Tag: Higher

  • How Universities Are Responding to Trump’s Compact

    How Universities Are Responding to Trump’s Compact

    In the weeks since Trump officials asked university leaders to give feedback on their plan to ensure that colleges are adhering to the administration’s priorities, several of those leaders and others in higher ed have made clear that the proposal is a nonstarter—at least in its current form.

    So far, leaders at 11 universities have publicly said they won’t sign the current draft of the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” according to an Inside Higher Ed database. Two others have said they are providing feedback. Universities will be added to the map and table below as they make public statements.

    The wide-ranging proposal would require universities to ban consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions, freeze tuition, commit to not considering transgender women to be women and shut down departments that “punish, belittle” or “spark violence against conservative ideas,” among other provisions. Trump officials say universities that sign on could get access to some benefits such as preferential treatment for grant funding. But those that don’t want to adhere to the agreement are free to “forego [sic] federal benefits.”

    Trump Officials’ Letter to Universities

    Higher ed leaders and observers see the compact as the Trump administration’s blueprint for overhauling America’s colleges and universities. Trump officials view it as an opportunity for the “proactive improvement of higher education for the betterment of the country.” Critics have urged institutions to reject the proposal, arguing it undermines institutions’ independence and carries steep penalties.

    Nine universities were initially asked Oct. 1 to give “limited, targeted feedback” by Oct. 20 on the document that Trump officials said was “largely in its final form.” President Trump said in mid-October that any college that wants to “return to the pursuit of Truth and Achievement” could sign on but didn’t explain how interested institutions could do so. No college has publicly taken Trump up on his offer. The administration is reportedly planning to update the document in response to the feedback and send out a new version in November.

    Source link

  • Rethinking Leadership Development in Higher Ed (opinion)

    Rethinking Leadership Development in Higher Ed (opinion)

    Higher education is in the midst of a crisis of confidence that has long been building. In this time of volatility, complexity and uncertainty, the steady hand of leaders matters more than ever. Yet academia does—at best—a very uneven job of preparing academic leaders for steady-state leadership, much less for times when the paradigm is shifting. This moment is creating an opportunity to reconsider how we prepare leaders for what will come next.

    Why Is Leadership So Uneven in Higher Ed?

    A primary reason lies in how we select and develop leaders. In academia, searches for department chair, dean and provost often emphasize top-level scholarly and research credentials and only secondarily consider an individual’s experience, perspective and ability to influence and motivate others to support shared missions. Academics in general do not respond well to directives: They expect to be persuaded, not commanded. Additionally, it is often only after being hired that those in formal positions of authority are provided with leadership-development opportunities to help foster those interpersonal skills—too late for foundational growth.

    These approaches to recruiting formal leaders are rooted in flawed assumptions about how leadership works. True leadership is not about commanding compliance but about shaping unit culture through influence. Many leaders fail by not understanding the difference. An effective leader is a person of strong character who can build trusting relationships with others; these skills take time to develop and usually take root even before a person assumes a leadership role.

    Another important reason that leadership in higher ed is uneven arises from conceptualizing leadership as a “heroic” individual endeavor. The same skills that help a formal leader to be successful—such as understanding the alignment of their actions with the unit’s mission; strong communication skills, including listening; the ability to navigate conflict, negotiation and conflict resolution; and formulating and articulating clear collective goals— are equally crucial for others to exercise to be fully engaged participants.

    Leaders with formal roles and titles play a crucial role in promoting a productive and collegial culture. At the same time, they do not do so alone: It is equally important that participants who are not in formal administrative roles are also seen (and see themselves) as central in shaping these environments, and that they are aware of how their own actions and interpersonal dynamics contribute to their working and learning experiences.

    In short, leadership responsibility is not limited to administrators. There are layers of formal leadership roles embedded inside departments and schools, visible whenever faculty members and staff take on responsibilities for shared governance and advisory roles; lead team research or manage grant portfolios; and select (hire), supervise, evaluate and mentor colleagues and other early-career individuals. These faculty and staff are leaders, too, whether or not they see, accept or internalize those roles.

    When leadership is viewed simply as an individual attribute rather than a process that emerges from the relationships among people in teams, organizations miss the opportunity to develop cultures of excellence that support integrity, trust and collaboration at all levels. Thus, we argue that leadership ought to be understood as an ongoing process of character development and a responsibility shared by all members of an organization—not something that can be addressed in a one-off workshop, but as an integral dimension of the work.

    The Foundations of Leadership: Influence Before Authority

    Rather than framing leadership as something only people with formal authority do, a more productive model is to view leadership as influence. By influence we mean modeling the behaviors we seek to share and promote in our groups so that we can better shape the way we solve problems collectively. Leadership is not in essence a position; it is contributing to an ongoing process of shaping culture, norms and behavior within a unit.

    Social psychology shows that we influence each other constantly. The more time we spend with people, the more we become like them and vice versa. This means that bad habits can spread as easily as good ones. When everyone is given an opportunity to develop good habits, they are more likely to spread throughout the community. Our character affects how we influence others. We are much more likely to be influenced by a person who demonstrates integrity and curiosity than we are by someone who is demanding and unwilling to listen.

    Here are some areas of practice for developing better influence:

    • Self-awareness and self-management: Focusing on oneself first helps individuals identify their strengths and areas for growth, while encouraging them to recognize and respect their roles and responsibilities in the current situation. Understanding oneself, one’s values, habits and motivations, is foundational to recognizing how we affect and are affected by those around us.
    • Conflict resolution: Healthy debate is foundational to innovation and growth. Developing strong conflict-resolution skills contributes to increased perspective-taking, depersonalizing disagreement and yielding more effective discussion and problem solving.
    • Decision-making: Understanding how we make decisions, and more importantly how heuristics influence and bias our decision-making, can help people slow down to make more ethical and effective decisions.

    Opportunities for influence are available to everyone, not just those in formal leadership roles. Early-career faculty, staff and students can cultivate influence by setting examples for collaboration, through ethical behavior and by contributing to collective problem-solving. Leadership is not centrally about having authority over others; it is about shaping an environment in which ethical decision-making, respect and shared purpose flourish.

    Reimagining Leader Development in Higher Ed

    Now more than ever, individuals need support in managing their careers with integrity and purpose—aligning their personal values and goals with those of their institutions. Leadership development should not be viewed as a costly add-on. In fact, it can be integrated into the everyday fabric of academic life through accessible and scalable methods, including:

    • Peer-learning cohorts that provide space for discussion and reflection on leadership challenges.
    • Guided personal reflections on workplace dynamics, communication and decision-making.
    • Structured mentoring programs that cultivate leadership skills through real-world interactions.
    • Deliberative conversations around such themes as research ethics, authorship and collaboration to build trust and integrity within teams.
    • Conflict-resolution training embedded in routine professional development activities.

    Our experience at the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics shows that even modest efforts—like those above—can spark essential conversations between mentors and mentees, improve communication, and positively influence both unit climate and individual well-being. To support this work, we offer a free Leadership Collection—an online collection of tools, readings and practical exercises for anyone seeking to lead more effectively, regardless of their title or career stage.

    When leadership development is embraced as a core part of academic life—not just a formal program or a luxury for a few—it can become a catalyst for healthier, more purpose-driven institutions.

    Conclusion: Leadership Development as a Cultural Foundation

    Reserving leadership-development programming only for when people reach formal leadership roles is a missed opportunity to develop broader and more inclusive working cultures. Such cultures emerge from the relationships among the members of a group. Building better relationships starts with personal growth, self-awareness and emotional intelligence for each member. Taking responsibility for one’s own professional growth and for one’s influence on others is also an important kind of leadership.

    True leadership, therefore, is not about directing others but about fostering environments in which good habits, strong ethics and meaningful engagement flourish. If universities want to build sustainable cultures of excellence, in which leadership is no longer an individual endeavor but a shared commitment to collaboration, they should start embedding it in professional development and routine practice for all. As uncertainty prevails, budgets are cut and people are navigating deep change, now is the moment to reconsider how we shape leaders in higher education.

    Elizabeth A. Luckman is a clinical associate professor of business administration with an emphasis in organizational behavior and director of leadership programs at the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    C. K. Gunsalus is the director of NCPRE, professor emerita of business and research professor at the Grainger College of Engineering’s Coordinated Sciences Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Nicholas C. Burbules is the education director of NCPRE and Gutgsell Professor Emeritus in the Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Source link

  • ASU Receives $50M Gift to Develop Energy Institute

    ASU Receives $50M Gift to Develop Energy Institute

    Arizona State University has received a $50 million donation to launch the Global Institute for the Future of Energy, a collaboration between its Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory and the Thunderbird School of Global Management that seeks to promote education and innovation regarding energy production and use.

    The gift comes from Bob Zorich, who earned his master’s degree in international management in 1974 from Thunderbird’s predecessor, the American Graduate School of International Management.

    “ASU has long been a pioneer in building bold, pragmatic solutions for the future,” said Zorich, founder and managing partner of the Texas-based private equity firm EnCap Investments. “President Michael Crow has taken a visionary and action-oriented approach to positioning the university as a leading center for research, educational excellence and global influence. For these reasons, I was excited to fund the formation of this energy institute at ASU because of the university’s unique ability to scale and reach a global audience.”

    Zorich’s gift will help the institute recruit a chair and staff and start developing curriculum for students, executives and the public. In the second year, the institute aims to launch a fellowship and executive-in-residence program, as well as a series of public programs, including lectures, summer camps and a global energy conference.

    In addition, some of the funds will support Energy Switch, a point-counterpoint show on Arizona PBS that brings together experts from government, NGOs, academe and industry to debate energy-related topics.

    “Energy is central to nearly every facet of our daily lives, and we have to prepare now for an evolving energy future,” Crow said in a statement. “With the rapid growth of AI and other fast-moving innovations, we have a responsibility to ready the next generation of energy leaders and solutions. Bob Zorich’s visionary investment will empower our global understanding of energy, our vital literacy and how we can work together to develop the best paths forward.”

    Source link

  • Reading Between the Lines on Compact Responses

    Reading Between the Lines on Compact Responses

    Multiple universities have rejected President Trump’s proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, but they have taken different approaches to turning down the commander in chief. Some have declined pointedly, while others struck a more delicate balancing act.

    To be sure, leaders of the institutions invited to sign the compact have found themselves squeezed by both internal and external forces, under pressure from the federal government to approve the deal and from faculty and other campus constituents to reject it. Both public and private universities have also faced political pressure from state lawmakers, who in some cases urged them to sign and in others have threatened to strip funding if they do.

    Most of the nine universities originally invited to join the compact rejected it on or before the Oct. 20 deadline to provide feedback—well ahead of Nov. 21, the final date for making a decision. Their responses, released to the public, ranged from pointed to demure; in some cases, institutional leaders emphasized their core values in rebutting the proposal, which promised to grant preferential treatment in exchange for freezing tuition, capping international enrollment and suppressing criticism of conservatives, among other demands from the U.S. Department of Education.

    The Road to ‘No’

    Here are links to each institution’s response, in the order in which they were posted publicly:

    Together these statements offer insights into how institutions are responding to an unprecedented demand from the federal government: that they subscribe to President Trump’s culturally conservative vision of higher education in exchange for financial gain.

    Key Themes

    Experts note that while most institutions declined the deal, some statements stood out more than others.

    Brian Rosenberg, president emeritus of Macalester College, highlighted the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s statement as the clearest rejection. Unlike some of the other responses, it doesn’t promise future engagement on the federal government’s concerns and is a clear, resounding no based on MIT’s principles, he said.

    The first to reject the compact, MIT president Sally Kornbluth highlighted areas of agreement, such as an emphasis on merit in hiring, admissions and more, but she also argued that the proposal was “inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”

    Lisa Corrigan, a communications professor at the University of Arkansas and an expert on rhetoric and political communication, flagged the University of Southern California’s statement as a notable response. She pointed out that while USC highlighted its commitment to promoting civil discourse, as many others did, it also emphasized its “commitment to ROTC and veterans.” (Brown and Arizona were the only other institutions to mention veterans in their responses.)

    “I thought USC really did a strong job in articulating exactly what values they are using to guide their decision-making in rejecting the compact,” Corrigan told Inside Higher Ed.

    Erin Hennessy, vice president at TVP Communications, flagged both the Dartmouth and Penn statements as notable for different reasons. With Dartmouth, Hennessy said she was struck by the brevity of the statement, which clocked in at about 230 words. And for Penn, she pointed out that it was the only university that did not share the rejection letter it sent to Education Secretary Linda McMahon along with its public statement. Every other institution that rejected the deal posted both a statement and the letter.

    (Asked for a copy of its response to the Department of Education, Penn declined to provide it.)

    Experts noted a number of other observations from the collective letters and accompanying statements—including how many presidents emphasized merit, which is mentioned in every response except Dartmouth’s. Altogether the word “merit” appears 15 times in the nine published university responses, and “meritocracy” is cited once.

    Hennessy posited that the focus on that specific word is an attempt to “push back on the perception of certain folks in the MAGA sphere that believe any program, or any consideration of race or class or ethnic background, is diametrically in conflict with the concept of merit.”

    Rosenberg suggested that universities are trying to turn the government’s argument against it. By emphasizing merit, universities are seizing on a “logical inconsistency in the position of the federal government,” he said. While the Trump administration is demanding merit in admissions, hiring and other areas, it also has signaled a willingness to provide preferential treatment on federal research funding based not on merit but a willingness to conform to political priorities.

    Many of the responses also mentioned institutional neutrality policies.

    USC, Virginia, Vanderbilt and WashU all cited the concept, though only USC and Virginia submitted clear rejections; WashU sent a mixed message, and Vanderbilt has committed only to offering feedback on the proposal. Dartmouth, which also has an institutional neutrality policy, did not mention it.

    Both Arizona and Virginia used a similar turn of phrase to reject the compact’s promise of preferential status in exchange for signing, with officials writing, “We seek no special treatment” in connection to advancing their missions.

    One word, however, is notably absent among all the responses: Trump. And only Dartmouth referenced political affiliation in its response to the federal government. President Sian Beilock wrote that she did not believe “the involvement of the government through a compact—whether it is a Republican- or Democratic-led White House—is the right way to focus America’s leading colleges and universities on their teaching and research mission.”

    WashU’s Muddled Messaging

    Though Washington University in St. Louis agreed to provide feedback to the federal government, administrators also appeared to tacitly reject the compact proposal. The university’s initial statement on Monday noted concerns about the compact but stopped short of an outright rejection; Chancellor Andrew Martin wrote that providing feedback does not mean “we have endorsed or signed on” to the proposal.

    But in a Tuesday email to faculty members, Martin wrote he “can confirm that we won’t sign the proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education … or any document that undermines our mission or our core values.” Martin added WashU will provide feedback, emphasizing the importance of “having our voice at the table for these potentially consequential conversations.”

    WashU, however, has been reluctant to publicly call that a rejection.

    Asked by Inside Higher Ed about the authenticity of the email, first published by another news outlet, and whether it amounts to a rejection, a university spokesperson only confirmed it was official.

    Corrigan suggested that both WashU and Vanderbilt are trying to buy time “to see which universities are going to be in the next round, if any.” She added, “They want the opportunity to return to the conversation when there’s more political cover for them to potentially say no.”

    Institutional Silence

    While most universities invited to join the compact responded publicly by the deadline, both the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Kansas have remained silent on the matter.

    Neither has issued publicly shared feedback or other statements about the compact, though University of Texas system board leadership initially responded positively to the invitation to join.

    “For institutions that haven’t responded publicly yet, the questions I would be asking are, is there division between the president and the board on how to move forward on this? Is there division between the president and the faculty on how to move forward on this?” Hennessy said.

    To her, that silence signals that internal negotiations are likely at play, potentially involving debates over strategy, language and other points. She believes nonresponders are more likely to sign the compact and may be “trying to figure out how to make a yes more palatable” to critics.

    Rosenberg suggests there are likely legal concerns being discussed.

    “Like virtually everything else coming out of the government right now, it’s going to face a legal challenge once someone signs, because the limitations on free speech for members of the community are pretty severe,” he said. “Once someone signs, it’s going to end up in the courts.”

    Source link

  • U of Md. Criticized for Charging Turning Point Security Fee

    U of Md. Criticized for Charging Turning Point Security Fee

    University officials said the fee is routine and that they have required the same of other student organizations.

    Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    University of Maryland officials are facing backlash for requiring the campus chapter of a conservative student organization to pay what chapter leaders called a “viewpoint discriminatory” security fee for an event on Wednesday, CBS News reported. 

    While university police staffed the event free of charge, officials required the chapter to hire its own security to conduct entrance screenings. The event, titled Fighting Like Charlie, featured Daily Wire senior editor Cabot Phillips and was held just over a month after Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed during an event at Utah Valley University. 

    “It’s basically saying anybody, if they want to threaten our chapter or threaten us because of our viewpoints and our speech, then the university, in turn, is going to impose financial burdens on us, or else we can’t have our events,” University of Maryland senior Connor Clayton, communications chair for the campus Turning Point USA chapter, told CBS News. “That is a very dangerous precedent to put on a Turning Point chapter.”

    University officials said the fee is routine and that they have required the same of other student organizations that host similar guest speaker events on campus, regardless of the speaker or message. 

    The Leadership Institute, a Virginia-based nonprofit that trains conservative activists and leaders, ultimately paid the fee—which amounted to $148—on behalf of the chapter. The event proceeded as planned, according to posts on the chapter’s Instagram account. 

    Source link

  • Black, Latino, International Populations Decline at Harvard

    Black, Latino, International Populations Decline at Harvard

    The institution emphasized the incoming class’s geographic diversity and first-generation student population.

    Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

    The share of Black, Latino and international students in this year’s incoming Harvard University class declined from last year’s freshman class, The Washington Post reported.

    Black students made up 12 percent of the Class of 2029, down two percentage points from the previous year; Latino students comprise 11 percent of this year’s incoming class, compared to 16 percent last year. International student enrollment is also down, from 18 percent of last fall’s freshman class to 15 percent this year. Only eight international students deferred their admissions, despite reports that many international students were unable to arrive in the U.S. in time for fall classes due to visa issues.

    Harvard emphasized the incoming class’s geographic diversity, noting that students come from all 50 states and 92 countries. It also said 20 percent of the Class of 2029 are first-generation students.

    The data comes at a time when the Trump administration is attacking colleges for allegedly violating the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action by continuing to consider race in admissions—although admissions officials argue this isn’t happening. The administration specifically targeted Harvard earlier this year, ordering the institution to “cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof” in favor of “merit-based admissions.”

    Some colleges have stopped publicizing the racial makeup of their incoming classes this year, though it’s unclear if that’s related to the Trump administration’s scrutiny of admissions.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: London South Bank University

    Higher education postcard: London South Bank University

    On 12 May 1888 the London Evening Standard reported as follows:

    A meeting is to be held at the Mansion House at twelve o’clock, on June 8, to consider the projected South London Polytechnic Institutes. It is stated that Lord Salisbury, Lord Rosebery, and Sir Lyon Playfair have agreed to be present in order to lend their support to the scheme.

    We’ve met Sir Lyon Playfair before – sometime secretary to the Department of Science, he advised on the question of a maritime school for Southampton, which ultimately became Southampton Solent University. Lord Rosebery and Lord Salisbury were both eminent politicians, Salisbury a Tory, Rosebery a Liberal. In 1888 Salisbury was Prime Minister. Rosebery would be Prime Minister soon too – he succeeded Gladstone in 1894, the following year being replaced himself by Salisbury. Clearly the support of these figures was significant. But what was going on?

    Enter Mr Edric Bayley. Bayley was a solicitor living in Southwark: partner at a local practice, he was becoming a man of some substance. In 1892 and 1895 he was elected as a member of the London County Council, representing Southwark West for the Progressive Party. Prior to that, in 1887, he had established a group – the South London Polytechnic Institutes Council or, in some accounts, Committee. This sought to use funds under the control of the Charity Commissioners to create technical and recreative institutes in New Cross, Borough and Battersea. This seems to have been the scheme referred to in the Evening Standard article. In 1888 the Charity Commissioners agreed to match funds up to £150,000 for this scheme. And do the game was most definitely afoot.

    The New Cross institute became Goldsmiths College; the Battersea one became Battersea Polytechnic and in due course the University of Surrey.

    The Borough story goes like this. In 1890, anticipating success, buildings were purchased: these had previously been the base of the British and Foreign School Society; the South London Polytechnic Institutes (Borough Road Site) Act 1890 authorised the purchase. In 1891 sufficient funds had been raised to proceed with the overall scheme, and an act of Parliament passed to create a legal basis for the new institutions. And in 1892 Lord Rosebery opened the polytechnic. His speech was notable for suggesting that by forbidding smoking in the new polytechnic, they would be unable to compete favourably with public houses. And that the structures against dancing and dramatic performances similarly might be too severe.

    It’s worth looking at this extract from his speech – reported in The Globe of Friday 30 September 1892. Not only because it gives a lovely flavour of Rosebery’s speech-making, but also for the slight hint, maybe, of Johnsonian populism.

    The polytechnic was a technical and recreative institute, which means that as well as technical courses, it also had a gymnasium, and offered facilities for clubs and so on. Obviously as long as they weren’t dramatic or involved dancing. The model was the People’s Palace in the east end, which became Queen Mary College. And that’s a story for another time.

    And so the Borough Polytechnic Institute started to do what it did, which was to educate people. Very successfully too, with the National Bakery School, for example, being an early innovation.

    In 1970 the Borough Polytechnic Institute became the Polytechnic of the South Bank, and incorporated a number of other institutions: the Brixton School of Building, the City of Westminster College, and the National College of Heating, Ventilating, Refrigeration and Fan Engineering. In 1975, when education colleges were being brought into existing HEIs, the Battersea College of Education and some of the provision at Rachel MacMillan College of Education joined the polytechnic.

    In 1987 the polytechnic shuffled its name, becoming the South Bank Polytechnic. In 1992 it became South Bank University and in 2003 it became London South Bank University.

    Finally, here’s a jigsaw of the card. It’s unposted, which means I can’t be sure of the date, but it looks to be pre-World War One.

    Source link

  • Most Students Pay Out-of-Pocket For Non-Degree Credentials

    Most Students Pay Out-of-Pocket For Non-Degree Credentials

    As Americans earn non-degree credentials in droves, many are paying for these programs out of pocket, according to a new report from The Pew Charitable Trusts.  

    The report, released Thursday, analyzed 2022 data from a new national survey of over 15,000 American adults fielded by the U.S. Census Bureau, called the National Training, Education, and Workforce Survey. The data included individuals who attained vocational certificates at a higher ed institution, such as a community college or trade school, as well as active industry licenses or personal certifications, like a teaching license.

    Interest in non-degree credential programs has exploded in recent years, the data showed. The rate at which Americans earned non-degree credentials tripled between 2009 and 2021. The annual vocational certificate attainment rate jumped from about 0.4 percent of U.S. adults to about 1.2 percent over that period, while the professional license attainment rate rose from about 0.5 percent to around 1.6 percent. More than a third (34 percent) of adults surveyed held a non-degree credential.

    Meanwhile, enrollment in degree programs has trended downwards. Both bachelor’s degree and associate degree enrollments fell between spring 2020 and spring 2025, by 1.1 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. (However, the analysis also found students often earned non-degree credentials on top of degrees. Slightly over half of adults who hold these credentials earned degrees, as well.)

    But even though non-degree credentials are “skyrocketing” across the country, “we know very little about how students pay for these programs,” said Ama Takyi-Laryea, a senior manager of Pew’s student loan initiative.

    The new data offers some answers. Most non-degree credential earners reported using their own money to pay for programs—51 percent of vocational certificate holders and 71 percent of professional license holders. Roughly a fifth of both groups said they took out government or private loans. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of professional license holders and 15 percent of vocational certificate holders said they relied on employer financial support, while another 15 percent of vocational certificate earners used other kinds of scholarships. More than 60 percent of respondents used only one form of financial support to pay for their programs.

    Takyi-Laryea said these findings raise concerns, given that such programs can be “quite costly.” An Education Trust brief found that the median monthly cost of attendance for some of these programs ranges between about $2,100 and $2,500, depending on the type of provider. She wants to see further research done on how students afford these programs, including how often they use credit cards to pay program costs.

    “The outcomes for students are mixed when it comes to these programs,” she said. “And so sometimes, despite the hefty costs associated with it, students are left with unsustainable debt or with a credential of little value …More research into how students pay for these programs will protect them from riskier forms of financing.”

    Source link

  • Most Students Pay Out of Pocket for Nondegree Credentials

    Most Students Pay Out of Pocket for Nondegree Credentials

    As Americans earn nondegree credentials in droves, many are paying for these programs out of pocket, according to a new report from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

    The report, released Thursday, analyzed 2022 data from a new national survey of over 15,000 American adults fielded by the U.S. Census Bureau, called the National Training, Education and Workforce Survey. The data included individuals who earned vocational certificates at a higher ed institution, such as a community college or trade school, as well as active industry licenses or personal certifications, like a teaching license.

    Interest in nondegree credential programs has exploded in recent years, the data showed: The rate at which Americans earned nondegree credentials tripled between 2009 and 2021. The annual vocational certificate attainment rate jumped from about 0.4 percent of U.S. adults to about 1.2 percent over that period, while the professional license attainment rate rose from about 0.5 percent to around 1.6 percent. More than a third (34 percent) of adults surveyed held a nondegree credential.

    Meanwhile, enrollment in degree programs has trended downward. Both bachelor’s degree and associate degree enrollments fell between spring 2020 and spring 2025, by 1.1 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. (However, the analysis also found students often earned nondegree credentials on top of degrees. Slightly over half of adults who hold these credentials earned degrees, as well.)

    But even though attainment of nondegree credentials is “skyrocketing” across the country, “we know very little about how students pay for these programs,” said Ama Takyi-Laryea, a senior manager of Pew’s student loan initiative.

    The new data offers some answers. Most nondegree credential earners reported using their own money to pay for programs—51 percent of vocational certificate holders and 71 percent of professional license holders. Roughly a fifth of both groups said they took out government or private loans. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of professional license holders and 15 percent of vocational certificate holders said they relied on employer financial support, while another 15 percent of vocational certificate earners used other kinds of scholarships. More than 60 percent of respondents used only one form of financial support to pay for their programs.

    Takyi-Laryea said these findings raise concerns, given that such programs can be “quite costly.” An Education Trust brief found that the median monthly cost of attendance for some of these programs ranges between $2,100 and $2,500, depending on the type of provider. She wants to see further research done on how students afford these programs, including how often they use credit cards to pay program costs.

    “The outcomes for students are mixed when it comes to these programs,” she said. “And so sometimes, despite the hefty costs associated with it, students are left with unsustainable debt or with a credential of little value … More research into how students pay for these programs will protect them from riskier forms of financing.”

    Source link

  • State Financial Aid Increased 12% in 2023–24

    State Financial Aid Increased 12% in 2023–24

    Most funding from the states was in the form of grants.

    PamelaJoeMcFarlane/iStockphoto.com

    States awarded $18.6 billion in aid to students during the 2023–24 academic year, a 12 percent increase from the previous academic year, according to the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs’ annual report.

    “The robust 12% increase from the prior year is further evidence that states understand the importance of postsecondary education and of ensuring every student is able to acquire the 21st century skills needed to drive their state’s economy,” said NASSGAP president Elizabeth McCloud in a news release.

    About 86 percent of that funding came in the form of grants—three-quarters of which were need-based. More than two-thirds of all need-based grants came from eight states—California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

    The remaining $2.5 billion of nongrant aid included loans, loan assumptions, conditional grants, work-study and tuition waivers, with tuition waivers comprising 44 percent of nongrant aid.

    Source link