Tag: Higher

Two Killed and Seven, Including Suspect, Injured in FSU Shooting

One suspect has been taken into custody after a shooting that left two victims dead and six injured at Florida State University’s student union on Thursday, law enforcement officials said in a press briefing.

The suspect, who was identified as Phoenix Ikner, a 20-year-old FSU student and the son of a school resource deputy with the Leon County Sheriff’s Department, has also been hospitalized. He was shot by police after he “did not comply with commands,” according to Tallahassee Police Department chief Lawrence E. Revell.

The two deceased victims were not students, Revell said, but he couldn’t share any other information about the victims’ identities.

FSU president Richard McCullough called this a “tragic day for Florida State University” at the briefing.

“We’re working to support the victims, the families and everyone affected,” he said.

FSU students and employees received an emergency notification at 12:02 p.m. to shelter in place due to an active shooter near the campus’s student union. According to Revell, FSU campus police arrived on the scene “almost immediately” after the shooting began just before noon. Other local law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Jacksonville field office and its Tallahassee suboffice, were involved in the response to the shooting. The Tallahassee police will lead the investigation.

Over three hours later, police notified the campus that they had “neutralized the threat” but asked the public to continue avoiding the student union and the surrounding area. Students were advised to remain indoors except to walk to their dorms or the designated reunification point.

Revell said the handgun Ikner used was his mother’s former service weapon. The suspect also had a shotgun with him, Revell said, but it was unclear if he had used it. Revell said the police did not yet know of any motive for the shooting and that Ikner had invoked his right not to speak with police.

At the press briefing, McCullough said he had just returned from visiting the victims in the hospital.

“Right now our top priority is safety and well-being for all the people on our campus,” he said.

One FSU junior, McKenzie Heeter, told NBC that the assailant shot at her with what she thought was a rifle as she was exiting the student union with her lunch just before noon, but he missed. He then returned to his car and retrieved a handgun and shot another individual, at which point Heeter began running away from the student union and back to her apartment.

“It was just me and like three other people that noticed at first, but we were walking in the opposite direction away from the union, so we started running. I just told everybody that I could see, stay away from campus,” she told NBC.

Another group of about 40 individuals avoided the shooter by locking themselves in a bowling alley in the student union’s basement, The Tallahassee Democrat reported.

Classes at FSU are canceled through Friday, and athletic events are canceled through the end of the weekend.

Source link

April 17, 2025
Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System
One of the biggest, but least remarked upon trends in European higher education in recent years is the growth of private for-profit, higher education. Even in countries where tuition is free, there are hundreds of thousands of students who now prefer to take courses at private for-profit institutions.

To me, the question is, why? What sort of institutions are these anyway? Interestingly, the answer to that second question is one which might confuse my mostly North American audience. Turns out a lot of these private institutions are relatively small, bespoke institutions with very narrow academic specializations. And yet they’re owned by a few very large international conglomerate universities. That’s very different from North America, where institutions tend to be either small and bespoke, or part of a large corporation, but not both.

Today my guest is Nicolas Badré. He’s the Chief Operating Officer of the Galileo Group, which operates a number of universities across Europe. I met him a few months ago at an OECD event in Jakarta. When I heard about some of Galileo’s initiatives, I knew I’d have to have him on the show.

There are three things which I think are most important about this interview. First is the discussion about Galileo’s business model and how it achieves economies of scale across such different types of institutions. Second, there’s how the network goes about collectively learning across all its various institutions. And third, specifically how it’s choosing to experiment with AI across a number of institutions and apply the lessons more globally.

Overall, it’s a fascinating chat. I hope you enjoy it too. But now, let’s turn things over to Nicolas.

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.27 | Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

Transcript

Alex Usher (AU): Nicolas, Galileo Global Education has grown significantly over the years. I think the group is, if I’m not mistaken, 13 or 14 years old now. Some of the universities it owns might be a bit older, but can you walk us through the origins of the group? How did you grow to be as big as you are? I think you’ve got dozens of institutions in dozens of countries—how did that growth happen so quickly?

Nicolas Badré (NB): Thank you, Alex, for the question. It’s an interesting story. And yes, to your point, the group was created 13 and a half years ago, with an investment by Providence Equity Partners into Istituto Marangoni, a fashion school in Italy. That dates back to 2011. Since then, we’ve made 30 acquisitions.

The growth started primarily in Europe, especially in France and Germany. Then, in 2014, we took our first steps outside of Europe with the acquisition of IEU in Mexico. Significant moves followed in 2018 and 2019, particularly into the online learning space with Studi in France and AKAD in Germany.

There’s been a very rapid acceleration over the past five years. For context, I joined the group at the end of 2019. At that time, Galileo had 67,000 students across nine countries. Today, we have 300,000 students in 20 countries.

Back then, the group was primarily focused on arts and creative schools, as well as business and management schools. Now, we’ve expanded into tech and health, and even into some professional training areas—like truck driving, for instance.

What does this reflect? Two things. First, very strong organic growth from our existing schools and brands. Take ESG in France as an example. It’s been around for 40 years and is a well-known entry-level business school. Over the past five years, it’s diversified considerably creating ESG Luxury, ESG Tourism, you name it. It’s also expanded its physical presence from just a few cities to now being in 15 or 16 cities across France.

So it’s really been a combination of strong organic growth and selective acquisitions that have helped us more than quadruple our student numbers in just five years.

AU: It’s interesting— I think a lot of our listeners and viewers might be surprised to hear about such a strong for-profit institution coming out of France. When you think of French higher education, you think of the Grandes Écoles, you think of free education. So why would so many people choose to pay for education when they don’t have to? It’s a pretty strong trend in France now. I think over 26% of all students in France are in some form of private higher education. What do you offer that makes people willing to give up “free”?

NB: It’s a good question, and you’re right—it’s not just about France. In many places across Europe, including Germany, the Nordics, and others, you see similar dynamics.

That said, yes, in France in particular, there’s been a growing share of private players in higher education over the past few years. That probably reflects the private sector’s greater ability to adapt to new environments.

I’d highlight three main factors that help explain why we’ve been successful in this space.

First, we’re obsessed with employability and skills-based education. And that’s true across all levels and backgrounds. When we worked on our group mission statement, everyone agreed that our mission is to “unleash the potential of everyone for better employability.”

Because of that focus, we maintain very strong ties with industry. That gives us the ability to adapt, create, and update our programs very quickly in response to emerging demands. We know competencies become obsolete faster now, so staying aligned with job market needs is critical. That’s probably the strongest unifying driver across all of Galileo.

Beyond that, we also offer very unique programs. Take Noroff, for example—a tech school in Norway, which is even more tuition-free than France. It’s one of the very few fee-paying institutions in the country. But the program is so strong that students are willing to pay around 15,000 euros a year because they know they’ll get a top-tier, hands-on experience—something that might be slower to evolve in the public system.

So that’s the first point: employability and unique, high-impact programs.

Second, we put a strong emphasis on the student experience. How do we transform their education beyond just delivering content? That’s an area we continue to invest in—never enough, but always pushing. We’re focused on hybridizing disciplines, geographies, and pedagogical approaches.

And we’ve systematized student feedback—not just asking for opinions, but making sure we translate that feedback into tangible improvements in the student experience.

And third, I’d say there’s a values-based dimension to all of this. We focus heavily on innovation, entrepreneurship, and high standards. Those are the core values that we’re driven by. You could say they’re our obsessions—and I think that kind of vision and energy resonates with our students. Those are the three main things I’d point to.

AU: I have a question about how you make things work across such a diverse set of institutions. I mean, you’ve got design schools, drama schools, law schools, medical schools. When people think about private education, there’s often an assumption that there’s some kind of economies of scale in terms of curriculum. The idea that you can reuse curriculum across different places. But my impression is that you can’t do that very much. It seems like you’re managing all these different institutions, each of them like their own boutique operation, with their own specific costs. How do you make it work across a system as large and diverse as yours? Where are the economies of scale?

NB: Well, that’s also a very good point—and you’re absolutely right. We have a very diverse network of schools. We have a culinary arts school in Bordeaux, France, with maybe 400 students, and we have universities with more than 10,000 students, whether in medical or business education.

So yes, you might wonder: why put these institutions together?

The answer is that we really built the group’s development around the entrepreneurial DNA of our school directors. They’re responsible for their own development—for their growth, diversification, and how they respond to the job market.

We’re not obsessed with economies of scale. What we really value is the network itself. What we focus on is shared methodology—in areas like sales and marketing, finance, HR, and student experience.

There are also some opportunities for synergies in systems. In some cases, for instance, yes—we use a similar CRM across several countries. But I think the real value of the network lies in its ability to share experiences and experiment with innovation throughout, and then scale up those innovations appropriately across the other schools.

So I’d say it’s more about shared practices than about forcing economies of scale across borders—because that doesn’t always make sense.

AU: Am I correct in thinking that you don’t necessarily present yourself as a chain of institutions to students? That each institution actually has a pretty strong identity in and of itself—is that right? Is there a fair bit of autonomy and ability to adapt things locally at each of your schools?

NB: Yes, I think that’s true. In terms of branding, we believe that each of our schools generally has a stronger brand than Galileo itself. And that’s how it should be, because each school has its own experience, its own DNA, its own momentum and development.

So, we see ourselves more as a platform that supports the development of all these schools, rather than a chain imposing the same standards and practices across the board.

Of course, we do have certain methodologies—for example, how to run a commercial campaign. We provide guidance, but it’s ultimately up to each school to manage that process and use the methodology in a way that works best for their own development.

That doesn’t mean there’s no value in having the Galileo name—there is. But the value is in being a platform that supports the schools, rather than overshadowing them.

AU: Nicolas, I know Galileo is testing a lot of AI-driven approaches across its various institutions. What I found interesting in a discussion we had offline a few weeks ago is that you’re experimenting with AI in different parts of the institution—some of it around curriculum, some around administration, and some around student services. Can you give us an overview? What exactly are you testing, and what are the goals of these experiments?

NB: I think we first need to frame how we’re using AI, and it’s important to look at our strategy globally. We believe there are three major trends shaping higher education.

First, student expectations are evolving quickly—they’re demanding more flexibility and personalization. Second, there’s a rapid emergence of new competencies, which challenges our ability to adapt and update programs quickly. And third, we need to go beyond boundaries and be agile in how we approach topics, address new skills, and serve diverse learners. These are the three starting points we see as opportunities for Galileo to differentiate itself. Now, we’re not trying to become a leading AI company. Our goal remains to be a recognized leader in education—improving employability and lives. That’s our benchmark.

With that in mind, our AI vision is focused on four areas:
1. How do we deliver a unique experience to our students?
2. How do we connect educators globally who are trained in and comfortable with AI?
3. How do we develop content that can be adapted, localized, translated, and personalized?
4. And how do we improve operational productivity?
AI is clearly a powerful tool in all four areas. Let me walk through some of the things we’re doing.

The first area we call AI for Content. We’re using AI to more quickly identify the competencies required by the job market. We use tools that give us a more immediate connection to the market to understand what skills are in demand. Based on that, we design programs that better align with those needs.

Then the next step is about course and content creation. Once we’ve defined the competencies, how do we design the courses, the pedagogical materials? How do we make it easier to localize and adapt that content?

Take Studi, an online university in France with 67,000 students and around 150 different programs. A year ago, it would take them about four months to design a bachelor’s or master’s program. Now, it takes one to two months, depending on the specifics. The cost has been cut in half, and development speed has increased by a factor of two, three, even four in some cases. This also opens up opportunities to make programs more personalized because we can update them much faster.

The second area is AI for Experience. How do we use AI to enhance the student experience?

We’ve embedded AI features in our LMS to personalize quizzes, generate mind maps, and create interactive sessions during classes. We’ve also adapted assessments. For example, in Germany, for the past two years, our online university AKAD has let students choose their own exam dates. That’s based on an AI approach that generates personalized assessments while staying within the requirements of German accreditation bodies. This wouldn’t be possible without AI. The result is higher engagement, faster feedback, and a more personalized learning experience.

Lastly, beyond content and experience, we’re seeing real gains in AI for Operations. In sales and marketing, for example, we now use bots in Italy and Latin America to re-engage “dead” leads—contacting them again, setting up meetings, and redirecting them through the admissions funnel. It’s proven quite efficient, and we’re looking to expand that approach to other schools.

We’re also seeing strong results in tutoring. Take Corndel, a large UK-based school focused on apprenticeships. They’re using AI tools extensively to improve student tracking, tutoring, and weekly progress monitoring.

So, we’re seeing a lot of momentum across all these dimensions—and it’s really picked up speed over the last 18 months.

AU: So, you’ve got a network of institutions, which gives you a lot of little laboratories to experiment with—to try different things. How do you identify best practices? And then how do you scale them across your network?

NB: Well, first of all, we have lots of different pilots. As you’ve understood, we’re quite decentralized, so we don’t have a central innovation team of 50 people imposing innovations across all our schools.

It’s more about scouting and sharing experiences from one school to another. It’s a combination of networks where people share what they’re learning.

Just to name a few, we have a Digital Learning Community—that’s made up of all the people involved in LMS design across our schools. They exchange a lot of insights and experiences.

We also hold regular touchpoints to present what’s happening in AI for content, AI for experience, and AI for operations. We’ve created some shared training paths for schools as well. So there are a lot of initiatives aimed at maximizing sharing, rather than imposing anything top-down. Again, as you pointed out, the schools are extremely diverse—in terms of regulations, size, content, and disciplines. So there’s no universal recipe.

That said, in some cases it’s more about developing a methodology. For example, how do you design and implement a pedagogical chatbot? The experiments we’re running now are very promising for future scale-up, because we’re learning a lot from these developments.

AU: I know that, in a sense, you’ve institutionalized the notion of innovation within the system. I think you’ve recently launched a new master’s program specifically focused on this question—on how to innovate in education systems. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

NB: Yeah, I’m super excited to talk about this, because it’s where I’m focusing most of my energy these days.

We’ve been working on this project for a year with four Galileo institutions. It’s called Copernia, and the name, like Galileo, is intentional—these are people who changed perspectives. That’s exactly what we want to do: change the perspective on education and truly put the student at the center.

Copernia started the initiative, Galileo confirmed it, and it’s no coincidence we’re focusing on this.

The first program we’re launching under Copernia is a Master of Innovation and Technology for Education. The idea is to bring together and leverage expertise from several fields: neurocognitive science, tech, AI and data, educational sciences, innovation, design, and management. The goal is to offer students a unique experience where they not only learn about innovation—but also learn to develop and apply it.

One of the major assets we want to leverage is the Galileo network. With over 120 campuses, we can offer students real, hands-on opportunities to experiment and innovate. So the value proposition is: if you want to design and test educational innovation, we’ll give you the tools, the foundational knowledge, and, most importantly, the chance to apply that in practice—within our network, with our partners, and with other institutions.

The goal is to help the whole ecosystem benefit—not just from Galileo’s environment, but also from the contributions of tech partners, academic collaborators, and business partners around the world. I’m convinced this will be a major tool to develop, share, and scale practical, applied innovation.

And importantly, this isn’t meant to be just an internal initiative for Galileo. It’s designed to be open. We want to train people who can help transform education—not only in higher education, but also in K–12 and lifelong learning. Because we believe this kind of cross-disciplinary expertise and hands-on innovation experience is valuable across the entire education sector.

AU: I’m really impressed with the scale and speed at which you’re able to experiment. But it did make me wonder—why can’t public higher education systems do the same? I mean, if I think about French universities, there are 70 or 80 in the public system—though it’s hard to keep track because they keep merging. But theoretically, they could do this too, couldn’t they? It’s a moderately centralized system, and there’s no reason institutions couldn’t collaborate in ways that let them identify useful innovations—rolling them out at different speeds in different areas, depending on what works. Why can’t the public sector innovate like that?

NB: First of all, I wouldn’t make a sweeping judgment on this. I think there is innovation happening everywhere—including within public institutions. So I wouldn’t describe it in black-and-white terms.

That said, it’s true that as a private organization, we face a certain kind of pressure. We need to prove that we operate a sustainable model—and we need to prove that every month. In other words, we rely on ourselves to develop, to test, and to optimize how we grow.

The second is that we have an asset in being able to test and learn in very different environments. Take the example I mentioned earlier, about Germany and the anytime online assessments. We were able to implement that model there because it was online and because the regulatory environment allowed it.

Now, when we approach accreditation bodies in other countries, we can say: “Look, it works. It’s already accepted elsewhere. Why not consider it here?” That ability to move between different contexts—academic and professional, vocational and executive—is really valuable. It allows us to promote solutions that cross traditional boundaries.

That’s not something all public universities can do—and frankly, not something all universities can do, period. But it’s an advantage we’ve built over the past several years by creating this large field for experimentation.

AU: Nicolas, thank you so much for being with us today.

NB: Alex, thank you very much. It’s been a pleasure.

AU: It just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions about today’s podcast, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected]. And don’t forget—never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education Podcast. Head over to YouTube and subscribe to our channel. Join us next week when our guest will be Noel Baldwin, CEO of the Future Skills Centre here in Canada. He’ll be joining us to talk about the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. See you then.

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.
Source link
April 17, 2025
Brown Takes Out $300 Million Loan

Brown University is borrowing $300 million from an unspecified lender, according to a regulatory filing—a move that comes as other wealthy universities have tapped the bond market recently.

The Trump administration has frozen $510 million in federal research funding to Brown over alleged antisemitism on campus related to pro-Palestinian protests.

“Given the volatility in the capital markets and the uncertainty regarding future federal policy related to research and other important priorities of Brown, the University is fortunate to have a number of sources of liquidity, including commercial paper programs, bank lines and the private and public debt markets that are available to help us manage our finances and priorities during this period,” Brown spokesperson Amanda McGregor wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email.

She added that Brown “chose to negotiate directly with a lender in order to tailor the loan to our particular objectives,” rather than leverage bonds, as some other institutions have done recently. Beyond threats to its federal funding, the university also announced last year that it had a $46 million budget deficit.

Both Harvard University and Princeton University announced in recent weeks that they were issuing bonds. Harvard, which is issuing $750 million in bonds, told Inside Higher Ed the move was about “contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” Harvard recently had $2.2 billion frozen by the Trump administration after it rejected a series of demands. President Alan Garber argued that the government was asking Harvard to surrender its autonomy, calling such a demand “unconstitutional.”

Princeton, which has clashed with the administration over academic freedom, also announced plans to issue $320 million in bonds but offered little specificity about the purpose of the funds.

Source link

April 17, 2025
AGB Reports on Governing Boards’ Top Public Policy Issues
Concerns about the Trump administration’s plans for higher ed loom large in a new report by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, outlining the top public policy issues facing higher ed governing boards.

The report looked at emerging public policy challenges through six different lenses:
- Accountability and regulation
- Judicial outcomes
- Political intrusion
- Federal and state funding
- Federal tax legislation
- Intercollegiate athletics
According to the report, boards could confront a wide range of issues in the 2025–26 academic year, including federal research funding cuts impacting university budgets, uncertainties about the future of federal financial aid, possible changes to the accreditation system, federal interference into institutional governance and shifting immigration policies affecting international student admissions and faculty hiring. The report raises additional concerns about how possible changes to the federal tax code could affect colleges and universities and how boards should respond to federal policies currently facing court challenges.

The report also offers lists of questions for boards to consider through each lens, like how students might be affected if income-contingent loan repayment programs undergo significant changes or how to honor donors’ intent for scholarships, endowed positions or research projects that could conflict with state or federal anti-DEI laws.

“Governing boards have a critical role to play in ensuring that their institutions emerge stronger, more adaptable, and committed to their core educational values and must be prepared to confront policy shifts head-on,” Ross Mugler, AGB board chair and acting president and CEO, said in a press release. “This report provides the essential knowledge trustees need to make informed, strategic decisions that preserve institutional missions, ensure financial sustainability, and promote student success.”
Source link
April 17, 2025
China Research Spending Outstrips U.S. Despite Faltering Economy

China continues to prioritize research and development despite the country’s slowing economy, with the drive for scientific self-sufficiency superseding economic development alone, according to analysts.

Recent figures from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development show China’s R&D spending grew at a faster rate in 2023 than it did in both the U.S. and E.U., as well as all OECD member states.

Growth in China reached 8.7 percent, compared with 1.7 percent in the U.S. and 1.6 percent in the E.U.

According to China’s National Bureau of Statistics, spending continued to increase in 2024, exceeding 3.6 trillion yuan ($489.9 billion) and up 8.3 percent year on year. This accounted for 2.68 percent of China’s gross domestic product in 2024, up 0.1 percentage point from the previous year.

It comes despite China’s wider economic slowdown, triggered in part by the collapse of the real estate sector in 2021, which is still struggling to recover.

Given these financial concerns, the growth in research spending is “quite a feat” and “an important indicator of where China is putting its priorities,” said Jeroen Groenewegen-Lau, head of the science, technology and innovation program at the Mercator Institute for China Studies.

The Asian superpower also now has to contend with the export tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. However, analysts expect that R&D spending will continue to grow in spite of these economic barriers.

“When you look at some of the Asian economies, they tend to be countercyclical in their investment in research,” said Caroline Wagner, a professor specializing in public policy and science at Ohio State University. “When economies slow, they actually increase their spending on research.”

She said this is true of Japan and South Korea, which both exceeded the OECD average with growth of 2.7 percent and 3.7 percent in 2023 respectively.

“When they’re experiencing a little bit of a downturn, they actually spend more on research in the hopes that it will stoke the economy,” Wagner added.

Groenewegen-Lau agreed that China’s growth trajectory looks set to continue, with investment in basic research core to the country’s national development strategy.

“Even if the economy is not going very well, they can keep up this expenditure,” he said. “They’re kind of borrowing from the future” to “conquer all these technological bottlenecks.”

He continued, “It’s clear that science technology is maybe even more important than economic development in its own right. It’s like the economic development seems sometimes to be supporting the innovation machine.”

While these figures are made up of both government and corporate expenditure, there are concerns among China’s leaders that businesses aren’t investing as much as they should, particularly in basic research, according to Groenewegen-Lau.

“The current economic situation is such that we know that they’re investing less,” Groenewegen-Lau said. “So the central government is trying to make up for that.”

Universities and research institutes are likely to benefit from this, with investment in the sector rising.

In 2024, expenditure by China’s higher education institutes on R&D reached 275.33 billion yuan ($37.68 billion), an increase of 14.1 percent from the previous year. However, this still accounted for a minority of total expenditure, with HEIs making up 8.2 percent of the total, compared with enterprises, which made up 77.7 percent.

And, as China moves away from international engagement and toward self-sufficiency, a key challenge, said Wagner, will be ensuring it has the talent capabilities to go it alone.

“They have really been working on an imitative model, where they’re connecting with and imitating leaders, and now they’re trying to pull back and say, ‘We’re going to build our own national capacity,’ but you have to have enough [human] capacity in order to do that,” Wagner said.

“I think that’s one of the questions that is maybe still out there unanswered. Can you do that on your own?”

Source link

April 17, 2025
Why Not Flexible Transfer for All, Not Just in Crisis?
Meet Estevan, featured by Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi as a Transfer Student Success Story. Estevan benefited from a high degree of personalized support—including advising on course selection and financial aid planning—that helped him identify a clear path to transfer in his major of choice. Such personalized support helped Estevan thrive and make the dean’s list after transferring.

Estevan’s story is one of the many inspiring success stories about transfer students we hear every day, even when the odds seem stacked against them. For example, we know that 80 percent of community college students nationwide intend to complete a bachelor’s degree, yet only 31 percent transfer to a four-year institution within six years of entry. When they succeed in transferring, transfer students often outperform their peers who start and stay at the same institution. And yet, we do not make transfer easy. For one, learners face a confusing set of ever-changing rules that varies across institutions, making it difficult to know which courses are transferable and applicable to their intended program of study.

Added to that, we know life is unpredictable and even a learner’s best-laid plans can be derailed by one lost job, one sick family member or one unexpected change in financial aid. When the unpredictable happens, can institutions better flex to meet learners where they are?

The signs point to yes—if you look at the examples of incredible institutional flexibility in response to the recent rise in institutional closures and mergers. As reported by Inside Higher Ed, nearly 100 institutions closed in the last academic year alone due to declining enrollments and financial pressures. When institutions close, accreditors and their member institutions step up to support students through a process called teach-out. Teach-out policies, while they differ by accreditor, are generally designed to help other institutions flexibly accept and apply students’ coursework to a degree or credential in order to help affected students complete their studies in a timely fashion. In such arrangements, the expressed goal is to apply the rules in ways that help bring students in and flex those rules that would effectively leave students out.

Teach-out policies are exactly the type of thoughtful guidance that should be in place to support students. But as we’ve described, institutional closure is not the only reason students transfer, and it is not the only crisis students face. So this leads us to ask, if institutions can be flexible when faced with one type of student transfer, can they be similarly flexible in other transfer scenarios as well?

We are excited to share that we had the opportunity to ask that question of the members of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (for which one of the authors, Heather Perfetti, serves as president). In fall of 2024, MSCHE, WASC Senior College and University Commission, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges partnered with the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board and Sova to design and field the Survey on Transfer and Learning Mobility to their institutional members. The survey sought to determine members’ perspectives on student transfer and learning mobility and to discern the role of accreditors in these processes through the institutional lens.

In one of the most striking survey results, half of MSCHE’s responding institutions said they believe that institutions should apply similar flexibility for students who transfer and/or have previous learning as they do for students in teach-out situations (138 institutions responded to the survey, with a 30 percent response rate). Members of the PAB shared this finding at MSCHE’s Annual Meeting in December 2024, and a MSCHE member voiced the following powerful reflection: “We flex that way all the time for our own self-interest when we want to close one of our own programs.”

We share these findings not to throw open the doors on academic rigor and quality, but rather to ask the field to pause and reflect on why credit transfer policies are stringent, knowing the barriers they may pose for students. We recognize the claims that strict credit transfer policies protect student preparation and program cohesion. If that’s true, what data are used to prove that students are not well prepared if they don’t take courses in a linear sequence? What evidence is used to understand and control for program cohesion? And if it’s not true, what are the real reasons, and can we discuss them openly so that we can better serve students? We can’t identify real solutions if we’re not honest about the actual problems.

From MSCHE’s perspective, this survey finding feels like a call to pause, reflect and inspire us into action. MSCHE is proud of its existing transfer policies, which are crafted to support students and the mobility of their learning. But MSCHE is also willing to revisit its policies and accreditation activities through the lens of how principles related to teach-out during crises, like closures, can inform transfer more generally.

Through the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, in collaboration with WSCUC and SACSCOC, we’ll talk to our peer accreditation agencies as well about key questions for accreditors and how accreditors can and should:
- Engage governing boards and member institutions about the importance of transfer and learning mobility;
- Leverage self-study as a moment for institutions to review and revise policies that are barriers to transfer;
- Celebrate with institutions the ways they are supporting stronger transfer policies and the awarding of credit;
- Remind constituents that accreditors want to see and support institutional innovation to better serve students;
- Promote what accreditation policies actually require, and bust myths around statements such as “the accreditor won’t let me do that” (because, quite frankly, those statements are rarely true);
- Elevate how the accreditor complaint and third-party comment process can be used by students to bring institutional transfer policies, procedures and decisions to accreditor attention; and
- Quite simply: Be student centered, all the time.
We hope this post gives you food for thought. Through our partnership and aligned efforts such as the Learning Evaluation and Recognition for the Next Generation Commission (led by Sova and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and on which MSCHE, WSCUC and SACSCOC all sit), we will be looking to support the field with additional thinking about strong principles for student-centered credit evaluation and transfer. In the meantime, we’ll leave you with this question: How do you flex for students?
Source link
April 17, 2025
A Logical Gap Behind Attacks on the Humanities (opinion)

Researchers across the country who had been awarded prestigious grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities recently learned that their awards had been canceled. As Department of Government Efficiency reductions sweep through critical government agencies, higher education has been a clear target—not only through cuts at federal agencies like the NEH, but also through pressure levied on institutions like Columbia and Harvard Universities and, horribly, through Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainments that seem to take aim at politically engaged scholars like Rümeysa Öztürk. This targeting builds on decades of disinvestment—underfunding, fewer faculty lines and program closures—that have left humanities education fragile, and therefore vulnerable.

But the arguments used to justify both the active dismantling and the long-term disinvestment fundamentally contradict each other. One argument imagines the humanities to be both powerful and dangerous, while the other sees humanities education as irrelevant and a waste of time. Both cannot simultaneously be true. The tension between them reveals the real driver: a pervasive fear of critical thought and the social change it may foster.

As a humanities scholar who works with institutions nationwide to develop meaningful, equitable programs in higher education, I’ve watched countless colleges and universities grapple with the implications of this fear. Over the past decade, the claim of irrelevance has been used to justify budget cuts and program closures. Last year, Boston University suspended doctoral admissions to the humanities and social sciences. In 2023, West Virginia University eliminated numerous humanities programs and faculty lines—the cuts included all of WVU’s foreign language degree programs—with many other institutions considering similar measures.

Those who support these actions tend to cite declining numbers of humanities majors as evidence that students don’t care about the subject matter, or that they think a humanities degree is a financial dead end. However, even the economic piece of this argument is not borne out by the data. Recent research from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences shows strong state-by-state employment trends for humanities graduates, with advanced degree holders earning a median salary of about $84,000. Their research shows that a remarkably high 87 percent of all humanities majors feel satisfied with their careers—and that percentage climbs to 91 percent for advanced degree holders.

The rhetoric may be false, but it is nonetheless dangerous. It is true that humanities majors are trending downward—but why? We know that students do care about humanities topics. Every instructor I talk to reports high levels of student engagement in humanities courses. It’s not lack of interest, or economic realities, but intentional disinvestment that erodes the humanities and leads to program closures. That disinvestment serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy, as students invariably notice which parts of the university landscape are prioritized; it’s visible in buildings, in classroom spaces and in faculty offices. Students may hear messages from parents or from the media that nudge them in other directions. The resulting decreased enrollment fuels legislative actions and budget cuts that undermine the potential of humanistic inquiry and education.

The other line of argument does not rest on the supposed irrelevance of the humanities, but rather their power—and in doing so, it negates the first argument. This is the logic that leads DOGE to demand that the NEH and other agencies stop funding projects that explore race and gender equity. It’s the logic that leads to the dismantling of the federal Department of Education. It’s the same logic that has led conservative groups like Moms for Liberty to try to get books about LGTBQ+ kids pulled from library shelves, that led state officials like Ron DeSantis to block the teaching of African American studies. Why bother to fight against these projects, books and courses if they don’t hold power? No: In these cases, critics know that exposure to the humanities has the potential to change our individual and collective thinking, to bring new perspectives into the light, and to loosen the hold of dominant perspectives on the social psyche. That, to many, is terrifying.

The results of these critiques are profoundly damaging. The NEH cuts—paired with similar cuts to the Institute of Museum and Library Services, where the entire staff has been placed on leave—threaten a whole generation of research and community-engaged practice and will leave us with a diminished cultural landscape and limited possibility to interpret what’s left. The Trump administration is already trying to control what is displayed in national museums, particularly those that highlight underrepresented artists. Local libraries and state humanities councils are losing critical operating funds. As books, art and culture disappear, we need scholars trained to ask why—but with humanities programs in shambles, who will be ready to do that work?

Our cultural heritage is our nation’s portrait; there is power in seeing oneself represented in books, art and music. This is especially true for people who are marginalized in many social structures; broadly representative books on library shelves can be a lifeline for queer kids, trans kids, immigrant kids. Kids with names that white teachers find hard to pronounce. Kids looking for affirmation that, yes, they’re OK. Removing titles because of characters that share these identities is an act of erasure, a way of saying, no, actually, you’re not welcome here. Given that trans kids already have alarming rates of suicidality, the stakes are unspeakably high.

The far right is correct about one thing: The humanities are powerful. It is through the humanities that we are fighting tooth and nail for democracy—which is why we must defend these institutions and the people who make them work. With a news cycle that is so rapid and confusing as to cause whiplash among even the most savvy readers, historians like Heather Cox Richardson and David M. Perry provide context that extends beyond our current time and place to help us collectively understand the patterns of the present moment—and, more importantly, to envision possible paths out. Artists provide solace and catharsis through pieces that express what words cannot, such as Chavis Mármol’s “Tesla Crushed by an Olmec Head,” which is exactly what it sounds like. These interventions matter deeply when our collective sense of reality is being threatened by outright lies from people at the highest levels of leadership.

What we’re seeing now are the results of a systematic and structural push that has been slowly unraveling the humanities ecosystem for decades. But it needs to stop. The NEH cuts, the threats to education, the book bans, the program closures—and the rhetoric that brings them about—foreclose opportunities for students and for society. We are in a moment that requires stronger nationwide investment in the humanities, not their diminishment. Former NEH chair Shelly Lowe—the first Native American to lead the organization, unceremoniously pushed out by President Trump in March—urged participants at last year’s National Humanities Conference to find hope in dark times by turning to poetry. Riffing on Seamus Heaney’s “The Cure at Troy,” she urged us to “believe that further shores exist, even if they are out of sight.” Art and culture provide avenues for expression, beauty, understanding and meaning—especially when our world feels like it’s crumbling.

The right knows the humanities are powerful; it’s time for the left to truly believe in that power, and to call out the hypocrisy driving the right-wing attacks on our shared cultural heritage.

Source link

April 17, 2025
Can Universities Still Diversify Faculty Hiring Under Trump?

Before Donald Trump retook office, advocates of a more demographically diverse U.S. professoriate were already criticizing existing hiring efforts as inadequate. One late-2022 paper in Nature Human Behaviour noted that, at recent rates, “higher education will never achieve demographic parity among tenure-track faculty.”

One example of the disparity: As of November 2023, only 8 percent of U.S. assistant professors were Black, according to the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. That’s significantly less than Black representation in the U.S. population, currently estimated by the Census to be 13.7 percent. And the CUPA-HR data showed that the Black share of tenure-track and tenured professors decreases as rank increases—only 5 percent of associate professors and 3.6 percent of full professors were Black.

Efforts that institutions have made to racially diversify their faculties drew political backlash well before Trump regained the White House, with activists, organizations and some faculty criticizing university hiring practices and state legislatures passing laws banning affirmative action and/or diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The goal of a more representative faculty slipped further out of reach starting on Inauguration Day, when Trump issued executive orders targeting DEI, including what he dubbed “illegal DEI discrimination.”

His administration’s crusade has continued, including with a letter Friday demanding that Harvard University end all DEI initiatives, “implement merit-based hiring policies” and “cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices.” (Harvard has refused to comply with Trump’s orders, which go far beyond hiring, and the federal government has frozen part of the university’s funding and threatened its tax-exempt status.)

Given the current political situation—not just nationally, but also among the growing number of states with DEI and/or affirmative action restrictions—how can higher ed institutions continue to diversify their faculties?

“I think that’s the question of the day: What’s lawful, what’s legal, what might subject an institution to investigation by the investigatory arms of the federal government?” said Paulette Granberry Russell, president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, which is among the organizations suing over Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

“Is it purposeful that this administration has chosen ambiguity?” Granberry Russell asked. “Or left [us] to guess what they intend by ‘illegal DEI’? Is diversifying our campuses on its face illegal DEI?”

So far, the administration has not clarified where the line is. On Feb. 14, the U.S. Education Department published a Dear Colleague letter declaring that the department interprets the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious admissions as applicable to other areas of higher ed, including hiring, promotion and compensation. That letter is facing legal challenges. The department later released a frequently-asked-questions document further explaining its position, but that guidance didn’t discuss hiring practices.

In response to a request for an interview and written questions, Harrison Fields, special assistant to the president and principal deputy press secretary, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed, “President Trump is working to Make Higher Education Great Again by ending unchecked anti-Semitism and ensuring federal taxpayer dollars do not fund higher education institutions’ support for dangerous racial discrimination or racially motivated violence. Any institution violating Title VI is, by law, ineligible for federal funding.” (Title VI bans discrimination based on, among other things, shared ancestry, including antisemitism.)

Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the U.S. Education Department, told Inside Higher Ed, “It is illegal to make decisions on the basis of race.”

She said the department isn’t providing any additional guidance at this point beyond the text of the executive orders, the Dear Colleague letter, the FAQ, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling.

Also, in an FAQ titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work,” the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission writes that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, DEI “practices may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” In addition, it says that Title VII’s protections aren’t just for minority groups.

Adrianna Kezar, a professor of higher education and director of the Pullias Center for Higher Education at the University of Southern California, said in an email that there isn’t “universal understanding” across campuses of the current hiring rules.

“In states like California (and others), affirmative action in hiring is illegal. In other states, it remains legal until the Trump dear colleague letter becomes the legal interpretation,” Kezar wrote. But she said some states “are already complying even though that has not become the law of the land.”

“Right now, everything is still murky,” she added.

Tres Cleveland, a partner at the Thompson Coburn law firm who represents higher education clients, said most of them are trying to stay “in the good graces of the Department of Education or other regulators, and it’s a challenge at this point.” Cleveland said the “rules of the road” are “changing almost daily.”

Damani White-Lewis, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education, said, “There’s genuinely no consensus” on what’s barred under the Trump administration with regard to hiring that wasn’t prohibited before.

“I wanted to do a project of: If you asked, like, 10 different legal counsels, what sorts of answers would they come to and how did they make sense of them?” White-Lewis said. “Because that’s just how different folks are, and some are more conservative, some are a little more progressive on this issue.”

For colleges and universities, faculty diversification isn’t just an end in itself; studies have found positive benefits for students. So, what can institutions do to continue diversifying faculties? Experts pointed to fundamentals such as active recruiting, structured hiring processes and more.

Casting a Wide Net

While Granberry Russell of NADOHE criticized the Trump administration’s “ambiguity,” she said that actively seeking a diverse applicant pool still seems acceptable. In recruitment, she said, “you’re not making a decision; you’re just saying, ‘Apply for this position.’”

“There’s nothing, at least on its face, that would appear to prohibit recruitment efforts,” she said. (The Education Department has, however, targeted dozens of universities for allegedly supporting the PhD Project, which was accused of barring white or Asian prospective doctoral students from a recruitment conference.)

Kezar, at the University of Southern California, wrote in an email that while recruitment strategies still seem to be a viable way to attract diverse candidates, “some of the approaches that people have been relying on, they don’t feel comfortable with because they are being targeted.”

Granberry Russell echoed this concern, saying that, out of fear of investigations, “people are being very, very conservative in how they approach faculty searches.”

Denise Sekaquaptewa, director of the University of Michigan’s ADVANCE Program, a faculty diversity initiative, wrote in an email that “approaches which may still be viable” include disseminating job announcements “to outlets where [they] may reach a wide range of excellent candidates.”

White-Lewis, of the Penn Graduate School of Education, said there’s a “pervasive myth” that there aren’t enough graduate students of color to diversify faculties. He called it a “no-brainer” for institutions to invest in postdoctoral fellows and postdoctoral researchers—a stepping-stone to permanent faculty jobs.

“That’s a very perceivably neutral avenue of thinking about how we can increase opportunities for postdoctoral funding—given their crucial nature within not just medicine but other STEM fields as well, where postdocs are more pervasive,” White-Lewis said. “And that gives everybody more opportunities to research, write and publish and become more competitive for faculty jobs.”

He said he thinks postdoctoral programs “specifically devoted to minoritized hiring” will be difficult to continue. Multiple experts Inside Higher Ed interviewed suggested institutions should avoid saying in any faculty job advertisements that they’re specifically seeking to hire faculty of color or of a specific race.

“The devil is all in the details with this,” said Scott Goldschmidt, another higher ed specialist partner at Thompson Coburn. He said institutions have to weigh the risks of litigation and administrative action, especially when it comes to public job ads.

Goldschmidt said there are other hiring considerations that job ads could include that might lead to diverse hires, such as socioeconomic status and experience working with diverse populations. But he believes the Trump administration would also argue that such factors can’t be used as proxies for race. The hiring criteria should be narrowly tailored to the job, and the search and hiring process must be conducted in a race-neutral manner, Goldschmidt said.

“It has to be a truly open process,” he said. “The conditions there can’t be there to kind of serve as a way to unlawfully discriminate.”

White-Lewis suggested that faculty searches consider evaluating applicants’ experience with mentoring marginalized populations first. But that doesn’t mean their teaching and research records should be discounted.

“It’s very difficult to be a mentor if you don’t have research funding, right?” he said. “And so these things go hand in hand. What I’m suggesting is to make the evaluation of mentoring capabilities noteworthy instead of it being subsidiary.”

He also said that, when considering what positions to hire, administrators and faculty should think about how to align the department’s needs—in research, teaching and service—with areas where minoritized scholars are more represented.

“It’s not always just going after Indigenous studies or ethnic studies or Africana studies, because that clumps diversity within a few departments, but psychology, English, sociology, arts, even biology in terms of health disparities,” White-Lewis said. “Health disparity searches have been the thing that have historically driven faculty diversity in the sciences, and it can still continue because health disparities still exist.”

Some said using diversity statements in hiring is likely a no-go under the Trump administration, whose demands to Harvard included abolishing in hiring practices “all criteria, preferences, and practices” that “function as ideological litmus tests”—a common critique of diversity statements. Republican-controlled legislatures in multiple states have banned them.

“They’re dead,” said Musa al-Gharbi, a research fellow at Heterodox Academy and an assistant professor in Stony Brook University’s School of Communication and Journalism. He noted that even the University of California system has stepped away from them.

Furthermore, al-Gharbi said, “A lot of this stuff which is now rendered illegal … doesn’t really work well anyway. Some of the efforts that we take to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in higher ed actually create a hostile environment for the same people that we’re trying to include.”

He said that people of color and people from lower-income backgrounds are more likely to be socially conservative and religious than people who are currently better represented in academe, adding that “some of these diversity challenges around viewpoint diversity and demographic diversity are actually intimately interrelated.”

“But we also should nonetheless advocate for the goals of diversity and inclusion” and try to think up better alternatives, al-Gharbi said. Still, that’s hard when the Trump administration has basically “villainized,” “censored” and “demeaned” anything associated with DEI.

“This isn’t a smart bomb,” he said. “It’s a chain saw.”

Source link

April 17, 2025
Judge Temporarily Blocks Cuts at Sonoma State

Cuts at Sonoma State University are on pause after a judge found leaders had not followed necessary procedures in winding down academic programs amid an ongoing budget crunch.

Sonoma County Judge Kenneth English ruled that the university sidestepped its own written policies when it announced plans to ax multiple academic programs; he issued a temporary restraining order to halt the process. According to university policies, Sonoma State is required to include the Academic Senate in decisions about program eliminations. But that allegedly didn’t happen, according to a lawsuit to stop the cuts filed on behalf of seven students.

Sonoma State has denied circumventing its own policies.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a fight over athletics, which Sonoma State plans to cut entirely. All seven plaintiffs played various sports at the university, which competes at the NCAA Division II level. However, the judge’s ruling did not halt the administration’s plans to eliminate athletics; the restraining order applied only to the academic programs for now.

It will remain in effect until May 1, the date of the next hearing in the case.

A Fight Over Cuts

In January, Sonoma State—part of the California State University system—announced sweeping cuts, citing a nearly $24 million budget deficit.

“The University has had a budget deficit for several years. It is attributable to a variety of factors—cost of personnel, annual price increases for supplies and utilities, inflation—but the main reason is enrollment,” Interim President Emily Cutrer wrote in an announcement.

She noted that enrollment at SSU had dropped by 38 percent since it peaked in 2015 at 9,408 students, according to federal data.

Sonoma State had already taken moves over the last two years to close its persistent budget gap, including offering buyouts and freezing hiring, among other measures. But those actions “are not enough,” Cutrer wrote. After making piecemeal cuts in prior years, she announced a plan to eliminate more than 20 academic programs, let 46 faculty contracts lapse and ax athletics.

But at least part of that plan is now on hold.

Legal counsel for the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order to stop the shutdown of programs, arguing that their clients “will suffer irreparable harm and the Decision will be unable to be reversed even after it is ultimately found to be unlawful, or if new Sonoma State leadership or the California legislature seek to reverse the decision,” according to an April 10 court filing.

David Seidel, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, who is also a graduate of Sonoma State, where he played soccer, told Inside Higher Ed that he was concerned about the abrupt nature of the planned program cuts, which he alleged were illegal and “extremely damaging” to students.

He added that multiple student athletes transferred to Sonoma State over the winter. If officials were aware that SSU planned to cut athletics, as they announced in January, he believes those students were lured by false promises to play for programs that may no longer exist.

“This is a failure of leadership,” Seidel said.

While he recognizes that the university may still move forward with the cuts, he wants to see the process restarted under new leadership and using the procedures SSU allegedly bypassed.

Seidel also plans to address concerns related to athletics at the May 1 hearing.

“The temporary restraining order does not affect athletics at this time. Of course, that’s still very much a live issue that we will be pursuing on May 1, and we’re seeking a preliminary junction on athletics as well. Sonoma State and [the California State University system] have passed very specific policies and regulations with respect to discontinuing academic programs,” Seidel said. “And it isn’t necessarily true that those also apply to athletics.”

In an email to Inside Higher Ed, SSU rejected the notion that it violated its own policies.

“SSU maintains that the university followed its established policies regarding academic discontinuation, including communicating with and considering feedback from all programs impacted by the proposed reductions,” SSU spokesperson Jeff Keating wrote. “Yesterday’s ruling set a later date when the court will more fully review the parties’ positions, including evidence from the university that SSU is complying with its academic discontinuation policy.”

Other Challenges

The court decision came amid an already challenging week for Sonoma State.

At a legislative forum on Monday, state lawmakers criticized Sonoma State’s plans to pull the university out of its fiscal crisis. Beyond the cuts, administrators have developed a blueprint known as Bridge to the Future, which aims to increase enrollment by 20 percent within the next five to seven years, launch new programs and carry out various other actions. But some lawmakers took issue with the plan, arguing it was too light on specifics.

Sonoma State’s recent financial woes have also been accompanied by leadership turnover.

Cutrer, the interim president, is Sonoma State’s third leader in as many years after both her predecessors were felled by scandal. In 2022, then-president Judy Sakaki resigned after she was accused of mishandling a sexual harassment scandal tied to her husband, Patrick McCallum, who was accused of acting inappropriately with several university employees. McCallum also defied a ban to stay off the Sonoma State campus while Sakaki was president.

Sonoma State’s next president, Mike Lee, retired abruptly last year after he was placed on administrative leave when he struck a deal with pro-Palestinian protesters to review contracts to consider divestment opportunities and agreed to an academic boycott of Israel. CSU officials accused Lee of insubordination in making the deal with protesters and ultimately walked back the agreement with students.

Source link

April 17, 2025
Five New Well-Being Spaces on College Campuses
Personal well-being—particularly related to mental health—is one of the greatest threats to persistence among college students.

Forty percent of students say mental health has “a great deal” of impact on their ability to focus, learn and perform academically, according to a May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab. Additionally, 19 percent of respondents believe their physical health impacts their academic success a great deal.

Colleges and universities are responding to this growing need for support; a 2024 Inside Higher Ed survey of college presidents found that 70 percent of respondents had invested in wellness facilities or services to promote overall well-being among students in the past year.

But students aren’t entirely satisfied with the offerings on their campuses; only 46 percent of Student Voice respondents rated the quality of campus health and wellness services as good or excellent.

Inside Higher Ed compiled five examples of new support resources universities are offering to improve student well-being and, in turn, their retention and graduation. Many focus on students’ self-regulation through meditation and reflection, tools that can help them manage physical and socio-emotional health.
1. University of Texas, Dallas: Brain Recharge Station
In a small room located in the Eugene McDermott Library and Center for Brain Health, students are encouraged to take “brain breaks,” or short, intentional pauses to prime themselves for more focused, deeper thinking.

The room can only be used by one person at a time, and visitors are encouraged to turn off devices and set aside reading materials during this break.
1. San Diego State University, Imperial Valley: Student Wellness and Success Center
The SDSU, Imperial Valley, administration cut the ribbon on a new wellness and success center in March, creating dedicated space for counseling and health services—as well as career, veterans’, student success and retention services. The goal is to offer holistic support in a one-stop shop. Imperial Valley is a commuter campus, with student housing under construction, making these resources particularly helpful for those living and studying in the area.

Counseling center services include crisis intervention, assessment and short-term therapy. The health center provides low- or no-cost medical services including preventive care, immunizations and psychiatric treatments.
1. Clemson University: Wellness Zone
Clemson’s Fike Recreation Center is home to the Wellness Zone, a private room that an individual or group of students can reserve to engage in various activities. Created as a virtual fitness space, the room includes a touch-screen TV and zero-gravity chairs. Students can participate in self-paced yoga, stretching, mindfulness, breath work and meditation, as well as traditional exercises guided by an instructor on the TV.
1. Indiana University, Bloomington: Wellness House
IU repurposed an old sorority house on campus to centralize mental and physical health service offices, combining Student Wellness, Substance Use Intervention Services and the Collegiate Recovery Community offices under one roof.

In addition to staff offices, the new Wellness House also features reservable spaces for campus groups and four rooms where students can relax and meditate. Each room has a different theme and features; for example, the Fireplace Room is focused on studying and unwinding, whereas the Quiet Room has flexible seating such as beanbags and pillows for greater relaxation.

The goal is to provide an entry point for students who may be overwhelmed, potentially connecting them with relevant offices located in the Wellness House while they engage in other activities.
1. Yale University: The Good Life Center
In 2021, Yale opened the doors to its Good Life Center, a space for unwinding and destressing; this year the university doubled the size of the space to accommodate more students.

The expansion includes five more themed rooms: the tree house, music room, game room, sensory room and balance room. Each offers wellness activities and features related to its theme, such as musical instruments, mini basketball hoops and sound-absorbing chairs.

The sensory room was designed in collaboration with Student Accessibility Services to provide specialized furniture and resources for students of all needs and abilities.

Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.
Source link
April 17, 2025