Tag: Higher

  • What Higher Ed Marketers Can Learn from the Meltwater Summit 2025

    What Higher Ed Marketers Can Learn from the Meltwater Summit 2025

    In an era where higher education faces unprecedented challenges and opportunities, the recent Meltwater Summit offered crucial insights for leaders navigating a rapidly changing landscape. This gathering of creative minds, brand leaders and technology experts explored the critical intersection of compelling storytelling, branding and the power of artificial intelligence. Explore strategic takeaways poised to reshape how institutions connect with prospective students, build brand equity and harness AI to drive creative processes.  

    Creativity Flows with You 

    Reese Witherspoon set the tone with an honest reflection on the nature of creativity: it’s constantly flowing but rarely on a set schedule. The challenge isn’t finding ideas—it’s cultivating the environment and carving out dedicated time for them to flourish. The solution? Clear, consistent and intentional communication. Whether you’re bridging teams or brainstorming with collaborators, creating space for dialogue is what truly transforms good ideas into great ones. At EducationDynamics, we aren’t just completing tasks; we are constantly collaborating with each of our partners to ensure we produce the best content possible. Our solutions span creative services, brand strategy, awareness marketing and more—turning inspiration into action and strategy into results. 

    AI: A Teammate, Not a Replacement 

    AI emerged as a powerful ally throughout Meltwater Summit sessions, particularly when leveraged for the content creation process. One standout tactic shared was the “sandwich approach” to content creation, a straightforward framework for combining human creativity with AI support: 

    1. Draft with Intent: Begin by outlining your core message or ideas. This first layer is where your expertise and objectives take shape, setting the foundation for compelling content.  
    2. Expand with AI: Use AI tools to build upon your draft—generating copy variations, enhancing clarity or exploring new angles you may not have considered.  
    3. Refine with Purpose: Continue to refine and rework AI-enhanced content through your own lens. Strengthen the structure, sharpen the voice and align it with your audience and brand tone. Great content takes more than one pass; it’s built through deliberate iteration.  

    The takeaway was clear—AI isn’t here to replace your creativity. It should be used to to amplify it. When used intentionally, it becomes a partner in the process, helping ideas take shape faster than before. 

     At EducationDynamics, we embrace AI as a collaborative tool that helps streamline ideation and improve efficiency. It should be a jump-off point, not a final destination, supporting the creative process without replacing the human insight that drives it. 

    Prompt Writing with AI

    AI can be an amazing content marketing tool, especially when used to generate fresh ideas, streamline workflows, and tailor messaging for specific audiences. In order to achieve these goals using AI, effective prompt writing is also a critical asset.  

    While a typical Google search might consist of just a few words, an effective AI prompt can span hundreds. The more detail you provide, the better your results will be. Don’t hesitate to ask AI to evaluate or improve your original prompt; collaboration is your asset when using AI. Treat an AI assistant as a teammate. Work with it, and understand it is there to work the foundation, not complete it.  

    Important Tip: Protect your data. Avoid sharing sensitive information with public AI tools, and use secure, private systems that align with your institution’s compliance and governance policies. 

    Smarter Workflows with AI

    AI isn’t just for writing. It can streamline your entire workflow. From summarizing analytics and setting alerts for media mentions to helping coordinate across teams, AI is becoming an indispensable partner in day-to-day operations.

    The takeaway: AI won’t take your job—but it might take over the tasks that are holding you back from your best work.

    Content That Captures and Connects 

    Creative content marketing has the power to elevate your institution’s voice and drive meaningful engagement across platforms. Today’s most effective content does more than inform; it creates an emotional connection. That means capturing content that feels real, engaging and multi-layered. Even one filming session can yield a wealth of valuable content. In each filming session, aim to produce the following: 

    • A core message or question 
    • Authentic behind-the-scenes footage 

    At EducationDynamics, our creative services span the full content spectrum—including Organic Social strategies designed to help institutions tell their stories in ways that resonate and inspire, reaching students right at their fingertips.  

    Strategic Content Planning

    For university marketing leaders and content marketing managers alike, every piece of content should align with your larger content calendar and overarching brand goals. Don’t post just to fill the gap. Each piece should serve one (or more) of three purposes:

    • Educate: Deliver useful and relevant information. 
    • Engage: Spark genuine conversation and connection. 
    • Encourage: Motivate your audience to act, advocate, or explore further

    In higher education, for example, students crave content that both informs and resonates emotionally. Whether highlighting everyday moments or preparing for crisis communication, a plan—and a designated point of contact—ensures you can respond quickly and effectively.  

    Always ask: How does this content deepen connections, build school pride or inform?   You’re not just telling a story—you’re shaping your institution’s impact.  

    Build With Intention

    From AI integration to authentic content creation, one message echoed throughout this year’s Meltwater Summit: success in today’s digital world means being intentional.  

    The institutions that thrive are the ones building with purpose, thoughtfully engaging audiences and effectively leveraging technology. They listen, adapt and invest in strategies that meet the Modern Learner where they are, contributing to overall brand health and engagement.  

    Purposeful creation begins with understanding your community, amplifying their voices and delivering value through every interaction. As a higher education marketing agency, we empower institutions to transform attention into enrollment and inspire students to become advocates.  

    Your institution has the foundation: vision, community and purpose. With the right tools and the right partner, you can turn that foundation into measurable growth that aligns with your goals. If you are ready to grow with intention and engage on a deeper level, EducationDynamics is here to support you.  

    Source link

  • What Higher Ed Marketers Can Learn from the Meltwater Summit 2025

    What Higher Ed Marketers Can Learn from the Meltwater Summit 2025

    As higher education navigates rapid change, the Meltwater Summit, held in New York City in May, was a gathering of creative minds, brand leaders and technology experts. The Summit made one thing clear: compelling storytelling, intentional branding and the thoughtful use of artificial intelligence are interconnected forces that shape lasting reputations. Institutions that invest in purposeful content and strategic technology integration are best positioned to lead with both credibility and measurable impact, connecting brand reputation and revenue growth as part of a unified strategy.

    Meltwater is a leading platform in media intelligence, powering reputation management, press monitoring and social listening. At EducationDynamics, we use Meltwater to uncover trends, track brand perception and guide strategies across channels for our partners.

    This year, I had the opportunity to attend the Meltwater Summit—a two-day event designed for marketing and communications professionals focusing on how data and creativity shape brand strategy. In my role as Senior Social & Visual Strategist at EducationDynamics, I was especially tuned into the evolving role of social media.

    The conversations throughout the Summit reaffirmed the importance of developing content strategies that are cohesive, intentional and fully aligned with broader brand goals. Explore the key takeaways we gathered from the event and how they can benefit higher education marketers.

    Reese Witherspoon set the tone with a powerful opening session, delivering honest reflection on the nature of creativity. Creativity is constantly flowing but rarely on a set schedule. The challenge isn’t finding ideas—it is cultivating the environment and carving out dedicated time for them to flourish. The solution? Clear, consistent and intentional communication. Whether you’re bridging teams or brainstorming with collaborators, creating space for dialogue is what truly transforms good ideas into great ones.

    What we learned about the creative process is clear: creativity is not merely a component but a foundational pillar of your university’s reputation. When internal teams collaborate, align and ideate together, they build a cohesive and authentic brand that shapes how your institution is seen from the outside.

    Moreover, it is important to recognize that your organic social efforts, website content, press releases and all other communications are not isolated channels. They form an interconnected ecosystem. Each piece of content plays a role within a broader narrative of your institution’s reputation. Thinking holistically about how every element comes together and ensures that your university’s story is consistent and impactful at every touchpoint.

    For university marketing leaders and content managers, content should do more than fill space—it should move the needle. Every asset should align with your broader strategy, reinforce your institution’s brand and serve at least one of the following purposes:  

    • Educate: Share timely, valuable information your audience can trust. 
    • Engage: Spark genuine conversation and connection. 
    • Encourage: Motivate your audience to act, advocate, or explore further.

    Today’s Modern Learners seek content that not only informs but also resonates with their experiences and aspirations. Whether showcasing everyday moments or navigating a crisis, having a clear plan—and a designated point of contact—ensures your team can respond with timely, thoughtful responses.  

    As you develop your content, ask yourself: Does this content deepen connection, build school pride or inform? Does it strengthen our institution’s reputation? If it does not accomplish any of this, you are just creating noise. 

    Success in today’s digital landscape demands intentionality. It is not just about telling stories—it is about using every piece of content strategically to shape perception, deepen engagement and build a brand that endures.  

    To build a brand that endures, every content piece should be seen as an opportunity to reinforce your institution’s voice and values. Strategic content creation, especially through organic social, plays a vital role in shaping how your audience connects with and trusts your brand. 

    When aligned intentionally, organic social media is a powerful channel that strengthens brand affinity while complementing awareness and digital marketing efforts across multiple channels. Creative content marketing, particularly in video, continues to grow in importance as a relevant medium for establishing reputation. Today’s audiences prefer content that feels authentic and emotionally resonant. To capture that depth, institutions should plan how content will be used across multiple channels. For example, to get the most out of every filming session, aim to capture: 

    • A core message or question 
    • Authentic behind-the-scenes footage 
    • Action shots 
    • Introductory context 
    • Relatable soundbites

    These assets do more than fill channels. They bring your strategy to life across multiple touchpoints in a format that is both attention-grabbing and engaging. When your content reflects lived experiences and community voices, it fosters trust and connection. In today’s crowded digital space, trust is a vital currency that drives reputation and results.

    No conference in 2025 is complete without discussions of AI.  Throughout the Summit, AI was highlighted as a powerful ally, particularly when leveraged within the content creation process.  One key tactic shared was the “sandwich approach,” a straightforward framework for combining human creativity with AI support:  

    1. Draft with Intent: Outline your core message and ideas based on your expertise.
    2. Expand with AI: Use AI tools to generate variations, improve clarity or explore new angles.
    3. Refine with Purpose: Edit and polish AI-enhanced content to match your brand voice and audience.

    Strong results also depend on clear, detailed prompts. Providing AI with context like tone, audience and format helps produce relevant output. Beyond content creation, AI can streamline workflows, freeing marketers to focus on strategy and adding creative touches.

    At EducationDynamics, we view AI as a collaborative tool that boosts efficiency and creativity. It serves as a jump-off point, not the final destination, supporting the work driven by our team’s vision.

    Meltwater reinforced that when AI is thoughtfully integrated into the creative process, it does not replace your unique insight. Instead, it amplifies it, freeing your team to focus on the meaningful and strategic work that shapes your institution’s brand.

    If one message stood out at this year’s Meltwater Summit, it was that creativity and strategic content creation are essential to building a compelling strong and enduring reputation.

    The institutions best positioned to thrive are those that engage their audiences intentionally, invest in the right technologies and meet the Modern Learner where they are.

    Purposeful creation begins with understanding your community, amplifying their voices and delivering value through every interaction. As a higher education marketing agency, we empower institutions to transform attention into enrollment and inspire students to become advocates.

    Your institution already has the foundation: vision, community and purpose. With the right tools and the right partner, you can turn that foundation into measurable growth that aligns with your goals. If you are ready to grow with intention and engage on a deeper level, EducationDynamics is here to support you.

    Source link

  • Trump Takes Education Department Lawsuit to Supreme Court

    Trump Takes Education Department Lawsuit to Supreme Court

    The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow it to move forward with its plan to lay off nearly half of the Education Department’s employees and dismantle the agency, USA Today reported. 

    In late May, a federal district court ruled that the reduction in force made it impossible for the executive branch to carry out congressionally mandated programs and services. An appeals court affirmed that ruling June 4.

    President Trump and his Department of Justice, however, disagree with both rulings, and they hope the 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court will, too.

    “The Constitution vests the Executive Branch, not district courts, with the authority to make judgments about how many employees are needed to carry out an agency’s statutory functions, and whom they should be,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. 

    States, school districts and teachers’ unions involved in the case have until June 13 to respond to Trump’s appeal, the Supreme Court stated. 

    Source link

  • Which Universities Spend the Most on Student Services

    Which Universities Spend the Most on Student Services

    More colleges and universities are investing in support service offerings to increase student retention and graduation outcomes, but these interventions and offices come at a cost—one that is often subsidized by students.

    A recently published analysis from Studocu of data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System finds that among four-year colleges and universities, most spent nearly $2,933 on academic supports and $4,828 on student services during the 2022–23 academic year. Across all institutions, the average expense per full-time equivalent student was $3,334 for student services and $4,198 for academic supports.

    The group analyzed over 1,000 degree-granting institutions across the U.S. that enroll at least 101 undergraduates. Institutions ranged from large, primarily online institutions to small liberal arts colleges. Community colleges and technical colleges were not included in the study.

    Academic support offerings were categorized as classroom-focused interventions, including tutoring centers, writing labs, academic advising and technology-enhanced learning tools. Student services included mental health counseling, career services, housing assistance and extracurricular programs, according to Studocu.

    The biggest spenders on academic supports were, not surprisingly, wealthy Ivy League institutions. Yale University spent the most on academic supports ($1.8 billion) in the 2023 fiscal year, followed by the University of Pennsylvania ($1.1 billion) and Harvard University ($1 billion), each of which has an undergraduate population of less than 10,000.

    Per student, Yale invested $225,000, Harvard spent $132,000 and Penn spent $105,707 on academic interventions.

    Next in line were two public institutions: the University of Washington at Seattle, which spent $844 million for 30,000 undergraduates, or $28,133 per student, and the University of California, San Diego, which spent $844 million for 32,800 undergraduates, or roughly $25,732 per student.

    Looking at student services, some of the institutions that spent the most were those with substantial online student bodies, including Grand Canyon University ($504 million), Southern New Hampshire University ($435 million), Liberty University ($289 million) and Arizona State University ($243 million).

    But Yale spent the most per capita, investing $53,000 per student in nonacademic programs, followed by the California Institute of Technology and the U.S. Naval Academy, which spent $41,000 and $36,000 per student, respectively.

    The analysis also revealed a positive correlation between dollars spent per student and graduation rates, which researchers said suggest well-funded support services provide meaningful benefits, particularly for students who might otherwise be at risk. However, the data does not capture the privileges of socioeconomic advantage that may supplement on-campus offerings, nor the likelihood of students to graduate regardless of support offerings due to selective admissions processes.

    Students foot the bill: The high level of investment in student supports contrasts with the revenue the average student produces. The average public college received about $8,720 net revenue in tuition and fees per full-time-equivalent student in 2021, and the average private nonprofit received $23,900, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

    A growing number of colleges and universities are embedding student service fees into tuition costs to fund support offerings, particularly health and wellness resources.

    James Madison University, which spends around $1,620 per student on support services and $3,220 on academic resources, charges $5,662 in student fees, among the highest in the nation, according to a Sportico analysis. Nearly half ($2,362) of that fee goes directly to athletics funding, Sportico reported.

    Harvard charges $3,676 annually for student services as part of the cost of attendance, a fraction of its total spend per student ($163,000). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology bills students $420 annually for student clubs and organization funding, as well as fitness activities—about 2 percent of the total dollars invested in student supports. Caltech charges $2,586 in fees, while the Naval Academy does not charge tuition.

    The University of Pennsylvania lists $8,032 in fees in its estimated costs of attendance, but it’s unclear which expenses students are paying for with those fees.

    Yale does not differentiate student fees in tuition prices, grouping lab, library and gymnasium costs into a student’s tuition package. Similarly, UCSD and UW do not have additional fees associated with the cost of attendance.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Department of Education Discontinues IPEDS Training

    Department of Education Discontinues IPEDS Training

    This is the latest of a series of contract cuts for the Institute of Education Sciences.

    Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

    The Trump administration terminated a key contract to train college officials on how to report data to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, a move that could further hamper the Education Department’s data infrastructure.

    Used to track trends in higher education enrollment, completion, financial aid usage and other institutional characteristics, IPEDS survey data has long been critical to higher education research. But in order to access and utilize the data, institutions need to know how to properly complete the survey and researchers need to know how to navigate the database.

    That’s where the Association of Institutional Research and its IPEDS training programs came in—or at least they used to.

    In a social media post Thursday, AIR’s executive director, Christine Keller, announced that the organization’s subcontract with IPEDS and the National Center for Education Statistics would not be renewed for the upcoming academic year. This means that updated self-paced courses and video tutorials on how to report and use data, as well as in-person workshops on topics like how to set data-informed benchmarks and improvement plans for an institution, will no longer be available.

    “When you’ve done meaningful work with committed partners for more than two decades, it’s difficult to acknowledge that it’s coming to an end,” Keller wrote. “While this chapter is closing, AIR’s commitment to supporting data-informed decision-making remains strong. We are actively exploring ways to continue offering select IPEDS training under the AIR brand to meet the needs of our community.”

    But while AIR intends to continue similar training models, Keller was sure to clarify that any future coaching will come at a cost. Past resources were subsidized by the contract and therefore available for free.

    The end of this subcontract will not, however, terminate other components  of the IPEDS contract managed through RTI International—such as aiding in data collection, maintaining the IPEDS website and managing the help desk. (This paragraph has been corrected to reflect that RTI International contract for IPEDS.)

    An Education Department spokesperson wrote in an email that the decision reflected its commitment to supporting “useful and relevant research” while “respecting the American taxpayer’s wallet.”

    “Multiple federal contractors were collecting 50 percent or more in overhead costs, which is neither sustainable nor reasonable,” the spokesperson said. “We believe in the value of training users to make best use of federally funded databases. Thus, we are in [the] process of reexamining how that training might be more efficiently and effectively delivered in the future.”

    College staff members and policy experts who focus on using institutional data to improve student outcomes, however, say the discontinuation of free AIR training programs will be devastating.

    Henry Zheng, vice provost for institutional effectiveness and planning at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote on LinkedIn that this abrupt ending was “sobering” and that he is “pray[ing] that this program will continue on another day.”

    Wesley Whistle, a project director on student success and affordability at New America, a left-leaning think tank, also took to LinkedIn to comment on the news, saying, “These trainings are vital for institutional researchers as they fulfill their reporting obligations.”

    And this is not the first blow for IPEDS and NCES under the Trump administration. In February, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency announced that it had canceled nearly $900 million in contracts across the statistics center and its larger parent agency, the Institute of Education Sciences.

    At the time, a DOGE official said 89 IES contracts were canceled, while other organizations put the total at closer to 170. (Previous Inside Higher Ed reporting has shown that the data being published by DOGE regarding the scope and effect of its cuts is likely inaccurate.)

    Additionally, the department fired more than 80 percent of IES’s 120 employees. The Education Department said in recent budget documents that it is planning to reimagine “a more efficient, effective, and useful IES to improve support for evidence-based accountability, data-driven decision making, and education research for use in the classroom.”

    Collectively, IPEDS, NCES and IES serve as the Education Department’s research and development arm, funding research on how to improve equity in education access and outcomes in the future as well as providing data on how students in K–12 and college fare in programs. So to discontinue the services that bolstered college staff members’ professional development could hurt their ability to report congressionally mandated statistics accurately, higher ed experts say.

    In the end, some fear that losing the training could lead to less data-informed decision-making.

    “We need to collect data both at the national level and at the institutional level. Without measuring the problem, we risk pretending it doesn’t exist,” wrote James Orlick, director of grant writing and innovation for inclusive excellence at the University of Louisville. “The belief that ‘if you don’t measure it, it isn’t a problem’ reinforces inaction and won’t solve the systemic issues we face.”

    Source link

  • U Michigan Used Undercover Agents to Surveil Protesters

    U Michigan Used Undercover Agents to Surveil Protesters

    The University of Michigan hired dozens of private investigators to go undercover on campus and surveil pro-Palestinian student protesters, The Guardian reported Friday. 

    Some of the investigators, who work for a Detroit-based security firm, were caught on camera trailing, recording and harassing students; one reportedly drove a car at one student, who had to jump out of the way.

    “It’s so insane that they have spent millions of dollars to hire some goons to follow campus activists around,” one student who’d been followed by agents told The Guardian. “It’s just such a waste of money and time.”

    The agents have been gathering evidence against students for some time at the behest of the university; Michigan state prosecutors used evidence from their investigations to charge and jail student protesters in May 2024, according to The Guardian. The state attorney general dropped those charges two weeks ago. In April, police raided the homes of five pro-Palestinian student activists in Ann Arbor for alleged “acts of vandalism.”

    A spokesperson for the university did not deny hiring the investigators in responses to The Guardian’s questions and defended “security measures” as essential to “maintaining a safe and secure campus environment.”

    Source link

  • The Benefits of Professional Society Involvement (opinion)

    The Benefits of Professional Society Involvement (opinion)

    Back in 2001, when I first attended university, I didn’t join any student organizations, clubs or professional societies. I was busy with classes, after all, and didn’t know what benefit they could provide me anyway. What possible value would becoming a SACNAS member offer? Some clubs even required a membership fee!

    Now I know better. Professional societies are a critical, often overlooked way of building your network, strengthening your résumé and finding professional development opportunities outside classes. As discussed in a 2020 Developmental Biology article titled “Professional societies can play a vital role in career development,” professional societies offer conferences, workshops, virtual seminars and free resources to members and, in many cases, nonmembers.

    These resources provide learning opportunities across multiple categories, including professional development, career deep dives and leadership training. My own organization, the Genetics Society of America, offers the Leadership Dialogue Series organized by our early-career scientists, seminars in languages other than English and workshops on different types of careers and topics related to accessibility in STEM. Each of these events represents an opportunity not just for our community to learn about a new career, skill or research topic, but also provides CV and résumé boosts to our event organizers, whose volunteerism powers GSA’s ability to offer these resources.

    Speaking for myself, when I returned to school in 2010, I joined groups that aligned with my career and professional goals: building a support community via a Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science membership, building a professional community via a Graduate Student Association and Association for Women in Science membership, learning more about science writing opportunities via a National Association of Science Writers membership, and connecting with fellow mycologists via a Mycological Society of America membership.

    As a transfer student with a previous degree, I was also inducted into the Tau Sigma National Honor Society. Now, as a career development professional, I am an active member and volunteer for the Graduate Career Consortium. All these memberships helped guide me to the career I have today and have opened numerous opportunities for collaborations, event organizing, volunteer work and personal career development. I can say without any hesitation that my membership with GSA, MSA and NASW led me directly to the position I have now, and collectively my society memberships keep me informed of current developments in higher education, professional development opportunities, and my own field of genetics.

    As you scan each professional society’s page, note the many conferences, professional development programs and job postings each of these memberships gives you access to. You may not be in a position to invest in more than one professional society, and that’s perfectly fine! Choosing one specific society as your “home” and focusing your volunteer efforts and involvement in this specific society is a wonderful way to build your network; connect with other like-minded professionals; collaborate in organizing high-value, marketed events; and learn the inner workings of a professional society.

    Choosing your society of interest might seem daunting. Here are some tips to help you navigate this choice and select the best society to fit your needs:

    • Cost: Determine how much you can budget each year for a membership. You may need to save up to afford this cost at a future date, so keep track of membership renewal times. Check with your adviser, lab or department to see if they would be able and willing to pay for one professional society membership as part of your graduate studies. Many societies offer lower rates for students. Also check for low-income waivers—many societies offer discounts or waivers due to economic hardship.
    • Field-specific societies: If you’re a physicist, the American Physical Society makes more sense to join than GSA. A social worker should join a society such as the National Association of Social Workers. Whatever your field, there’s a professional society that serves your community! If you’re not sure what your field’s societies are, ask your adviser and other faculty. You can also ask an AI tool to compile a list, with links to check sources, using this prompt: “Create a table for scientific societies based in the United States which serve [YOUR FIELD] academics. The columns should be society name, website, upcoming conferences and membership cost for a graduate student member.” For example, using this prompt with “history” as the field, I received the following results from OpenAI’s ChatGPT:

    Here is a table of prominent U.S.-based scientific societies that serve history academics, including their websites, upcoming conferences and graduate student membership costs:

    Society Website Upcoming Conference(s) Graduate Student Membership Cost
    American Historical Association (AHA) historians.org AHA 2026 Annual Meeting, Jan. 8–11, 2026, Chicago Not specified
    Organization of American Historians (OAH) oah.org 2025 OAH Conference on American History, April 3–6, 2025, Chicago $51/year
    American Catholic Historical Association (ACHA) achahistory.org 105th Annual Meeting, Jan. 3–5, 2025, New York, N.Y. $20/year
    Social Science History Association (SSHA) ssha.org 2025 Annual Conference, Nov. 20–23, 2025, Chicago $30/year
    Society for the History of Technology (SHOT) historyoftechnology.org 2025 Annual Meeting, Oct. 9–11, 2025, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Not specified
    World History Association (WHA) thewha.org 34th Annual Meeting, June 26–28, 2025, Louisville, Ky. Not specified

    Please note that membership costs and conference details are subject to change. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, it’s best to visit the respective society’s official website.

    You can see that not every result includes a cost, but because I have the website, I can quickly check and find that the American Historical Association offers a one-year student membership for $42 and update my table accordingly. Since two of the conference dates listed on the table have already passed, I can also easily update the information for the Organization for American History and the American Catholic Historical Association to reflect the planned 2026 conference dates and locations.

    • Attend a conference: Talk to your adviser about attending a conference offered by the professional society you’re interested in. Many societies offer travel fund awards that you can apply for if your adviser is not able to support your attendance.
    • Check out the organization’s professional development opportunities: If the society has an early-career program or committee, apply to become a member! These programs are an excellent way to get your name out to a large number of colleagues and build your network, as the early-career students you work with will become your professional colleagues who step into academia, industry and beyond with you.
    • Be strategic in your involvement: Decide how much time you’re willing to invest each month in a volunteer opportunity and guard your time diligently. Burnout is a fast way to turn a positive experience into a negative drag on your time, so approach each opportunity as a large project and add more only if you have the time. You don’t want to become known for bailing out on multiple collaborative volunteer opportunities!

    When thinking about which professional society you should join, make sure you’re choosing the society that aligns with both your career goals and personal needs, and that offers you the best opportunities for your investment. Talk with your adviser to see if there’s a society they recommend and begin your professional society journey early to maximize this resource as you move forward in your career.

    Jessica M. Vélez is the senior manager of engagement, community building and professional development for the Genetics Society of America. She earned her Ph.D. in energy science and engineering from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in 2020, and was awarded the National GEM Fellowship during her graduate studies.

    Source link

  • Empowering Mature Students through Inclusive AI Literacy: Advancing Digital Equity and Social Justice in Higher Education

    Empowering Mature Students through Inclusive AI Literacy: Advancing Digital Equity and Social Justice in Higher Education

    • By Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eleni Meletiadou, Guildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, PFHEA, NTF, UTF, MCIPD, MIIE.

    As higher education embraces artificial intelligence (AI) to drive digital transformation, there is a growing risk that older, non-traditional, or mature students will be left behind. This blog post draws on insights from the QAA-funded “Using AI to promote education for sustainable development and widen access to digital skills” project I have been leading alongside findings from the EU COST Action DigiNet (WG5), where I co-lead research into media portrayals and digital inequalities impacting mature learning workers.

    Through this work, and in collaboration with international partners, we have identified what genuinely supports inclusion and what simply pays lip service to it. While AI is often heralded as a tool for levelling the educational playing field, our research shows that without intentional support structures and inclusive design, it can reinforce and even widen existing disparities.

    Supporting mature students’ AI literacy is, therefore, not just a pedagogical responsibility; it is an ethical imperative. It intersects with wider goals of equity, social justice, and sustainable digital inclusion. If higher education is to fulfil its mission in an age of intelligent technologies, it must ensure that no learner is left behind, especially those whose voices have long been marginalised.

    Why Mature Students Matter in the AI Conversation

    Mature students are one of the fastest-growing and most diverse populations in higher education. They bring a wealth of life and work experience, resilience, and motivation. Yet, they are often excluded from AI-related initiatives that presume a level of digital fluency not all possess. However, they are often left out of AI-related initiatives, which too frequently assume a baseline level of digital fluency that many do not possess. Media portrayals tend to depict older learners as technologically resistant or digitally inept, reinforcing deficit narratives that erode confidence, undermine self-efficacy, and reduce participation.

    As a result, mature students face a dual barrier: the second-order digital divide—inequity in digital skills rather than access—and the social stigma of digital incompetence. Both obstruct their academic progress and diminish their employability in a rapidly evolving, AI-driven labour market.

    Principles that Support Mature Learners

    The QAA-funded project, developed in partnership with five universities across the UK and Europe, embedded AI literacy through three key principles—each critical for mature learners:

    1. Accessibility

    Learning activities were designed for varying levels of digital experience. Resources were provided in multiple formats (text, video, audio), and sessions used plain language and culturally inclusive examples. Mature students often benefited from slower-paced, repeatable guidance and multilingual scaffolding.

    1. Collaboration

    Peer mentoring was a powerful tool for mature students, who often expressed apprehension toward younger, digitally native peers. By fostering intergenerational support networks and collaborative projects, we helped reduce isolation and build mutual respect.

    1. Personalised Learning

    Mature students frequently cited the need for AI integration that respected their goals, schedules, and learning styles. Our approach allowed learners to set their own pace, choose relevant tools, and receive tailored feedback, building ownership and confidence in their digital journeys.

    Inclusive AI Strategies That Work – Based on What Mature Learners Told Us

    Here are four practical strategies that emerged from our multi-site studies and international collaborations:

    1. Start with Purpose: Show AI’s Relevance to Career and Life

    Mature learners engage best when AI tools solve problems that matter to them. In our QAA project, students used ChatGPT to refine job applications, generate reflective statements, and translate workplace policies into plain English. These tools became career companions—not just academic add-ons.

    ‘When I saw what it could do for my CV, I felt I could finally compete again,’ shared a 58-year-old participant.

    2. Design Age-Safe Learning Spaces

    Many mature students fear embarrassment in digital settings. We created small, trust-based peer groups, offered print-friendly guides, and used asynchronous recordings to accommodate different learning paces. These scaffolds helped dismantle the shame often attached to asking for help.

    3. Make Reflection Central to AI Literacy

    AI use can be empowering or alienating. We asked students to record short video reflections on how AI shaped their thinking. This helped them develop critical awareness of what the tool does, how it aligns with academic integrity, and what learning still needs to happen beyond automation.

    4. Use Media Critique to Break Stereotypes

    Drawing on my research into late-life workers and digital media, we used ageist headlines, adverts, and memes as classroom material. Mature learners engaged critically with how society depicts them, transforming deficit narratives into dialogue, and boosting confidence through awareness.

    How We Measured Impact (and Why It Mattered)

    We evaluated these strategies using mixed methods informed by both academic and lived-experience perspectives:

    • Self-reflective journals and confidence scales tracked growth in AI confidence and self-efficacy
    • Survey data from mature students (aged 55+) in the UK and Albania (from my older learners study) revealed the key role of peer support, professional experience, and family encouragement in shaping digital resilience
    • Narrative mapping, developed with COST DigiNet partners, was used to document shifts in learners’ digital identity—from anxious adopter to confident contributor
    • Follow-up interviews three months post-intervention showed sustained engagement with AI tools in personal and professional contexts (e.g., CPD portfolios, policy briefs)

    Policy and Practice: Repositioning Mature Learners in AI Strategy

    As highlighted in our Tirana Policy Workshop (2024), national and institutional policy often fails to differentiate between age-based needs when deploying AI in education. Mature students frequently face a “second-order digital divide,” not just in access, but in relevance, scaffolding, and self-belief.

    If UK higher education is serious about digital equity, it must:

    • Recognise mature learners as a distinct group in AI strategy and training
    • Fund co-designed AI literacy programmes that reflect lived experience
    • Embed inclusive, intergenerational pedagogy in curriculum development
    • Disrupt media and policy narratives that equate older age with technological incompetence

    Conclusion: Inclusion in AI Isn’t Optional – It’s Foundational

    Mature learners are not a marginal group to be retrofitted into digital learning. They are core to what a sustainable, equitable, and ethical higher education system should look like in an AI-driven future. Designing for them is not just good inclusion practice—it’s sound educational leadership. If we want AI to serve all learners, we must design with all learners in mind, from the very start.

    Source link

  • What’s coming for higher education in the spending review?

    What’s coming for higher education in the spending review?

    The breadth of what we expect from the public sector is such that expertise needs to be distributed around the civil service.

    There are numerous costly initiatives, allocations, and activities fueled by state spending – all of them have advocates and skeptics, and hidden pitfalls and tensions.

    Even if there was a single brain that had a grasp of everything, how would that person weigh up the costs and benefits of spending on lifesaving drugs against maintaining housing benefits? Or expanding school breakfast clubs against meaningful support for public libraries? Or properly maintaining research infrastructure against properly maintaining flood defences?

    A spending review is an exercise in compromise – a search for the least worst answer – that almost by design disappoints nearly everyone. If there’s good news in one area of spending, there is pain coming elsewhere.

    Where did spending reviews come from?

    The idea of taking the time every few years to gather together all current public sector spending demands and assess the possibilities for savings feels like it has been around for ever.

    In fact, the first multi-year spending review took place as recently as 1998.

    Before this, UK spending and taxation was decided based on prevailing economic conditions – leading to accusations of short-termism in government thinking. After all it is difficult to plan sustainable programmes of spending with only one year of funding confirmed.

    The first multi-year comprehensive spending review was a Gordon Brown innovation – coming off the back of two years with public sector finance (politically) constrained by the previous government’s last year of allocations, it represented (in the language of the time) an opportunity for a newish Labour government to demonstrate ongoing “prudence”.

    As Brown put it:

    By looking not just at what government spends but at what government does, the review has identified the modernisation and savings that are essential. The first innovation of the Comprehensive Spending Review is to move from the short-termism of the annual cycle and to draw up public expenditure plans not on a one year basis but on a three year basis. And the review‘s second conclusion is that all new resources should be conditional on the implementation of essential reforms, money but only in return for modernisation

    Labour stuck a pattern of three year reviews throughout their last period of office – including another comprehensive spending review in 2007. Under Conservative-led administrations the pattern became more irregular (largely for reasons of political expediency, but also to respond to one off events like the Covid-19 pandemic). The last spending review was in 2021 – three governments (and three Prime Ministers) ago.

    How a spending review works

    The specifics may vary, but the review is a series of conversations conducted by the treasury (usually under the auspices of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and each department. Starting with officials modelling the impact of broad-brush cuts at various levels and arguing about what constitutes the work their department is required to do (the ambit) and what (for non-zero based spending reviews) the baseline funding should be, the process ends with ministers taking the argument directly to the treasury – or overhead to the prime minister and via carefully placed stories in the press.

    Eventually – the key date this year was as recent as late May – ministers and the Chancellor will come to a final agreement over what will be allocated and what, in broad terms, it will be spent on.

    Those who have been closely involved tend not to be enamoured of the process – former DfE adviser Sam Freedman recently described it as “demented” and “not a good or strategic way to make decisions about government spending”.

    In 2024

    The current iteration kicked off straight after the 2024 election, with the first part of it announced by Rachel Reeves alongside the autumn budget. Alongside some punchy political lines (that “£22bn black hole” for one) she confirmed the overall envelope for the spending review:

    Day to day spending from 2024-25 onwards will grow by 1.5 per cent in real terms, and total departmental spending, including capital spending, will grow by 1.7 per cent in real terms.

    We also got some broad promises on education spending – an extra £300m for further education, a £2.3bn increase in the schools core budget and a reform of special educational needs provision. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies is warning that given other promises, most notably on defence and health, “unprotected” DfE recurrent spending (which would include spending on higher education) is likely to fall by around 3 per cent over the three years the review covers – and significant schools and FE spending (which the government is likely to want to protect) also appears within that bucket.

    Higher education is by no means alone in facing a very tight multi-year settlement – but it suffers in terms of public salience. While, thanks to the efforts of universities and trade unions, there is a general consensus that the sector is struggling it is neither as totemic (NHS, schools, defence) or visible (local services, adult skills, social care) as the recipients of other public spending. There’s been a lot of work done in making the arguments for investment, but these arguments are never going to be as strong as they need to be.

    That’s (flat) capital

    What Reeves appears to be promoting in the run up to the review is the availability of capital. Traditionally, spending reviews have only addressed departmental expenditure limits (DEL) – recurrent funding that can reasonably be controlled by the department in question – involving capital spending only really started in 2020 and 2021. Changes to, for example, eligibility rules for benefits can also have an impact on recurrent annual managed expenditure (AME) and spending reviews have moved further in that direction in recent times.

    Capital is more traditionally allocated and spent in fiscal events – it makes for big numbers and eyecatching infrastructure investments and doesn’t usually form a part of the spending reviews, but it was always in scope for 2024 to set capital budgets for at least five years.

    And the big sector-focused news has been about research and development funding. While by no means all R&D funding goes to universities, a substantial proportion will end up there – and the news that the overall allocation for R&D will keep pace with inflation until 2029-30 is undoubtedly good in the context of a very tight overall recurrent settlement. As my colleague James Coe sets out elsewhere on Wonkhe, there are other calls on R&D beyond the traditional UKRI allocations (though we know UKRI allocations will be broadly stable this year): there are calls for increased spending in defence research, there will be small (£30m to each current mayoral strategic authority) regional allocations, and there will likely be funding streams attached to each of the government’s missions.

    Recall also, the manifesto promise of ten-year funding settlements for some research activity. Five years of flat (inflation-compensated) funding represents exactly the kind of stable and predictable income that some parts of the sector have been asking for – if there are people unhappy with that, promising stability for ten years isn’t going to feel much different.

    Teaching funding

    Fans of the national accounts will know that the majority of funding allocated to teaching in higher education (the student loan outlay) is, in fact, AME capital. There has been some initial hope that the portion that isn’t (the recurrent DEL that is allocated via the grant letter to the Office for Students) would form a part of the long promised review of funding – but this looks less likely than a commitment to continue inflationary fee-cap uplifts alongside measures to improve efficiency in spending (rooting out fraudulent applications and suchlike, promoting shared services).

    The parallel is with funding for 16-19 students – an extra £190m will push per-student funding up an inflation-busting 5.9 per cent next year, to £5,105. The recurrent funding simply isn’t there to do anything like that for direct higher education funding, but using an increase in capital spending offers a release valve via the tuition fee loan mechanisms.

    Fee increases would be unpopular (a tax on aspiration, if you like) with young people and their parents. The temptation would be to favourably tweak the conditions of repayment, and there may be some headroom here – if you recall last year’s earnest and sporadically understood talk around PSNFL in the fiscal rules, one of the upshots was that loans count as assets, and the more loans we have the more (in the short-to-medium term at least) assets we have. While this could fuel a further expansion of the sector, the current policy weather suggests that this flexibility could instead be used to offer young people a better loan deal.

    On the day

    While a multi-year spending review is an exercise in demonstrating the long term planning capacity of a government, the event itself has to interface with the short-term news cycles. There needs to be some good news in there – and the pre-announced transport capital, R&D capital, and above-inflation settlement for health are part of that.

    Good news could also take the form of announcing popular savings. Very few people will be disappointed in cuts to bureaucracy (at least in the short term, people do tend to become very upset when waiting times rise and services become less effective) and measures to address fraud. Here we’ve already heard a lot of mood music around fraud within the higher education funding system – the very high profile case of Oxford Business College suggests that ministers see the opportunity to better manage the current allocations of funding, and there is a consultation response ready to drop. We’d assumed this would come alongside the promised white paper, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see at least headline proposals sneak out earlier.

    Finally we have the broader favourite that is “efficiency” savings. Universities have been very engaged with this agenda ever since the HE Reform letter – the conjunction of the Universities UK report, the release of TRAC data (slightly delayed over last year), and the spending review may not be entirely coincidental.

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Liberty University Online: Master’s Degree Debt Factory

    Higher Education Inquirer : Liberty University Online: Master’s Degree Debt Factory

    Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the United States, has built an educational empire by promoting conservative values and offering flexible online degree programs to hundreds of thousands of students. But behind the pious branding and patriotic marketing lies a troubling pattern: Liberty University Online has become a master’s degree debt factory, churning out credentials of questionable value while generating billions in student loan debt.

    From Moral Majority to Mass Marketing

    Founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., Liberty University was created to train “Champions for Christ.” In the 2000s, the school found new life through online education, transforming from a small evangelical college into a mega-university with nearly 95,000 online students, the vast majority of them enrolled in nontraditional and graduate programs.

    By leveraging aggressive digital marketing, religious appeals, and promises of career advancement, Liberty has positioned itself as a go-to destination for working adults and military veterans seeking master’s degrees. But this rapid expansion has not come without costs — especially for the students who enroll.

    A For-Profit Model in Nonprofit Clothing

    Though technically a nonprofit, Liberty University operates with many of the same profit-driven incentives as for-profit colleges. Its online programs generate massive revenues — an estimated $1 billion annually — thanks in large part to federal student aid programs. Students are encouraged to take on loans to pay for master’s degrees in education, counseling, business, and theology, among other fields. Many of these programs are offered in accelerated formats that cater to working adults but often lack the rigor, support, or job placement outcomes associated with traditional graduate schools.

    Federal data shows that many Liberty students, especially graduate students, take on substantial debt. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard, the median graduate student debt at Liberty can range from $40,000 to more than $70,000, depending on the program. Meanwhile, the return on investment is often dubious, with low median earnings and high rates of student loan forbearance or default.

    Exploiting Faith and Patriotism

    Liberty’s marketing strategy is finely tuned to appeal to Christian conservatives, homeschoolers, veterans, and working parents. By framing education as a moral and patriotic duty, Liberty convinces students that enrolling in an online master’s program is both a personal and spiritual investment. Testimonials of “calling” and “purpose” are common, but the financial realities can be harsh.

    Many students report feeling misled by promises of job readiness or licensure, especially in education and counseling fields, where state licensing requirements can differ dramatically from what Liberty prepares students for. Others cite inadequate academic support and difficulties transferring credits.

     The university spends heavily on recruitment and retention, often at the expense of student services and academic quality.

    Lack of Oversight and Accountability

    Liberty University benefits from minimal federal scrutiny compared to for-profit schools, largely because of its nonprofit status and political connections. The institution maintains close ties to conservative lawmakers and was a vocal supporter of the Trump administration, which rolled back regulations on higher education accountability.

    Despite a series of internal scandals — including financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct cover-ups, and leadership instability following the resignation of Jerry Falwell Jr. — Liberty has continued to expand its online presence. Its graduate programs, particularly in education and counseling, remain cash cows that draw in federal loan dollars with few checks on student outcomes.

    A Cautionary Tale in Christian Capitalism

    The story of Liberty University Online is not just about one school. It reflects a broader trend in American higher education: the merging of religion, capitalism, and credential inflation. As more employers demand advanced degrees for mid-level jobs, and as traditional institutions struggle to adapt, schools like Liberty have seized the opportunity to market hope — even if it comes at a high cost.

    For students of faith seeking upward mobility, Liberty promises a path to both spiritual and professional fulfillment. But for many, the result is a diploma accompanied by tens of thousands in debt and limited economic return. The moral reckoning may not be just for Liberty University, but for the policymakers and accreditors who continue to enable this lucrative cycle of debt and disillusionment.

    The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate Liberty University Online and similar institutions as part of our ongoing series on higher education debt, inequality, and regulatory failure.

    Source link