Tag: Higher

What Does It Mean to Use an LLM for a “Personal Statement”?
Here’s a question that I think lots of people in higher education may be confronting over the next few weeks: What should we do with the personal statement for graduate admissions?

I’ve now seen multiple anecdotal reports on social media (and also in my email inbox) of faculty on graduate admission committees across different subjects remarking that they think students are making significant use of large language models in drafting their personal statements.

This feels dismaying, particularly in disciplines like creative writing and English, where we would expect students to take some interest and pride in their own unique expression.

The easy narrative around this behavior is to lament over declining standards and student capacities, a lament as long and loud as the existence of organized education, but a lament also that prevents a deeper look at what’s driving the behavior and, in turn, what we could do to incentivize choices that we feel are better aligned with the goals of the institution and program.

Rather than blaming this on defective students, I think we’re incentivizing this kind of behavior, the same way we retain incentives for students to complete homework with large language model outputs.

From the beginning I’ve argued that one of the chief benefits of large language models is that their capacity to mimic human outputs gives us an opportunity to consider more closely what we actually want from writing that is supposed to come from humans working as humans.

Here’s my attempt at a deeper look at this phenomenon.

First, what are students thinking and experiencing, and how do these things impact their choices?
1. With the personal statement, students don’t have a firm idea of what they’re being asked to do and what the audience might want in the piece of writing.
The personal statement is a strange and unfamiliar genre to most of the people tackling them. The desirable end to the transaction—admission—is clear, but the communication that would result in that end is decidedly not clear. I have never been on the receiving end as part of an admission committee, but I have helped dozens of students attempt to draft these letters, and when I asked students what the school might be looking for in the statement, the reasoning becomes circular, orbiting around a general principle of “excellence.”

This lack of knowing leads to great uncertainty and an impulse to pitch oneself to the committee, often through rather generic presentations of what “excellence” entails, usually descending into abstractions as a defense against the abstraction that is the idea of “excellence.”

“Prove you’re more excellent than the other excellent people” is not a prompt likely to engender interesting or insightful writing.
1. Students think the LLM will do a “better” job than they will on producing a text that will find favor with the committee.
The black-box nature of the committee’s desire, combined with student unfamiliarity with the genre, results in doubt and fear, which can be resolved by turning to the text-production machine, which will, at least, generate something that “sounds good.”

It will not be a truly meaningful piece of writing, but at least it won’t be outright wrong, or disqualifying. Students are missing key information that would allow them to write clearly and effectively inside the rhetorical situation. The world students are hoping to enter is foreign to them, and the LLM serves as a crude sort of translator to the discourse that they think might be expected of them.
1. It is difficult to ask for a truly personal personal statement for an occasion and situation with such a high-stakes transaction at the other end and expect anything other than a sales pitch from the student.
Students applying to these programs know they are competitive. They believe that failure to achieve admission may irreparably damage their future prospects. (Not true, but it’s what they believe.)

When it comes to these statements, I think admission committees can’t handle the truth (or students, at least, perceive this) and so some portion of BS is going to result. Why not outsource the thing to the BS machine?

So, what can we do about this?

After some mutually frustrating experiences in trying to help students with their statements, brainstorming what committees might be looking for, I gave up on trying to help students hit a target that we couldn’t actually define and instead focused on something I do know: using writing as a way to better understand ourselves and then using that understanding to create a piece of writing that is interesting to read.

I redirected the students to a different question. Rather than trying to convince a faceless committee of their general excellence, I asked them to write to themselves and answer three questions:
1. Why do you want to do this specific thing?
2. What makes you prepared to do this specific thing?
3. How do you know that you’re going to follow through and complete this specific thing?
The results of this shift were immediate and profound. In at least a third of the cases (maybe more), this exercise resulted in students deciding to not apply for the graduate program. By forcing them into a reflective practice—as opposed to writing a sales pitch as part of a transaction—students had to confront where their desires originated, and in a lot of cases the impulse toward a graduate program was primarily rooted in being “good at school” and not knowing what they should do next.

For those who determined that a graduate program still fit their desires, this reflection helped on two fronts:
1. It helped clarify their own motives, giving them specifics they could now explain to someone else (like a committee) about why they desired this path.
2. It boosted their self-confidence in choosing this path, as they developed a more specific and concrete notion of the capacities they’d developed up to that point and what else they hoped to gain from additional study.
I don’t know how committees received the writing that resulted from this process in terms of the transactional nature of the exchange, but I know for a fact that as pieces of writing they were far superior to what students had produced previously. I hope that at least made the admission committee’s work more interesting.

I learned something from this exercise for myself for a different genre that is also transactional at its core, the book proposal.

The book proposal was once my least favored genre, an exercise engineered for angst and writer’s block as I wrestled over what might be convincing to publishers to give me a shot at their support for a project.

But then I realized that the first purpose of a book proposal was not to convince a publisher to fund it, but to convince myself that I could actually do it! The exercise became inherently more interesting as I explored what I knew, what I wanted to know and why I thought audiences might be interested in the results. Convincing myself of the viability of the project was, in many ways, harder than convincing a publisher. Multiple times I’ve wisely talked myself out of projects that I maybe could have sold if I treated the proposal solely as a pitch, but that I would’ve struggled to execute, primarily because I wasn’t as interested in the project as I needed to be.

I’m three for three on the proposals that I’ve completed and taken to market using this method. The books I’ve published from these proposals are also better—and were completed more quickly—because of the process I went through to write these proposals. I metabolized much more of the material that would go into the books in a way that provided great fuel for the writing.

As to what this means for the personal statement and admission committees, my recommendation is to think deeply about what kind of experience you’re seeking to engender in applicants and how that experience can be used to better inform your choices of whom to admit.

This joining of students with institutions is a much deeper thing than a mere transaction. Ask applicants to produce something worthy of that fact.

Or … drop the personal statement entirely. If it’s simply going to be a pro forma part of a larger process, why put everyone through an experience without meaning?
Source link
January 22, 2026
Turning Over Jewish Employees’ Names Unconstitutional

The University of Pennsylvania has refused to disclose the names and personal information of Jewish employees to the Trump administration.

The University of Pennsylvania filed its formal response Tuesday to the Trump administration’s demand that the university disclose the names of Jewish employees without their consent, arguing the request is unconstitutional and that it disregards the “frightening and well-documented history” of governmental cataloging of people with Jewish ancestry.

In a July subpoena, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked Penn to turn over the names and information of employees with Jewish faith or ancestry, as well as the personal information of employees affiliated with Jewish studies, organizations and community events. Penn has refused to do so and thus entered into a legal battle with the Trump administration, which is now seeking a court order to force Penn to comply.

“The government’s demand implicates Penn’s substantial interest in protecting its employees’ privacy, safety, and First Amendment rights,” the filing states.

A university spokesperson said the filing is “comprehensive and speaks for itself.” Faculty at Penn and other higher ed groups have backed Penn in its fight to avoid disclosure.

“The charge does not refer to any employee complaint the agency has received, any allegation made by or concerning employees, or any specific workplace incident(s) contemplated by the EEOC, nor does it even identify any employment practice(s) the EEOC alleges to be unlawful or potentially harmful to Jewish employees,” the filing states.

Source link

January 22, 2026
Empowered Virginia Democrats Move Fast to Reshape Higher Ed

When Virginia’s new Democratic leaders took control of the governor’s office and attorney general position last week, they wasted no time overhauling higher ed.

Abigail Spanberger, the new governor, immediately appointed more than two dozen members to the governing boards of the Virginia Military Institute, George Mason University and the University of Virginia, meaning she’s already appointed the majority of members on the George Mason and UVA boards. Her Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin, stocked university boards with conservatives who cracked down on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. UVA went through high-profile controversies under its Youngkin-era board, including the resignation of former president Jim Ryan under pressure.

Now, Spanberger’s appointees—at least 13 of whom donated to her gubernatorial campaign—are expected to lead universities in a different direction. Spanberger also signed an executive order Saturday directing her education secretary to assess the board member appointment process and recommend legislative changes, including possible modifications to term lengths, term starts and reappointments. In the order, Spanberger wrote that the Trump administration’s actions necessitate this review.

“Virginia colleges and universities have faced unprecedented challenges from shifts in federal policy to attacks on institutional autonomy and mission,” Spanberger said. “These pressures underscore the urgent need for the Commonwealth to reevaluate how governing boards are appointed, ensuring they are composed of individuals dedicated to upholding the quality, independence, and reputation of our institutions.”

The new attorney general, Jay Jones, also moved swiftly. He fired GMU’s university counsel K. Anne Gambrill Gentry and associate counsel Eli Schlam, leaving the institution with two remaining in-house lawyers, the university said. Jones also ousted VMI general counsel Patrick O’Leary; a spokesperson for the institution said O’Leary “notified us that he received a letter late last week informing him that his services were no longer required.”

Furthermore, on Tuesday, Jones’s office withdrew his Republican predecessor’s agreement with the Justice Department to disregard a state law that provides in-state tuition rates to undocumented students. The department sued the state Dec. 29, seeking to invalidate the law, and the next day—on his way out of office—former Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares concurred in a court filing that the law was unconstitutional.

In a news release on the reversal, Jones said, “On day one, I promised Virginians I would fight back against the Trump Administration’s attacks on our Commonwealth, our institutions of higher education, and most importantly—our students.”

And Democrat General Assembly members—who control both legislative chambers, including a supermajority in the House for the first time since the 1980s—have already expressed interest in higher ed changes. Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell filed a bill in the current legislative session that would, among other things, lengthen governing board members’ terms from four to six years and add one faculty, one staff and one student voting member to each board.

Furthermore, House member Dan Helmer filed a resolution to create a task force to determine whether VMI—where the Youngkin-era board last year rejected a contract extension for the university’s top leader—should no longer be a public university that receives public funding. If the resolution passes, the task force will explore “expanding programs at other public institutions of higher education to replace the role of VMI” in training commissioned military officers.

Among other things, the resolution calls for the group to audit whether the university responded to a report to the 2021 State Council of Higher Education for Virginia detailing discrimination by initiating “any substantial changes” to “reduce acts within their student body that could be perceived or classified as racist, sexist, or misogynistic or as an act of sexual harassment or sexual assault,” and whether the university “possesses the capacity as an institution to end celebration of the Confederacy.”

In an email to Inside Higher Ed, a VMI spokesperson said, “We are reviewing many pieces of legislation, including Del. Helmer’s, and plan to work with our elected officials to demonstrate VMI’s progress.”

Altogether, the moves show state Democrats’ willingness to act quickly to counteract the rapid changes to higher ed that Republicans—at both the state and federal level—rushed into place last year. Democratic leaders don’t appear afraid of attracting the ire of the Trump administration after its interventions in 2025, including the Justice Department’s demand that Ryan step down from leading UVA and Justice and Education Department investigations into George Mason that observers feared would oust the president there.

But Surovell’s bill, and Spanberger’s recent statements to the General Assembly, also suggest that Democrats are seeking more than to bask in their newfound, but likely fleeting, power; they’re aiming to insulate higher ed decision-making from future political turnovers.

“Virginia has some of the finest colleges and universities in the world,” Spanberger told lawmakers in a Monday address. “And yet, news story after news story isn’t about their successes—it’s about them becoming political battlegrounds.”

She touted her review of the appointments process but added that she “will also work with this General Assembly to pursue reforms that prevent any future governor—Democrat or Republican—from imposing an ideological agenda on our universities. As governor, I have and will appoint serious, mission-driven individuals to our Boards of Visitors—people whose allegiance is to the institutions they serve, not to any political agenda.”

The state’s Republican Party didn’t respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

A Question of Stability

Walt Heinecke, past president of UVA’s American Association of University Professors chapter and a current member of the Virginia state AAUP conference’s executive committee, opposed Ryan’s ouster from UVA and the Youngkin-era board’s appointment of a new president on their way out the door.

“This has just been a mess for a year, and it’s important for us to clean house,” Heinecke said.

He said Democrats “realized that, since last January, there’s been an attempt to basically take over universities with the Trump agenda, and I think they’re sick and tired of the moves that have been made.”

Jon Becker, a tenured associate professor of educational leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University, said the speed with which Spanberger moved to appoint new board members was “no surprise.” Starting last year, Democrats blocked several of Youngkin’s board appointments, and those boards needed people.

“At UVA, they were effectively without a board,” Becker said, adding that George Mason’s board similarly lacked the required number of members to conduct business. He said it was “fairly urgent” for Spanberger to appoint members to allow those boards to function again.

Going forward, Becker said, “I would expect the focus on board reform to continue.”

“A good, thorough review would show that there are practices in other states that might bring better governance to higher education in Virginia,” he said, such as requiring geographic diversity on boards and other ways of making them more representative of the state. He said, “Board members are mostly … kind of wealthier people, and they really should be more representative of the citizens.”

But he also sees the Democratic moves as an attempt to tell the federal government to keep its hands off the state’s universities. And he said he thinks Virginia is indicative of what other states will do regarding higher ed when a single party takes control and realizes it needs to move fast to make change.

Alex Keena, a tenured associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth, said, “I think what we’ve seen here in Virginia is a reflection of national trends, where national party politics is starting to influence how things are done at the state level.”

“You have positions in government that used to be insulated from partisan politics that are now like the latest battlegrounds,” Keena said. In certain cases, he said, Youngkin’s board appointments were “antagonistic to the whole project” of higher ed, or “had very extreme ideas about the future of higher ed.”

Now, Keena said, Democrats seem to be reacting to what the Youngkin and Trump administrations did last year, “which is this politicization of these boards that we really hadn’t seen in Virginia.” While Democrats will probably offer some stability for universities, he said, “it doesn’t really change the big picture—that you have this very hostile approach from the federal government.”

Keena said he wonders how Spanberger will respond to attacks from the Trump administration.

“How will she deal with that friction?” he said. “It’s a lot of uncertainty.”

Source link

January 22, 2026
NYU and SUNY Debut Higher Ed Design Lab

As colleges roll out a wave of new programs to prepare students for an AI-driven workforce, a new partnership between New York University and the State University of New York is trying to answer an increasingly urgent question: Which of these efforts actually work?

This month, NYU and SUNY launched the Higher Education Design Lab, a joint effort to evaluate which higher education programs are most effective at preparing students for a workforce reshaped by AI and other technological and cultural changes.

The lab will study new and established initiatives on NYU’s and SUNY’s own campuses, starting with programs that teach civic engagement, career readiness, first-year programming and innovation to understand their real impact on student learning.

“We’re bringing together two really significant and very diverse institutions, and it’s a big-scale operation, so we’ll be able to look at a lot of things across a lot of different environments,” said Mindy Tarlow, senior fellow and professor at NYU’s Marron Institute of Urban Management, where the lab will initially be housed.

The partnership appears timely; Inside Higher Ed’s latest Student Voice survey of more than 5,000 two- and four-year undergraduates found that about 40 percent of respondents think professors could better connect classroom lessons to issues outside class or to students’ career interests.

A separate Student Voice survey of more than 1,000 two- and four-year undergraduates found that nearly 50 percent of students want their colleges to offer training on how to use AI tools ethically in their careers. By contrast, only 16 percent said preparing them for a future shaped by generative AI should be left to individual professors or departments, and just 5 percent said colleges do not need to take any action at all—underscoring the demand for a coordinated, institutionwide response.

“This is a research partnership,” said Elise Cappella, vice provost for universitywide initiatives at NYU. “This lab is not about creating a lot of new things. It’s about studying what we already have and making sure we’re reaching the students we need to reach.”

The approach: The Higher Education Design Lab will examine a broad range of programs and practices designed to strengthen student learning. Its initial focus includes initiatives aimed at fostering dialogue—including university speaker series, co-curricular training and exposure to diverse perspectives—to better understand how these experiences shape engagement, collaboration, critical thinking and confidence in discourse.

The lab will also study career-readiness programs, evaluating which approaches, such as employer partnerships, provide the strongest outcomes for both students and employers.

First-year and orientation experiences, including civics and community-building modules, will be analyzed to see how required versus optional participation affects leadership skills, critical discourse and student well-being.

Teaching and learning innovations, from faculty development programs to instructional tool kits, will be assessed for their impact on classroom and campus learning.

Finally, the lab will explore experiential and community-based learning, including service learning and study away programs, to determine how high-impact practices cultivate skills for navigating diverse perspectives and preparing students for leadership opportunities.

Tarlow said the lab will rely on both qualitative and quantitative data to understand not just whether programs work, but under what conditions and for which students.

The qualitative and quantitative data “often play off each other in really interesting ways,” she said. “We keep coming back to the same core question: What works best, in what conditions and for whom? And depending on what we’re studying, we’ll use the methodology that best helps us answer that, because not everybody responds the same way to the same things.”

What’s next: The Higher Education Design Lab will have an advisory board of higher education leaders and other institutions, including the City University of New York, and intends to invite additional universities, research centers and government partners to participate over time.

Tarlow said the lab’s first year will focus on identifying the pilot projects and specific parts of campus life the team wants to study most closely.

Early work will center on evaluating efforts already underway to foster dialogue and civic engagement, beginning with SUNY’s Civil Discourse and Civic Education & Engagement programming and the Constructive Dialogue Institute’s Perspectives Program.

“There is already a lot of knowledge and good work happening in all of our institutions,” Cappella said. “What is new and exciting about this particular initiative is that we’re really dedicating time and attention internally and across institutions to doing this more collaboratively and more intentionally.”

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

Source link

January 22, 2026
Carnegie Navigates Change in Higher Ed With Student Connection

Carnegie announced a continued commitment to higher education that places student connection at the center of institutional strategy, aligning research, strategy, storytelling, media, and technology to help colleges and universities navigate today’s interconnected challenges. The update reflects an evolution in how Carnegie supports enrollment, trust, relevance, and student success in an era shaped by demographic change and AI-driven discovery.

A Moment of Change for Higher Education

As colleges and universities confront a period of sustained pressure, rising scrutiny, and rapid change, Carnegie today announced a continued commitment to how it supports higher education—placing student connection at the center of institutional strategy, decision-making, and long-term success.

The Announcement at the 2026 Carnegie Conference

The announcement was made on stage at the opening of the 2026 Carnegie Conference, where more than 400 higher education leaders and professionals gathered to examine the forces reshaping enrollment, reputation, strategy, and the student experience.

More Than a Brand Update—A Strategic Evolution

While Carnegie introduced an updated brand identity as part of the moment, company leaders emphasized that the announcement reflects a broader evolution in how the company is responding to the realities facing institutions today.

Carnegie is aligning its strategy around integrated, innovative approaches—bringing together research, data, AI-enabled technology, and strategy—to help leaders address challenges that are increasingly interconnected and complex.

Why This Shift Matters Now

“Higher education leaders are operating in an environment where the stakes are higher and the margin for error is smaller,” said Gary Colen, chief executive officer of Carnegie. “Our responsibility is to innovate with purpose—delivering clarity, focus, and solutions that help institutions make decisions that lead to better outcomes for students.”

Student Connection as a Strategic Imperative

Carnegie’s work is grounded in a single belief: when students succeed, higher education thrives—and the world wins.

As demographic shifts, changing learner expectations, technological disruption, and public accountability reshape the sector, Carnegie has aligned its strategy around helping higher ed institutions build meaningful, lasting connections with today’s diverse learners.

Meeting the Moment Higher Education Leaders Are Facing

According to Michael Mish, Chief Growth Officer, the timing of the announcement reflects what the company is hearing from campus leaders. “Higher education leaders need partners who deliver strategic expertise and forward-thinking innovation,” Mish said. “Our evolution is about connecting strategy and innovation in practical ways—so institutions can address today’s challenges while preparing for what’s next.”

What the Updated Carnegie Brand Represents

The updated brand brings greater cohesion to how Carnegie delivers research, strategy, storytelling, media, and technology—reinforcing its role as a strategic higher education partner focused on trust, relevance, and results rather than short-term wins.

A More Integrated Approach to Research, Strategy, and Execution

“Our intent wasn’t to make a statement about ourselves,” said Tyler Borders, Chief Brand Officer. “It was to be more precise about our role and our responsibility in this moment. The brand reflects how our work has evolved and the standard we expect of ourselves as a partner to higher education.”

What’s Launching Next

As part of the rollout, Carnegie has launched an updated digital experience and will introduce new research, offerings, and insights.

New Research and Insights

This week, the company is releasing a comprehensive research report focused on online learners. In February, Carnegie will debut an updated Carnegie Intelligence newsletter, expanding how it shares perspective and practical guidance with higher education leaders.

Introducing Answer Engine Optimization (AEO)

Carnegie is also introducing a new Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) solution designed to help higher education institutions improve visibility in AI-powered search experiences—ensuring institutions are accurately represented as students increasingly rely on AI to answer questions about programs, outcomes, cost, and fit.

Navigating the Now and the Next—Together

“This is ongoing work,” Colen added. “Our commitment is to keep earning trust—by helping institutions navigate what’s next without losing sight of what matters most: changing students’ lives for good.”

For every college and university facing urgent and complex challenges, Carnegie is the student connection company that helps you navigate the now and the next in higher education. Our experts design custom strategies fueled by data, technology, and insights—empowering you to connect with today’s diverse learners and stay focused on what matters most: changing students’ lives for good.

Frequently Asked Questions About Carnegie and Student Connection

Who is Carnegie in higher education?

Carnegie is a strategic partner to colleges and universities focused on enrollment, reputation, strategy, and student success. The company helps institutions navigate complex, interconnected challenges by aligning research, strategy, storytelling, media, and technology around what matters most: students.

What does it mean to be a “student connection company”?

Being a student connection company means helping institutions build meaningful, lasting relationships with today’s diverse learners. Carnegie focuses on connecting strategy, data, storytelling, and execution so institutions can support student success, institutional relevance, and long-term impact.

What prompted Carnegie’s updated brand and renewed commitment?

Carnegie’s updated brand reflects an evolution in how the company responds to the realities facing higher education today, including demographic shifts, technological disruption, and increased public accountability. The refresh clarifies Carnegie’s role as a strategic partner helping institutions navigate these interconnected challenges without losing focus on students.

How does Carnegie help colleges and universities navigate change?

Carnegie supports institutions through integrated research, strategic planning, brand and storytelling, media and digital marketing, and technology-enabled solutions. This approach helps leaders align enrollment goals, reputation, data, and execution to drive meaningful outcomes.

What is Carnegie’s Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) solution?

Carnegie’s Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) solution helps colleges and universities improve how they are represented in AI-powered search environments like ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, and other answer engines. The solution focuses on content clarity, factual alignment, and structured optimization so institutions are trusted sources when students ask AI-driven questions.

Source link

January 21, 2026
Faculty Say AI Is Impactful, but Not In a Good Way

About a quarter of faculty don’t use any AI tools at all, and about a third don’t use them in teaching, according to the survey.

Oleh Stefaniak/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Faculty overwhelmingly agree that generative artificial intelligence will have an impact on teaching and learning in higher education, but whether that impact is positive or negative is still up for debate.

Nine in 10 faculty members say that generative AI will diminish students’ critical thinking skills, and 95 percent say its impact will increase students’ overreliance on AI tools over time, according to a report out today from the American Association of Colleges and Universities and Elon University.

In November, the groups surveyed 1,057 faculty members at U.S. institutions about their thoughts on generative AI’s impact. Eighty-three percent of faculty said the technology will decrease students’ attention spans, and 79 percent said they think the typical teaching model in their department will be affected by AI.

Most professors—86 percent—said that the impact of AI on teachers will be “significant and transformative or at least noticeable,” the report states. Only 4 percent said that AI’s effect on teaching will “not amount to much.” About half of faculty respondents said AI will have a negative effect on students’ careers over the next five years, while 20 percent said it will have a positive effect and another 20 percent said it will be equally negative and positive.

Faculty are largely unprepared for AI in the classroom, the report shows. About 68 percent of faculty said their institutions have not prepared faculty to use AI in teaching, student mentorship and scholarship. Most of their recent graduates are underprepared, too. Sixty-three percent of professors said that last spring’s graduates were not very or not at all prepared to use generative AI at work, and 71 percent said the graduates were not prepared to understand ethical issues related to AI use.

About a quarter of faculty don’t use any AI tools at all, and about a third don’t use them in teaching, according to the report. This faculty resistance is a challenge, survey respondents say. About 82 percent of faculty said that resistance to AI or unfamiliarity with AI are hurdles in adopting the tools in their departments.

“These findings explain why nearly half of surveyed faculty view the future impact of GenAI in their fields as more negative than positive, while only one in five see it as more positive than negative,” Lynn Pasquerella, president of the AAC&U, wrote in her introduction to the report. “Yet, this is not a story of simple resistance to change. It is, instead, a portrait of a profession grappling seriously with how to uphold educational values in a rapidly shifting technological landscape.”

While most professors—78 percent—said AI-driven cheating is on the rise, they are split about what exactly constitutes cheating. Just over half of faculty said it’s cheating for a student to follow a detailed AI-generated outline when writing a paper, while just under half said it is either a legitimate use of AI or they’re not sure. Another 45 percent of faculty said that using generative AI to edit a paper is a legitimate use of the tool, while the remaining 55 percent said it was illegitimate or they were unsure.

Despite their agreement on generative AI’s overall impact, faculty are split on whether AI literacy is important for students. About half of professors said AI literacy is “extremely or very important” to their students’ success, while 11 percent said it’s slightly important and 13 percent said it’s irrelevant.

Professors held a few hopeful predictions about generative AI. Sixty-one percent of respondents said it will improve and customize learning in the future. Four in 10 professors said it will increase the ability of students to write clearly, and 41 percent said it will improve students’ research skills.

Source link

January 21, 2026
Affective Intelligence in Artificial Intelligence

Looking back on my lifelong history of learning experiences, the ones that I would rank as most effective and memorable were the ones in which the instructor truly saw me, understood my motivations and encouraged me to apply the learning to my own circumstances. This critical aspect of teaching and learning is included in most every meaningful pedagogical approach. We commonly recognize that the best practices of our field include a sensitivity to and understanding of the learner’s experiences, motivations and goals. Without responding to the learner’s needs, we will fall short of the common goal of internalizing whatever learning takes place.

Some might believe that AI, as a computer-based system, merely addresses the facts, formulas and figures of quantitative learning rather than emotionally intelligent engagement with the learner. In its initial development that may have been true, however, AI has developed the ability to recognize and respond to emotional aspects of the learner’s responses.

Most Popular

In September 2024, the South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference included research by four professors from the University of West Attica in Egaleo, Greece—Theofanis Tasoulas, Christos Troussas, Phivos Mylonas and Cleo Sgouropoulou—titled “Affective Computing in Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Exploring Insights and Innovations.” The authors described the importance of including affective engagement into developing learning systems:

“Integrating intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) into education has significantly enriched personalized learning experiences for students and educators alike. However, these systems often neglect the critical role of emotions in the learning process. By integrating affective computing, which empowers computers to recognize and respond to emotions, ITS can foster more engaging and impactful learning environments. This paper explores the utilization of affective computing techniques, such as facial expression analysis and voice modulation, to enhance ITS functionality. Case studies and existing systems have been scrutinized to comprehend design decisions, outcomes, and guidelines for effective integration, thereby enhancing learning outcomes and user engagement. Furthermore, this study underscores the necessity of considering emotional aspects in the development and deployment of educational technology to optimize its influence on student learning and well-being. A major conclusion of this research is that integration of affective computing into ITS empowers educators to customize learning experiences to students’ emotional states, thereby enhancing educational effectiveness.”

In a special edition of the Journal of Education Sciences published in August 2024, Jorge Fernández-Herrero writes in a paper titled “Evaluating Recent Advances in Affective Intelligent Tutoring Systems: A Scoping Review of Educational Impacts and Future Prospects,”

“Affective intelligent tutoring systems (ATSs) are gaining recognition for their role in personalized learning through adaptive automated education based on students’ affective states. This scoping review evaluates recent advancements and the educational impact of ATSs, following PRISMA guidelines for article selection and analysis. A structured search of the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases resulted in 30 studies covering 27 distinct ATSs. These studies assess the effectiveness of ATSs in meeting learners’ emotional and cognitive needs. This review examines the technical and pedagogical aspects of ATSs, focusing on how emotional recognition technologies are used to customize educational content and feedback, enhancing learning experiences. The primary characteristics of the selected studies are described, emphasizing key technical features and their implications for educational outcomes. The discussion highlights the importance of emotional intelligence in educational environments and the potential of ATSs to improve learning processes.”

Notably, agentic AI models have been assigned tasks to monitor and provide adaptations to respond to the changing emotions of learners. Tom Mangan wrote last month in an EdTech article titled “AI Agents in Higher Education: Transforming Student Services and Support,”

“Agents will be able to gather data from multiple sources to assess a student’s progress across multiple courses. If the student starts falling behind, processes could kick in to help them catch up. Agents can relieve teachers and administrators from time-consuming chores such as grading multiple-choice tests and monitoring attendance. The idea is catching on. Andrew Ng, co-founder of Coursera, launched a startup called Kira Learning to ease burdens on overworked teachers. ‘Kira’s AI tutor works alongside teachers as an intelligent co-educator, adapting in real-time to each student’s learning style and emotional state,’ Andrea Pasinetti, Kira Learning’s CEO, says in an interview with The Observer.”

We are no longer limited to transactional chatbots that respond to questions from students without regard to their background, whether that be academic, experiential or even emotional. Using the capabilities of advanced AI, our engagements can analyze, identify and adapt to a range of learner emotions. These components are often the hallmark of excellent, experienced faculty members who do not teach only to the median of the class but instead offer personalized responses to meet the interests and needs of individual students.

As we look ahead to the last half of this semester, and succeeding semesters, we can expect that enhanced technology will enable us to better serve our learners. We will be able to identify growing frustration where that may be the case or the opportunity to accelerate the pace of the learning experience when learners display comfort with the learning materials and readiness to advance at their own pace ahead of others in the class.

We all recognize that this field is moving very rapidly. It is important that we have leaders at all levels who are prepared to experiment with the emergent technologies, demonstrate their capabilities and lead discussions on the potential for implementations. The results can be most rewarding, with a higher percentage of learners more comfortably reaching their goals. Are you prepared to take the lead in demonstrating these technologies to your colleagues?

Source link

January 21, 2026
Why Ind. Fans Are Excited About First Football National Champs

The Indiana Hoosiers defeated the Miami Hurricanes 27 to 21 to win the university’s first-ever NCAA Division I college football national championship this week. Any school would be thrilled to clinch this title and take home the trophy that accompanies it. But I will explain in this article why it hits different for IU students, alumni, employees and other supporters. Before doing so, I’ll first disclose how I know.

Five of the best years of my life were spent in Bloomington. I have a master’s degree and Ph.D. from the extraordinary university that is the heartbeat of that beloved community. IU subsequently bestowed upon me two distinguished alumni awards. The university presented its first Bicentennial Medal to Indiana governor Eric Holcomb in July 2019; that same month, I became the second recipient.

Since graduating with my doctorate 23 years ago, I have returned to campus to deliver several lectures and keynote speeches, including the 2024 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Address. My favorite trip back was in 2011 to celebrate my fraternity’s centennial. Ten visionary Black male students founded Kappa Alpha Psi there, a brotherhood that now has more than 150,000 members. I am proud to be one of them. These are just a few of countless reasons why I have long been one of IU’s proudest alums.

Here is what I remember about football games in the late ’90s and early 2000s: Whew, yikes! Tons of people showed up to tailgate outside our stadium on Saturday mornings before home games. I was often one of them. Those gatherings were probably just as fun there as they were at schools that had won Power 4 conference titles and national championships. But there was one embarrassing feature of our pregame tailgates: Few people actually went inside Memorial Stadium for games. When I say “few,” I mean at least two-thirds of stadium seats were empty. I thought it rude and unsupportive of student athletes to eat and drink in the parking lot for hours then skip the game—hence, I opted for the tailgate-only experience no more than four times each season. I was inside cheering all the other times.

Despite what had long been its shady tailgating culture, IU has amazing fans. I often screamed alongside them at basketball games. During one of my most recent visits to campus, President Pam Whitten generously hosted me for a Big Ten matchup in her fabulous suite inside the iconic Assembly Hall. I was instantly reminded that my beloved alma mater has an electrifying, inspiringly loyal fan base—for basketball. As it turns out, winning five men’s national basketball championships, clinching 22 Big Ten conference titles and making 41 NCAA tournament appearances (advancing to the Final Four eight times) excites people. Suffering so many defeats in football year after year, not so much.

Throughout the last two seasons, ESPN commentators and other sportscasters have annoyingly repeated that Indiana has long been the losingest major college football team of all time; I will leave it to someone else to fact-check that. Going from being so bad for so long to an 11–2 season and playoff berth last year, followed by a Big Ten Championship, a flawless 16–0 season and a national championship win this year, are just some reasons why IU alumni and others are so excited. Oh, and then there is Fernando Mendoza, our first-ever Heisman Trophy winner, and Curt Cignetti, the inspirational head coach who accelerated our football program to greatness in just two seasons.

Instantly improving from (reportedly) worst of all time to college football’s undisputed best is indeed exciting. Nevertheless, it is not the only reason why the Indiana faithful are so amped. Our university is beyond extraordinary in numerous domains. Academic programs there are exceptional; many, including the one from which I graduated, are always ranked in the top nationally. The university employs many of the world’s best professors and researchers. Its connection to the Hoosier State is deep, measurable and in many ways transformative. The Bloomington campus, framed by its gorgeous tulip-filled Sample Gates, is a vibrant, exciting place to be a student. It feels like a great university because it has long been, still is and forever will be. It is birthplace of the greatest collegiate fraternity, a fact that requires no verification.

Finally having a football program that matches all the other great things that IU is and does is why those of us who have experienced the place are so freakin’ excited about our first-ever college football national championship. Greatness deserves greatness. Thanks to Cignetti and his staff, Mendoza and every other student athlete on their team, Indiana University has finally achieved football greatness. They have given others and me one more reason to be incredibly proud of a great American university that excels in academics, public outreach, athletics and so many other domains. I conclude with this: Hoo-Hoo-Hoo-Hoosiers!

Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Business and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership. His most recent book is titled Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.

Source link

January 21, 2026
Settlements Cost Higher Ed Hundreds of Millions in 2025
Michigan State University paid nearly $30 million to settle with three people injured in a 2023 campus shooting.

Jeffness/Wikimedia Commons
A new report by the United Educators insurance company shows that universities spent hundreds of millions of dollars on damages in 2025, according to an analysis of publicly reported settlements.

Legal cases involved a variety of issues, ranging from deaths on campus to antitrust issues, cybersecurity breaches, discrimination, sexual misconduct and pandemic-era policy fallout.

Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital had the largest settlement at $750 million in a case related to hundreds of instances of sexual abuse by Robert Hadden, a former doctor who worked at both Columbia’s Irving Medical Center and the hospital. United Educators noted that there is no clear breakdown of which entity shouldered the brunt of the settlement.

Michigan State University followed with the next-largest settlement at $29.7 million. Michigan State settled with three victims injured in a campus shooting that killed three students in 2023.

Other notable settlements include:
- Pennsylvania State University paid $17 million to settle claims that it overcharged students when officials shifted from in-person to remote instruction during the coronavirus pandemic. Penn State was one of five institutions in the report to settle lawsuits amid allegations that they overcharged students, with damages ranging from a high of $17 million to a low of $3.5 million.
- The University of Colorado Anschutz reached a $10 million settlement with 18 plaintiffs, both staff and students, who were denied religious exemptions to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The report noted that most of the incidents highlighted did not involve United Educators members. The full report can be read here and also includes major losses for K–12 schools.
Source link
January 21, 2026
Honoring Martin Luther King, the Nobel Peace Prize He Earned

The United States celebrated the life and legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. this week. On the national holiday named for him and at numerous other times throughout each year, I reflect on what King taught the world through his justice-seeking philosophies, agendas and actions. I typically do so in writing, with the aim of thoughtfully connecting King to what is happening in our country at the time. For example, two years ago, I published an article in which I contended that he would be appalled by the politicized attacks on and dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. This year, I decided to write about something else that has been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons.

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to King in 1964, four years before he was assassinated. He earned it. King did not beg for it or annoyingly insist that it should be awarded to him. He did not make boastful claims about all he had single-handedly done to help end human suffering in America and abroad. Instead, he bravely put his life on the line for peace and justice, not for a prize.

The Nobel Foundation was persuaded enough by King’s impact to celebrate it. No one had to donate their award to the civil and human rights icon. Same with Barack Obama—his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize did not come via whining, self-aggrandizement, public expressions of entitlement or donation from a prior recipient who desperately endeavored to gain political favor with a U.S. president.

I learned very little about the prize in my K–12 schools, college or graduate school. I did at least know that King had been awarded it, because it is often a prominent detail in his biography. There is a chance that today’s students (including collegians) still do not learn much about the prize in textbooks or anyplace else. Perhaps few would be able to name five prior recipients. But King would probably be one name that most of them call.

In addition to not knowing enough people who have won it, it is plausible that few students know much about the origins of the prize and the process by which laureates are selected. Because “peace” is in its name, most would likely deduce that the honor is in recognition of recipients’ extraordinary efforts to promote peace. Students also would likely presume the awardees to have themselves been peaceful people, certainly not sustainers of chaos or promoters of divisiveness.

King had lots of opponents. But he did not waste time in pulpits, in his Birmingham jail cell, on streets all over America or on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial (the site of his famed “I Have a Dream” speech) talking about how much he hated those who violently challenged and rejected his agenda. Love, forgiveness, unity and peace are what he extended to and invited from them. He urged others to pursue the same with neighbors and co-workers who were from different races, socioeconomic circumstances, religions and political parties. King hated racism. He hated poverty. Notwithstanding, he proposed and aggressively pursued remedies for them from a standpoint of love.

I know for sure that were he still alive, King would be fighting like hell right now to ensure that millions of Americans—including whites who jailed him, spat in his face and wanted him dead—get to keep access to high-quality, affordable health care. There is no way he would have sat idly by as the recent politicization of food-stamp benefits placed low-income citizens at risk of starvation. I suspect that King would make the point that poverty and sickness unfairly place people in desperate, unhealthy contexts in which conflict ensues. In myriad ways, equity and equality are strongly connected to his writings about peace, several of which are published in a 736-page anthology of speeches, letters, sermons and op-eds.

On the eve of this year’s MLK holiday here in the U.S., instead of devoting full attention to honoring one of its most recognizable laureates, the Nobel Foundation had to spend its time articulating the sacredness of its award and making sure people understand that “a laureate cannot share the prize with others, nor transfer it once it has been announced.” Its statement released last week went on to specify, “A Nobel Peace Prize can also never be revoked. The decision is final and applies for all time.”

Absurdity will neither diminish King’s irrefutable impact nor the Nobel Peace Prize bestowed upon him. In the most dignified manner, King accepted the honor in Oslo 62 years ago: “Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace,” he declared in his acceptance speech. “If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

In celebration of what would have been his 97th birthday, I chose to reflect on King as a courageous, relentless pursuer of peace who himself was a peaceful leader.

Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Business and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership. His most recent book is titled Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.

Source link

January 21, 2026