday. But while the development of “important technologies” has been shared with foreign nations, the funding that made it possible “has not been reported to the department, as it’s required by law,” in Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, the official added.

Under Section 117, colleges and universities must report twice a year all grants and contracts with foreign entities that are worth more than $250,000. The department opened a similar review into Harvard last week.

UC Berkeley administrators will have 30 days to respond with the requested records. From there, the Department of Education’s general counsel, in partnership with the Departments of Justice and Treasury, will “verify the degree to which UC Berkeley is or is not compliant.” (Unlike with Harvard, the Department of Education did not disclose the specific records it had requested from Berkeley.)

“The Biden-Harris Administration turned a blind eye to colleges and universities’ legal obligations by deprioritizing oversight and allowing foreign gifts to pour onto American campuses,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a news release. “I have great confidence in my Office of General Counsel to investigate these matters fully.”

Trump and congressional Republicans have been trying to crack down on the enforcement of Section 117 since the first Trump administration. Already this year, House Republicans passed a bill, known as the DETERRENT Act, which would lower the general threshold required for reporting foreign donations from $250,000 to $50,000. Gifts from some countries, like China and Russia, would have to be reported no matter the value. The Senate has yet to move forward with the bill.

When asked how Trump’s executive order differentiates itself from the DETERRENT Act, the department official said the legislation would be “entirely consistent with the EO’s directives” and that the department is “very supportive” of congressional Republicans’ efforts.

“The EO basically just says, enforce the law vigorously, return to enforcement of the law, stop the nonsense and work with other agencies to do it,” the official explained. “So whether the reporting requirement is for $250,000 or more per year or the lower threshold, our approach will be the same.”

Inside Higher Ed asked the department if there would be more investigations but has not yet received a response.

Source link

April 25, 2025
ICE Reverses Course on SEVIS Terminations

Nearly 2,000 students have had their SEVIS records terminated in recent weeks. On Friday, some records began being restored.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | aapsky/iStock/Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Over the past three weeks, several thousand international students received notice that their status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System was changed, which threatened their legal ability to stay in the country and resulted in some students being detained or self-deporting. But as of late last night, the federal government is reversing course and reinstating students’ SEVIS records.

Elora Mukherjee, director of the Columbia Law School Immigrant Rights Center, first heard Thursday evening that 50 percent of affected students had had their SEVIS records reinstated. At the time, immigration lawyers didn’t know if it would be a blanket reversal.

But Friday morning, a lawyer for the government told a federal judge that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was restoring students’ SEVIS statuses nationwide while ICE develops a policy framework for record terminations. In the meantime, “ICE will not modify the record solely based on the NCIC [National Crime Information Center] finding that resulted in the recent SEVIS record termination,” according to the court filing.

So far, both students who filed lawsuits and those who didn’t have seen records restored, Mukherjee said.

Federal judges across the country have already ordered the government to restore some students’ records in SEVIS, a key database that tracks international students, after those students sued. The judges, for the most part, have expressed skepticism that the terminations were legal. Of the more than 100 lawsuits, judges have granted temporary restraining orders in at least 50 cases, Politico reported.

The sudden terminations have led to widespread confusion and fear for international students. Lawyers said in court filings and interviews that students affected are afraid to leave their homes or have lost out on income because of the terminations, among other consequences.

As of Friday morning, Inside Higher Ed has identified over 1,840 students and recent graduates from more than 280 colleges and universities who have reported SEVIS record shifts. Many institutions didn’t receive clear communication when student records were changed in the first place, making it likely that they won’t receive updates if and when records are restored.

Two colleges have already seen the changes take place. At the University of California, Berkeley, 23 students had their SEVIS statuses changed since April 4, but overnight a dozen students regained their status without warning or explanation, the university’s student paper, The Daily Californian, reported. Stanford University said late on April 24 that one student whose visa was revoked had their record restored.

This reversal doesn’t eliminate harm, Mukherjee noted. A few students elected to self-deport based on communication from the Trump administration or their own colleges and universities. Others were told to stop attending class or working. Among those who did continue their daily lives, a lapse in their SEVIS status could potentially cause them harm in the future, Mukherjee said.

In the policy update shared Friday, government officials provided more clarity about what prompted the sweeping visa revocations: a search in the National Crime Information Center.

Of students who had their SEVIS status changed, many were classified as “OTHER—Individual identified in criminal records check and/or has had their VISA revoked,” according to court filings. Students who did have criminal records were cited for a variety of reasons ranging from driving without a license and overfishing to underage drinking. Some students didn’t have a criminal record at all.

Source link

April 25, 2025