Tag: hurt

  • Trump’s attacks on DEI may hurt men in college admission  

    Trump’s attacks on DEI may hurt men in college admission  

    by Jon Marcus, The Hechinger Report
    December 4, 2025

    Brown University, one of the most selective institutions in America, attracted nearly 50,000 applicants who vied for just 1,700 freshman seats last year.

    The university accepted nearly equal numbers of male and female prospects, even though, like some other schools, it got nearly twice as many female applicants. That math meant it was easier for male students to get in — 7 percent of male applicants were admitted, compared to 4.4 percent of female applicants, university data show.

    The Trump administration’s policies may soon end that advantage that has been enjoyed by men, admissions and higher education experts say.

    While much of the president’s recent scrutiny of college admissions practices has focused on race, these experts say his ban on diversity, equity and inclusion is likely to hit another underrepresented group of applicants: men, and particularly white men — the largest subset of male college applicants.

    “This drips with irony,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, or ACE, the nation’s largest association of universities and colleges, who said he expects that colleges and universities are ending consideration of gender in admission. “The idea of males, including white males, being at the short end of the stick all of a sudden would be a truly ironic outcome.”

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    For years universities and colleges have been trying to keep the number of men and women on campuses evened out at a time when growing numbers of men have been choosing not to go to college. Some schools have tried to attract more men by adding football and other sports, promoting forestry and hunting programs and launching entrepreneurship competitions. 

    Nationwide, the number of women on campuses has surpassed the number of men for more than four decades, with nearly 40 percent more women than men enrolled in higher education, federal data show.

    Efforts to admit applicants at higher rates based on gender are legal under a loophole in federal anti-discrimination law, one that’s used to keep the genders balanced on campuses.

    But the Trump administration has consistently included gender among the characteristics it says it does not want schools to consider for admissions or hiring, along with race, ethnicity, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity or religious associations. The White House has so far largely not succeeded in its campaign to press a handful of elite schools to agree to the terms and sign a wide-ranging Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education in exchange for priority consideration for federal funding.

    “The racial parts have gotten a lot more attention, but I know from having spoken with practitioners who work in college admissions, they have read very clearly that it says ‘race and gender,’” in the administration’s pronouncements about ending preferences in admission, said Shaun Harper, founder and chief research scientist at the University of Southern California Race and Equity Center.

    “What I think they don’t understand is that taking away the ability of colleges and universities to balance the gender composition of their incoming classes will ultimately have an impact on the college enrollment rates of white males,” Harper said. “It is likely to impact them the most, as a matter of fact.” 

    At some private colleges, male applicants are more likely to get in

    School % of males admitted % of females admitted
    Brown University 7.0 4.4
    University of Chicago 5.6 3.7
    Yale University 4.6 3.4
    University of Miami 22.5 16.5
    Middlebury College 12.2 9.6
    Baylor University 56.8 47.9
    Pomona College 7.6 6.7
    Tulane University 14.9 13.4
    Vassar College 20.4 17.6

    SOURCE: Hechinger Report calculations from universities’ Common Data Sets

    Agreements that the administration has reached with Brown, Columbia and Northwestern universities to settle allegations of antisemitism discrimination also include language about gender.

    In a statement announcing the Brown deal in July, Education Secretary Linda McMahon promised that “aspiring students will be judged solely on their merits, not their race or sex.”

    Asked if that meant male applicants would no longer be admitted at higher rates than female applicants — which has helped Brown keep its undergraduate enrollment at almost exactly 50-50, even with twice as many female applicants — spokesman Brian Clark said, “We have made no changes to our admissions practices in this regard.” 

    The Trump administration has also vowed to make all higher education institutions submit details about the students they admit, including their gender, to find out whether they’re “discriminating against hard working American” prospective students, McMahon said in another statement.

    Spokespeople for the Department of Education did not respond to questions about whether advantages in admission based on gender will be scrutinized in the same way as purported advantages based on race.

    Related: Inaccurate, impossible: Experts knock new Trump plan to collect college admissions data

    Universities are looking at the administration’s edicts “and they’re saying, ‘Well, we’d rather be cautious than stick our neck out’” by continuing to give advantages to male applicants, said ACE’s Mitchell, who was undersecretary of education under President Barack Obama. “I think we will see people dropping gender preferences, even though it is still within the law.”

    Colleges that have been accepting men at higher rates are trying to avoid a marketing problem they fear will happen if their campuses become too female, said Madeleine Rhyneer, who headed admissions offices at four private universities and colleges and is now vice president of consulting services and dean of enrollment management for the education consulting firm EAB. Colleges worry, “Will men look at that and think, ‘That’s essentially a women’s college, and I don’t want to go there’?”

    Related: Universities and colleges search for ways to reverse the decline in the ranks of male students

    “For the Browns and Columbias and highly selective and very competitive institutions, it is a problem,” Rhyneer said. “They want to create what feels like a balanced climate.”

    The results of ending this practice could be dramatic, experts predict. In 2023, the most recent year for which the figure is available, 817,035 more women than men applied to universities and colleges, federal data show.  Boys also have lower mean scores on the SAT in reading and writing, score lower overall on the ACT and have lower grade point averages in high school.

    “If we were going to eliminate preferences for men, the undergraduate population would skew to 65 percent female overnight,” Mitchell said.

    Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the right-leaning think-tank the American Enterprise Institute, pointed out that similar predictions were made after the 2023 Supreme Court decision effectively ending affirmative action based on race.

    At the time, he said, colleges spoke “in apocalyptic terms of the implications for the racial composition of student bodies.” But the number of Black and Hispanic students enrolled at universities and colleges the next year rose, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Then, said Hess, “there was a lot of, ‘Never mind.’” 

    The country’s top 50 private colleges and universities have 2 percentage points more male undergraduates than the top 50 flagship public universities, which do not consider gender in admission, according to research by Princeton economist Zachary Bleemer. He said this suggests that at least some are putting a thumb on the scale for male applicants.

    Columbia took 3 percent of women applicants last year and 4 percent of men. At the University of Chicago, 5.6 percent of male applicants were accepted last year, compared to 3.7 percent of female applicants. The ratio at the University of Miami was 22.5 percent to 16.5 percent; and at Vassar College, 20.4 percent to 17.6 percent. 

    Besides Brown, none of these universities would respond when asked if they will continue to accept higher percentages of men than women, Neither would others that do it, including Yale, Baylor and Tulane universities and Pomona College.

    Private institutions are allowed to consider gender in admission under Title IX, the federal law otherwise banning discrimination by universities and colleges that get federal funding. That’s due to a loophole dating from when the law was passed, in 1971.

    At the time, the gender ratio was exactly reversed, and men outnumbered women on campuses by nearly three to two. One of the universities’ congressional allies, Rep. John Erlenborn, R-Illinois, successfully amended the measure to let private colleges and universities continue to consider gender in admission.

    Erlenborn said at the time that forcing colleges to stop considering gender would be “one more giant step toward involvement by the federal government in the internal affairs of institutions of higher education.” 

    There’s little ambiguity for admissions offices now, said USC’s Harper.

    “It says here, in writing, ‘no discrimination on the basis of race and gender,’” he noted. “It says that explicitly.”

    Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556, [email protected] or jpm.82 on Signal.

    This story about men in college was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/an-unexpected-target-of-federal-college-admissions-scrutiny-men/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=112505&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/an-unexpected-target-of-federal-college-admissions-scrutiny-men/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • School Advice that Will Probably Hurt Your Feelings

    School Advice that Will Probably Hurt Your Feelings

    By Katie Azevedo, M.Ed.

    Disclaimer: You might not like what you’re about to read. And I’m okay with that, because my goal is to make school easier for students, and sometimes that means facing reality and being open-minded to hearing hard things.

    If you put aside your feelings and take the following advice seriously, you’ll be so much better off than you are now.

    School, whether high school or college, isn’t supposed to be comfortable. It’s supposed to grow you. And growth almost always stings a little. (Or a lot, but you’ll be okay.)

    Below are six pieces of school advice that might hurt your feelings, but will absolutely make you a better, happier student.

    School Advice That Will Probably Hurt Your Feelings

    Please know that the following six pieces of school advice come from a place of love and care for all students, and also from over twenty years of teaching teenagers and young adults.

    1. If You Get Caught Cheating And You Cheated, Admit It

    Cheating is so dumb. Don’t do it. It will always come back to bite you. However, if for some reason you choose to cheat and you get caught, don’t lie about it. 

    The people who catch you cheating already know you cheated. No offense, but they’re likely a wee bit smarter than you. (Listen, I told you this post might hurt your feelings, and I was serious. But the reality is that if you’re a student and you get caught by a teacher, professor or administrator, they are smarter than you simply because they have more life experience.)

    You made a choice, and you have to own it. Teachers, professors, and even parents respect honesty, and even though you’ll still have to face the consequences of cheating, everything will be worse if you lie about it too. 

    Every second you spend defending a lie (that everyone knows is a lie) is time you could be using to fix what led you to cheat in the first place. 

    Plus, lying makes you look foolish. You might think people are buying your story, but oh, they’re not.

    2. If You Want Your Parents To Stop Nagging You, Prove They Don’t Have To

    You hate being nagged by your parents. Fair enough. But did you ever stop to think that they hate nagging you even more?

    I’m a parent of two teenagers, and trust me when I tell you that nagging them to do the things they’re supposed to do is the worst. The worst! But I’ll tell you what I always tell them: we wouldn’t have to nag you if you did the thing in the first place. 

    The reality is that nagging usually stops when your actions make it unnecessary. If you handle your responsibilities, meet your deadlines, do your homework and follow through on things you’re supposed to follow through on, your parents won’t nag you. It is LITERALLY that easy.

    Objectively, this is what “nagging” conversations sound like. Try to see the absurdity in this scenario without getting defensive:

    Parent: Did you do your homework?

    Student: I’m going to.

    Parent: (5 hours later) Did you do your homework yet?

    Student: Stop nagging me! You’re always nagging. I’ve got it. You don’t trust me.

    Parent: Fine.

    Parent: (next day): Ugh, you got a 0 for your missing assignment!

    Student: Seriously, you’re so mean.

    This conversation is so common. I also know that it causes a lot of stress in families, so I don’t mean to make light of a tense situation. But assuming there is no learning disability or mental health barrier, the solution to stop the nagging is to do things without needing to be nagged.

    3. Using AI To Do Your Thinking Is One Of The Dumbest Choices You Can Make

    I know AI isn’t going anywhere, and there’s little that schools can do to stop you from using it on your own time. But using AI to do your thinking for you is one of the absolute DUMMEST choices you could make. And the long-term impact of you doing that is worse than you can ever imagine.

    If you use AI to perform THINKING tasks (including writing, because writing IS thinking), you’re literally missing the entire point of school. In this post here, I argue that the point of school is only partially about the content – the real point is so much deeper than that.

    The whole point of school, especially high school,  is to learn how to do hard things when you don’t want to, how to think critically, and how to solve problems. When you pass these tasks off to AI, you’re denying yourself the single greatest opportunity to develop these skills … for what, a homework grade? An A on a paper you’re going to get absolutely nothing from because you didn’t write it?

    I’m not some stubborn, naive, anti-technology person who’s telling you to go back to writing essays with pencils on yellow paper. I’m actually a super technology geek (I can call myself that) who’s borderline obsessed with learning about AI. 

    But COME ON. You have to know deep down that every time you turn to AI to come up with an idea for an essay, solve a math problem, or even write your emails, you’re cheating yourself. I know you know that. 

    Every single time you turn to AI to do something that’s even mildly uncomfortable, you destroy your own thinking ability (proven in this study) and build the horrible habit of using AI for the next task…and the next…and the next. 

    Don’t you care? Actual question to you: Don’t you care about your future ability to THINK? Is “easy” now really worth sacrificing your creativity, uniqueness, and problem-solving powers for the rest of your life?

    4. You’re On Your Screen WAY Too Much, So When You Say You Don’t Have Time, You’re Lying (To Yourself)

    You do have time. You’re just spending it on your phone or on the wrong screens. And before you say you don’t, have you actually tracked or counted how much time you spend on your phone/screens (not including homework)? 

    Yes, you’ll occasionally have days when you legitimately don’t have time to get all your schoolwork done. These days can be stressful, but they’re not that common. If you face reality and do the math, you will see that you spend way more time on your phone than you think you do.

    Let’s say you have 45 minutes to work on a draft of an essay. If you sit down at the computer with no phone and absolutely no distractions, and you write your essay for 45 minutes, you could literally write pages of material. But if you have your phone next to you and distracting tabs open on your computer, you might be able to write a paragraph at most in the same 45 minutes. 

    Why on earth would you do this to yourself? 

    Put. The. Phone. Away. For the love of all things, put it away.

    5. If You Want To Be Taken Seriously, Do What You Say You’re Going To Do When You Say You’re Going To Do It

    Like it or not, people won’t take you seriously if you don’t do what you say you’re going to do, when you say you’re going to do it.

    There’s just something really … icky…about not delivering on your promises, no matter how small. It gives the impression of laziness, of arrogance, of not caring. And worse, it suggests that you’re not capable of doing the thing, even if you are.

    You have one reputation. Every choice you make, every word you say, and every single thing you do is a chance to build it or break it. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take much to break it, and the rough truth is that it’s hard (super hard!) to repair once you become a person who doesn’t do what they say they’re going to do.

    That’s the definition of being reliable, and if you want people to take you seriously, you must be reliable. Whether it’s an assignment, a meeting, or a group project, people notice when you don’t deliver. And it’s not a good look.

    Of course, sometimes life happens and we’re unable to follow through on a promise, but when that happens, direct, early and honest communication is key. Don’t wait until the last minute to 

    6. Motivation is Irrelevant.

    To be fair, I’ll begin this final piece of school advice by admitting that things are definitely easier when you feel motivated. So in that sense, motivation isn’t completely irrelevant from the aspect of enjoying a task. 

    That said, far too many students overly depend on motivation and forget the importance of discipline. 

    Motivation is just a feeling, like happiness, sadness and anger. That means that just like other feelings, motivation is temporary and unreliable. Discipline, however, is reliable and powerful.

    Here’s what I’m really trying to say: your feelings about a task you’re expected to do shouldn’t have anything to do with whether or not you do it.

    Said differently: do what you’re expected to do, even if you don’t want to do it.

    Said a third way, just for emphasis: You can NOT want to do something and STILL DO IT.

    Top performing students know this. They may think an assignment is dumb, boring or pointless (and it might be), but they do it anyway. They don’t let their feelings stop them from taking action. They don’t wait for motivation to hit. They don’t let their “this assignment is pointless” thoughts have anything to do with completing the assignment.

    The ability to do things you don’t want to do is a sign of emotional regulation and maturity. If you’re not there yet, it’s okay, but the sooner you learn to manage your emotions, the easier school will be and the less drama you’ll experience around school work.

    Final School Advice for Students

    None of this school advice is meant to make you feel bad. It’s meant to gently wake you up to some of the realities of school that not many people talk about.

    My approach with SchoolHabits has always been to be compassionate and direct, as I believe that’s what students deserve. But the world doesn’t reward people who avoid discomfort, blame others, deny accountability or act disingenuously. It rewards people who do the exact opposite. Owning your actions, being reliable, and facing discomfort without drama are characteristics of top performers. That’s you.


    Source link

  • Do screens help or hurt K-8 learning? Lessons from the UK’s OPAL program

    Do screens help or hurt K-8 learning? Lessons from the UK’s OPAL program

    Key points:

    When our leadership team at Firthmoor Primary met with an OPAL (Outdoor Play and Learning) representative, one message came through clearly: “Play isn’t a break from learning, it is learning.”

    As she flipped through slides, we saw examples from other schools where playgrounds were transformed into hubs of creativity. There were “play stations” where children could build, imagine, and collaborate. One that stood out for me was the simple addition of a music station, where children could dance to songs during break time, turning recess into an outlet for joy, self-expression, and community.

    The OPAL program is not about giving children “more time off.” It’s about making play purposeful, inclusive, and developmental. At Firthmoor, our head teacher has made OPAL part of the long-term school plan, ensuring that playtime builds creativity, resilience, and social skills just as much as lessons in the classroom.

    After seeing these OPAL examples, I couldn’t help but think about how different this vision is from what dominates the conversation in so many schools: technology. While OPAL emphasizes unstructured play, movement, and creativity, most education systems, both in the UK and abroad, are under pressure to adopt more edtech. The argument is that early access to screens helps children personalize their learning, build digital fluency, and prepare for a future where tech skills are essential.

    But what happens when those two philosophies collide?

    On one side, programs like OPAL remind us that children need hands-on experiences, imagination, and social connection–skills that can’t be replaced by a tablet. On the other, schools around the world are racing to keep pace with the digital age.

    Even in Silicon Valley, where tech innovation is born, schools like the Waldorf School of the Peninsula have chosen to go screen-free in early years. Their reasoning echoes OPAL’s ethos: Creativity and deep human interaction lay stronger cognitive and emotional foundations than any app can provide.

    Research supports this caution. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health advises parents and schools to carefully balance screen use with physical activity, sleep, and family interaction. And in 2023, UNESCO warned that “not all edtech improves learning outcomes, and some displace play and social interaction.” Similarly, the OECD’s 2021 report found that heavy screen use among 10-year-olds correlated with lower well-being scores, highlighting the risks of relying too heavily on devices in the early years.

    As a governor, I see both sides: the enthusiasm for digital tools that promise engagement and efficiency, and the concern for children’s well-being and readiness for lifelong learning. OPAL has made me think about what kind of foundations we want to lay before layering on technology.

    So where does this leave us? For me, the OPAL initiative at Firthmoor is a powerful reminder that education doesn’t have to be an either/or choice between tech and tradition. The real challenge is balance.

    This raises important questions for all of us in education:

    • When is the right time to introduce technology?
    • How do we balance digital fluency with the need for deep, human-centered learning?
    • Where do we draw the line between screens and play, and who gets to decide?

    This is a conversation not just for educators, but for parents, policymakers, and communities. How do we want the next generation to learn, play, and thrive?

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • American Jews must not give an inch on free speech — even when words hurt us

    American Jews must not give an inch on free speech — even when words hurt us

    This essay was originally published in Jewish Telegraphic Agency on March 14, 2025.


    We can’t make antisemitism go away by censoring antisemites.

    Nevertheless, the Trump administration has said it is combating antisemitism at Columbia University by canceling $400 million in funding and detaining a former student over what the president has vexingly called “illegal protests” against Israel. It is also making a host of additional demands of the university.

    Some Jewish groups are applauding the effort. But as an American Jew and free speech lawyer, I can tell you that protest alone isn’t illegal — and that giving the government the power to punish hateful speech will only erode our own right to speak out against hate.

    In the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack led by Hamas on Israeli civilians and Israel’s military response, protests erupted on campuses nationwide. Some of the activities by student protesters were unlawful, like blocking fellow students from entering parts of campus or occupying buildings. But many students engaged in pure speech by marching, displaying signs, or shouting slogans. These are protected and celebrated forms of protest in our country. Whether in support of Israel, Palestine, or even Hamas, the First Amendment prevents the government from punishing or censoring them.

    As a historically persecuted population, Jews have a vested interest in ensuring American civil rights protections remain in full force. The First Amendment guarantees not only the freedom to practice our religion in this country, but our ability to speak out when our rights and lives are in danger.

    Our institutions of higher education are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. Even if you think those ideas are bad, protecting all speech means your speech is protected, too.

    In 1943, 400 rabbis marched on Washington to draw attention to the mass murder of European Jews, helping lead to the creation of an American War Refugee Board that saved thousands of Jewish lives. In 1963, American Jewish leaders like German-born Rabbi Joachim Prinz marched again, this time with Martin Luther King Jr. Speaking just before Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, Rabbi Prinz lamented that his former countrymen “remained silent in the face of hate” and pleaded that “America must not become a nation of onlookers. America must not remain silent.”

    But we endanger the ability to speak out when we allow the government to erode our First Amendment protections. That’s why White House statements this week threatening punishment for anti-Israel speech should have all Americans concerned — even those of us who would appear, at first blush, to benefit.

    Regarding the arrest of Palestinian protester Mahmoud Kahlil by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, President Trump said, “We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted an advisory from the Department of Homeland Security saying that Khalil had “led activities aligned to Hamas,” and has also claimed the power to deport a legal resident whose activities “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” But those justifications could merely describe Khalil’s on-campus protests, including his protected speech.

    Threatening to deport Khalil without accusing him of any crimes chills speech. And that threat extends to everyone, no matter what side of the Israeli-Palestinian debate you are on, or whether you are promoting or combatting antisemitism. Would a green-card-holding Jew feel free to criticize special government employee Elon Musk for publicly supporting the far-right, German-nationalist AfD party, knowing our government could deem such criticism creates “adverse foreign policy consequences”? That standard is just too vague to risk deportation, and it permits the government to punish speech it just doesn’t like.

    The Trump administration’s pledge to remove “pro-Hamas” students, coupled with Khalil’s arrest, make it hard to see the administration’s actions this week against Columbia and other institutions of higher education as anything other than attempts to police and punish campus speech.

    To be sure, it has been a difficult year for Jewish college students, and there have been documented instances of bad actors preventing them from getting to class, or even assaulting them. Title VI requires colleges and universities that receive federal funding to ensure discriminatory harassment does not deprive Jewish students of an education, and it is possible Columbia has failed that obligation.

    But protest alone is not grounds by itself for a Title VI violation. And the government did not make sure it was punishing only actionable misconduct before canceling Columbia’s funding, like it is supposed to. The Supreme Court rightly set a high bar for conduct that amounts to discriminatory harassment that is supposed to ensure pure speech rarely rises to that level.

    And with good reason: Our institutions of higher education are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. Even if you think those ideas are bad, protecting all speech means your speech is protected, too.

    I’m no stranger to fear of the recent public increase in antisemitism. Last year, given online antisemitism approaching the anniversary of Oct. 7, my wife and I chose to keep our daughter home from her Chabad preschool that day. The current political moment terrifies me. Antisemitism is coming from both sides of the political spectrum, and it feels like there is nowhere to run. So instead, I think we should fight.

    But allowing the government to ignore our rights to free speech would only deprive us of our most powerful weapon.

    Source link