Tag: Higher

The Problem with Capitulating to Fascism in Higher Education

Higher education serves different purposes for different people. For some, it represents transformation and expanded horizons. For others, it remains a site of oppression—a place where white supremacy and anti-Blackness flourish while administrations proclaim commitments to diversity even as their actions contradict these stated values. The commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have long been performative at most predominantly white institutions (PWIs). Now, institutions no longer need to maintain even this pretense.

Dr. Frederick Engram JrThe current presidential administration has made anti-Black, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-women policies central to its agenda. We are not approaching fascism—we are immersed in it. The fundamental problem with higher education and liberal politics more broadly is that while we all recognized the warning signs, no substantive preventative measures were taken to counter the impending assault.

When the previous Trump administration targeted K-12 education—falsely claiming that critical race theory was being taught in elementary schools and suspending administrators in states like Texas—higher education watched passively, believing itself safe from similar attacks. Instead of mounting resistance and uniting against authoritarian overreach, higher education capitulated. Institutions cancelled classes and programs designed to educate students about historical injustices, prioritizing the comfort of white students and families while disregarding everyone else.

As Professor Emeritus Dr. John R. Thelin documents in his seminal work A History of American Higher Education, the system was designed from its inception to serve wealthy, white, cisgender, able-bodied men. Higher education was never intended to include marginalized people of color or women. The argument that white men are now being excluded from spaces where they have always been centered would be absurd if it weren’t so dangerous.

Anti-discrimination DEI initiatives became necessary precisely because white men were not voluntarily making space for others—supported by white women who were themselves fighting for inclusion. The notion that white men feel excluded from higher education reflects a false sense of entitlement and the sting of having their mediocrity exposed. This wounded sense of supremacy drives them to destroy institutions rather than share them.

Fascism is not approaching—it has arrived.

The targeted attacks on Harvard, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania, minority-serving institutions (MSIs), and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are rooted in anti-Black rhetoric that was explicitly outlined in Project 2025. This blueprint seeks to create a dystopian America where marginalized voices are silenced and governance is built around white anxieties and grievances.

The worst possible response from higher education institutions is capitulation. Instead of forming coalitions, deploying legal resources, and mobilizing their extensive alumni networks, institutions are either confronting this administration in isolation or retreating into silence. Someone should inform higher education that fascism doesn’t reward compliance. It seeks total destruction and will not protect those who failed to oppose it simply because they remained quiet.

Our institutions and academic disciplines face existential threats. Regardless of how compliant we choose to be, when the destruction is complete, nothing will remain standing. We cannot measure progressive politics by white comfort levels, nor should white feelings determine whether we defend the most vulnerable among us.

Understanding liberation and resistance in this moment requires recognizing that active opposition is our only viable option. Millions have died, millions are dying, and millions more await death—all to satisfy the bloodlust of mediocre leaders drunk on power. Our resistance must be meaningful and sustained.

What purpose will silence serve when we lose everything anyway?

The time for half-measures and performative gestures has passed. Higher education must choose between principled resistance and institutional suicide. The stakes could not be higher, and history will judge our response.

_________

Dr. Frederick Engram Jr. is an assistant professor of higher education at at Fairleigh Dickinson University.

Source link

August 8, 2025
BRENDAN L. JOHNSON | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

Dr. Brendan L. JohnsonBrendan L. Johnson has been appointed as the new Director of Bands at Benedict College, where he will lead all ensembles, including the nationally recognized Benedict College Band of Distinction (BCBOD). Johnson brings a decade of transformative leadership from Darlington High School, where he served as Director of Bands. During his tenure, he grew the program from 75 to 225 members, making it one of the largest high school bands in South Carolina. He was selected for the Benedict role following an extensive nationwide search for elite musicians and conductors.

A dual graduate of Bethune-Cookman University, Johnson holds bachelor’s degrees in music education and liberal studies. While at Bethune-Cookman, he made history a the third Mr. Bethune-Cookman University. He later earned a master’s in education from Anderson University, and a Doctorate from the University of Southern Mississippi.

Source link

August 8, 2025
Equity Gaps in Academic Advising

Recently published research has found equity gaps in the impact of academic advising support on various student groups. While students from racial minorities are more likely to meet with an adviser compared to their white peers, they’re less likely to see improvements in their GPA or graduate on time.

The research points to a need for improved advising processes, not just in increasing access to and knowledge of academic advising, but in developing holistic student support programs, said lead author Hua-Yu Sebastian Cherng, vice dean for research and equity at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development.

The background: Academic advising is a critical part of student retention and progression, but not every student receives the support. A 2023 survey by Tyton Partners found one-third of student respondents were not aware of academic advising on campus, despite 98 percent of college employees saying the resource was available to their students.

Similarly, a spring 2023 survey by Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse found, when asked what types of assistance students had received during academic advising, 8 percent of students said they had received no assistance since starting college. Additionally, 5 percent of respondents said they had never met with an academic adviser. Twenty-three percent of respondents said they have to set up meetings with an academic adviser if they’d like to meet, and 10 percent of all respondents said it was difficult to get an appointment with their academic adviser.

The study: Hua-Yu’s study evaluated data from a large public research institution (total enrollment of 80,000) between 2017 and 2021, considering students’ grades, graduation rates, demographics and the number of appointments made with advisers.

To ensure relevant comparisons, researchers matched students in the same school or academic program because advising requirements and processes varied by school, Hua-Yu said.

Across the university, nonwhite and international student groups met with advisers more frequently than white domestic students, disrupting commonly held notions about who is aware of and using services on college campuses, Hua-Yu said.

But the impact of advising was not affected by the frequency of appointments. Rather, despite meeting with advisers less frequently than minoritized students, white students were more likely to have higher GPAs compared to their white peers who didn’t meet with an adviser. White students’ frequency of meeting with an adviser also correlated with their graduation rates, the only racial or ethnic group that saw benefits in this way.

“This is really damning evidence that advising is not doing what it’s supposed to be doing,” Hua-Yu said.

Even among students with undeclared majors, where this institution felt it had a gold standard of advising supports and resources, data showed similar patterns: White students had better outcomes after meeting with advisers, despite their nonwhite peers having more meetings.

Continuing-generation students were more likely to see benefits from advising appointments, compared to their first-generation peers, and low-income students who met with an adviser had slightly higher graduation rates compared to their higher-income classmates.

The why: Hua-Yu theorizes that institutional messaging encouraging students to take advantage of advising could have been effective, resulting in more students having appointments with their advisers. But if marginalized students have complex concerns or are looking for advice on which path to choose, they are more likely to walk away from appointments without all the information they need or feeling like they don’t belong.

A 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found 75 percent of students said they had at least some trust in academic advisers on campus; 20 percent said they didn’t have much trust in them.

First-generation students were 7 percent less likely to meet with an adviser and less likely to graduate, compared to their continuing generation peers, the IHE survey found.

According to Hua-Yu, continuing-generation students are less likely to seek advice on changing their major when talking to staff, compared to their first-generation peers, because they have other support systems that can offer that insight. Instead, they’re using advising appointments to address logistical and bureaucratic impediments to reaching their goals, he noted.

Building better: The findings, Hua-Yu emphasized, do not fault advisers but rather underline concerns with academic advising structures and staffing issues at colleges and universities across the country. A 2024 report by Tyton Partners found high caseloads and adviser burnout and turnover are some of the top challenges for the field.

Advisers have caseloads as high as 400 students, which can limit their ability to engage with students intentionally and address their concerns at a deeper level, Hua-Yu said. Instead, leaders at institutions should recognize that quality advising can make a substantial difference in student outcomes and, in turn, advocate for resources and support to improve advising experiences.

Hua-Yu called for more training for advisers on how to work with students in a specific program of study, as well as with a variety of student identities. Academic advisers cannot become social workers or mental health professionals, but improving how advisers are onboarded and supported can make substantial differences, Hua-Yu said.

Advisers can also be given a set of questions to encourage more meaningful relationships with students during advising appointments, such as asking about students’ lives, their goals and their support systems.

What’s next: Using the same data set, Hua-Yu and his team plan to investigate the use of flags or kudos within the advising system to see how early intervention could affect student success.

The researchers are also exploring the role of gender on advising supports; initial results show white male students are less likely to engage in advising compared to other student groups.

Incidentally, the data set covers a period of remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, so Hua-Yu and his team are exploring shocks to advising processes and supports after spring 2020. So far, researchers noted there were more advising meetings taking place, just remotely, and these advising appointment levels remained higher than pre-pandemic.

Seeking stories from campus leaders, faculty members and staff for our Student Success focus. Share here.

Source link

August 8, 2025
Reducing Transfer Admissions Time to Decision

In an era when learners move fluidly across institutions, credentials, work-based learning and military education, the path to a degree is rarely linear. One area of the transfer process where improvement is both possible and measurable is the time it takes to render an admissions decision.

Timely decisions support learners’ ability to register, engage in advising and complete financial aid processes. Faster admissions decisions can help institutions better align with the needs and expectations of today’s mobile learners.

This is the opportunity the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, in collaboration with the National Association of Higher Education Systems, is advancing with its new National Learning Mobility Challenge: Improving Transfer Time to Decision.

A Call to Action

While institutions have made significant progress in modernizing admissions operations and technology over the past decade, continued refinement is needed to align those improvements with learner-centered goals.

AACRAO’s recent report, “A Blueprint Toward a Learner-Centered Credit Mobility Ecosystem,” notes that “the core challenges for credit mobility are not primarily a lack of technology but rather structural and operational issues.” Manual processes persist even when electronic systems are available. Institutional fragmentation, policy complexity and data gaps create barriers that disproportionately affect mobile learners.

One improvement institutions can pursue today is tracking and improving the time it takes to render an admissions decision for transfer applicants. The assumption that they’ll wait belies the urgent, real-world demands faced by transfer students, many of whom are older, working, supporting families or juggling multiple institutions and life transitions. Delays in admission cut off timely access to advising, registration and financial aid packaging.

These are not administrative delays; they are missed opportunities for learner-centered service delivery.

The Challenge is not a competition. Instead, it is a national call for action, experimentation and transparency. Participants commit to measuring their own time to decision, identifying internal or systemic friction points and piloting solutions to reduce them. AACRAO will provide visibility, collaborate with NASH for technical support and showcase progress at the Assembly, its newly reimagined national convening on learning mobility.

Why Admissions Decision Speed Matters

In many cases, transfer students apply with urgency. They may be returning after a stop-out, seeking a more affordable or supportive environment, or adapting to major life changes. These students are often older, working, supporting families or managing housing and food insecurity. For them, extended decision timelines may limit access to advising, course registration and timely financial planning. Without an offer of admission, students cannot register, access advising, complete financial aid steps or make informed decisions about their futures.

Measuring and improving time-to-decision is one way institutions can demonstrate responsiveness. Institutions that prioritize transparency and timeliness in their transfer admissions process send a clear signal to the transfer community: you are welcome and we are ready.

Building on the Work of Learning Mobility

This Challenge builds on years of work by AACRAO to advance learning mobility—a learner-centered framework that recognizes the full range of educational experiences.

In a previous “Beyond Transfer” article, we emphasized that many failures of reform are failures of implementation. Too often, institutions adopt promising ideas—articulation agreements, credit frameworks, technology platforms—without addressing the operational bottlenecks that slow them down or dilute their impact. The admissions decision for transfer learners is one area where aligning process improvement with institutional values can yield measurable progress.

As the stewards of institutional systems, AACRAO members sit at the intersection of policy, technology, compliance and student support. They know how long decisions take. They know where the bottlenecks are. And they are well positioned to lead the change.

A Challenge Worth Taking Up

Addressing transfer admissions timelines is not a silver bullet. But it is a concrete, measurable starting point—one that institutions can act on today. And it may be one of the fastest ways to demonstrate that higher education is not only listening to learners but responding with urgency and care.

Learn more and express interest in joining the Challenge here.

Source link

August 8, 2025
Madison College, Brandeis, Murray State

Susan A. Andrzejewski left her role as dean of California State University Channel Islands’ Martin V. Smith School of Business and Economics to be interim president on Aug. 4.

Jennifer Berne assumed the role of president at Madison College in Wisconsin on July 1. Previously, Berne was provost at Oakland Community College in Michigan.

Jim Burkee has been selected to lead Saint Leo University in Florida. He is stepping down as the president of Avila University in Missouri and will start in his new position on Sept. 1.

Frederick Bonato was named the 22nd president of Manhattan University on July 16 after serving as interim since September 2024.

Selena Grace is the new president and CEO of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. She previously served as executive vice president of NWCCU.

Andy Jett, currently the executive vice president and chief innovation officer at Avila University, will take up the post of interim president at the Kansas City, Mo., institution on Sept. 1.

Arthur Levine was named president of Brandeis University on July 21 after serving as interim president for nine months. Levine previously served as president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation and as president of Teachers College at Columbia University.

Ron K. Patterson, the previous president of Chadron State College in Nebraska, assumed the role of president of Murray State University in Kentucky on July 1.

Christina Royal was named interim president of Connecticut State Community College. She previously served as president of Holyoke Community College and was selected as a 2024–2025 Judith Block McLaughlin President-in-Residence in the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her term started on Aug. 1 and will end on June 30, 2026.

Alan Smith became Gadsden State Community College’s permanent president on Aug. 1 after serving as interim for two months. Smith has held various positions at the Alabama college, including adjunct instructor, dean of workforce development and most recently vice president of capital projects, community relations and workforce development.

Susan D. Stuebner began her duties as interim president of Simpson College in Iowa on July 28. Stuebner most recently served as president and professor of business and social sciences at Colby-Sawyer College in New London, N.H., for eight years.

Sinda K. Vanderpool has been named the 10th president of the University of St. Thomas–Houston. She is also the first female president in the institution’s 77-year history. Most recently, Vanderpool served as president and vice chancellor of St. Mary’s University in Alberta, Canada.

Source link

August 8, 2025
DHS Offers to “Simplify” Harvard Lawsuit

The Trump administration has extended an offer to Harvard University to “simplify” an ongoing legal battle by pulling back on threats made in a May 22 letter from U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem to revoke the institution’s ability to host international students.

At the time, Noem wrote in a letter to Harvard officials that DHS was stripping its Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification due to an alleged “failure to adhere to the law.” Harvard responded with a lawsuit, and a judge quickly granted a temporary restraining order to block the federal government from stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification, which would have likely resulted in a loss of international students and dealt the university a severe financial blow. (Harvard also sued the Trump administration over frozen federal research funding in April.)

Harvard argued in its May lawsuit that the revocation was “a blatant violation of the First Amendment” and due process and a retaliatory move by the federal government after the university rejected demands to control its governance, curriculum and the “ideology” of faculty and students. The move, according to the lawsuit, could potentially “erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body” and would harm students who had already been admitted to the university.

Now, in a Wednesday court filing, government attorneys have agreed “that the May 22 letter will not be used to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification or Exchange Visitor Program designation.” They called the proposal “an attempt to jointly simplify the case.”

DHS officials wrote in the filing that they are “open to counterproposals and a meet and confer.” However, they wrote that Harvard “did not accept.”

Harvard declined to comment and DHS did not respond to an inquiry from Inside Higher Ed.

As Harvard and the federal government battle over international students in court, the Trump administration has found other ways to ratchet up pressure on the nation’s wealthiest university. Last month the U.S. Department of State announced it was opening an investigation into Harvard’s eligibility to participate in the Exchange Visitor program, which is overseen by the State Department and grants J-1 visas for visiting scholars, researchers and postdocs. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote that the probe will ensure programs don’t “run contrary to our nation’s interests.”

There have been recent reports—and denials—that Harvard is nearing a settlement with the Trump administration, which, in addition to attempting to cut off its flow of international students, has leveled a litany of claims against the university, including vague allegations of unlawful action and accusations of antisemitism. The Trump administration has demanded sweeping changes at Harvard, which the university has largely rebuffed thus far.

Congressional Democrats have threatened to investigate if Harvard agrees to a settlement.

If Harvard settles, it would be the third Ivy League university to strike a deal with the federal government since mid-July. Columbia University was the first, agreeing to a seemingly unprecedented settlement, which closed investigations into allegations of antisemitism and restored some frozen research funding in exchange for changes to admissions, academic programs and other concessions that will be overseen by a third-party resolution monitor. Columbia agreed to pay $221 million as part of the settlement.

Brown University also reached an agreement in late July to settle investigations into alleged antisemitism and restore about $510 million in frozen federal research funds. Brown agreed to spend $50 million on state workforce development efforts, provide admissions data to the federal government and bar transgender athletes from competing, among other stipulations.

Outside the Ivy League, the University of California system announced earlier this week that it intends to negotiate with the federal government over $584 million in suspended federal funding amid Department of Justice investigations into alleged antisemitism. UC officials said the system is seeking a “voluntary resolution agreement” with the Trump administration to restore funding.

Source link

August 8, 2025
X’s Altmetric Hegemony Ceding to Bluesky

The end of the “hegemony” of X as the most used social media platform by researchers has been strongly shaped by political and geographic factors, as well as Elon Musk’s intervention into U.S. politics, according to a new study.

Since Musk rebranded Twitter to X, many within higher education—including some universities themselves—have decided to leave the platform, particularly since the billionaire threw his support behind Donald Trump in the 2024 U.S. election.

Researchers from Arizona State University and the University of Granada examined almost 15,000 publications from multidisciplinary and Library and Information Science journals between January 2024 and March 2025.

Across the whole period, Bluesky had a much smaller presence compared with X in terms of engaged users—those who comment on papers.

However, the paper found a “notable increase” in Bluesky accounts mentioning papers published in multidisciplinary journals in November 2024, which the paper said was likely influenced by political and platform change.

“We observe a clear surge in mentions beginning in September 2024 and continuing into early 2025, particularly around the United States presidential election and subsequent political events.”

The shift in users and increasing diversification between the two platforms, particularly from late 2024 onward, coincided with “major U.S. political events in which Elon Musk has actively intervened.”

After successfully helping Trump win the battle for the White House, Musk was appointed head of the Department of Government Efficiency—an organization that slashed federal contracts and found few friends within the scientific community.

The study says the results reveal a scholarly landscape where conversations are no longer concentrated on a single platform, but are now “genuinely distributed between X and Bluesky.”

“This reflects that the response to platform changes is not only field-dependent, but also strongly shaped by political-geographical factors.”

The study comes after a recent analysis by Andy Tattersall, an information specialist at the Sheffield Centre of Health and Related Research, found a third of U.K. universities have now quit X. While the number of active accounts on Bluesky has risen, however, many institutions are still not posting regularly.

Altmetric, which collates mentions of publications from news sources, blogs and social media, has been tracking Bluesky, which was originally created by Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, since October 2024.

A previous study revealed that Bluesky hosted more posts linked to work published in 2025 for the first time in March—declaring, “The days of X’s dominance are over.”

The new paper reached a similar conclusion, adding, “What is clear is that the Altmetric hegemony of X may have come to an end, as for the first time there is a clear alternative in Bluesky, which even matches user engagement in ways that would have seemed unthinkable until recently.

“Only time will tell how effective and lasting this platform shift truly is.”

It says further research was needed to learn why Bluesky has succeeded where other alternatives—such as Threads or Mastodon—did not.

Source link

August 8, 2025
In Defense of Jonathan Brown

Jonathan Brown, the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University, was suspended from his job and is being investigated for posting on X after the US bombing of Iran, “I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on a base, then everyone stops.” Brown’s expressed desire for peace was twisted by conservatives into some kind of anti-American call for violence.

Rep. Randy Fine, a Florida Republican, noted that the interim president of Georgetown would soon be testifying before Congress and wrote about Brown, “This demon had better be gone by then. We have a Muslim problem in America.” Fine was Gov. Ron DeSantis’s choice to be president of Florida Atlantic University before the board rejected him. But his literal demonization of speech has a powerful impact.

Georgetown quickly obeyed the commands of anti-Muslim bigots such as Fine. Georgetown interim president Robert M. Groves testified to Congress on July 15, “Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted Professor Brown, the tweet was removed, we issued a statement condemning the tweet, Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department and he’s on leave, and we’re beginning a process of reviewing the case.”

Groves responded “yes” when asked by Rep. Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican, “You are now investigating and disciplining him?”

Georgetown’s statement declared, “We are appalled that a faculty member would call for a ‘symbolic strike’ on a military base in a social media post.” But why would this appall anyone? Faculty members routinely support actions that actually kill innocent people—tens of thousands of people, in the case of professors who support Israel’s attack on Gaza, millions of people in the case of professors who supported the fight against the Nazis in World War II. And that’s all perfectly legitimate. So a professor calling for an action against a military target that doesn’t kill anybody should be the most trivial statement in the world.

There is a good reason why universities shouldn’t take positions on foreign policy—because institutional opinions are often dumb, especially when formulated “within minutes” rather than after serious thought. Georgetown is making the worst kind of violation of institutional neutrality—not merely expressing a dumb opinion, not just denouncing a professor for disagreeing with that dumb opinion, but actually suspending a professor for diverging from Georgetown’s very dumb official opinion on foreign policy.

Often, defenders of academic freedom have to stand for this principle even when addressing terrible people who say terrible things. But the assault on academic freedom in America has become so awful that even perfectly reasonable comments are now grounds for automatic suspension. Brown’s position on the Iran attacks is very similar to that of Donald Trump, who posted praise for Iran after it did precisely what Brown had urged: “I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured.” Unlike Trump, Brown never thanked Iran for attacking a U.S. base. So how could any university even consider punishing a professor for taking a foreign policy stand more moderate than Trump?

Georgetown’s shocking attacks on academic freedom have garnered little attention or criticism. The Georgetown Hoya reported in a headline, “Groves Appears to Assuage Republicans, Defend Free Speech in Congressional Hearing.”

The newspaper’s fawning treatment of Groves as a defender of free speech apparently was based on Groves testifying, “We police carefully the behavior of our faculty in the classroom and their research activities,” and adding, “They are free, as all residents of the United States, to have speech in the public domain.” It’s horrifying to have any university president openly confess that they “police carefully” professors’ teaching and research. But for Groves to claim that faculty have free speech “in the public domain” when he proudly suspended Brown for his comments must be some kind of sick joke.

Another Hoya headline about the controversy declared, “University Review of GU Professor for Controversial Posts Prompts Criticism, Praise.” While the campus Students for Justice in Palestine and the Council on American-Islamic Relations correctly defended Brown, the Anti-Defamation League declared, “We commend Georgetown University for taking swift action following Jonathan Brown’s dangerous remarks about a ‘symbolic strike’ on a U.S. military base.”

There is nothing “dangerous” about Brown’s remarks calling for an end to war, or any other foreign policy opinions. The only danger here is the threat to academic freedom.

When Georgetown suspended lecturer Ilya Shapiro in 2022 for his offensive comments on Twitter, I argued that “Shapiro should not be punished before he receives a hearing and fair evaluation” and added, “A suspension, even with pay, is a form of punishment. In fact, it’s a very harsh penalty when most forms of campus misconduct receive a reprimand or a requirement for education or changes in behavior.”

I called upon all colleges to ban the use of suspensions without due process. Since then, suspensions have become an epidemic of repression on college campuses. An army of advocates once argued in defense of Shapiro’s free speech. Unfortunately, none of Shapiro’s outspoken supporters have spoken out with similar outrage about the even worse treatment of Brown by Georgetown’s censors.

Georgetown’s administrators must immediately rescind Brown’s ridiculous suspension, restore his position as department chair, end this unjustified investigation of his opinions, apologize for their incompetence at failing to meet their basic responsibilities to protect academic freedom and enact new policies to end the practice of using arbitrary suspensions without due process as a political weapon.

John K. Wilson was a 2019–20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Routledge, 2008), and his forthcoming book The Attack on Academia. He can be reached at [email protected], or letters to the editor can be sent to [email protected].

Source link

August 8, 2025
Education Dept. Hears From Public About Higher Ed Overhaul
The Education Department’s yearlong effort to roll out the sweeping higher ed changes signed into law last month kicked off Thursday with a four-hour hearing that highlighted the many tweaks college administrators and others want to see.

The law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, capped federal student loans, created new loan-repayment plans, extended the Pell Grant to include short-term workforce programs and instituted a new measure to hold institutions accountable. Now, the department is planning to propose and issue new regulations that spell out how those various changes will work.

On nearly all fronts, college administrators, policy experts and students argued that lawmakers left significant gaps in the legislation, and they want a say in how Trump administration officials fill them in. For instance, the legislation doesn’t explain what data will be collected for either workforce Pell or the accountability measure or who will have to take on that task. Some speakers raised concerns about how new reporting requirements could increase administrative burdens for colleges.

But Nicholas Kent, the department’s newly confirmed under secretary, said at the start of the meeting that he looks forward to clarifying all the details during the lengthy process known as negotiated rule making.

“Simply put, the current approach to paying for college is unsustainable for both borrowers and for taxpayers,” Kent said. “President Trump has laid out a bold vision, one that aims to disrupt a broken system and return accountability, affordability and quality to postsecondary education that includes reducing the cost of higher education, aligning program offerings with employer needs [and] embracing innovative education models … Today’s public hearing marks a key milestone in our accelerated timeline to implement this sweeping legislative reform.”

Neither Kent nor other department officials said what specific changes and clarifications are on the table.

What Is Negotiated Rule Making?

Negotiated rule making, or “neg-reg,” started in the early 1990s. It entails using an advisory committee to consider and discuss issues with the goal of reaching consensus in developing a proposed rule. Consensus means unanimous agreement among the committee members, unless the group agrees on a different definition. The department must undertake negotiated rule making for any rule related to federal student aid.

Determining the details of the regulations and policy changes will be left up to two committees of higher education leaders, policy experts and industry representatives that will review and negotiate over the department’s proposals during a series of meetings throughout the fall and into the new year. The first committee is scheduled to begin discussions in September.

In the meantime, here are three key issues Thursday’s speakers said they hope to see addressed by both the advising panels and department officials before the legislation starts taking effect in July 2026.

Who’s Making the Decisions?

Before the public hearing, some higher ed lobbyists and advocates raised concerns about who would be included on the advisory committees. Multiple constituent groups argued they weren’t properly represented on the committees.

For instance, neither committee includes a representative from the financial aid community, despite the fact that college financial aid administrators will play a key role in implementing the legislation on campuses.

Multiple groups, including the American Council on Education, drew attention to the absence, but Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, voiced the most concern.

Financial aid professionals will “interpret, communicate and operationalize the intricate details of this wide-ranging bill for millions of students and families. To exclude their practical, technical experience from the negotiation table risks developing rules that are difficult to administer, creating unintended negative consequences,” she said. “We have heard the perspective that representatives from each college sector can speak to the needs of their institutions. However, their role is to advocate for the broad interests of that sector. That is fundamentally different from representing the profession responsible for the … mechanics of aid delivery.

A department official who moderated the hearing, responded, “We expect we will have financial aid administrators at the table,” as the department has in the past, but he did not clarify how that would be done. (This paragraph has been corrected.)

Other speakers called for better representation of civil rights advocates, apprenticeship program leaders and minority-serving institutions, but none of those requests were directly addressed by government officials.

What Qualifies as a Professional Program?

Speakers also raised questions about how the new caps to student loans would work and whom they would affect.
How to Make a Policy, Neg-Reg Edition

As part of negotiated rule making, the Education Department must:

~~Put out a public notice about intent to form a committee and hold a public hearing~~

~~Publish notice inviting nominations for negotiators~~

~~Hold a public hearing~~

Pick the negotiators

Hold negotiated rule-making sessions

Write the proposed regulations

Publish those regulations for public comment, which lasts at least 30 days

Read and respond to the comments; revise the regulations as needed

Publish the final rule. Rules need to be published by Nov. 1 in order to take effect July 1 of the following year, but the department can implement rules early.
Congress’s Big Beautiful Bill caps loans for professional degrees at $200,000 and limits loans for graduate programs to half of that. But lawmakers didn’t specify which degree programs fall in which category. Determining how to sort programs will likely be a key point of debate for the rule-making committee, the comments showed.

Certain programs, like law and medical school, will almost certainly be considered professional programs, but other programs, like master’s degrees in nursing, education or social work, are not guaranteed. Knowing this, a variety of academic association representatives, workforce advocates and college administrators made their case throughout the hearing for why their own discipline should be a professional program.

Matt Hooper, vice president of communications for the Council on Social Work Education, said to not include certain programs in the professional bucket would mean ignoring their critical nature as a public service.

Social work graduates “pursue careers in health care, children and family services, criminal justice, public policy, government, and more,” he said. “An M.S.W. provides full professional preparation, similar to a J.D. in law or an M.D. in medicine, and we think it should be categorized in the same respect.”

A handful of speakers went so far as to argue that certain bachelor’s programs, like aviation or aeronautical science, that are often paired with certification from the Federal Aviation Administration should be grouped into the professional category, as they come at a cost and time commitment similar to graduate school.

If those programs don’t get the benefit of a higher loan cap, multiple airline advocates said, America could see a steep shortage of pilots within the next two decades.

“Over the next 15 years, nearly half of our nation’s airline pilots will retire due to mandatory age limits,” said Sharon DeVivo, president of Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology. “The current training pipeline is not equipped to meet that demand, putting at risk the transportation infrastructure, especially the economic health of small and rural communities that depend on reliable air service.”

Training to become a pilot can cost $80,000 to $100,000 more than a traditional bachelor’s degree, added Carlos Zendejas, vice president of flight operations at the regional airline Horizon Air. So to hold these students to the same loan limit as other undergraduates would deter prospective pilots from pursuing a high-return-on-investment career.

“The need to stabilize the pilot pipeline is real,” he said. “The One Big Beautiful Bill gives the department the ability to fix this.”

Should Gainful Go?

Since the inauguration, Trump officials in all sectors of the federal government have been vocal about combating fraud, waste and abuse. But higher education experts are concerned that one measure in the reconciliation bill could do the opposite.

The new accountability tool it introduced uses a new earnings test to evaluate colleges’ eligibility for federal student loans. But it does not apply to certificate programs, which some policy and data analysts say are more likely to provide a poor return on investment.

According to a recent report from the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University, only 1 percent of college programs at the associate level and higher will fail the new earnings test, but about 19 percent of certificate programs would do so.

Representatives from American as well as New America, Third Way and the Century Foundation, all progressive think tanks, sounded the alarm on the matter at Thursday’s hearing. As a solution, they encouraged the administration to keep an existing accountability policy in place that applies to certificate programs and for-profit institutions. That metric, known as the gainful-employment rule, is not codified in law.

“A recent publication from the Senate health committee’s chairman, Bill Cassidy, confirms it was not lawmakers’ intent to exempt such programs from any accountability,” said Clare McCann, the PEER Center’s managing director of policy and operations. “So to carry out that intent, the department should maintain a strong gainful-employment program regulation for those programs that should include maintaining the debt-to-earnings tests under the gainful-employment rules, which are an important check on institutions offering unaffordable degrees.”
Source link
August 8, 2025
Families Spending More on College

Families reportedly spent an average of $30,837 for college last year.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Getty Images | Rawpixel

Families are spending about 9 percent more on college compared to last year, according to a recently released survey from Sallie Mae and Ipsos.

The results of the survey, released earlier this week, are part of the annual “How America Pays for College” report. Ipsos surveyed about 1,000 undergraduate students and the same number of parents of undergrads from April 8 to May 8. The online survey delved into a range of topics from how they were paying for college to their views on the federal student loan program.

On average, families spent $30,837 on college, which is similar to pre-pandemic spending—in the 2019–20 academic year, families spent $30,017 on average. In line with previous years, families are typically using their own money to pay for college, with income and savings adding up to 48 percent of the pie, and scholarships and grants accounted for a 27 percent slice.

But 40 percent of the families surveyed didn’t seek scholarships to help pay for college because they either didn’t know about the available opportunities or didn’t think they could win one. About three-quarters of respondents who received a scholarship credited that aid with making college possible.

Similar to other recent surveys, while a majority of families see college as worth the money, cost is still a key factor. About 79 percent reported that they eliminated at least one institution based on the price tag. Still, about 47 percent of respondents said they ended up paying less than the sticker price. That number is higher for families with students at private four-year universities. About 54 percent said they paid less compared to 45 percent of respondents at public four-year institutions.

Source link

August 8, 2025