Tag: Higher

Support Career Agency for International Scientists (opinion)
International Ph.D. students and postdoctoral scholars drive a large share of the United States’ scientific research, innovation and global competitiveness. Yet these visa holders often face systemic barriers that limit their ability to build independent, fulfilling careers. Restricted access to fellowships and immigration constraints can stifle career agency, forcing the nation’s institutions to lose out on the very global talent they train to fuel discovery and progress.

Drawing from insights in our recently released book, Thriving as an International Scientist (University of California Press), this essay outlines key challenges that international scientists face and concrete steps universities, employers and scientific societies can take to enable their dynamic career success.

Systemic Barriers to Career Independence

The U.S. depends on international talent to sustain its scientific enterprise. In 2023, nearly 41 percent of Ph.D. students and 58 percent of postdocs in U.S. universities were visa holders, and international scholars made up 34 percent of Ph.D. graduates in 2022, an increase from just 11 percent in1977.

While U.S. universities still lead globally in training and employing a robust international scientific workforce, the recent anti-immigrant climate in the U.S. and growing global competition for STEM talent threatens this long-standing advantage. Two issues impacting international scientists stand out as particularly urgent: limited access to independent research fellowships and visa policies that restrict career flexibility.
- Fewer fellowships lead to reduced agency. International scientists have access to fewer fellowships for supporting their independent research ideas. Data on primary sources of STEM doctoral student funding indicates 17 percent of international Ph.D. students relied primarily on fellowships, scholarships or dissertation grants in 2022, compared to 29 percent of their U.S. citizen and permanent resident peers. More than half of international Ph.D. students in science and engineering across U.S. universities relied on faculty-directed funding, through research assistantships, compared with just a third of domestic students (citizens and permanent residents).
This reliance limits their autonomy to define research directions or confidently pursue professional development and internship opportunities. As a result, only 22 percent of international Ph.D. graduates from U.S. universities committed to academic careers (excluding postdocs) in 2022, in part due to a significant lack in independent funding experience—a key qualification for faculty roles.
- Visa constraints on career mobility. Visa regulations often confine international scientists to narrowly defined “research-related” roles in academia or industry. This restriction effectively locks them out of emerging career paths in the business of science, science policy, science communication, entrepreneurship, university administration and nonprofit leadership until they obtain permanent residency.
They are also disproportionately vulnerable to economic downturns or layoffs. Work visas typically allow a 60-day grace period to secure new employment and maintain legal immigration status, putting tremendous pressure on individuals and families. With rising costs and uncertainty surrounding H-1B work visas, employers may also hesitate to hire international scientists, compounding career instability for this essential segment of the STEM workforce.

What Universities Can Do

We expand on recommendations offered to universities in the International Talent Programs in the Changing Global Environment consensus report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and by the Association of American Universities’ Ph.D. Education Initiative. Universities can take the following actions to better support international Ph.D. students and postdocs:
- Expand access to independent funding. Increase visibility of funding through databases such as Pivot and create matching fellowship opportunities from institutional, corporate and philanthropic sources that are open to noncitizens.
- Track and leverage alumni outcomes. Analyze Ph.D. and postdoctoral career outcomes by citizenship and location in order to strengthen alumni mentorship and global networks for trainees.
- Specialized professional development for Ph.Ds. Provide training in in-demand and holistic skills to address wicked problems, advance emerging technologies and foster knowledge of a range of careers for STEM Ph.D. holders.
- Integrate career development into curricula. Embed professional development and career preparation within graduate and postdoctoral programs, rather than limiting them to extracurricular workshops, in order to encourage international scientists to participate.
- Foster equitable access to internships. Simplify and expand opportunities for experiential learning by using the Curricular Practical Training path. Departments can offer internship courses through which students can use CPT or encourage them to incorporate insights from their internships into the dissertation. Creating more practical opportunities for students to broadly apply their research skills enables their success in getting work visas for diverse careers.
At Princeton University, one of us developed a specialized professional development series for international graduate students integrating creative design, intentional career planning, immigration literacy and strategies for global careers. This approach helps international scholars build resilience, community and agency in navigating complex systems and uncertain futures.

The Role of Scientific and Professional Societies

Scientific and professional societies hold powerful levers for nationwide systemic change. Through initiatives that foster advocacy, partnerships and innovation, they can amplify the impact of international scientists and shape more inclusive policies.
- Diversify funding models. As scientific leaders reconsider how to continue funding STEM research including for graduate and postdoctoral programs at scale in the U.S. through convenings (e.g., by NASEM and UIDP), public-private-philanthropic partnerships must intentionally include considerations by and for international graduate students and postdocs in their planning and implementation.
- Require professional development. Foundations and philanthropic funders can make career and professional development a standard component of fellowships and sponsored research grants, following the precedents set by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
- Mobilize advocacy through data. Public-facing dashboards such as the NAFSA International Student Economic Value Tool and OPT Observatory from the Institute for Progress, demonstrate the economic and intellectual value of international scientists. These are powerful tools for storytelling, advocacy and policy change.
- Encourage immigration innovation. Beyond ongoing legislative efforts like the bipartisan Keep STEM Talent Act aiming to support the U.S. STEM workforce, the philanthropic sector can also pilot creative solutions. For instance, Renaissance Philanthropy’s Talent Mobility Fund raises awareness of underutilized immigration pathways such as O-1 and J-1 visas, diversifying routes available for STEM researchers.
Employer Responsibility

Employers across all sectors—universities, for-profit industries and nonprofit organizations—have a shared responsibility to create transparent, informed hiring practices for visa holders. Too often, candidates are left to initiate uncomfortable sponsorship discussions during job interviews. Instead, hiring managers should proactively coordinate with human resources and legal teams before posting positions to determine sponsorship possibilities, costs and timelines. Even small changes, such as explicitly noting “visa sponsorship available” (or not available) in job descriptions, can make a significant difference in promoting fairness and equity in hiring.

Moving Forward: Shared Responsibility for Systemic Change

The ability of international scientists to thrive is not just a matter of ethics and fairness—it is a strategic imperative for the future of American science and innovation. Universities, scientific societies, funders and employers have a shared responsibility to participate in removing systemic barriers and expanding opportunities for international scientists in a variety of careers.

While large-scale policy change may take time, meaningful progress is possible through small, immediate steps:
- Expanding access to independent funding and internships,
- Increasing transparency through data, and
- Fostering mentorship and advocacy networks.
By enabling international scientists to build dynamic, independent careers, we strengthen not only their futures but also the vitality and global leadership of the U.S. research enterprise.

Sonali Majumdar (she/her) is assistant dean for professional development in Princeton University’s Graduate School and author of Thriving as an International Scientist: Professional Development for Global STEM Citizens (October 2025, University of California Press). She is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

Adriana Bankston (she/her) is a strong advocate for the research enterprise and supporting the next-generation STEM workforce and a former AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow in the U.S. House of Representatives. She contributed to a chapter in Thriving as an International Scientist on systemic reforms and policy change in academia.
Source link
November 10, 2025
U.S. Universities Are National Security Assets (opinion)

For too long, Americans have underestimated the strategic value of our universities. The popular belief is that higher education’s chief contribution to national security is soft power—the goodwill generated by cultural exchange, academic diplomacy and global networking. That’s accurate, but it’s only a small part of the security story.

The vast majority of our 4,000-odd colleges and universities (including the elite ones) are hardly the ivory towers so associated with so-called woke movements and high-profile culture wars. Many, in fact, are the R&D labs of our national security infrastructure. They are the training grounds for the nation’s cyber warriors, military leaders, intelligence officers and diplomats. To be sure, they are one of America’s most potent weapons in an era of fierce geopolitical competition.

The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps is the military’s largest commissioning source, with a footprint that spans the nation. Army ROTC alone operates at about 1,000 college campuses and provides merit-based benefits to roughly 15,000 students each year. It produces approximately 70 percent of the officers entering the Army annually, commissioning around 5,000 second lieutenants in a typical year.

The scale is cross-service: Air Force ROTC maintains 145 host detachments with more than 1,100 partner universities and commissioned 2,109 Air Force and 141 Space Force officers in 2022. Navy/Marine Corps ROTC fields 63 units hosted at 77 colleges and extends to 160-plus colleges via cross-town agreements. Between 2011 and 2021, about 1,441 U.S. colleges and universities had at least one ROTC host, cross-town or extension unit—and every state has at least one host. Over its first century, ROTC has produced more than one million officers.

The Department of Defense, as key partner with higher education, invests billions annually in university research. In fiscal year 2022 alone, the DOD’s research, development, test and evaluation budget authority reached $118.7 billion. For example, the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program awarded $43 million in equipment grants to 112 university researchers for the 2025 fiscal year. Entities like DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the Army Research Laboratory, and the Office of Naval Research fund breakthroughs in AI, quantum computing, hypersonics and cyber resilience. Universities partner with the Defense Department and other government agencies to conduct research in areas like drone technology, stealth aircraft and, historically, the development of the Internet and GPS.

Cybersecurity is another front where U.S. universities lead with global distinction. The National Security Agency has designated nearly 500 campuses as national Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity. Universities like Carnegie Mellon, Purdue and the University of Texas at San Antonio run advanced programs focused on cryptography, digital forensics and cyber policy, partnering with both government and industry to build systems that repel state-sponsored hackers.

Biosecurity is equally critical. The COVID-19 pandemic proved that viruses can fundamentally destabilize economies and national morale as quickly as warfare can. Johns Hopkins, Emory, Harvard and Vanderbilt Universities all were at the forefront of research on the coronavirus and vaccines. Land-grant universities like Texas A&M and Iowa State have long been securing our food supply against agroterrorism and climate threats. As just one example of this partnership, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture announced $7.6 million in grants to 12 different universities focused on agricultural biosecurity.

Then there’s the talent pipeline. American universities train the linguists, engineers, analysts and scientists who feed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the armed forces. Through partnerships with universities, the National Security Education Program, the Critical Language Scholarship and the National Security Language Initiative for Youth help produce graduates fluent in Arabic, Mandarin and Farsi—utterly essential skills for both diplomacy and national intelligence.

Boren Scholars and Fellows are dedicated to harnessing their advanced linguistic and cultural skills within the federal government by securing a minimum of one year of employment in national security, actively strengthening the federal workforce and significantly elevating U.S. capabilities, deterrence and readiness.

Meanwhile, China has built a centralized academic–military complex under its Military–Civil Fusion strategy. Top universities like Tsinghua and Beihang Universities are deeply integrated with the People’s Liberation Army, producing dual-use research in AI, quantum and hypersonics—technologies intended to challenge U.S. dominance. The National University of Defense Technology is a flagship institution in this network, known for dual-use supercomputing and aerospace research. This model is potent but currently lacks the kind of innovative potential of U.S. institutions.

The U.S. system, by contrast, is decentralized, competitive and open. We often refer to this as “loose coupling”; the accompanying organizational dynamic is what enables so much of the innovative, interdisciplinary and cross-institutional work that U.S. higher education produces. But adequately funding this system is quickly becoming unsustainable and unpopular. The Trump administration is cutting funding for politically inconvenient fields—such as climate science, public health and international cooperation—and subjecting grant applications to political review. Many of these cuts target areas of academic inquiry that may appear obscure to the public but are fundamental to the foundational domains of national security. It is also worth noting that recent research suggests that the already high public and private returns to federally funded research are likely much higher than those reflected in current estimates.

Focusing solely on weapons labs while neglecting other strategic fields is short-sighted and dangerous. Security is not merely about firepower—it’s about the stability of the knowledge-based society. Public health, basic sciences, environmental resilience, diplomacy and social cohesion are just as critical to preventing conflict as advanced missiles and cyber weapons. To be sure, our colleges and universities contribute, almost beyond measure, to the stability of U.S. civil society through each of these domains.

Universities are not optional in the defense of this republic—they are indispensable. Undermine them and we hand our international competitors the high ground in both technology and ideas. In the contest for global leadership, the fight won’t just be won on battlefields. It will be won in classrooms, labs and libraries.

Brian Heuser is an associate professor of the practice of international education policy at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. For much of his career, he has worked on numerous projects related to national security education, including with the Boren Scholars Program, the former Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program and as a U.S. Embassy policy specialist to the Republic of Georgia.

Source link

November 10, 2025
Fla. Board Says Syllabi, Reading Lists Must Be Posted Publicly

Already, the University of Florida requires professors to post their syllabi online—but only three days prior to the start of class.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Liudmila Chernetska, Davizro and DenisTangneyJr/iStock/Getty Images

Faculty at all Florida public universities must now make syllabi, as well as a list of required or recommended textbooks and instructional materials for each class, available online and searchable for students and the general public for five years.

The new policy is part of an amendment to the Florida Board of Governors’ regulation on “Textbook and Instructional Materials Affordability and Transparency,” and it passed unanimously without discussion at a board meeting Thursday. On the agenda item description, board officials cited improved transparency as the impetus for the rule, which is meant to help students “make informed decisions as they select courses.” But some faculty members say it’s designed to chill academic freedom and allow the public to police what professors teach in the classroom.

“Many of my colleagues and I believe that this is yet another overreach by political appointees to let Florida’s faculty know that they are being watched for potentially teaching any content that the far right finds problematic,” said John White, a professor of English education and literacy at the University of North Florida. He said officials at his institution told faculty members they must upload their syllabi for 2026 spring semester classes to Simple Syllabus, an online syllabi hosting platform, by December.

“Florida’s universities are being run in an Orwellian manner, and working as a faculty member in Florida is increasingly like living in the world of Fahrenheit 451,” he said.

According to the approved amendment, professors must post the syllabi “as early as is feasible” but no fewer than 45 days prior to the start of class. Public syllabi must include “course curriculum, required and recommended textbooks and instructional materials, goals and student expectations of the course, and how student performance will be measured and evaluated, including the grading scale.” Individualized courses like independent study and theses are exempt from the rule.

The Florida Board of Governors did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about the amended policy, including a question about when it will start being enforced.

Concerns About Faculty Safety

It’s not a unique policy, even in Florida. Since 2013, the University of Florida has required professors to post their syllabi online—but only three days prior to the start of class, and they have to remain publicly available for just three semesters. Now, all Florida public universities, including the University of Florida, must follow the new rules. A UF spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed the university is waiting for the Board of Governors to share guidance about when the new policy will be enforced.

“Even before the rule, most faculty members have been posting anyway to advertise their course. Faculty members in fact prefer to post in advance and certainly have nothing against posting,” said Meera Sitharam, a professor in the department of computer and information science and engineering, and president of the University of Florida’s 2,150-member United Faculty of Florida union. The faculty she spoke with primarily took issue with the new 45-day deadline, which is “quite early for a posting containing all the details” of a syllabus, she said. They are also concerned that they will no longer be able to make changes to reading lists midsemester.

“A good-quality discussion class would permit the instructor to assign new reading as the course proceeds. This would now be disallowed,” Sitharam said. “The effect of this is likely to be that an overlong reading list is posted by the faculty member just to make sure that they don’t miss anything they might want to assign. And much of the reading list may never be assigned.”

Texas similarly requires all faculty at public institutions to make a version of their syllabus public. Indiana implemented a law in July requiring public institutions to publish all course syllabi on their websites, and this fall, the University System of Georgia introduced a new policy requiring faculty to post syllabi and curriculum vitae on institution websites.

Some faculty members in those states have seen firsthand the risks of posting syllabi online; several professors have been harassed and doxed over course content in their online syllabi. Florida faculty are concerned the same thing could happen to them; several faculty members believe that the board passed the rule with the intent of siccing the general public on professors who teach about topics that conservative politicians don’t like.

“The sole purpose is to subcontract out the oversight of all of our courses, so that if there’s some independent entity or individual that wants to look at the College of Education at Florida State, and they spend two months doing a deep dive into all of the classes, then they’ll come up with: ‘Here at Florida State we found these five classes that don’t meet [our standards],’” said William Trapani, communications and multimedia studies professor at Florida Atlantic University. “Why else would you have that capacity to make this data bank and make it publicly accessible for five years?”

Stan Kaye, a professor emeritus of design and technology at the University of Florida, sees concerns about the policy as overblown. “I cannot see why making syllabi public at a public institution is a problem for anyone—I would think that promoting your work and subject is generally a good thing,” he said. “If you are afraid you are teaching something illegal or that lacks academic integrity and you want to keep it secret, that should be a problem.”

Faculty safety is the primary concern for James Beasley, an associate professor of English and president of the faculty association at North Florida.

“The most important issue related to this requirement is the safety of our faculty, both online and in person. The concern is that faculty will be exposed to external trolls of course content and that the publication of course locations will expose faculty to location disclosures,” Beasley said in an email. While it is typical for syllabi to include course meeting times and locations, the new board policy does not require that information to be posted online.

Trapani also said that because of the five-year syllabus retention period, faculty are worried they could be retroactively harassed for teaching about something the public finds unfavorable from a class several years ago. White has similar concerns.

“I’m teaching a course that utilizes neo-Marxist theory to critique the idea of meritocracy—will the Board of Governors or members of the public falsely claim I’m teaching communism or that I’m teaching students to hate their country? If a history professor or a social studies education professor is discussing redlining or Jim Crow laws, will they later be critiqued for teaching students about institutionalized racism or sexism?” White said.

Ultimately, Trapani believes the amended syllabi policy is an attempt to insulate the Board of Governors from public criticism.

“Florida will make a lot more sense to outsiders if its policymaking is viewed through a lens of fear,” he said. “They’ve deputized an army of outsiders to pore through records older than most students’ time at the university—all so that they cannot be accused of missing something … It’s just another way in which faculty employment conditions and physical safety are made more precarious by the endless barrage of false claims about our teaching practices.”

Josh Moody contributed to this report.

Source link

November 10, 2025
Skills-based higher education driving student financial support

Author:

Peter Gray

Published:

10 November 2025

Over the weekend, HEPI published a blog on reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women and a blog on the future of languages in multilingual Britain.

Today’s blog was kindly authored by Peter Gray, CEO and Chairman of the JS Group.

If universities are to adapt to the latest skills-led demands of the Government (and to match the stated national future industry priorities), they will need to look well beyond their course and employability provision at many other aspects of the student experience.

One such key area is in the connection between student financial support and employability opportunities. It is important that those students from lower-income or more restricted backgrounds are financially equipped and able to take advantage of, for example, off-campus experiences with employers to ensure they aren’t denied these frontline opportunities for skills development and for making connections. While there are many charities working to structure and access these opportunities, it is the funding itself to enable this full participation that needs particular attention.

That’s why I can foresee a new demand for universities to steer more and more bursaries, scholarships, and special-case funding streams towards helping students with skills-based experiences. It is a trend that is already growing – as JS Group’s latest annual analysis of patterns in student financial support demonstrates. In recent years, we’ve assessed the overall use of £296 million of such support provided to 584,000 students.

In the last 12 months (the 2024/25 academic year), we have looked at the use of this funding by students, the formats of payments and the timelines of when funding is being used and applied. This data (from our Aspire platform) is immensely important as it can draw on real-time and (student) user-based experiences to ensure universities have the evidence to make future decisions about their student support investments.

A notable trend this year – which is in part explained by an expansion of participating universities providing data and the use of funding from Turing and Taith public funding schemes – is in how more and more students are using cash-based support from their institution to address the costs of work placements or associated travel, or to recover such expenses.

Expenses claims are up by more than six per cent, use of placement funds is up three per cent and travel is up by more than one per cent. Our indicators show more action in these areas alongside continued support for accommodation, household bills, groceries and course-based resources.

Our feedback survey of students as funding beneficiaries also shows the value that they place on funding for levelling-up (in terms of their ability to participate in opportunities) and for strengthening their perception of value and belonging with their university.

If, as we expect, there will now be a national policy drive to steer more embedded work-related and skills-driven activities as part of the higher education experience, then it makes sense for universities to reassess how they are using their financial support beyond cost-of-living and cost-of-learning applications.

Source link

November 10, 2025
Higher education must include valuable workforce experience and training that helps students secure meaningful jobs

by Bruno V. Manno, The Hechinger Report
November 10, 2025

This fall, some 19 million undergraduates returned to U.S. campuses with a long-held expectation: Graduate, land an entry-level job, climb the career ladder. That formula is breaking down.

Once reliable gateway jobs for college graduates in industries like finance, consulting and journalism have tightened requirements. Many entry-level job postings that previously provided initial working experience for college graduates now require two to three years of prior experience, while AI, a recent analysis concluded, “snaps up good entry-level tasks,” especially routine work like drafting memos, preparing spreadsheets and summarizing research.

Without these proving grounds, new hires lose chances to build skills by doing. And the demand for work experience that potential workers don’t have creates an experience gap for new job seekers. Once stepping-stones, entry-level positions increasingly resemble mid-career jobs.

No doubt AI is and will continue to reshape work in general and entry-level jobs in particular in expected and unexpected ways. But we are not doomed to what some call an “AI job apocalypse” or a “white-collar bloodbath” that leads to mass unemployment. There are practical solutions to the experience gap problem when it comes to education and training programs. These include earn-and-learn models and other innovative public and private employer partnerships that build into their approaches opportunities for young people to gain valuable work experience.

Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

Before I describe these potential solutions, here is more information on how I see the problem.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that in March 2025, the unemployment rate for college graduates ages 22 to 27 was 5.7 percent, compared to an overall unemployment rate of 4.0 percent. Other than the temporary pandemic-related spike in 2021, that was the highest unemployment rate for new grads since 2014. More recently, the Fed’s August 2025 unemployment rate for recent college graduates was 1 percentage point higher than its overall unemployment rate of 4.3 percent.

The experience gap phenomenon is not limited to the tech sector. In 2019, 61 percent of AI-related job postings were in the information technology and computer science sector, with 39 percent in non-tech sectors, labor analytics from Lightcast show. By 2024, the majority (51 percent versus 49 percent) of AI-related job postings were outside the tech sector.

The cumulative effect of all this is apparent. The hollowing out of entry-level work stalls mobility across the labor market, leaving many college graduates stranded before their careers can even begin. Moreover, these changes cut to the core of higher education’s promise.

If graduates can’t secure meaningful jobs, confidence in higher ed falters — one reason why it should come as no surprise that 56 percent of Americans think earning a four-year degree is not worth the cost, a March 2023 Wall Street Journal-NORC poll found, compared with 42 percent who think it is, a new low in a poll first administered in 2013. Skepticism was predominant among those ages 18 to 34, and college degree holders were among those most skeptical.

Related: As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment

The collapse of entry-level jobs isn’t just a cyclical downturn. It’s a structural shift. Left unchecked, this dynamic will deepen inequality, slow social mobility and further undermine faith in higher education.

As I’ve said, solutions exist. Here are five that I believe in:

Apprenticeships and other earn-and-learn models: Earn-and-learn apprenticeships are a promising, direct solution to the experience gap. They combine paid work with structured training and provide years of experience to college students in those jobs. Sectors from tech to health care are experimenting with this model, examples of which include registered apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships and apprenticeship degrees that allow individuals to pursue a degree while they work in an apprenticeship.

Skills-based hiring and alternative credentials: Initiatives such as skills-first hiring by major employers like IBM, Google and Apple aim to evaluate candidates based on their competencies rather than their degrees. Microcredentials, industry certificates and portfolios can serve as verifiable signals of skills gained through alternative training routes.

Stronger college and employer partnerships: Colleges can (and should) embed work-based learning into curricula through co-op programs, project-based courses and partnerships with local industries. Northeastern University and Drexel have long pioneered this model. And others, such as Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University, are using online learning to advance this approach. Scaling this solution could help close the experience gap.

Policy innovations: Governments can play a role by giving incentives to companies to create early career opportunities. Workforce Pell, recently enacted in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, expands financial aid to use for short-term training programs, opening new pathways for students who may not be pursuing traditional degrees. Tax credits for apprenticeship sponsors and funding for regional workforce hubs could further expand opportunities.

Reimagining internships: Expanding access to paid internships — especially for first-generation and low-income students — could democratize the attainment of experience. Philanthropies and local governments could underwrite stipends to ensure that opportunity isn’t reserved for the affluent who can afford unpaid internships or have social networks that connect them to these opportunities.

The challenge presented by this troubling experience gap is urgent. Today’s students deserve a college experience and a labor market in which education and effort still translate into opportunity.

Bruno V. Manno is a senior advisor at the Progressive Policy Institute, leading its What Works Lab, and is a former U.S. assistant secretary of education for policy.

Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

This story about workforce experience was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-too-many-college-graduates-are-stranded-before-their-careers-can-even-begin-we-cant-let-that-happen/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113298&ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-too-many-college-graduates-are-stranded-before-their-careers-can-even-begin-we-cant-let-that-happen/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

Source link

November 10, 2025
No Frogs Were Actually Harmed in Describing Systems Thinking – Teaching in Higher Ed
This post is one of many, related to my participation in Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop.

As we round down our time in the PKMastery workshop, I’m now presented with a topic that is both familiar, yet still incredibly challenging for me: systems thinking. One of the best books I read in my MA was The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. I discovered that I didn’t have a digital copy (where I like to keep highlights) and was fortunate to find it on sale for $1.99, plus a digital credit that made it “free”.

The key dimensions of the disciplines of the learning organization are listed by Senge in the introduction:
- Systems thinking: He describes here how rain happens, with a bunch of different events that happen across distance, time, and space, yet: “… they are all connected within the same pattern. Each has an influence on the rest, an influence that is usually hidden from view. You can only understand the system of a rainstorm by contemplating the whole, not any individual part of the pattern.” We use systems thinking to be more effective at seeing the full picture and associated patterns, as well as to find ways to facilitate change.
- Personal mastery: Senge distinguishes the multiple meanings of the word mastery. Yes, it can mean dominance over another, yet can also have to do with proficiency. He defines personal mastery as, “…the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of seeing reality objectively.”
- Mental models: These baked in assumptions, over-generalized beliefs impact how we understand and explain what happens and the actions we take as a result of those paradigms.
- Building shared vision: Organizations that achieve great things do so through leadership capacity at developing a shared perspective on where the organization is headed. Senge describes: “When there is a genuine vision (as opposed to the all-too-familiar “vision statement”), people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to.”
- Team learning: Senge encourages us to look to the Greeks’ practice of dialog vs discussion. When we are in dialog, our ideas are free-flowing and we can build a capacity to suspend our assumptions and actually think together. In contrast, the word discussion has ties with word like “percussion” and “concussion” and the idea of competitive ideation can take place.
Senge describes how the fifth discipline is systems thinking, because it weaves together the other disciplines toward intentional transformation. When we can visualize something better, we can understand it more effectively, as Jarche illustrates in a story about when NASA first released a picture of the earth, taken from space. He writes how:

There are many ways to use visualization to understand data better. The real value of big data is using it to ask better questions. Visualization can be a conversation accelerator.

Taking existing systems and using visualization to surface the ways the various parts of the system shape the other parts is vital in increasing our individual and collective abilities to learn.

What Holds Us Back From Being a Learning Organization

In chapter two, Senge writes about what he calls organizational learning disabilities. I’m not sure he communicates in such a way to support more of an asset-based framework for disability that many of us have become familiar with today. But I still want to list and describe them here, as this was my biggest takeaway from the book, reading it more than twenty years ago.
1. “I am my position”
“When asked what they do for a living, most people describe the tasks they perform every day, not the purpose of the greater enterprise in which they take part. Most see themselves within a system over which they have little or no influence. They do their job, put in their time, and try to cope with the forces outside of their control. Consequently, they tend to see their responsibilities as limited to the boundaries of their position.”
1. “The enemy is out there”
“When we focus only on our position, we do not see how our own actions extend beyond the boundary of that position. When those actions have consequences that come back to hurt us, we misperceive these new problems as externally caused. Like the person being chased by his own shadow, we cannot seem to shake them.”
1. The illusion of taking charge
“All too often, proactiveness is reactiveness in disguise… True proactiveness comes from seeing how we contribute to our own problems. It is a. product of our way of thinking, not our emotional state.”
1. The fixation on events
Senge describes how we evolved out of societies where people had to be focused on events to survive, like watching for the saber-toothed tiger to show up and be able to respond immediately.

“Generative learning cannot be sustained in an organization if people’s thinking is dominated by short-term events. If we focus on events, the best we can ever do is predict an event before it happens so that we can react optimally. But we cannot learn to create.”
1. The parable of the boiled frog
“Learning to see slow, gradual processes requires slowing down our frenetic pace and paying attention to the subtle as well as the dramatic… The problem is our minds are so locked in one frequency, it’s as if we can only see at 78 rpm; we can’t see anything at 33-1/3. We will not avoid the fate of the frog until we learn to slow down and see the gradual processes that often pose the greatest threats.”

Remember that this is meant to be a metaphor to help us explain this phenomenon. No frogs were harmed in sharing this boiling frog apologue.
1. The delusion of learning from experience
“Herein lies the core learning dilemma that confronts organizations: we learn best from experience but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions. The most critical decisions made in organizations have systemwide consequences that stretch over years or decades.”
1. The myth of the management team
“All too often, teams in business tend to spend their time fighting for turf, avoiding anything that will make them look bad personally, and pretending that everyone is behind the team’s collective strategy—maintaining the appearance of a cohesive team. To keep up the image, they seek to squelch disagreement; people with serious reservations avoid stating them publicly, and joint decisions are watered-down compromises reflecting what everyone can live with, or else reflecting one person’s view foisted on the group. If there is disagreement, it’s usually expressed in a manner that lays blame, polarizes opinion, and fails to reveal the underlying differences in assumptions and experience in a way that the team as a whole could learn from.”

Senge goes on to describe what Chris Argyris from Harvard calls “skilled incompetence” (gift, non-paywalled article from HBR)- groups of individuals who get super good at making sure to prevent themselves from actually learning. Since we’re talking frogs a lot in this series of PKM posts, I can’t help but bring up another illustrative story having to do with skilled incompetence.

The cartoon character Michigan J Frog would only dance and sing when the man who found him was alone. Any time that someone else entered the picture, the frog just sat there, making normal frog noises. Here’s a look at his antics:

Looks to me like skilled incompetence and also some seriously skilled frog theatrics (but only when no one is looking).

What Comes Next

The next part of The Fifth Discipline is something Senge calls “the beer game.” It is a memorable look at what happens when we are unable to see the entire system, but only one part of it. Let’s just say there’s a supposed shortage of beer, and then lots and lots of beer. But you should read it, as I’m nowhere capturing the marvelous metaphor that is the beer game.

Readers are also instructed how to map systems in this book, though it is a practice that I never mastered. Jarche links to Tools for Systems Thinkers: Systems Mapping, by Leyia Acaroglu. which gives a great introduction and series of maps to use to explore complex ideas. Acaroglu illustrates their value by describing:

As a practicing creative change-maker, I use systems mapping tools like this all the time when I want to identify the divergent parts of the problem set and find unique areas in which to develop interventions. I also use them to gain clarity in complexity, and find it especially useful when working in teams or collaborating because it puts everyone on the same page.

I pretty much want to take every class that Levia and her team have available on the Unschool of Disruptive Design site. I’m also thinking I had better settle myself down a bit and wrap up this PKMastery course before biting off anything more. That, plus a couple of big conferences coming up I still need to prepare for…
Source link
November 9, 2025
What Happens When We Start Making the Work Visible – Teaching in Higher Ed

This post is one of many, related to my participation in Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop.

Jarche informs us that when we narrate our work, we don’t experience knowledge transfer, but what we do get is greater understanding. Our individual, self-directed learning is difficult to codify, he explains, and is more focused on relationships and expertise. When we narrate our work, focusing on decisions and processes, we make that work more visible to others. This means we can experiment and share knowledge, learning together in real time. The results of this thinking together results in enterprise curation, where we can more easily codify knowledge and experience the results of our earlier efforts.

The value of social bookmarks are hard to see, at first. However, over time, especially when combined with the use of feed aggregators and readers, we eventually get to witness the power of PKM as a discipline. I’ve been using Raindrop.io bookmarks for years, now, and enjoy having shareable bookmarks (which I can surface, when a situation encourages that practice), yet most of my collections are private. One that is now public is my growing collection of AI articles, in both an RSS feed and just a browsable page.

I do find myself cringing a bit as I save items there, knowing that I certainly don’t endorse each link I save and the topic of AI is so controversial and polarizing. I’ve got everything up there from the world as we know it is crumbling to its core to fun hacks to use AI to build you a rocket ship to the moon (or load your dishwasher) or some such thing.

Jarche states that our emphasis when we narrate our work should be on making our thinking accessible, but to avoid disrupting people with what we choose to share. He writes:

The key is to narrate your work so it is shareable, but to use discernment in sharing with others. Also, to be good at narrating your work, you have to practice.

One practice Jarche mentions under his tips and links section is to keep a journal. While I’ve not been good at this practice since my teenage years long ago, I did find many of these 6 Ways Keeping a Journal Can Help Your Career compelling. In Episode 425 of Teaching in Higher Ed, I share Viji Sathy’s and Kelly Hogan’s suggestion to keep a “Starfish” folder. There are variations of the beloved story of the starfish, including this Tale of the Starfish page from the Starfish Foundation with a powerful video describing the power in making a difference for a single starfish, even if we can’t rescue them all.

I have kept up with digital encouragement folders for years now, both on my email accounts, as well as in my file directories (across my personal and professional domains). While not a journal, exactly, these stories and words can bring me encouragement during difficult times.

I’ve been paying for the Day One Journal App for years now, though entirely languish in my practice of journaling. I would switch over to Obsidian, which has the benefit of future proofing any notes I take using Obsidian, since they are just text files sitting wherever I want them to be (as in if the app went away, the text files are still there and readable).

However, Day One brings together all the TV and movies that I’ve watched, all my social media posts and images, and all the videos I’ve favorited on YouTube. I use Sequel to track what I want to watch, which then optionally integrates with the free Trakt service, which allows for an IFTTT rule to add an entry to Day One each time I mark something as watched in Sequel. In case you’re wondering about how I accomplish this, I found these two automations on IFTTT and never had to change a thing.

Perhaps someday I’ll go down a rabbit trail of trying to figure out a longer-term, non-subscription based model for collecting all those memories across all those different services and not locking myself into DayOne. For now, I’m enjoying revisiting this glimpse of these two upside down kind of people from 2017….

…and then having this song from Jack Johnson start playing on the soundtrack of my mind for what I’m sure will last at least a few hours.

Source link

November 9, 2025
I Can See Clearly Now The Frogs Are Here – Teaching in Higher Ed

This post is one of many, related to my participation in Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop.

Sometimes we think we need experts, sure. But we shouldn’t dismiss the power of finding fellow seekers. There are times when an expert might help us, but also times they leave us behind or otherwise are unable to contribute to our growth. They may not have sufficient beginner’s mind or childlike curiosity. We may need the empathy and lack of judgement that can be possible with someone who is still wrestling through these same ideas, themselves.

I’ve often tried to coach students in showing them the ways that they can help their professors, when they often think their only possible role is as one being the receiver of help. Similarly, when we are in a seeking role, we aren’t able to see the ways we can add value to the learning process for ourselves and others. We can wrestle with trying to give the appearance of competence versus staying in the seeker’s mindset and focusing on curiosity and wonder. This hesitance at potentially looking foolish to others in our incompetence can not only hold us back from learning, but also cause us to feel alone. It is vital to connect with other seekers and experience the benefits of those roles within our networks.

Jarche writes:

Your fellow seekers can help you on a journey to become a Knowledge Catalyst, which takes parts of the Expert and the Connector and combines them to be a highly contributing node in a knowledge network. We can become knowledge catalysts — filtering, curating, thinking, and doing — in conjunction with others. Only in collaboration with others will we understand complex issues and create new ways of addressing them. As expertise is getting eroded in many fields, innovation across disciplines is increasing. We need to reach across these disciplines.

I sure hope Harold is right about cross-disciplinary innovation expanding, as we need that more than ever. In Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World, David Epstein instructs:

Compare yourself to yourself yesterday, not to younger people who aren’t you. Everyone progresses at a different rate, so don’t let anyone else make you feel behind. You probably don’t even know where exactly you’re going, so feeling behind doesn’t help. Instead… start planning experiments.

The Value of Experiments

What are experiments? Epstein describes them by introducing physicist Andre Geim and his “Friday night experiments” (FNEs). It was through these endeavors that Geim won not a fancy Nobel Prize, but an Ig Nobel (which Geim shares with collaborator M V Berry via their Of Flying Frogs and Levitrons piece, available through the Internet Wayback Machine). The Ig Nobel is bestowed on those who at first seem like they’re doing something ridiculous. From Wikipedia:

The Ig Nobel Prize (/ˌɪɡ noʊˈbɛl/) is a satirical prize awarded annually since 1991 to promote public engagement with scientific research. Its aim is to “honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think.” The name of the award is a pun on the Nobel Prize, which it parodies, and on the word “ignoble”.

A serious researcher, Geim is (as of 2025) the only person to both win a Nobel and an Ig Nobel prize. Those who are in line to potentially win an Ig Nobel are first informed, such that they can determine if the satirical nature of the designation might be detrimental to their research careers. For his FNEs, Geim was experimenting with levitating frogs with magnets and was awarded the satirical prize for that less “serious” work. Through another FNE, Geim wound up developing “gecko tape,” which was based on the properties of geckos’ feet. These less serious experiments contributed to his more “serious” research, which ultimately led to his prestigious receipt of a Nobel Prize.

This 2010 image of a lump of graphite, a graphene transistor, and a tape dispenser, items that were given to the Nobel Museum by researchers Andrew Geim and Konstantin Novoselov to reflect their Nobel research. Before their discoveries, it was believed to be impossible to create material that could conduct electricity in such thin layers as graphene is now able to, which has opened up even more possibilities in both material science and electronics.

In his first-person narrative from his 2010 Nobel Prize, he describes how his Russian literature tutor critiqued his writing for trying too hard to parrot experts vs trusting his own intuition. Geim writes:

My tutor said that what I was writing was good but it was clear from my essays that I tried to recall and repeat the thoughts of famous writers and literature critics, not trusting my own judgement, afraid that my own thoughts were not interesting, important or correct enough. Her advice was to try and explain my own opinions and ideas and to use those authoritative phrases only occasionally, to support and strengthen my writing. This simple advice was crucial for me – it changed the way I wrote. Years later I noticed that I was better at explaining my thoughts in writing than my fellow students.

I once was able to interview a recipient of the Ig Nobel for Teaching in Higher Ed: Episode 591 – Rethinking Student Attendance Policies for Deeper Engagement and Learning with Simon Cullen and Danny Oppenheimer. Danny is the one of these two collaborators with this great honor. Take a look at the incredible title of the piece that won him the Ig Nobel: Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly, by Daniel M. Oppenheimer Imagine how bummed I was that despite me being so excited to ask him more about it, my nerves got the best of me and I entirely forgot to ever mention it during our conversation for the podcast.

Researching Versus Searching

Epstein describes in Range the ways in which the novice mindset gets weaved together with the expert mindset in such transformative ways. He reveals how us being willing to be vulnerable in our not knowing and early experimentation through an art historian’s description of how Geim is emblematic of this willingness to stay in the not knowing longer. Epstein tells how:

Art historian Sarah Lewis studies creative achievement, and described Geim’s mindset as representative of the “deliberate amateur.” The word “amateur,” she pointed out, did not originate as an insult, but comes from the Latin word for a person who adores a particular endeavor. “A paradox of innovation and mastery is that breakthroughs often occur when you start down a road, but wander off for a ways and pretend as if you have just begun,” Lewis wrote.

My friend, Naomi, and I always joke with each other about our “rabbit trail” emails back and forth to each other. I often wish there were a better expression that more precisely evokes the delight that can come from a diversion. Two years before he won the Nobel, Geim was asked to explain his research process. He described how instead of always going deep, he likes to stay in the shallow and move around. He described:

I don’t want to carry on studying the same thing from cradle to grave. Sometimes I joke that I am not interested in doing re-search, only search.

Seeking as Doing

Jarche illustrates how when trust is low that doers, connectors, and catalysts can address the limitations of credibility that exist in the roles of professors, stewards, and experts. He asserts: We Need Less Professing and More Doing. He describes how someone like Zeynep Tukekci can be not a medical professional herself, but so gifted at weaving “knowledge from many disciplines into a coherent narrative.”

Jarche stressing the doing part made me think of Mike Caulfield, who says that novice fact checkers need not to solely focus on critical thinking, but he would rather we all get far better at teaching critical doing skills. I’ve been having a blast following Mike’s own critical doing skills as he documents his experiments with in what ways AI may be able to help with critical thinking/doing. He is in the process of learning out loud, as he identifies the less helpful approaches for trying to use AI for fact checking and where he sees promise for achieving better results than most people would be able to come up with, themselves.

In a lot of ways, I’m seeing Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery Workshop as my own set of small experiments. In Dave’s recent Coaching for Leaders Episode 747, he interviews Laure Le Cunff, author of Tiny Experiments: How to Live Freely in a Goal-Obsessed World. Le Cunff explains how:

The secret to designing growth loops is not better knowledge or skills, but your ability to think about your own thinking, question your automatic responses, and know your mind.

Sounds a lot like PKM to me… Until next time. For now, it is dinnertime around here and we ordered Cheesecake Factory. It’s good to be back home. In the meantime, here’s for our individual and collective ability to see clearly now, as we practice PKM together.

Source link

November 9, 2025
Network Weaving as an Antidote to Imposter Syndrome – Teaching in Higher Ed

I’ve been traveling this week, so got a bit behind on my reflections on Harold Jarche’s Personal Knowledge Mastery (PKM) workshop. The other thing that is a bit frustrating, is that I haven’t been disciplined about my typical sensemaking habits and practices and seem to have lost the notes I took on a video he shared about something new to me: network weaving. At some point, maybe my reflections will resurface (my digital inboxes are overflowing, at the moment, and search seems no use to me if I can’t even find the haystack that the needle may be hiding in with those notes). That’s all just to say, I’m all over the place right now.

Network Weaving

I stubbornly don’t want to rewatch the video at this exact moment. I’m sitting in an airport, next to an outlet with all my devices happily charging until it is time to get on my first of two flights for the day. To say that I am a person with battery anxiety is an understatement. Here’s what I remember about watching Networks: Weaving People, Ideas and Projects, though, mixed with the connections I found with other ideas I’ve encountered in the past.

June Holley describes network weaving as connecting people, ideas, and projects. Hearing her describe the generosity and intentionality involved in network weaving had me reflecting on Coaching for Leaders Episode 279 with Tom Henschel: How to Grow Your Professional Network. Prior to listening to that conversation between Dave and Tom, I had thought about networking more as something I was never very good at, but tolerated, since I knew it was necessary in most professions.

Tom described different types of networking and it was then that I realized I actually loved it and did it all the time; just that I hadn’t thought of what I enjoy doing falling under the category of networking. I enjoy meeting someone new and then identifying who else I know that is into the same stuff that they’re into. I think what Tom was describing is a lot like June Holley’s description of network weaving. Jarche shares this short Network Weaving 101 article from Valdis Krebs, which describes how this process is all about “closing triangles.” Krebs writes:

A triangle exists between three people in a social network. An “open triangle” exists where one person knows two other people who are not yet connected to each other — X knows Y and X knows Z, but Y and Z do not know each other. A network weaver (X) may see an opportunity or possibility from making a connection between two currently unconnected people (Y and Z). A “closed triangle” exists when all three people know each other: X-Y, X-Z, Y-Z.

This makes so much sense to me, instantly. Some of the other content that Jarche has shared has been challenging for me to take in (which I appreciate, as he’s stretching me and helping me grow). But this one, I feel like I get on a more instinctive level. Like I’ve been doing something for much of my life, without having a word for it, yet experiencing such joy each time it happens.

Imposter Syndrome

I’m also realizing that one of the ways I try to calm my nerves when preparing to do a keynote or workshop may very well be embodied by the idea of network weaving. The lizard part of my brain starts to tell myself that I have nothing to offer (this gets exasperated by being in a hotel room in an unfamiliar city, after sitting too long on airplanes all day). One of the best listener emails I ever received came from Itamar Kastner in Scotland. He said that he knows I’m a fan of music and thought I might enjoy Grace Petrie, and English Folk singer-song writer “in the protest singer tradition of Billy Bragg and Woody Guthrie,” he explained over email. Yes, indeed, Itamar was spot on in recommending Grace Petrie’s Nobody Knows That I’m a Fraud:

To thwart the less sophisticated parts of my brain that make me wonder what I’m doing in a hotel room, preparing for the next day’s adventures, I work to shift my focus away from how I am feeling and what I might like people to experience in the session with me. I even try to shrink it down more than a bunch of nameless faces and think about a single person and where they may be struggling and potentially feeling alone or like a failure in some way. What sorts of imposter syndrome symptoms might otherwise be relieved through my vulnerability in not having everything figured out, yet learning out loud, anyway? How might that posture provide fertile ground for others to do the same?

The second half of how I can calm my nerves is to remember that my job isn’t to talk about what I do in my own teaching, necessarily. Rather, I get to share these incredible stories and point people back to the source of inspiration that I’ve found through the podcast across all these years. This feels very much like what I now understand to be a form of collective network weaving (as in connecting many people to new ideas, people, and projects. The last eleven and a half years, I’ve been fortunate to get to talk to people from all over the world who love teaching and learning (just like me). The stories within those conversations are limitless sources of hope, practice, and feelings of solidarity.

Jackie Shay offers the final piece of the puzzle for unraveling those feelings of insecurity that can be present for so many of us, by the way. I realize that last sentence mixed at least two metaphors at once, but give me a break. I’m sitting in an airport, remember? 😂 On Episode 571: Overcoming Imposter Syndrome Through Joyful Curiosity, Jackie asks:

Why can’t we recognize that these different types of intelligences have just as much value as intellectual intelligence?

I’m not supposed to ever be even close to the smartest person in the room. Not even close. But curiosity and connection? Those are two pursuits I’ve enjoyed my whole life and are forms of intelligence to be valued and cultivated in ourselves and others. As we prepare to share our sensemaking process with others, how about we stop trying to out-perform the imaginary room of intelligent people we’ll be talking at and start working on creating conversations that spark imagination?

Jackie Shay is tremendously good at getting people curious and engaged. I remember so vividly talking to Jackie about my memories of camping with my family in Joshua Tree as a little girl and getting swept away in all the specifics that flooded into my mind. Then, I felt like I should pull back and joked about revealing a bigger focus on capitalism than I had hoped for a conversation about nature/science. My brother and I used to have a whole economy we had built out of the various elements in the desert back then, like the quartz crystals and different types of plants.

Jackie laughed with me, but also let me know that sorting and categorizing things (as we had done with the different elements there in the desert) was actually a big part of science. We were doing science, even though I didn’t have a word for that at the time (and clearly didn’t in my embarrassment feeling like no one wanted to hear about my childhood memories until she pointed out to me that we had been doing science, without realizing it). I recalled Alexis Pierce Caudell recommending Categories We Live By: How We Classify Everyone and Everything, by Gregory L. Murphy on Episode 527. While I wish I had finished reading it by now, but it sits in the virtual pile of books I’ve started but have yet to complete. It’s not a science book, though, well… except maybe the varieties related to library science and information technology. I obviously need to read the book before I should be commenting on what it is and isn’t. Sigh.

I don’t think at all that this picture of my brother and I was actually taken in Joshua Tree. I’m going to have to see if I can find one in the photo albums I haven’t quite gotten to scanning yet. But it reminds me of our imaginative life that we had when our family would take trips together.

Closing Triangles

As Valdis Krebs described, network weaving is all about closing triangles. At the keynote I gave for the ETOM conference today, I didn’t exactly close a triangle. However, I got to spend some time with a couple of past Teaching in Higher Ed podcast guests. Christina Moore discussed Inclusive Practices Through Digital Accessibility on Episode 293 and Mobile-Mindful Teaching and Learning on Episode 456. VaNessa Thompson helped us discover How to Engage on Social Media on Episode 416.

VaNessa and Christina already know each other and I know them. Still, this memory we now share tightens the bond between us and now creates a triangular relationship between the three of us. Again, not necessarily closing triangles here. But certainly doing something new with going from one-on-one relationships and now having this shared triangle to remember and potentially strengthen in the future.

PS. My talk was aligned with the conference theme (innovation). I had some fun with alliteration and divided the talk into: 1) innovation 2) imagination and 3) imitation (which was kinda like curation, but I just couldn’t break the alliteration streak I was on there). In my reading for the topic of connectors, I just saw a quick reference in Beth Kanter’s piece that Jarche shared about how helpful network weaving can be when we’re “stumbling through the fog of innovation.” I like that phrase “fog of innovation” and only wish I had come across it before today’s keynote. 🤦‍♀️🫠

Source link

November 8, 2025
Cornell Settles With the Trump Administration

Cornell University has reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay the government a $30 million settlement—and invest another $30 million in agricultural research—in exchange for having its frozen federal research funding restored.

The agreement, announced Friday, makes Cornell the latest institution to strike a deal with the federal government in an effort to settle investigations into alleged civil rights violations. The settlement follows similar arrangements at the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, Brown University and the University of Virginia. Concessions varied by university, with Columbia making the biggest payout at $221 million.

Collectively, those institutions were targeted for a range of alleged violations, including allowing transgender athletes to compete on women’s sports teams, failing to police campus antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian protests and operating supposedly illegal diversity, equity and inclusion practices as the Trump administration cracked down on DEI initiatives.

Now the university will see roughly $250 million in frozen federal research funding immediately restored. The federal government will also close ongoing civil rights investigations into Cornell.

While some institutions, including Columbia, have given tremendous deference to the federal government and agreed to sweeping changes across admissions, hiring and academic programs, the deal at Cornell appears to be relatively constrained, despite the $30 million payout.

Under the agreement, Cornell must share anonymized admissions data broken down by race, GPA and standardized test scores with the federal government through 2028; conduct annual campus climate surveys; and ensure compliance with various federal laws. Cornell also agreed to share as a training resource with faculty and staff a July memo from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi barring the use of race in hiring, admissions practices and scholarship programs. And in addition to paying the federal government $30 million over three years, Cornell will invest $30 million “in research programs that will directly benefit U.S. farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency, including but not limited to programs that incorporate [artificial intelligence] and robotics,” according to a copy of the agreement.

Cornell leaders cast the deal as a positive for the university.

“I am pleased that our good faith discussions with the White House, Department of Justice, and Department of Education have concluded with an agreement that acknowledges the government’s commitment to enforce existing anti-discrimination law, while protecting our academic freedom and institutional independence,” Cornell president Michael Kotlikoff said in a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed. “These discussions have now yielded a result that will enable us to return to our teaching and research in restored partnership with federal agencies.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon also celebrated the deal in a post on X.

“The Trump Administration has secured another transformative commitment from an Ivy League institution to end divisive DEI policies. Thanks to this deal with Cornell and the ongoing work of DOJ, HHS, and the team at ED, U.S. universities are refocusing their attention on merit, rigor, and truth-seeking—not ideology. These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” she wrote.

Some outside observers, however, excoriated the settlement as capitulation to authoritarianism.

“The Trump administration’s corrupt extortion of higher ed institutions must end. Americans want an education system that serves the public good, not a dangerously narrow far right ideology that serves billionaires,” American Association of University Professors President Todd Wolfson said in a statement, which also urged colleges to fight intrusion by the federal government.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

Source link

November 7, 2025