Tag: Higher

Trump’s Higher Education Crackdown: Culture War in a Cap and Gown

In a recent flurry of executive orders, former President Donald Trump has escalated his administration’s long-running war on American higher education, targeting college accreditation processes, foreign donations to universities, and elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia. Framed as a campaign for accountability and meritocracy, these actions are in reality part of a broader effort to weaponize public distrust, reinforce ideological purity tests, and strong-arm colleges into political obedience.

But even if Trump’s crusade were rooted in good faith—which it clearly is not—his chosen mechanism for “fixing” higher education, the accreditation system, is already deeply flawed. It’s not just that Trump is using a broken tool for political ends—it’s that the tool itself has long been part of the problem.

Accreditation: Already a Low Bar

Accreditation in U.S. higher education is often mistaken by the public as a sign of quality. In reality, it’s often a rubber stamp—granted by private agencies funded by the very schools they evaluate. “Yet in practice,” write economists David Deming and David Figlio, “accreditors—who are paid by the institutions themselves—appear to be ineffectual at best, much like the role of credit rating agencies during the recent financial crisis.”

As a watchdog of America’s subprime colleges and a monitor of the ongoing College Meltdown, the Higher Education Inquirer has long reported that institutional accreditation is no sign of academic quality. Worse, it is frequently used by subprime colleges as a veneer of legitimacy to mask predatory practices, inflated tuition, and low academic standards.

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the nation’s largest accreditor, monitors nearly a thousand institutions—ranging from prestigious schools like the University of Chicago and University of Michigan to for-profit, scandal-plagued operations such as Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, University of Phoenix, and Walden University. These subprime colleges receive billions annually in federal student aid—money that flows through an accreditation pipeline that’s barely regulated and heavily compromised.

On the three pillars of accreditation—compliance, quality assurance, and quality improvement—the Higher Learning Commission often fails spectacularly when it comes to subprime institutions. That’s not just a bug in the system; it’s the system working as designed.

Who Watches the Watchers?

Accreditors like the HLC receive dues from member institutions, giving them a vested interest in keeping their customers viable, no matter how exploitative their practices may be. Despite objections from the American Association of University Professors, the HLC has accredited for-profit colleges since 1977 and ethically questionable operations for nearly two decades.

As Mary A. Burgan, then General Secretary of the AAUP, put it bluntly in 2000:

“I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich…”

[Image: From CHEA: Higher Learning Commission dues for member colleges. Over the last 30 years, HLC has received millions of dollars from subprime schools like the University of Phoenix.]

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which oversees accreditors, acts more like a trade association than a watchdog. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education—the only federal entity with oversight responsibility—has done little to ensure quality or accountability. Under the Trump-DeVos regime, the Department actively dismantled what little regulatory framework existed, rolling back Obama-era protections that aimed to curb predatory schools and improve transparency.

In 2023, an internal investigation revealed that the Department of Education was failing to properly monitor accreditors—yet Trump’s solution is to hand even more power to this broken apparatus while demanding it serve political ends.

Harvard: Not a Victim, But a Gatekeeper of the Elite

While Trump’s attacks on Harvard are rooted in personal and political animus, it’s important not to portray the university as a defenseless bastion of the common good. Harvard is already deeply entrenched in elite power structures—economically, socially, and politically.

The university’s admissions policies have long favored legacy applicants, children of donors, and the ultra-wealthy. It has one of the largest endowments in the world—over $50 billion—yet its efforts to serve working-class and marginalized students remain modest in proportion to its vast resources.

Harvard has produced more Wall Street bankers, U.S. presidents, and Supreme Court justices than any other institution. Its graduates populate the upper echelons of the corporate, political, and media elite. In many ways, Harvard is the establishment Trump claims to rail against—even if his own policies often reinforce that very establishment.

Harvard is not leading a revolution in equity or access. Rather, it polishes the credentials of those already destined to lead, reinforcing a hierarchy that leaves most Americans—including working-class and first-generation students—on the outside looking in.

The Silence on Legacy Admissions

While Trump rails against elite universities in the name of “meritocracy,” there is a glaring omission in the conversation: the entrenched unfairness of legacy admissions. These policies—where applicants with familial ties to alumni receive preferential treatment—are among the most blatant violations of meritocratic ideals. Yet neither Trump’s executive orders nor the broader political discourse dare to address them.

Legacy admissions are a quiet but powerful engine of privilege, disproportionately benefiting white, wealthy students and preserving generational inequality. At institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, legacy applicants are admitted at significantly higher rates than the general pool, even when controlling for academic credentials. This practice rewards lineage over talent and undermines the very idea of equal opportunity that higher education claims to uphold.

Despite bipartisan rhetoric about fairness and access, few politicians—Democratic or Republican—have challenged the legitimacy of legacy preferences. It’s a testament to how deeply intertwined elite institutions are with the political and economic establishment. And it’s a reminder that the war on higher education is not about fixing inequalities—it’s about reshaping the system to serve different masters.

A Hypocritical Power Grab

Trump’s newfound concern with educational “results” is laced with hypocrisy. The former president’s own venture into higher education—Trump University—was a grift that ended in legal disgrace and financial restitution to defrauded students. Now, Trump is posing as the savior of academic merit, while promoting an ideologically-driven overhaul of the very system that allowed scams like his to thrive.

By focusing on elite universities, Trump exploits populist resentment while ignoring the real scandal: that billions in public funds are siphoned off by institutions with poor student outcomes and high loan default rates—many of them protected by the very accrediting agencies he now claims to reform.

Conclusion: Political Theater, Not Policy

Trump’s latest actions are not reforms—they’re retribution. His executive orders target symbolic elites, not systemic rot. They turn accreditation into a partisan tool while leaving the worst actors untouched—or even empowered.

Meanwhile, elite institutions like Harvard remain complicit in maintaining a class hierarchy that benefits the powerful, even as they protest their innocence in today’s political battles.

Real accountability in higher education would mean cracking down on predatory schools, reforming or replacing failed accreditors, and restoring rigorous federal oversight. But this administration isn’t interested in cleaning up the swamp—it’s repurposing the muck for its own ends.

The Higher Education Inquirer remains committed to pulling back the curtain on these abuses—no matter where they come from or how well they are disguised.

Source link

April 24, 2025
What do we do? Stand up fight back (AFT Higher Education)

Higher education under attack

President Donald Trump has declared war on America’s colleges and universities, demanding they bow to his demands on what they can teach and whom they can admit or hire. Trump’s illegal and autocratic actions are tantamount to a war on knowledge intended to make schools bend the knee to his ideology and chill free speech and academic pursuit. In her latest column, AFT President Randi Weingarten debunks the lie that Trump’s punitive behavior toward universities and students has anything to do with fighting antisemitism.

Science benefits everyone; cuts hurt us all

In early March the Trump administration froze $400 million in federal funding for scientific research at Columbia University, citing antisemitism and referencing pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The AFT has members at Columbia, but the implications are far broader as other institutions are also targeted. The AFT and the American Association of University Professors have filed a lawsuit to stop interference with academic freedom and research. This AFT Voices post features three professors who are affected by the funding cuts. “Trump’s administration has terminated and taken hostage our grants, igniting frictions around issues of free speech and discrimination,” writes one, though academic activism is giving her hope.

Celebrating new affiliates and contracts in higher ed

The AFT’s higher education affiliates have been generating a flurry of activity: This fast-growing sector of our union has two brand-new affiliates, at Ohio University and Nevada State University, and five affiliates that are celebrating groundbreaking contracts. In a landscape that includes relentless attacks on higher education funding and academic freedom, these gains are especially significant and show the importance and promise of union solidarity. Above, United Faculty of Illinois State University members show their strike authorization ballots, one step on their way to their new contract. Read more here.

Protesters say, ‘Hands Off!’ and ‘Kill the Cuts’

On April 5, hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets in more than 1,300 “Hands Off!” peaceful protests in cities across all 50 states. The message was clear and thunderous: Enough is enough. Protesters demanded an end to the escalating authoritarianism and attacks on everyday Americans led by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Then on April 8, thousands more—many of them associated with colleges and universities—stood up to say “Kill the Cuts” to education and scientific research. Turnout—including AFT members from coast to coast—signaled a growing, powerful movement ready to defend democracy, civil rights, public education and academic freedom. Above, unionists march in Los Angeles. Photo: AAUP.

Weingarten breaks it down: New tariffs create chaos

This month, President Donald Trump announced the highest and most wide-ranging tariffs—taxes on goods that Americans buy—since President Herbert Hoover’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which made the Great Depression worse. Trump’s tariffs apply to every one of our nation’s trading partners. And the chaos has come quickly: stock markets in freefall, business confidence at the lowest level since the 2008 financial crisis, respected economists warning that a recession is likely, and higher prices for Americans. What explains this seemingly self-destructive attack on our nation’s economy? Read this AFT Voices post by AFT President Randi Weingarten and Damon Silvers for understanding and a way forward.

Teacher prep program axed despite shortage

Just when the teacher shortage is at its worst, university programs that prepare new teachers to fill the gap have been shuttered by the Trump administration: In February, the Department of Education abruptly axed $600 million in Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grants established by Congress specifically to bolster the teacher workforce. Read this AFT Voices account from faculty members who are feeling the cuts and teachers experiencing staff shortages in their North Florida schools.

Source link

April 24, 2025
HELU Calls on Academic Workers to Stand Up (Higher Ed Labor United)

If institutions won’t stand up to the Trump administration, then it’s up to academic workers, students, communities, and citizens to stand up for them. Because we have the strongest levers of power over our local institutions.

While international students have become the first target on campuses, it’s important to remember that a portion of faculty (and in particular contingent faculty who are more precarious), administration, and campus service workers are also vulnerable to ICE. The consequences of these actions could have far-reaching effects. Due process of the law is not for specific groups. We all have it or no one has it.

This absolutely is an attempt to silence dissent in the country, especially on college campuses.

This absolutely is authoritarianism.

This absolutely is in line with the current attacks on higher education which were laid out in Project 2025. And in line with the crackdown on student protests before Trump took office.

And what’s worse is that many of our institutions are refusing to stand up for students.

Thankfully, unions are already responding.

We have to rise to this moment or higher education will never be the same.

Source link

April 24, 2025
Trump’s Latest Executive Orders Target Accreditation

President Donald Trump took aim at college accreditors in an executive order signed Wednesday that targets two accrediting agencies for investigation and suggests others could lose federal recognition altogether.

The order was one of seven issued Wednesday as Trump nears the end of his first 100 days. Others directed the Education Department to enforce the law requiring colleges to disclose some foreign gifts and contracts, aimed to support historically Black colleges and universities, and outlined several policy changes for K-12 schools. With the accreditation order and the others, Trump and White House officials argued they were refocusing the education system on meritocracy.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who was in the Oval Office for the signing, opened her follow-up statement by praising the accreditation order and saying it would “bring long-overdue change” and “create a competitive marketplace.”

“America’s higher education accreditation system is broken,” she wrote. “Instead of pushing schools to adopt a divisive DEI ideology, accreditors should be focused on helping schools improve graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market.”

Some of the immediate public reactions from higher ed groups criticized the accreditation order, describing it as yet another attempt to put more power in the hands of the president and threaten academic freedom.

The Council of Higher Education Accreditation said Trump’s directive would “affect the value and independence of accreditation,” while the American Association of University Professors said it would “remov[e] educational decision making from educators and reshap[e] higher education to fit an authoritarian political agenda.”

Overhauling Accreditation

Rumored for weeks, the accreditation order was perhaps the most anticipated one of those signed Wednesday, and it will likely have widespread ramifications as Trump seeks to scrutinize and reform the system.

Historically, accreditors have operated under the radar with little public attention, but in recent years conservatives have focused on the agencies and their role in holding colleges accountable. (The accreditors do hold a lot of power, because universities must be accredited by a federally recognized agency in order to access federal student aid.)

During his presidential campaign, Trump himself called accreditation reform his “secret weapon” and accused accreditors of failing “to ensure that schools are not ripping off students and taxpayers.”

The order calls for McMahon to suspend or terminate an accreditor’s federal recognition in order to hold it accountable if it violates federal civil rights law, according to a White House fact sheet. The executive order specifically says that requiring institutions “to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives” would be considered a violation of the law.

The order also singles out the American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools, and directs cabinet secretaries to investigate them. (The American Bar Association suspended DEI standards for its members in February, as did some other accreditors.)

Beyond that, McMahon is tasked to “realign accreditation with student-focused principles.” That could include recognizing new accreditors, prioritizing intellectual diversity among faculty and requiring “high-quality, high-value academic programs,” though the fact sheet doesn’t say how that would be measured.

White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the event that accreditors have relied on “woke ideology” instead of merit and performance to accredit universities. He didn’t provide evidence for his claims, but the fact sheet cites the national six-year undergraduate graduation rate, which is at 64 percent, as one example of how accreditors have “failed to ensure quality.”

“The basic idea is to force accreditation to be focused on the merit and the actual results that these universities are providing, as opposed to how woke these universities have gotten,” Scharf said.

The Trump administration also wants to streamline the process to recognize accreditors and for institutions to change agencies. Some states that have required their public colleges to change accreditors have claimed that the Biden administration made the process too cumbersome.

Scharf said the order charges the Education Department “to really look holistically at this accreditation mess and hopefully make it much better.”

Trump didn’t say much about the order or what actions he hopes to see McMahon take next.

Enforcement of Foreign Gifts

The president is not the first government official this year who has sought to limit foreign influence on American colleges and universities.

The House recently passed a bill, known as the DETERRENT ACT, which would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act to lower the threshold for what foreign gifts must be reported from $250,000 to $50,000. It also would require the disclosure of all gifts from countries of “concern,” like China and Russia, regardless of amount. The legislation advanced to the Senate in late March following a 241–169 vote.

Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the committee that introduced the bill, praised Trump’s action Wednesday, saying it “underscores” a Republican commitment to “promoting transparency.”

“Foreign entities, like the Chinese Communist Party, anonymously funnel billions of dollars into America’s higher education institutions—exploiting these ties to steal research, indoctrinate students, and transform our schools into beachheads in a new age of information warfare,” Walberg wrote in a statement shortly after Trump’s order was signed. “I am glad the Trump administration understands the grave importance of this threat, and I look forward to working with President Trump to protect our students and safeguard the integrity of America’s higher education system.”

Colleges’ compliance with Section 117 has been a key issue for Republicans over the years. House lawmakers repeatedly criticized the Biden administration’s efforts to enforce the law, but former education secretary Miguel Cardona defended his agency’s actions. They also tried to pass the DETERRENT Act last session, but it was blocked by Democrats in the Senate.

The executive order is broader than the DETERRENT Act and does little to distinguish itself aside from directing McMahon to work with the attorney general and heads of other departments where appropriate and to reverse or rescind any of Biden’s actions that “permit higher education institutions to maintain improper secrecy.”

More Support for HBCUs

Another order creates within the White House an initiative focused on historically Black colleges and universities and revokes a Biden executive order titled “White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”

During his first term, Trump moved an HBCU initiative at the Education Department to the White House as a largely symbolic gesture to show his support for Black colleges. That initiative continued under Joe Biden, though it was returned to the Education Department. Biden also created initiatives focused on Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges. Trump ended those newly created initiatives during his first week in office.

The executive order also established the President’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs at the Education Department, which appears to already exist. The panel last met in January, according to a Federal Register notice.

Scharf said the order would ensure that HBCUs are “able to do their job as effectively and as efficiently as possible.”

Source link

April 23, 2025
Police Raids Targeted Michigan Palestine Activists

The Graduate Employees’ Organization union says pro-Palestine activists were targeted.

Nicholas Klein/iStock/Getty Images

Police raided five homes connected to University of Michigan pro-Palestinian activists on Wednesday, according to the university’s graduate student union. A spokesperson for the state’s attorney general told Inside Higher Ed the investigation is into “multi-jurisdictional acts of vandalism” but didn’t provide many more details.

Danny Wimmer, press secretary for Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said the search warrants were part of an attorney general investigation “against multiple individuals in multiple jurisdictions including Ann Arbor, Canton and Ypsilanti.”

Wimmer said many agencies were involved Wednesday, including local, state and federal authorities, but he didn’t name specific ones and didn’t say whether personal items had been confiscated. He said the searches weren’t related to campus protest activity.

In a post on X, the attorney general’s office said the alleged vandalism was “against multiple homes, organizations, and businesses in multiple counties.”

Lavinia Dunagan, a Ph.D. student who is a co-chair of the union’s communications committee, said at least seven people were detained but none arrested. All are students, save for one employee of Michigan Medicine, she said. She declined to name them, saying she didn’t know all of their identities and citing safety concerns for those who were targeted.

Brian Taylor, a university spokesperson, deferred questions to the attorney general’s office.

Dunagan said those detained were taken into officers’ cars and not allowed to leave until they provided information and allowed cheek swabs. She said the FBI, Michigan State Police and local police were involved.

The union—the Graduate Employees’ Organization, or GEO—said in a news release that “officers detained and questioned two activists, including a member of GEO, and confiscated their electronic devices” in Ann Arbor, home of Michigan’s flagship campus. GEO also said four people were “detained and released” in Ypsilanti, and one home was “raided” in Canton.

“The officers also confiscated personal belongings from multiple residences and at least two cars,” GEO said, adding that “at this time, all activists are safe.”

Wimmer did say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement wasn’t involved, and that the attorney general’s office believes all subjects of the search warrants are U.S. citizens. The union also said in its release, “We are not aware of any visa holders being affected by these raids.”

The state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a news release that homes of “students and former students at the University of Michigan–Ann Arbor who were involved in pro-Palestinian activism were raided.” The organization said, “Property damage at residences took place, and individuals were handcuffed without charges during the aggressive raids.”

The organization said it had staff “on location at one of the raided residences” and it “continues to offer legal assistance to those impacted and is actively monitoring the situation for potential civil rights violations.”

Dunagan said, “We are just really concerned about potentially future repression of political activity.”

Source link

April 23, 2025
Six Strategies for Supporting the Non-Exempt Higher Ed Workforce

by Julie Burrell | April 23, 2025

Non-exempt staff make up more than a quarter of the higher ed workforce and provide frontline support to the campus community. They are the electricians, safety and security staff, custodians, office assistants, food service workers, and others who power higher ed’s day-to-day operations.

This vital workforce has also been shrinking. New research from CUPA-HR has shown a 9% decrease in the full-time non-exempt workforce since 2017, and an 8% decrease in the part-time non-exempt workforce during the same period.

It’s more important than ever to support your non-exempt employees by preventing burnout and bolstering work-life balance. Retention and recruitment must also remain a priority, with turnover rates for hourly non-exempt workers persistently high.

Here are six ideas for strengthening your employee value proposition for this key segment of the higher ed workforce.

Create Internal Career Pathways

Career growth is a key factor in employee satisfaction. Review your learning, development and promotion opportunities to ensure they provide pathways for all employees and are accessible to those who work outside of traditional office hours.

Upskilling non-exempt employees is also critical. Encourage managers and supervisors to identify who might step up to fill critical roles and who might need additional skills, certifications and competencies.

Don’t forget to include non-exempt employees in succession planning. Particular attention should be given to skilled craft staff, an area where the decreasing number of employees over the age of 55 might signal a potentially critical pipeline challenge.

Resource Spotlight: Hocus Pocus, Time to Focus: Innovative Career Development for Staff is an on-demand webinar detailing how the University of Tennessee Knoxville HR team built an innovative new career development unit. And learn how the University of Texas at Dallas’ BRIGHT leaders program uses a flexible model that encourages all employees to lead from where they are.

Prioritize Pay

Continue periodic pay equity reviews and work toward pay equity for all employees. Our research into the non-exempt workforce has found that women of all races/ethnicities continue to be paid less than White men who hold the same non-exempt staff positions.

Resource Spotlight: Reserve your spot in the upcoming CUPA-HR webinar Transitioning From a Broadband to a Market-Based Pay Structure to learn how University of Pittsburgh leaders replaced a 25-year-old classification system with a market-based job and compensation framework, including FLSA status adjustments. And learn about Maricopa Community College District’s strategic compensation plan in this two-part series on implementing a living wage strategy and establishing internal pay equity and market alignment.

Provide Flexibility When Possible

Many non-exempt staff need to be on campus to provide critical, in-person support to students and colleagues. But during the slower summer months, consider offering summer Fridays (either full or half-days off) and/or the option of longer shifts in exchange for fewer days per week worked.

For office employees, no-meetings Fridays set employees up for a successful Monday, ensuring they can wrap up their week and head into their weekend with less stress.

Last year, turnover was the highest among part-time hourly employees, at a rate of 25%. For this group, provide — and advertise — hours that support working parents and caregivers.

Tout Your Benefits

For both potential and current employees, benefits can be a key difference in recruitment and retention.

Do you offer competitive matching retirement contributions? Tuition benefits for employees and their families? Competitively priced health insurance? Prominently feature these benefits in your job recruitment materials. And partner with educational consultants from your retirement and insurance plans to make your current employees aware of their benefits.

Are outdated policies inadvertently causing turnover? Periodically review policies to increase benefits at no cost. For example, if your probationary period doesn’t allow sick leave, you may be losing recently onboarded staff.

Prevent Burnout

Because the non-exempt workforce is shrinking, it’s critical to avoid the overwork trap. Expecting non-exempt employees to do the work of multiple people can negatively impact job satisfaction.

What work might be discontinued or altered to adjust to less availability of staff? What work might be outsourced to help close the gap between staff availability and required work? Reductions in staffing should always be reviewed to determine what ongoing work is feasible and what work must be changed or eliminated.

Boost Culture

In addition to good benefits, culture is higher ed’s competitive advantage in the labor market.

Are both part-time and full-time non-exempt staff regularly being recognized for their work? Recognition is one of the lowest-cost retention tools that remains underused in higher ed overall. Examine how your HRIS and social media channels can be used to highlight consistently excellent employees.

Consider incorporating budget-friendly employee get-togethers into your campus routines, such as ice cream socials or pizza parties.

Resource Spotlight: Learn how to audit and boost your recognition program in Recalibrating Employee Recognition in Higher Education.

Explore more recommendations and the full data on the non-exempt workforce in CUPA-HR’s report, The Non-Exempt Higher Education Staff Workforce: Trends in Composition, Size, and Pay Equity.

Share This Article:

Source link

April 23, 2025
How to Ensure You’ll Never Be a Chair Again (opinion/humor)

“First rule of leadership: Everything is your fault.”

–from A Bug’s Life

Congratulations! You have been elected or appointed or duped into serving as department chair, the role that everyone says is the hardest job on campus. Maybe that’s what attracted you to the position—you enjoy working days, nights and weekends on thorny issues that rarely have anything to do with creativity, inspiration or intellectualism. Perhaps you dreamed of having a positive impact on mentoring young faculty or garnering more respect and resources for your department from the upper administration.

If you’ve spent more than a month on the job, your grandiose vision of being admired and maybe even beloved by the faculty, staff and students will have crashed on the jagged shores of “What have you done for me today?” reality. It’s time for Plan B. We provide a list of proven techniques to ensure you will never be asked to serve as chair again.

Tip #1: Spend the bulk of your time on strategic planning.

Strategic plans are the most important work you will do as chair; we all know these documents are constantly referred to. I have mine on laminated cards that I hand out to prospective donors and students and frequently read during coffee breaks.

When writing these documents, create “word salads”— the more pseudo-intellectual the better. Consistent sprinkling of terms like “revolutionary,” “intellectual” and “equity” will strengthen the document. Violate George Orwell’s writing rules by always using a long word where a short one will do and using jargon in place of everyday English equivalents (e.g., “With courageous attention to principles of equity and fairness, we will innovatively co-create a multi-trans-disciplinary minor that relentlessly centers student success while concurrently providing a revenue stream to be utilized for upgrading the office furniture.”)

Form subcommittees to do this work and make sure they meet over the summer—particularly if your faculty are on nine-month appointments. Task subcommittee members with creating these documents from scratch. Don’t spend time locating prior versions or drafting a potential plan as a starting point.

Tell the subcommittees you are happy to meet with them when they need your input. Then decline every invitation to do so. Having them guess what you want as a final product will create lively conversation and allow them to bond over your obtuse directions.

Tip #2: Run faculty meetings from hell.

Use faculty meetings as an opportunity to read out newsy updates that could easily have been emailed. Or, even better, email each of these items individually AND read them out loud in faculty meetings. Remember that your faculty are not busy with their own research, teaching and service.

When sensitive issues are on the agenda, make your position crystal clear and stress its superiority to any other strategy before calling for a vote. Then respond to questions from faculty according to how hard they’ve worked to curry favor with you. The faculty will soon learn that the meetings go much more smoothly without the distraction of other viewpoints or lively debate.

Lastly, have faculty vote publicly on these decisions by simply raising their hands. Pre-tenure faculty will feel just as comfortable as full professors in sharing their votes. Similar comfort levels will be felt by those of differing races/ethnicities, cultural backgrounds and genders. If you as chair feel that a decision is straightforward, so will they.

Tip #3: Avoid meeting with faculty to review their research trajectory.

An annual report from each faculty member will provide more than enough information, saving you time from meeting with each of your faculty members in person. Pre-tenure faculty who are heading off in multiple, diverse directions to obtain funding, or who are giving up on grants after a first rejection, should face the consequences they deserve. We’ve all suffered through that time period, and so should they.

In that spirit, avoid arranging for and supporting mentoring teams for new faculty. Or, if you have already assigned a new faculty member their mentor, assume that the pair is meeting regularly. New faculty will always feel comfortable reaching out to their busy, senior mentors whenever they have questions.

Tip #4: Be an expert in everything.

Departments are complex organizations and chairing them involves overseeing a swarm of areas including finances/budget, human resources, curriculum, teaching assignments, graduate student issues, computing support, etc. Wear as many hats as possible and be the expert on all of these topics. Do not delegate to staff, graduate program directors or associate chairs who may have expertise in these areas.

Tip #5: Assign faculty as much service as possible.

Faculty members are always trying to get away with less work—therefore, make a one-size-fits-all rule for assigning service and stick with it. In this spirit, confuse “equity” with “equality” and cut off any reference to diversity, equity and inclusion as social justice with the phrase, “you know, DEIJ, yadda yadda yadda.”

Don’t count mentoring other faculty as service. In fact, don’t count any useful, impactful or innovative service if it happened outside one of your official committees. If it really was a clever idea, you would have already thought of it.

When faculty ask for a break from a busy committee to focus on a major grant proposal or to develop a new course, remind them that when you were a faculty member, you were able to do both tasks while also serving as the business officer, graduate program director and teaching daily yoga classes for emeritus faculty.

Tip #6: Be the dean’s messenger.

You, as chair, are essentially the mouthpiece of the dean and the upper administration. Therefore, focus the bulk of your time on top-down initiatives. Do not canvass your faculty to see what they need for their own growth and success. And, if you instead take the rash step of creating a department-driven plan, be sure to enlist the dean’s advice on every step you take. Take care to assign the bulk of planning work to unproductive faculty who have taught the same course in the same way for 15 years and last received a major research grant before the year 2000.

Lastly, encourage faculty to get to know the dean and other members of the upper administration. Then savagely punish them for any communication that does not go directly through you.

Tip #7: Be an intrepid decision maker.

When a decision from the chair is called for, don’t solicit thoughts from your faculty first. It looks stronger if you make your decision in isolation. Similarly, when faculty members ask you for things, say “no” to every request to show that you are strong and decisive. Or, say “yes” to the random “hallway ask” instead of considering that, if one faculty member has a need, so may another.

Frequently remind your faculty that you are “data-driven” and demand that any request, no matter how minuscule, come with several pages of rationale that delineates costs to the penny, identifies exact sources of each dollar, and includes a comprehensive, multi-method analysis of return on investment. Then make a decision based on whether you are in a good or bad mood and whether the faculty request comes from one of your “favorites.”

Tip #8: Respond immediately to student complaints about faculty.

When you receive a complaint about a faculty member from a student, take action against that faculty member immediately. Remember that students are totally objective; there cannot be another side to the story. Let the associate dean handle things with the faculty member directly—or even better, the dean. Disregard the department bylaws that the faculty worked so hard to develop. Decisive action is better than adhering to agreed-upon guidelines. Don’t fulfill your role as the faculty member’s primary supervisor, certainly not one who has their best interests at heart.

Tip #9: Let everyone know how busy and important you are.

Say things like, “I remember when I was just a faculty member; it was so much easier than being chair.” Or, even better, “The previous chair did it wrong; back at my old school, we did it better.”

Always refer to the dean, provost and the president by their first names. Then, if the faculty do the same, tell them they are being disrespectful.

Tip #10: Have no life and put your research on hold.

It’s crazy to think that you can keep your own lab going. Instead, spend the bulk of your time responding to emails. You’ll feel proud of your alacrity in immediately responding to the latest requests from the upper administration. Don’t carve out dedicated “meet with the chair coffee hours,” nor dedicated time to progress in your own work. You’ll easily pick up where you left off with your own research after your chair-hood!

Finally, and most importantly, although you will never again be asked to serve as chair, you will be eminently qualified to be a dean. Prepare yourself now to be aggressively headhunted for open positions!

Disclaimer: Any resemblance to specific chairs, present or past, is purely coincidental. No chairs were harmed in the making of this product.

Lisa Chasan-Taber, Sc.D., is a professor and former chair of the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Barry Braun, Ph.D., is a professor and head of the Department of Health and Exercise Science at Colorado State University.

Source link

April 23, 2025
U Rochester Ph.D. Students Strike for a Non-NLRB Election

University of Rochester Ph.D. student workers began striking this week to pressure the institution to agree to what they call a “fair union election.” And for the process to be fair, they say, it can’t be handled by the Trump-era National Labor Relations Board.

“We don’t see any kind of path through the NLRB at present,” said George Elkind, a Ph.D. student on the proposed UR Graduate Labor Union’s organizing committee.

The strike began Monday and continued Tuesday. Elkind said it’s unclear how many of the more than 1,400 students who would likely be represented by the union are withholding their labor. The walkout is another example of labor agitation continuing into the Trump era.

Roughly a year ago, university officials and the union organizers began discussing plans for a private election, which both parties were amenable to. If they had reached an agreement, the NLRB—which usually handles unionization votes at private nonprofit institutions such as UR—wouldn’t have been involved.

However, in February, after Donald Trump retook the presidency and fired a Democratic NLRB member and the agency’s general counsel, a university lawyer told student organizers that UR no longer wanted a private election, according to a document union members provided Inside Higher Ed. Instead, the lawyer wrote that they could pursue an election with the Trump-era NLRB.

Scott Phillipson, president of SEIU 200United, a multi-university union that’s helping to organize the students, said UR officials “simply do not want these employees to have a union. That is what is going on here.”

Phillipson said university officials were being disingenuous in suggesting the students use the NLRB.

“They know it’s not an option,” he said. “But it’s a better public messaging, frankly, than ‘Just go away.’”

An NLRB spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed Tuesday that the agency’s “regional offices are functioning as normal” and can run elections. But any appeals of election results would go to the actual board for which the agency is named. And since Trump ousted the Democratic board member, Gwynne Wilcox, and has left previous vacancies unfilled, the panel now doesn’t have the minimum required number of members to make decisions.

If Trump eventually does appoint his own members to the board, allowing it to operate again, some union supporters worry the NLRB might use a grad student unionization case such as Rochester’s to overturn the 2016 Columbia University case precedent establishing that private nonprofit university grad workers can unionize through the NLRB.

Student workers could continue to unionize at public universities in the states that allow such action, but those at private institutions would be left with no other path than to seek voluntary recognition from their universities.

Elkind said UR officials know that the NLRB “is defunct—and would be hostile if it weren’t.” He said they want grad workers to go to the NLRB and risk a ruling decertifying grad unions at private universities nationwide. He called this “an extreme anti-labor position.”

‘Unprecedented Times’

In an email, William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, said the strike “to compel the university to agree to a non-NLRB election is a sign of these unprecedented times.

“There is a growing distrust and frustration among unions and their members with NLRB procedures and remedies, both of which are also under constitutional attacks by employers like SpaceX, Amazon, and the University of Southern California,” said Herbert, whose center is at Hunter College. “The firing of NLRB Board member Gwynne Wilcox and the reported removal of sensitive labor data from the NLRB by Department of Government Efficiency [DOGE] staff has further undermined confidence in the agency.”

The university, which didn’t provide an interview Tuesday, hasn’t said it abandoned the move toward a private election because it thinks grad workers would lose in front of the Trump-era NLRB. UR has cited other reasons, including a December court decision involving Vanderbilt University grad workers’ attempt to unionize.

NLRB policy required Vanderbilt to reveal names, job classifications and other information about student workers whom the union might represent. But more than 100 students objected to sharing that, and Vanderbilt sued the NLRB and one of its regional directors, arguing that requiring students to turn over the information would violate their privacy under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ruled that Vanderbilt was likely right and granted a preliminary injunction blocking the NLRB requirements. A UR lawyer wrote that this made the university concerned about being “seen as facilitating the dissemination of potentially protected student data to a third party” if it went forward with the private election.

But the lawyer went beyond the Vanderbilt case, saying that not requiring a prospective union to go through the NLRB would be a “significant deviation from the university’s typical practice.” He also noted the recent “sweeping and still unclear changes in the federal government’s support for the university’s missions,” adding that the Trump administration’s upheaval “includes a likely reduction in federal funding.”

In an emailed statement Tuesday, a university spokesperson said “contingency plans are in place to ensure minimal disruption to our academic mission— including teaching and research activities—during a strike. In the event of prolonged strike activity, University officials are confident that the academic enterprise will continue as normal without interruption.”

The spokesperson said “we are steadfast in the belief that entering into a private election agreement at this time is not in the best interests of the University community.”

Source link

April 23, 2025
The Higher Ed CMO’s Commercial Case for Creativity
Legendary ad person Bill Bernbach once said, “If your advertising goes unnoticed, everything else is academic.” It’s not an understatement to say that managing higher ed brands has become increasingly complex. Marketers are forced to compete in a category that’s in flux—within a culture that questions its value—and improve effectiveness across marketing channels that have not only changed the way we consume content but also caused exponential growth in choice.

Creativity continues to drive commercial value, however, investing in the intangible up front—with both time and resourcing—can prove to be difficult when budgets remain static. And yet, we know that:
- We are exposed to upwards of 4,000 marketing messages a day.
- Our audience reports that our marketing efforts look the same and that most entertainment and consumer brands produce content that lacks imagination.
Without an investment in creativity—the vehicle for our big brand ideas—we risk our message getting lost, splintered and, worst case, ignored.

For those managing higher education brands in our current media environment, the words of Paul Feldwick have never been more true: “If there is a choice to be made between efficiency and thinking big, you cannot afford to be efficient if you want to be famous.” And there’s quite a case building across a decade or so of data that shows just how an investment in creativity is an investment in the bottom line. Here are four that are applicable to higher education.

Outside of brand size, creativity is the most important lever in profitability.

Just as in the case of network theory, the rich get big. That also tends to play out among brands. However, creative quality can be an equalizer of sorts. According to Data2Decisions, the creative execution of your messages is the second most impactful driver of profitability after market/brand size. And while brand size has the greatest overall impact, creative quality remains the most powerful lever marketers can actively control.

Ads that are perceived to be different are more likely to drive business outcomes.

Research from Kantar’s Link database, as well as research from academia, indicates that ads that are perceived as different or unique are more likely to drive positive business outcomes. Per the database, the top one-third of ads that “make the brand seem really different” achieved a 90 percent lift in likelihood to drive short-term sales versus the bottom third.

Emotion unlocks the key output that drives business outcomes.

Starting with the IPA’s “The Link Between Creativity and Effectiveness” and subsequent industry research, there’s not only a through line between creative award-winning campaigns driving market share growth (11x) and top-box profit but intermediate metrics, such as word-of-mouth/social shares, and outputs, such as ad recall.

The largest contributor to lift from advertising is the creative.

Nielsen’s exploration of more than 500 Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) brands showed that the most important component of a campaign (targeting, reach, brand, context, frequency and creative) was strong or quality creative. Similar patterns were found in the work done by the World Advertising Research Center and Kantar.

If brand is the most valuable business tool and if we argue that brand exists in the minds of the consumer, or our favorite saying in higher education, “a brand is what your audience says when you aren’t in the room,” then it’s time to treat it as a commercial asset and invest accordingly. Whether it’s through internal resourcing or giving partners the time and space to commit to breakthrough ideas, a commitment to creativity isn’t just brave anymore—it’s related to the bottom line.

Christopher Huebner is a director of strategy at SimpsonScarborough.
Source link
April 23, 2025
Texas State Helps Students Bounce Back From 2.0 GPA

As more colleges and universities consider initiatives, processes and policies to create a more student-focused campus, they are zeroing in on two areas of concern: academic probation and academic recovery.

A growing body of research highlights the way negative life experiences and competing priorities impact students’ academic achievement, sometimes exerting a stronger influence than prior academic preparation.

Texas State University has established a new initiative, Bobcats Bounce Back, to help students whose grades have fallen below a 2.0 learn self-efficacy, resiliency and strong study skills.

The background: The university has a goal of increasing its first-year retention rate from 77 percent in 2012 to 85 percent by 2025, said Cynthia Hernandez, vice president for student success. Early on, officials recognized that the institution lacked a strong academic recovery program, so Hernandez and her team prioritized devising a proactive solution to reduce the number of students who fell into poor academic standing.

Since 2009, the university’s policy has been that students who fall below a 2.0 cumulative GPA must meet with an academic adviser at least once a semester. The intervention has proven mostly successful, in that some students have moved back into good academic standing—though not everyone has, said Jason O’Brien, assistant director for academic engagement at Texas State.

An analysis of institutional data revealed that students who improved their academic trajectory used support services at least once a month, or four times per term.

“If students are [showing up], I know they’ve got the time and they’ve got a goal, they know what they’re working on,” O’Brien said. The challenge is getting each student to be proactive and engage early, not wait until the end of the semester, before finals.

Using institutional data, Texas State leaders revamped academic probation requirements to encourage students to make at least four connections with support services each semester; those who don’t, receive personalized outreach.

How it works: In the Bobcats Bounce Back program, students with a 2.0 GPA or lower are asked to participate in at least four support services, which could include success coaching, tutoring or a student success webinar. Students must meet with an academic adviser for at least one of their mandatory check-ins and they receive weekly communication from the office of academic engagement to encourage them to meet their goals.

A few weeks into the term, O’Brien’s team runs a report that identifies students on academic probation who have yet to engage with a support office. Students who live off-campus receive communication from the academic engagement team and those in the residence halls receive outreach from their residence life director.

“We’re not asking, ‘How are your classes going?’” O’Brien said. “We’re saying, ‘How are you doing? What’s going on in [your] life right now? Do you feel safe? Are you able to eat? Do you have any needs that aren’t met? Is your family OK?’ We’re trying to make sure that all of those basic needs, all that it takes to be a successful human is on track, and then from there we move on to, ‘OK, talk to me about classes.’”

The aim is to be human-centered and conversational in order to learn from the student and bridge any gaps in services and resources the university can provide to promote student success.

Sometimes this means helping students understand ways to correct their academic transcript, such as repeating a course or asking for an administrative withdrawal when relevant.

“We make a lot of asset-based assumptions,” O’Brien said. “My assumption is that no student is choosing to fail a course; they are choosing to be successful in something else out of necessity,’” which could include prioritizing their health, caring for a family member or working extra hours to make ends meet. “What we want to do is find out about those early enough to prevent it from impacting a transcript.”

The impact: During the inaugural program term in fall 2024, Bobcats Bounce Back supported 1,706 undergraduates; this term it is assisting 2,579 students. (Most academic recovery programs see higher rates of participation in the spring term because first-year students are most likely to face academic challenges in their first term, which can dramatically impact their GPA, O’Brien said).

During fall 2024, Bobcats Bounce Back participants engaged, on average, with support resources 3.11 times, up 270 percent compared to students on academic probation in 2023 (who averaged .84 engagements). The university also saw a 3 percent increase in the number of students who regained good academic standing from fall 2023 to fall 2024, and a 7 percent decrease in academic suspensions.

At the 12-week mark in spring 2025, average engagements among students on academic probation were up 74.8 percent, from 1.31 to 2.29.

The data illustrates the program’s success so far, and O’Brien believes it’s due in part to their responsiveness to student needs. As the program has grown, more students are willing to seek out the office and engage. “They’re starting to have faith in us and ask for the support they need,” O’Brien said.

Program participants also have an opportunity to submit a guided reflection, called a B3 Field Note, every four weeks to build their socioemotional skills. Each prompt is rooted in research-backed strategies to improve academic self-efficacy and engagement. O’Brien has been amazed at the thoughtful responses he’s seen thus far and plans to conduct a critical discourse analysis project to identify students who may need additional support based on their field note submissions.

In the future, college leaders hope to target additional students who may be at-risk, but haven’t quite fallen below the 2.0 cumulative GPA threshold, a group Hernandez called the “murky middle.”

If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

This article has been updated to clarify average engagement rates for program participants in fall 2024 and how that growth compared to the previous fall.

Source link

April 23, 2025