Tag: Jobs

  • Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

    Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

    Every year on Veterans Day, we pause to honor those who have served our country—but our gratitude must extend beyond a single day of reflection. One of the most powerful ways to repay veterans’ service is through education, a goal long supported by the general public and Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Student veterans bring leadership, discipline and unique experiences to college campuses; their postsecondary success strengthens both our communities and economies.

    Yet despite their proven academic potential and deep motivation to earn a degree, too many veterans face unnecessary barriers to completing college. At Ithaka S+R, we’ve reported on the value of enrolling and supporting student veterans and the unique challenges these students face in getting to and through higher education, for several years running. From underresourced institutions to opaque transfer processes and predatory recruitment practices, these obstacles result in lower bachelor’s degree attainment among veterans compared to their civilian peers.

    Right now, policy and appropriations decisions (including the current government shutdown) could undermine the progress the country has made in providing educational opportunities for our veterans. As we celebrate Veterans Day, it’s time for higher education leaders and policymakers to renew their commitment to supporting those who’ve served. Here are three developing situations that we’re monitoring for their potential impact on student veterans.

    Cuts to Veterans Upward Bound

    Veterans Upward Bound is a federally funded TRIO program focused on precollege, college transition and college success support for veterans. Started in 1972, the program now supports more than 8,000 veterans looking to enroll in or return to college by providing academic instruction, tutoring and counseling. There are 60-plus programs nationally, run by individual colleges and universities. The programs have proven highly effective: Participants are 42 percent more likely than their peers to earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

    There is significant uncertainty about whether the federal government will sustain the current and future funding for these Veterans Upward Bound programs. The federal government delayed payment for the majority of TRIO programs this fall, including all Veterans Upward Bound programs. The funding delay came on the heels of proposals to decrease, or even eliminate completely, TRIO programs in next year’s federal budget. The Department of Education got a head start this year, canceling many thousands of dollars in already-allocated funding for TRIO programs, including for VUB programs, in mid-September. Although some of that funding has since been restored, the uncertainty leaves many programs struggling to plan for the year ahead.

    VA Staffing Cuts and GI Bill Processing Times

    Enrolled student veterans rely on the federal government for the processing of their GI Bill funds. The combination of staffing cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the recent federal government shutdown has created delays, confusion and, ultimately, financial stress for student veterans.

    This summer, student veterans and campus advisers reported that benefit eligibility determinations and payments for the GI Bill took three times longer than previously because of understaffing and increased administrative errors. This meant that housing and textbook payments were delayed, which led to some student veterans missing the start of classes (and, in more severe cases, dropping or stopping out).

    The situation has worsened since the federal government shut down on Oct. 1. Although education benefits themselves are primarily funded through advance appropriations and thus can continue to be paid out, critical support services have ceased operation during the shutdown. The VA’s GI Bill phone hotline, which many rely on for questions about eligibility, payments and school certification, is closed. Regional VA offices, which normally handle in-person assistance, are also closed. Not only do these closures create challenges in the current moment, but resulting processing delays will result in a backlog even after the government reopens.

    For student veterans on fixed schedules, with tight budgets and in transitional life phases, the time and energy to deal with unsettled paperwork add up to real risks for academic progress and financial stability.

    Measuring Student Veteran Success

    The uncertainty of federal support for student veterans comes at a time when there is shrinking programmatic and rhetorical support for students that higher education has historically struggled to welcome. Veterans are increasingly more likely to belong to other underrepresented groups, such as racial minorities and adult learners, so the challenges they face in accessing and affording higher education may be multiplied.

    The states, systems and institutions interested in continuing to serve student veterans are also facing immense challenges as they confront federal policy changes that have downstream financial impacts, such as changes to graduate student loans and the decline in international student enrollment. While these challenges make it even more imperative for institutions to enroll a wider range of students, including student veterans, there is simultaneously increased difficulty in doing so.

    Investing in veteran-specific admissions strategies and academic advising, providing efficient credit transfer mechanisms, and tracking postcollege outcomes are initiatives that can help boost student veteran success. The full scope of that success, however, remains elusive, as the data landscape for student veterans remains fragmented and incomplete. Alongside institutional efforts to ensure success, regional and national efforts are needed to more fully understand how many new veterans could benefit from enrolling in higher education each year and in what degree programs they are most interested. To truly understand the scope of the impact of the federal budget and staffing cuts and how other parts of higher education can help fill that breach and prioritize veterans’ enrollment, it is essential to know more about the size and scope of the potential student veteran population we are looking to serve.

    Conclusion

    As federal uncertainty grows, from cuts to Veterans Upward Bound programs to delays in GI Bill processing, and the shutdown drags on, student veterans risk being left behind just when they need institutional support most. At the same time, colleges face shrinking budgets and shifting demographics that make it harder to serve those who’ve already given so much.

    But these challenges also present an opportunity for stakeholders throughout higher education to refocus on veterans. By investing in veteran-specific recruitment, advising and data collection efforts, institutions, states and veteran-serving organizations can open doors to a new generation of leaders ready to contribute to their campuses and communities.

    The promise of higher education for veterans should not only depend on bureaucratic stability or federal budget cycles; it requires a collective effort from within and beyond the field of higher education. This Veterans Day and every day after, let’s recommit to ensuring that those who served our nation have every chance to succeed in the classroom and beyond.

    Emily Schwartz is a principal of bachelor’s attainment at the nonprofit Ithaka S+R, which conducts research and offers strategic advice on student access and success, among other topics related to higher education and research. Michael Fried is a senior researcher and Daniel Braun is senior development and operations specialist, both at Ithaka S+R.

    Source link

  • Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on College Campuses

    Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on College Campuses

    Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, higher education as a sector has grappled with the role large language models and generative artificial intelligence tools can and should play in students’ lives.  

    A recent survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that nearly all college students say they know how and when to use AI for their coursework, which they attribute largely to faculty instruction or syllabus language.

    Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they know when to use AI, with the share of those saying they don’t shrinking from 31 percent in spring 2024 to 13 percent in August 2025.

    The greatest share of respondents (41 percent) said they know when to use AI because their professors include statements in their syllabi explaining appropriate and inappropriate AI use. An additional 35 percent said they know because their instructors have addressed it in class.

    “It’s good news that students feel like they understand the basic ground rules for when AI is appropriate,” said Dylan Ruediger, principal for the research enterprise at Ithaka S+R. “It suggests that there are some real benefits to having faculty be the primary point of contact for information about what practices around AI should look like.”

    The data points to a trend in higher education to move away from a top-down approach of organizing AI policies to a more decentralized approach, allowing faculty to be experts in their subjects.

    “I think that faculty should have wide latitudes to teach their courses how they see fit. Trusting them to understand what’s pedagogically appropriate for their ways of teaching and within their discipline” is a smart place to start, Ruediger said.

    The challenge becomes how to create campuswide priorities for workforce development that ensure all students, regardless of major program, can engage in AI as a career tool and understand academic integrity expectations.

    Student Perspectives

    While the survey points to institutional efforts to integrate AI into the curriculum, some students remain unaware or unsure of when they can use AI tools. Only 17 percent of students said they are aware of appropriate AI use cases because their institution has published a policy on the subject, whereas 25 percent said they know when to use AI because they’ve researched the topic themselves.

    Ruediger hypothesizes that some students learn about AI tools and their uses from peers in addition to their own research.

    Some demographic groups were less likely than others to be aware of appropriate AI use on campus, signaling disparities in who’s receiving this information. Nearly one-quarter of adult learners (aged 25 or older) said they don’t  know how or when to use AI for coursework, compared to 10 percent of their traditional-aged peers. Similarly, two-year college students were less likely to say they are aware of appropriate use cases (20 percent) than their four-year peers (10 percent).

    Students working full-time (19 percent) or those who had dropped out for a semester (20 percent) were also more likely to say they don’t know when to use AI.

    While decentralizing AI policies and giving autonomy to faculty members can better serve academic freedom and AI applications, having clearly outlined and widely available policies also benefits students.

    “There is a scenario here where [AI] rules are left somewhat informal and inconsistent that ends up giving an advantage to students who have more cultural capital or are better positioned to understand hidden curricular issues,” Ruediger said.

    In a survey of provosts and chief academic officers this fall, Inside Higher Ed found that one in five provosts said their institution is taking an intentionally hands-off approach to regulating AI use, with no formal governance or policies about AI. Fourteen percent of respondents indicated their institution has established a comprehensive AI governance policy or institutional strategy, but the greatest share said they are still developing policies.

    A handful of students also indicated they have no interest in ever using AI.

    In 2024, 2 percent of Student Voice survey respondents (n=93) wrote in “other” responses to the question, “Do you have a clear sense of when, how or whether to use generative artificial intelligence to help with your coursework?” More than half of those responses—55—expressed distrust, disdain or disagreement with the use of generative AI. That view appears to be growing; this year, 3 percent of respondents (n=138) wrote free responses, and 113 comments opposed AI use in college for ethical or personal reasons.

     “I hate AI we should never ever ever use it,” wrote one second-year student at a community college in Wyoming. “It’s terrible for the environment. People who use AI lack critical thinking skills and just use AI as a cop out.”

    The Institutional Perspective

    A separate survey fielded by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that more than half of student success administrators (55 percent) reported that their institution is “somewhat effective” at helping students understand how, when and whether to use generative AI tools in academic settings. (“Somewhat effective” is defined as “there being some structured efforts, but guidance is not consistent or comprehensive.”)

    More than one-third (36 percent) reported their institution is not very effective—meaning they offer limited guidance and many students rely on informal or independent learning—and 2 percent said their institution is “very effective,” or that students receive clear guidance across multiple channels.

    Ithaka S+R published its own study this spring, which found that the average instructor had at least experimented with using AI in classroom activities. According to Inside Higher Ed’s most recent survey of provosts, two-thirds of respondents said their institution offers professional development for faculty on AI or integrating AI into the curriculum.

    Engaging Students in AI

    Some colleges and universities have taken measures to ensure all students are aware of ethical AI use cases.

    Indiana University created an online course, GenAI 101, for anyone with a campus login to earn a certificate denoting they’ve learned about practical applications for AI tools, ethical considerations of using those tools and how to fact-check content produced by AI.

    This year the University of Mary Washington offered students a one-credit online summer course on how to use generative AI tools, which covered academic integrity, professional development applications and how to evaluate AI output.

    The State University of New York system identified AI as a core competency to be included in all general education courses for undergraduates. All classes that fulfill the information literacy competency requirement will include a lesson on AI ethics and literacy starting fall 2026.

    Touro University is requiring all faculty members to include an AI statement in their syllabi by next spring, Shlomo Argamon, associate provost for artificial intelligence, told Inside Higher Ed in a podcast episode. The university also has an official AI policy that serves as the default if faculty do not have more or less restrictive policies.

    Source link

  • UNC Chapel Hill Won’t Sign Compact

    UNC Chapel Hill Won’t Sign Compact

    The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill made clear Friday that it won’t sign the federal “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that has been extended to all institutions after seven of the original nine universities invited rejected the offer, WRAL reported. 

    Last month the Trump administration floated a plan for preferential treatment on federal funding in exchange for universities overhauling admissions and hiring practices, freezing tuition for five years, capping international enrollment at 15 percent, and making various other concessions that many critics have warned will undermine academic freedom.

    UNC Chapel Hill chancellor Lee Roberts said Friday that while the university has not received a formal invitation from the Trump administration, he is not interested in the arrangement.

    “There are some parts of the compact that we are already doing and there are some parts that would be difficult or impossible,” Roberts said in a faculty council meeting, according to WRAL. “There’s no way we can sign the compact as written and we don’t plan to.”

    Invitations to the compact were initially sent to Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. All but two declined—Vanderbilt said it would provide feedback and Texas has yet to offer a public response.

    Multiple others also announced pre-emptive rejections after the initial invitation went out, including Emory University, Pennsylvania State University, Syracuse University and the University of Kansas. So far, only two institutions have announced intentions to sign the compact: New College of Florida and Valley Forge Military College in Pennsylvania.

    Source link

  • Support Career Agency for International Scientists (opinion)

    Support Career Agency for International Scientists (opinion)

    International Ph.D. students and postdoctoral scholars drive a large share of the United States’ scientific research, innovation and global competitiveness. Yet these visa holders often face systemic barriers that limit their ability to build independent, fulfilling careers. Restricted access to fellowships and immigration constraints can stifle career agency, forcing the nation’s institutions to lose out on the very global talent they train to fuel discovery and progress.

    Drawing from insights in our recently released book, Thriving as an International Scientist (University of California Press), this essay outlines key challenges that international scientists face and concrete steps universities, employers and scientific societies can take to enable their dynamic career success.

    Systemic Barriers to Career Independence

    The U.S. depends on international talent to sustain its scientific enterprise. In 2023, nearly 41 percent of Ph.D. students and 58 percent of postdocs in U.S. universities were visa holders, and international scholars made up 34 percent of Ph.D. graduates in 2022, an increase from just 11 percent in1977.

    While U.S. universities still lead globally in training and employing a robust international scientific workforce, the recent anti-immigrant climate in the U.S. and growing global competition for STEM talent threatens this long-standing advantage. Two issues impacting international scientists stand out as particularly urgent: limited access to independent research fellowships and visa policies that restrict career flexibility.

    • Fewer fellowships lead to reduced agency. International scientists have access to fewer fellowships for supporting their independent research ideas. Data on primary sources of STEM doctoral student funding indicates 17 percent of international Ph.D. students relied primarily on fellowships, scholarships or dissertation grants in 2022, compared to 29 percent of their U.S. citizen and permanent resident peers. More than half of international Ph.D. students in science and engineering across U.S. universities relied on faculty-directed funding, through research assistantships, compared with just a third of domestic students (citizens and permanent residents).

    This reliance limits their autonomy to define research directions or confidently pursue professional development and internship opportunities. As a result, only 22 percent of international Ph.D. graduates from U.S. universities committed to academic careers (excluding postdocs) in 2022, in part due to a significant lack in independent funding experience—a key qualification for faculty roles.

    • Visa constraints on career mobility. Visa regulations often confine international scientists to narrowly defined “research-related” roles in academia or industry. This restriction effectively locks them out of emerging career paths in the business of science, science policy, science communication, entrepreneurship, university administration and nonprofit leadership until they obtain permanent residency.

    They are also disproportionately vulnerable to economic downturns or layoffs. Work visas typically allow a 60-day grace period to secure new employment and maintain legal immigration status, putting tremendous pressure on individuals and families. With rising costs and uncertainty surrounding H-1B work visas, employers may also hesitate to hire international scientists, compounding career instability for this essential segment of the STEM workforce.

    What Universities Can Do

    We expand on recommendations offered to universities in the International Talent Programs in the Changing Global Environment consensus report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and by the Association of American Universities’ Ph.D. Education Initiative. Universities can take the following actions to better support international Ph.D. students and postdocs:

    • Expand access to independent funding. Increase visibility of funding through databases such as Pivot and create matching fellowship opportunities from institutional, corporate and philanthropic sources that are open to noncitizens.
    • Track and leverage alumni outcomes. Analyze Ph.D. and postdoctoral career outcomes by citizenship and location in order to strengthen alumni mentorship and global networks for trainees.
    • Specialized professional development for Ph.Ds. Provide training in in-demand and holistic skills to address wicked problems, advance emerging technologies and foster knowledge of a range of careers for STEM Ph.D. holders.
    • Integrate career development into curricula. Embed professional development and career preparation within graduate and postdoctoral programs, rather than limiting them to extracurricular workshops, in order to encourage international scientists to participate.
    • Foster equitable access to internships. Simplify and expand opportunities for experiential learning by using the Curricular Practical Training path. Departments can offer internship courses through which students can use CPT or encourage them to incorporate insights from their internships into the dissertation. Creating more practical opportunities for students to broadly apply their research skills enables their success in getting work visas for diverse careers.

    At Princeton University, one of us developed a specialized professional development series for international graduate students integrating creative design, intentional career planning, immigration literacy and strategies for global careers. This approach helps international scholars build resilience, community and agency in navigating complex systems and uncertain futures.

    The Role of Scientific and Professional Societies

    Scientific and professional societies hold powerful levers for nationwide systemic change. Through initiatives that foster advocacy, partnerships and innovation, they can amplify the impact of international scientists and shape more inclusive policies.

    • Diversify funding models. As scientific leaders reconsider how to continue funding STEM research including for graduate and postdoctoral programs at scale in the U.S. through convenings (e.g., by NASEM and UIDP), public-private-philanthropic partnerships must intentionally include considerations by and for international graduate students and postdocs in their planning and implementation.
    • Require professional development. Foundations and philanthropic funders can make career and professional development a standard component of fellowships and sponsored research grants, following the precedents set by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
    • Mobilize advocacy through data. Public-facing dashboards such as the NAFSA International Student Economic Value Tool and OPT Observatory from the Institute for Progress, demonstrate the economic and intellectual value of international scientists. These are powerful tools for storytelling, advocacy and policy change.
    • Encourage immigration innovation. Beyond ongoing legislative efforts like the bipartisan Keep STEM Talent Act aiming to support the U.S. STEM workforce, the philanthropic sector can also pilot creative solutions. For instance, Renaissance Philanthropy’s Talent Mobility Fund raises awareness of underutilized immigration pathways such as O-1 and J-1 visas, diversifying routes available for STEM researchers.

    Employer Responsibility

    Employers across all sectors—universities, for-profit industries and nonprofit organizations—have a shared responsibility to create transparent, informed hiring practices for visa holders. Too often, candidates are left to initiate uncomfortable sponsorship discussions during job interviews. Instead, hiring managers should proactively coordinate with human resources and legal teams before posting positions to determine sponsorship possibilities, costs and timelines. Even small changes, such as explicitly noting “visa sponsorship available” (or not available) in job descriptions, can make a significant difference in promoting fairness and equity in hiring.

    Moving Forward: Shared Responsibility for Systemic Change

    The ability of international scientists to thrive is not just a matter of ethics and fairness—it is a strategic imperative for the future of American science and innovation. Universities, scientific societies, funders and employers have a shared responsibility to participate in removing systemic barriers and expanding opportunities for international scientists in a variety of careers.

    While large-scale policy change may take time, meaningful progress is possible through small, immediate steps:

    • Expanding access to independent funding and internships,
    • Increasing transparency through data, and
    • Fostering mentorship and advocacy networks.

    By enabling international scientists to build dynamic, independent careers, we strengthen not only their futures but also the vitality and global leadership of the U.S. research enterprise.

    Sonali Majumdar (she/her) is assistant dean for professional development in Princeton University’s Graduate School and author of Thriving as an International Scientist: Professional Development for Global STEM Citizens (October 2025, University of California Press). She is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Adriana Bankston (she/her) is a strong advocate for the research enterprise and supporting the next-generation STEM workforce and a former AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow in the U.S. House of Representatives. She contributed to a chapter in Thriving as an International Scientist on systemic reforms and policy change in academia.

    Source link

  • U.S. Universities Are National Security Assets (opinion)

    U.S. Universities Are National Security Assets (opinion)

    For too long, Americans have underestimated the strategic value of our universities. The popular belief is that higher education’s chief contribution to national security is soft power—the goodwill generated by cultural exchange, academic diplomacy and global networking. That’s accurate, but it’s only a small part of the security story.

    The vast majority of our 4,000-odd colleges and universities (including the elite ones) are hardly the ivory towers so associated with so-called woke movements and high-profile culture wars. Many, in fact, are the R&D labs of our national security infrastructure. They are the training grounds for the nation’s cyber warriors, military leaders, intelligence officers and diplomats. To be sure, they are one of America’s most potent weapons in an era of fierce geopolitical competition.

    The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps is the military’s largest commissioning source, with a footprint that spans the nation. Army ROTC alone operates at about 1,000 college campuses and provides merit-based benefits to roughly 15,000 students each year. It produces approximately 70 percent of the officers entering the Army annually, commissioning around 5,000 second lieutenants in a typical year.

    The scale is cross-service: Air Force ROTC maintains 145 host detachments with more than 1,100 partner universities and commissioned 2,109 Air Force and 141 Space Force officers in 2022. Navy/Marine Corps ROTC fields 63 units hosted at 77 colleges and extends to 160-plus colleges via cross-town agreements. Between 2011 and 2021, about 1,441 U.S. colleges and universities had at least one ROTC host, cross-town or extension unit—and every state has at least one host. Over its first century, ROTC has produced more than one million officers.

    The Department of Defense, as key partner with higher education, invests billions annually in university research. In fiscal year 2022 alone, the DOD’s research, development, test and evaluation budget authority reached $118.7 billion. For example, the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program awarded $43 million in equipment grants to 112 university researchers for the 2025 fiscal year. Entities like DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the Army Research Laboratory, and the Office of Naval Research fund breakthroughs in AI, quantum computing, hypersonics and cyber resilience. Universities partner with the Defense Department and other government agencies to conduct research in areas like drone technology, stealth aircraft and, historically, the development of the Internet and GPS.

    Cybersecurity is another front where U.S. universities lead with global distinction. The National Security Agency has designated nearly 500 campuses as national Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity. Universities like Carnegie Mellon, Purdue and the University of Texas at San Antonio run advanced programs focused on cryptography, digital forensics and cyber policy, partnering with both government and industry to build systems that repel state-sponsored hackers.

    Biosecurity is equally critical. The COVID-19 pandemic proved that viruses can fundamentally destabilize economies and national morale as quickly as warfare can. Johns Hopkins, Emory, Harvard and Vanderbilt Universities all were at the forefront of research on the coronavirus and vaccines. Land-grant universities like Texas A&M and Iowa State have long been securing our food supply against agroterrorism and climate threats. As just one example of this partnership, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture announced $7.6 million in grants to 12 different universities focused on agricultural biosecurity.

    Then there’s the talent pipeline. American universities train the linguists, engineers, analysts and scientists who feed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the armed forces. Through partnerships with universities, the National Security Education Program, the Critical Language Scholarship and the National Security Language Initiative for Youth help produce graduates fluent in Arabic, Mandarin and Farsi—utterly essential skills for both diplomacy and national intelligence.

    Boren Scholars and Fellows are dedicated to harnessing their advanced linguistic and cultural skills within the federal government by securing a minimum of one year of employment in national security, actively strengthening the federal workforce and significantly elevating U.S. capabilities, deterrence and readiness.

    Meanwhile, China has built a centralized academic–military complex under its Military–Civil Fusion strategy. Top universities like Tsinghua and Beihang Universities are deeply integrated with the People’s Liberation Army, producing dual-use research in AI, quantum and hypersonics—technologies intended to challenge U.S. dominance. The National University of Defense Technology is a flagship institution in this network, known for dual-use supercomputing and aerospace research. This model is potent but currently lacks the kind of innovative potential of U.S. institutions.

    The U.S. system, by contrast, is decentralized, competitive and open. We often refer to this as “loose coupling”; the accompanying organizational dynamic is what enables so much of the innovative, interdisciplinary and cross-institutional work that U.S. higher education produces. But adequately funding this system is quickly becoming unsustainable and unpopular. The Trump administration is cutting funding for politically inconvenient fields—such as climate science, public health and international cooperation—and subjecting grant applications to political review. Many of these cuts target areas of academic inquiry that may appear obscure to the public but are fundamental to the foundational domains of national security. It is also worth noting that recent research suggests that the already high public and private returns to federally funded research are likely much higher than those reflected in current estimates.

    Focusing solely on weapons labs while neglecting other strategic fields is short-sighted and dangerous. Security is not merely about firepower—it’s about the stability of the knowledge-based society. Public health, basic sciences, environmental resilience, diplomacy and social cohesion are just as critical to preventing conflict as advanced missiles and cyber weapons. To be sure, our colleges and universities contribute, almost beyond measure, to the stability of U.S. civil society through each of these domains.

    Universities are not optional in the defense of this republic—they are indispensable. Undermine them and we hand our international competitors the high ground in both technology and ideas. In the contest for global leadership, the fight won’t just be won on battlefields. It will be won in classrooms, labs and libraries.

    Brian Heuser is an associate professor of the practice of international education policy at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. For much of his career, he has worked on numerous projects related to national security education, including with the Boren Scholars Program, the former Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Fellowship Program and as a U.S. Embassy policy specialist to the Republic of Georgia.

    Source link

  • Fla. Board Says Syllabi, Reading Lists Must Be Posted Publicly

    Fla. Board Says Syllabi, Reading Lists Must Be Posted Publicly

    Already, the University of Florida requires professors to post their syllabi online—but only three days prior to the start of class.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Liudmila Chernetska, Davizro and DenisTangneyJr/iStock/Getty Images

    Faculty at all Florida public universities must now make syllabi, as well as a list of required or recommended textbooks and instructional materials for each class, available online and searchable for students and the general public for five years.

    The new policy is part of an amendment to the Florida Board of Governors’ regulation on “Textbook and Instructional Materials Affordability and Transparency,” and it passed unanimously without discussion at a board meeting Thursday. On the agenda item description, board officials cited improved transparency as the impetus for the rule, which is meant to help students “make informed decisions as they select courses.” But some faculty members say it’s designed to chill academic freedom and allow the public to police what professors teach in the classroom.

    “Many of my colleagues and I believe that this is yet another overreach by political appointees to let Florida’s faculty know that they are being watched for potentially teaching any content that the far right finds problematic,” said John White, a professor of English education and literacy at the University of North Florida. He said officials at his institution told faculty members they must upload their syllabi for 2026 spring semester classes to Simple Syllabus, an online syllabi hosting platform, by December.

    “Florida’s universities are being run in an Orwellian manner, and working as a faculty member in Florida is increasingly like living in the world of Fahrenheit 451,” he said.

    According to the approved amendment, professors must post the syllabi “as early as is feasible” but no fewer than 45 days prior to the start of class. Public syllabi must include “course curriculum, required and recommended textbooks and instructional materials, goals and student expectations of the course, and how student performance will be measured and evaluated, including the grading scale.” Individualized courses like independent study and theses are exempt from the rule.

    The Florida Board of Governors did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about the amended policy, including a question about when it will start being enforced.

    Concerns About Faculty Safety

    It’s not a unique policy, even in Florida. Since 2013, the University of Florida has required professors to post their syllabi online—but only three days prior to the start of class, and they have to remain publicly available for just three semesters. Now, all Florida public universities, including the University of Florida, must follow the new rules. A UF spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed the university is waiting for the Board of Governors to share guidance about when the new policy will be enforced.

    “Even before the rule, most faculty members have been posting anyway to advertise their course. Faculty members in fact prefer to post in advance and certainly have nothing against posting,” said Meera Sitharam, a professor in the department of computer and information science and engineering, and president of the University of Florida’s 2,150-member United Faculty of Florida union. The faculty she spoke with primarily took issue with the new 45-day deadline, which is “quite early for a posting containing all the details” of a syllabus, she said. They are also concerned that they will no longer be able to make changes to reading lists midsemester.

    “A good-quality discussion class would permit the instructor to assign new reading as the course proceeds. This would now be disallowed,” Sitharam said. “The effect of this is likely to be that an overlong reading list is posted by the faculty member just to make sure that they don’t miss anything they might want to assign. And much of the reading list may never be assigned.”

    Texas similarly requires all faculty at public institutions to make a version of their syllabus public. Indiana implemented a law in July requiring public institutions to publish all course syllabi on their websites, and this fall, the University System of Georgia introduced a new policy requiring faculty to post syllabi and curriculum vitae on institution websites.

    Some faculty members in those states have seen firsthand the risks of posting syllabi online; several professors have been harassed and doxed over course content in their online syllabi. Florida faculty are concerned the same thing could happen to them; several faculty members believe that the board passed the rule with the intent of siccing the general public on professors who teach about topics that conservative politicians don’t like.

    “The sole purpose is to subcontract out the oversight of all of our courses, so that if there’s some independent entity or individual that wants to look at the College of Education at Florida State, and they spend two months doing a deep dive into all of the classes, then they’ll come up with: ‘Here at Florida State we found these five classes that don’t meet [our standards],’” said William Trapani, communications and multimedia studies professor at Florida Atlantic University. “Why else would you have that capacity to make this data bank and make it publicly accessible for five years?”

    Stan Kaye, a professor emeritus of design and technology at the University of Florida, sees concerns about the policy as overblown. “I cannot see why making syllabi public at a public institution is a problem for anyone—I would think that promoting your work and subject is generally a good thing,” he said. “If you are afraid you are teaching something illegal or that lacks academic integrity and you want to keep it secret, that should be a problem.”

    Faculty safety is the primary concern for James Beasley, an associate professor of English and president of the faculty association at North Florida.

    “The most important issue related to this requirement is the safety of our faculty, both online and in person. The concern is that faculty will be exposed to external trolls of course content and that the publication of course locations will expose faculty to location disclosures,” Beasley said in an email. While it is typical for syllabi to include course meeting times and locations, the new board policy does not require that information to be posted online.

    Trapani also said that because of the five-year syllabus retention period, faculty are worried they could be retroactively harassed for teaching about something the public finds unfavorable from a class several years ago. White has similar concerns.

    “I’m teaching a course that utilizes neo-Marxist theory to critique the idea of meritocracy—will the Board of Governors or members of the public falsely claim I’m teaching communism or that I’m teaching students to hate their country? If a history professor or a social studies education professor is discussing redlining or Jim Crow laws, will they later be critiqued for teaching students about institutionalized racism or sexism?” White said.

    Ultimately, Trapani believes the amended syllabi policy is an attempt to insulate the Board of Governors from public criticism.

    “Florida will make a lot more sense to outsiders if its policymaking is viewed through a lens of fear,” he said. “They’ve deputized an army of outsiders to pore through records older than most students’ time at the university—all so that they cannot be accused of missing something … It’s just another way in which faculty employment conditions and physical safety are made more precarious by the endless barrage of false claims about our teaching practices.”

    Josh Moody contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Higher education must include valuable workforce experience and training that helps students secure meaningful jobs

    Higher education must include valuable workforce experience and training that helps students secure meaningful jobs

    by Bruno V. Manno, The Hechinger Report
    November 10, 2025

    This fall, some 19 million undergraduates returned to U.S. campuses with a long-held expectation: Graduate, land an entry-level job, climb the career ladder. That formula is breaking down.  

    Once reliable gateway jobs for college graduates in industries like finance, consulting and journalism have tightened requirements. Many entry-level job postings that previously provided initial working experience for college graduates now require two to three years of prior experience, while AI, a recent analysis concluded, “snaps up good entry-level tasks,” especially routine work like drafting memos, preparing spreadsheets and summarizing research.  

    Without these proving grounds, new hires lose chances to build skills by doing. And the demand for work experience that potential workers don’t have creates an experience gap for new job seekers. Once stepping-stones, entry-level positions increasingly resemble mid-career jobs. 

    No doubt AI is and will continue to reshape work in general and entry-level jobs in particular in expected and unexpected ways. But we are not doomed to what some call an “AI job apocalypse” or a “white-collar bloodbath” that leads to mass unemployment. There are practical solutions to the experience gap problem when it comes to education and training programs. These include earn-and-learn models and other innovative public and private employer partnerships that build into their approaches opportunities for young people to gain valuable work experience.  

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    Before I describe these potential solutions, here is more information on how I see the problem.  

    The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that in March 2025, the unemployment rate for college graduates ages 22 to 27 was 5.7 percent, compared to an overall unemployment rate of 4.0 percent. Other than the temporary pandemic-related spike in 2021, that was the highest unemployment rate for new grads since 2014. More recently, the Fed’s August 2025 unemployment rate for recent college graduates was 1 percentage point higher than its overall unemployment rate of 4.3 percent.  

    The experience gap phenomenon is not limited to the tech sector. In 2019, 61 percent of AI-related job postings were in the information technology and computer science sector, with 39 percent in non-tech sectors, labor analytics from Lightcast show. By 2024, the majority (51 percent versus 49 percent) of AI-related job postings were outside the tech sector. 

    The cumulative effect of all this is apparent. The hollowing out of entry-level work stalls mobility across the labor market, leaving many college graduates stranded before their careers can even begin. Moreover, these changes cut to the core of higher education’s promise.  

    If graduates can’t secure meaningful jobs, confidence in higher ed falters — one reason why it should come as no surprise that 56 percent of Americans think earning a four-year degree is not worth the cost, a March 2023 Wall Street Journal-NORC poll found, compared with 42 percent who think it is, a new low in a poll first administered in 2013. Skepticism was predominant among those ages 18 to 34, and college degree holders were among those most skeptical.  

    Related: As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment 

    The collapse of entry-level jobs isn’t just a cyclical downturn. It’s a structural shift. Left unchecked, this dynamic will deepen inequality, slow social mobility and further undermine faith in higher education. 

    As I’ve said, solutions exist. Here are five that I believe in: 

    Apprenticeships and other earn-and-learn models: Earn-and-learn apprenticeships are a promising, direct solution to the experience gap. They combine paid work with structured training and provide years of experience to college students in those jobs. Sectors from tech to health care are experimenting with this model, examples of which include registered apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships and apprenticeship degrees that allow individuals to pursue a degree while they work in an apprenticeship. 

    Skills-based hiring and alternative credentials: Initiatives such as skills-first hiring by major employers like IBM, Google and Apple aim to evaluate candidates based on their competencies rather than their degrees. Microcredentials, industry certificates and portfolios can serve as verifiable signals of skills gained through alternative training routes. 

    Stronger college and employer partnerships: Colleges can (and should) embed work-based learning into curricula through co-op programs, project-based courses and partnerships with local industries. Northeastern University and Drexel have long pioneered this model. And others, such as Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University, are using online learning to advance this approach. Scaling this solution could help close the experience gap. 

    Policy innovations: Governments can play a role by giving incentives to companies to create early career opportunities. Workforce Pell, recently enacted in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, expands financial aid to use for short-term training programs, opening new pathways for students who may not be pursuing traditional degrees. Tax credits for apprenticeship sponsors and funding for regional workforce hubs could further expand opportunities. 

    Reimagining internships: Expanding access to paid internships — especially for first-generation and low-income students — could democratize the attainment of experience. Philanthropies and local governments could underwrite stipends to ensure that opportunity isn’t reserved for the affluent who can afford unpaid internships or have social networks that connect them to these opportunities. 

    The challenge presented by this troubling experience gap is urgent. Today’s students deserve a college experience and a labor market in which education and effort still translate into opportunity. 

    Bruno V. Manno is a senior advisor at the Progressive Policy Institute, leading its What Works Lab, and is a former U.S. assistant secretary of education for policy.  

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about workforce experience was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-too-many-college-graduates-are-stranded-before-their-careers-can-even-begin-we-cant-let-that-happen/”>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=113298&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-too-many-college-graduates-are-stranded-before-their-careers-can-even-begin-we-cant-let-that-happen/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Cornell Settles With the Trump Administration

    Cornell Settles With the Trump Administration

    Cornell University has reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay the government a $30 million settlement—and invest another $30 million in agricultural research—in exchange for having its frozen federal research funding restored.

    The agreement, announced Friday, makes Cornell the latest institution to strike a deal with the federal government in an effort to settle investigations into alleged civil rights violations. The settlement follows similar arrangements at the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, Brown University and the University of Virginia. Concessions varied by university, with Columbia making the biggest payout at $221 million.

    Collectively, those institutions were targeted for a range of alleged violations, including allowing transgender athletes to compete on women’s sports teams, failing to police campus antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian protests and operating supposedly illegal diversity, equity and inclusion practices as the Trump administration cracked down on DEI initiatives.

    Now the university will see roughly $250 million in frozen federal research funding immediately restored. The federal government will also close ongoing civil rights investigations into Cornell.

    While some institutions, including Columbia, have given tremendous deference to the federal government and agreed to sweeping changes across admissions, hiring and academic programs, the deal at Cornell appears to be relatively constrained, despite the $30 million payout.

    Under the agreement, Cornell must share anonymized admissions data broken down by race, GPA and standardized test scores with the federal government through 2028; conduct annual campus climate surveys; and ensure compliance with various federal laws. Cornell also agreed to share as a training resource with faculty and staff a July memo from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi barring the use of race in hiring, admissions practices and scholarship programs. And in addition to paying the federal government $30 million over three years, Cornell will invest $30 million “in research programs that will directly benefit U.S. farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency, including but not limited to programs that incorporate [artificial intelligence] and robotics,” according to a copy of the agreement.

    Cornell leaders cast the deal as a positive for the university.

    “I am pleased that our good faith discussions with the White House, Department of Justice, and Department of Education have concluded with an agreement that acknowledges the government’s commitment to enforce existing anti-discrimination law, while protecting our academic freedom and institutional independence,” Cornell president Michael Kotlikoff said in a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed. “These discussions have now yielded a result that will enable us to return to our teaching and research in restored partnership with federal agencies.”

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon also celebrated the deal in a post on X.

    “The Trump Administration has secured another transformative commitment from an Ivy League institution to end divisive DEI policies. Thanks to this deal with Cornell and the ongoing work of DOJ, HHS, and the team at ED, U.S. universities are refocusing their attention on merit, rigor, and truth-seeking—not ideology. These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” she wrote.

    Some outside observers, however, excoriated the settlement as capitulation to authoritarianism.

    “The Trump administration’s corrupt extortion of higher ed institutions must end. Americans want an education system that serves the public good, not a dangerously narrow far right ideology that serves billionaires,” American Association of University Professors President Todd Wolfson said in a statement, which also urged colleges to fight intrusion by the federal government.

    This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

    Source link

  • Congress Accuses GMU President of Lying About DEI Efforts

    Congress Accuses GMU President of Lying About DEI Efforts

    House Republicans have accused George Mason University President Gregory Washington of lying to Congress about diversity practices at his institution, ratcheting up pressure on the president to step down.

    The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee alleged in a report released Thursday night that Washington made “multiple false statements to Congress” in testimony about diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at GMU. The public university has been under fire for months over allegedly illegal DEI practices as the Trump administration has sought to crack down on such initiatives, claiming they are discriminatory and violate federal civil rights law. The Judiciary Committee report also alleged that the university “likely violated federal civil rights law by discriminating based on race in its hiring practices to advance Dr. Washington’s diversity, equity, and inclusion initiative.”

    Washington has denied breaking the law through efforts to diversify GMU’s faculty and staff, telling Congress that the university did not practice illegal discrimination under his leadership.

    The report is the latest salvo from Republicans who have launched federal investigations into GMU over its hiring policies, including demands that the embattled president apologize for allegedly discriminatory practices, which he has refused to do as he denies any wrongdoing.

    What’s in the Report

    The House Judiciary Committee’s report zoomed in on an effort by GMU, launched shortly after Washington took office in July 2020, to diversify employee ranks. The Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence initiative the president introduced aimed to make faculty and staff “mirror student Demographics” at GMU, which is among the most diverse institutions in the country. As part of that effort, GMU tasked schools and departments with hiring more underrepresented individuals.

    But in Congressional testimony, Washington denied the initiative was a strict mandate.

    “These are overall goals and they’re aspirational in focus,” Washington said, according to a transcript of his Sept. 17 interview released by the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.

    Though the Anti-Racism and Inclusive Excellence initiative stemmed from his office, Washington told Congress that faculty in each department developed plans for their unit. He also cast the creation of such plans as optional, telling Congress “if units did not want to develop a plan, they did not have to.”

    But the House Judiciary Committee claimed Washington lied about that.

    “Documents and testimony obtained by the Committee … show that Dr. Washington and his deputies actively sought to punish schools that did not comply with his racial discrimination mandates,” the committee report states. “A senior GMU official told the Committee that GMU financially punished any school that resisted Dr. Washington’s unconstitutional initiative.” 

    Congress pointed to testimony from Ken Randall, the dean of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, as evidence that Washington lied about the plan being optional.

    “You’d get fired if you didn’t have a plan,” Randall said, according to an interview transcript.

    Washington also denied the administration formally reviewed plans to diversify faculty hiring. Republicans accused him of lying about that, too, pointing to internal remarks from then-vice president of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Sharnnia Artis (who now has a different title), in which she said the DEI team “consistently reviewed, monitored, and supported” such plans.

    “Again, the evidence contradicts Dr. Washington’s testimony,” the report states.

    However, Douglas Gansler, a lawyer representing the GMU president sharply disrupted claims that his client lied to Congress, which he accused of carrying out a “political lynching” in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed.

    “The political theater of the politicians accusing Dr. Washington of misrepresenting anything to them is unadulterated nonsense. Dr. Washington has never discriminated against anybody for any reason and did not utter one syllable of anything not verifiably completely true,” Gansler wrote.

    What Happens Next

    The GMU Board of Visitors has said little in the immediate aftermath of the report.

    “Today, the Board of Visitors received an interim staff report from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. We are reviewing the report and consulting with University counsel and counsel for Dr. Washington,” board members wrote in a brief statement. “The Board remains focused on serving our students, faculty and the Commonwealth, ensuring full compliance with federal law and positioning GMU for continued excellence.”

    While the board is reviewing the report, it appears unlikely members would be able to take action against Washington. GMU’s board, which is stocked with GOP donors and political figures appointed by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin, is currently without a quorum after Virginia Democrats blocked multiple appointments in recent months. Now a legal battle over those blocked appointments is slowly winding its way through the judicial system. While the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in the case last month, it has yet to issue a ruling on the matter. In the meantime, with only six of its 16 seats filled, GMU’s board is hobbled.

    Youngkin’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The George Mason chapter of the American Association of University Professors offered a fiery defense of Washington, arguing in a statement the committee was carrying out a politically motivated attack designed to erode institutional autonomy and impose partisan control over the public university.

    “The Committee’s unfounded accusations, dependence on clearly compromised sources, and selective presentation of ‘evidence’ represent an unprecedented abuse of congressional power—designed not to find the truth, but to silence leadership that refuses to yield to political pressure,” the GMU-AAUP chapter wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed.

    GMU students, employees and community members rallied in support of president Gregory Washington earlier this year, amid concerns the board would fire him.

    With Washington under pressure from Congress, state and national Democrats have rallied to his defense, accusing the GOP of waging an ideological war on universities and hypocrisy by focusing on the GMU president’s alleged dishonesty while federal officials brazenly lie in court.

    “In Donald Trump’s Gangster State, they pick the target first and figure out the charges later,” House Judiciary Democrats wrote on X. “Today’s target: GMU President Gregory Washington. The Trump Education Department failed to find evidence of employment discrimination at GMU. So [House Judiciary committee] Chairman [Jim] Jordan opened his own investigation. When that one only confirmed Dr. Washington followed Virginia law, Jordan pivoted and conjured up an absurd and convoluted criminal referral based on an alleged lie that takes 8 pages to explain.”

    Representative James Walkinshaw—a Democrat in Virginia’s 11th district, which includes GMU—called Washington “an exemplary leader” in a biting statement posted on Bluesky.

    “Make no mistake, this is an attack on free speech and academic freedom,” Walkinshaw wrote. “It’s cancel culture at its worst and the American people are tired of right-wing snowflakes like Jim Jordan trying to silence anyone who doesn’t bend the knee to their bizarre MAGA ideology.”

    Source link

  • Billions of Aid Dollars Go to High-Income Students

    Billions of Aid Dollars Go to High-Income Students

    A new report from the Century Foundation found that state and institutional grant aid too often flows to higher-income students who don’t need it, while low-income students continue to struggle with unmet need.

    The analysis, released Thursday, shows that more than half of students from the top income quartile, 56 percent, receive grants that surpass their financial need, compared to a mere 0.2 percent of students from the bottom income quartile. That means that top income quartile students were 280 times more likely to receive grants that exceeded their level of need than their lowest income peers. The share of white students that receive grants beyond their needs (19 percent) far exceeds the share of Black of Hispanic students who receive such grants (5 percent).

    Part of the issue is that the share of state grants that are merit-based jumped 17 percentage points between 1982 and now, according to the report. Over all, about 10 percent of grant aid—at least $10 billion annually in state and institutional aid—exceeds students’ financial need.

    The analysis also found that state grants disproportionately go to students at highly selective public colleges versus students at open-admission public four-year institutions—$3,693 and $842 on average, respectively. And at four-year public colleges over all, students with an Expected Family Contribution of zero were less likely than students with higher EFCs to receive aid from their institution.

    “What people think about as a pillar of the financial aid system in higher education has become a windfall for wealthy students that leaves working families paying the bill for tuition increases,” Peter Granville, the report’s author and a fellow at the Century Foundation, said in a news release.

    Source link