Tag: Jobs

  • The Leadership Skills Presidents Need Right Now: The Key

    The Leadership Skills Presidents Need Right Now: The Key

    As college presidents face increasing scrutiny from state and national lawmakers, building a strong cabinet-level team is critical, according to Jorge Burmicky, assistant professor in education leadership and policy studies in the School of Education at Howard University.

    Burmicky is one of three researchers who identified the core competencies of the modern college presidency. In a recent episode of The Key, Inside Higher Ed’s news and analysis podcast, Burmicky noted, “There’s always been a lot of pressure to be a college president, but it really has become an impossible job.” 

    A new leader’s ability to assemble a strong team as soon as they start the job will help fill gaps in their individual skill sets, he said. “It’s not if an emergency happens—it’s when it happens, and you have to have a good team that is going to have your back that you trust and can help you in those areas where you don’t feel as confident.”

    College presidents rated trustworthiness as the most important competency for effective leadership in higher education; however, students surveyed for Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey ranked presidents among the least trusted people on their campus. 

    Burmicky isn’t surprised by this gap between presidents’ intentions and students’ perceptions. “Presidents work really hard to build trust, and you would think that because they’re working so hard and they value it so greatly that we would see a narrower difference,” he said. “But the reality is that so much of the communication that goes to different constituents varies. We’re in an era when students really want to understand what’s happening right now.” 

    Blame for structural issues that are beyond the president’s control—like the botched FAFSA rollout—often falls at the feet of presidents and other institutional leaders, Burmicky added. “There’s clearly a lot of resentment.” 

    Students are just one group of constituents college presidents must build trust with, however. Declining trust in higher education in general is one of Burmicky’s biggest concerns for the sector. Better communicating how institutions operate would help address public distrust, he said. 

    “We like to point fingers at the president, but the reality is there are [more people] than just the president who make decisions at a university—there’s also the Board of Trustees or the Board of Regents.”

    Listen to the full interview between Jorge Burmicky and Sara Custer, editor in chief at Inside Higher Ed, and find more episodes of The Key here.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Columbia Cuts Start Hitting Postdocs, Professors

    Trump’s Columbia Cuts Start Hitting Postdocs, Professors

    When the Trump administration announced Friday it was cutting about $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University, it didn’t specify what exactly it was slashing. But news of the scope of the cuts has begun trickling out of the institution over the past couple of days.

    So far, much of the information about the canceled grants has come via social media, as neither the Trump administration nor the university have provided a comprehensive accounting of what’s being cut. The National Institutes of Health did say earlier this week that it was pulling more than $250 million in grants from Columbia, though the agency wouldn’t share more details. And it’s hard to tell whether specific cuts are part of the $400 million or a continuation of the Trump administration’s general national reduction of federal funding to universities, such as axing grants it deems related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

    On Tuesday, Joshua A. Gordon, chair of the university’s psychiatry department, emailed colleagues to tell them the National Institutes of Health had terminated nearly 30 percent of grants to Columbia’s medical school—including many within his own department.

    “All of our training grants and many fellowships have been terminated,” Gordon wrote in the email, which a postdoctoral research fellow provided Inside Higher Ed.

    Gordon wrote that he’s still working with university administrators “to find out the full extent of these terminations” and that “the institution is committed to identifying the resources that can be brought to bear to support the people and projects affected by the terminations.” He added, “We remain dedicated to ensuring that our trainees and early-career scientists have the support needed to continue their work and achieve their career goals.”

    The Trump administration said this unprecedented $400 million cut was due to Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” More cuts at Columbia and other universities could follow as Trump follows through on his pledge to crack down on alleged antisemitism and punish elite universities. Columbia has more than $5 billion in federal grants and contracts.

    Columbia postdocs and faculty have taken to social media to announce canceled grants, fellowships and funding for Ph.D. students, showing some of the individual impacts on people and research wrought by the Trump administration’s actions. They include nixed training for researchers of depression and schizophrenia and a grant that would’ve provided free mental health resources to K-12 students.

    Sam Seidman, a postdoc and a steward for the Columbia Postdoctoral Workers union, told Inside Higher Ed that, “as a Jew,” it’s “particularly outrageous” to hear the Trump administration justifying the cuts by saying it’s fighting antisemitism.

    Seidman said he found out Monday that his T32 grant, an NIH training fellowship for new scientists, had been canceled. “I certainly don’t feel protected,” he said.

    He said it’s clear the Trump administration doesn’t have an issue with antisemitism or even with Columbia specifically. Its issue, Seidman said, is with “public funding of science and it’s with public funding, period,” adding that “Columbia makes a convenient scapegoat.”

    In an emailed statement, a Columbia Irving Medical Center spokesperson said, “Columbia is in the process of reviewing notices and cannot confirm how many grant cancellations have been received from federal agencies” since Friday.

    The spokesperson said, “We remain dedicated to our mission to advance lifesaving research and pledge to work with the federal government to restore Columbia’s federal funding.”

    In a separate statement Wednesday, interim president Katrina Armstrong, herself a medical doctor, didn’t mention the cuts and instead said she stands by broad principles such as “intellectual freedom” and “personal responsibility.”

    “I have no doubt that the days and weeks ahead are going to be extremely difficult,” Armstrong said. “The best I can promise is that I will never stray from these principles and that I will work tirelessly to defend our remarkable, singular institution.”

    Marcel Agüeros, secretary of Columbia’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said, “It’s already looking very grim.”

    Agüeros said it’s a slow process to try to understand how the cuts are affecting such a large and decentralized university. But he said he has learned “it’s not just the kind of classic lab-based biomedical research that’s being impacted.”

    Like Seidman, he said the cuts don’t seem to be about the grants themselves or Columbia. Instead, Agüeros said, it’s “an assault on universities in general” and the concept of peer review that the grants went through.

    “It’s coming for you; it doesn’t really matter where you are or what you research,” Agüeros said

    Cut Off at the Knees

    In its Wednesday statement, the university medical center said that “from pioneering cancer treatments to innovative heart disease interventions and cutting-edge gene and cell therapies, research conducted by Columbia faculty has helped countless people live healthier, longer and more productive lives.”

    Seidman said his NIH grant was for research on family and biological risk factors that predispose kids to develop eating disorders, depression and suicidal thoughts and behaviors. He thinks university higher-ups are trying to find alternative funding but “haven’t been any more specific than ‘we’re looking.’”

    “It’s tragic, I mean these are lifesaving, potentially, interventions,” Seidman said. Yet the researchers developing them have been “cut off at the knees,” he said.

    Gordon Petty, a postdoc in Columbia’s psychiatry department, said his T32 training grant, which has also been canceled, was to study schizophrenia. He said he heard that the department is still dedicated to supporting him, “but it’s unclear where that money’s coming from.”

    Trump’s cuts appear to have also hit Teachers College of Columbia University, which is a separate higher education institution from Columbia with its own board. But it’s unclear if that’s part of the $400 million cut for allegedly not properly addressing antisemitism or part of nationwide cuts to grants perceived as being related to diversity, equity and inclusion. A Teachers College spokesperson said, “We are still sorting through the full impact on the college and will be in touch when we have more to say.”

    Prerna Arora, an associate professor of psychology and education at Teachers College, said she got an email Friday from a deputy assistant U.S. education secretary announcing the cancellation of a five-year Education Department grant. Arora said most of the funds went directly to graduate students training to become K-12 school psychologists serving children in New York City.

    The email, according to Arora, alleged that the grant funded “programs that promote or take part in initiatives that unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or another protected characteristic” or that “violate either the letter or purpose of federal civil rights law” or “conflict with the department’s policy of prioritizing merit, fairness and excellence in education.”

    “We already have students that are funded under this, and they are at the university and we are in the middle of our admissions cycle for next year,” Arora said. She said, “I’ve spoken to very scared and tearful students” who are afraid of what this means for their training and “for their future.”

    And, beyond the impact on college students, Arora lamented the loss of the grant’s free help to K-12 students and families. “We could’ve helped many children who need this,” she said.

    It’s unclear whether the Trump administration will restore the grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said after the announcement Friday that she had a “productive” meeting with Armstrong. Meanwhile, Columbia said in a statement that it’s “committed to working with the federal government to address their legitimate concerns.”

    Agüeros, with the AAUP, said Columbia has already “gone overboard in an attempt to silence any kind of dissent.” Its previous president called in the New York Police Department to remove a pro-Palestinian protest encampment last spring and publicly criticized and revealed investigations into her own faculty in front of Congress.

    “There’s this assumption that if we just go along with things we’ll escape somehow unscathed,” Agüeros said. But he noted the cuts still arrived.

    “What did all of that get us—all of the sort of compliance that was put in place? It got us nothing.”

    Source link

  • Why many men feel lost in an age of shifting roles and expectations

    Why many men feel lost in an age of shifting roles and expectations

    A friend recently argued compellingly that two major gaps in the Harris campaign strategy affected voter turnout and engagement: a reluctance to acknowledge policy shortcomings and a failure to address the specific needs of men, particularly working-class men and those in communities of color. These gaps represent missed opportunities to connect with voters who feel overlooked and underserved.

    Many noncollege men today are navigating economic hardship and social isolation, grappling with precarious work and shifting social expectations. In a world that often emphasizes adaptability and academic success, the message they hear is clear: They should have worked harder, been more flexible or chosen a different path. 

    Yet this message can feel dismissive—more moralizing and patronizing than empathetic—ignoring the broader economic and structural challenges these men face. The decline of jobs in traditional industries, limited access to meaningful work and a diminished sense of purpose have fostered a profound sense of alienation where mainstream political narratives simply don’t resonate.

    Broader cultural shifts compound these issues. Traditional male roles have eroded, leaving many men feeling marginalized and uncertain, struggling to navigate changing gender expectations. Many also experience personal isolation, strained relationships and limited social support, adding to a sense of being stuck without clear solutions.

    While the Harris campaign frequently highlighted issues affecting women and promoted family-centered policies, it lacked a narrative that could directly address working-class men’s distinct challenges. The focus was often on broad achievements and visions rather than a targeted response to the real, often invisible, struggles these men face.

    As my friend put this, “With her (proper) advocacy for reproductive rights, Harris already had the women’s vote, and the hard-core Democratic base are never-Trumpers whom they wouldn’t lose, no matter what else her campaign said. But instead of talking concrete policies that address where she was about to lose large numbers of (potentially persuadable) voters, Harris and her proxies talked about ‘joy’ and ‘helping the guy sitting next to you’—in short, to remain polite and appeal to upper-middle class tastes.”

    By overlooking a direct appeal to men dealing with economic, social and personal challenges, the campaign missed a critical opportunity to engage with and support a population that increasingly feels unseen and left behind.

    The erosion of traditional male roles—breadwinner, family leader, protector—has left many men grappling with identity, isolation and a profound sense of purpose. As society evolves, these long-standing markers of masculinity have lost relevance, especially for working-class men who once found dignity and respect in roles that aligned with hard work, family provision and community involvement.

    Now, as economic and cultural shifts reshape these roles, many men are struggling to find a path forward, a reality that not only affects them but impacts the broader social fabric.

    This identity crisis reflects a broader issue: As traditional definitions of masculinity are increasingly challenged, men are left with fewer frameworks for meaningful contributions to family, work and community. The fading emphasis on male-led provision and protection has led to a vacuum where isolation and frustration often take root. Without clear societal pathways that respect both historical contributions and evolving social needs, men can feel left behind, unsure of how to participate in a society that often seems to have moved beyond their previous roles.

    To address this crisis, society must reimagine male roles in ways that offer respect, purpose and connection. Only by acknowledging the disintegration of traditional frameworks and creating new, healthier pathways can we guide men toward meaningful identities. This means valuing male contributions not only in economic terms but also in terms of their relational and communal roles. Reintegration into family, work and community as valued members demands that we redefine what it means to be a man in today’s world—placing dignity, contribution and connection at the forefront.

    In an era where masculinity itself is under re-evaluation, it’s essential to shape new definitions that honor both the past and present. Men today need roles that allow them to thrive within evolving social landscapes, where they can build connections and be respected for contributions beyond traditional parameters. Only by doing so can we address the underlying causes of alienation, providing men with a renewed sense of purpose in a society that, with the right approach, can benefit immensely from their reimagined roles.

    Addressing the challenges that many men face is not about overlooking or minimizing the very real struggles women continue to confront. Recognizing one group’s needs does not diminish the other’s; rather, it broadens our capacity to understand and support everyone more fully. Just as society benefits when women’s voices are heard, it also strengthens when we address the unique struggles that many men experience in today’s world. This inclusive approach allows us to tackle challenges holistically, building a society that values and supports each person’s dignity, purpose and place.

    The alienation felt by many men today reflects a profound shift in the economic, demographic and cultural landscape of American life. These changes have created a reality for a large group of men—often isolated, lonely, frustrated and angry. In this demographic, men frequently find themselves without the traditional anchors of family, stable friendships or secure employment. As society has evolved, these men increasingly feel disrespected or dismissed, disconnected from the structures that once provided support, identity and a sense of purpose.

    The economic landscape for men, particularly those without a college degree, has changed dramatically over the last few decades. The decline of traditional industries, such as manufacturing, construction and mining, has resulted in the disappearance of millions of stable, well-paying jobs. These industries were not only sources of economic stability but also providers of identity and community. For many men, especially those who entered the workforce in the 1980s and 1990s, job loss has meant not just an economic setback but a disruption in their sense of self-worth and purpose.

    As these traditional industries shrank, the economy pivoted to sectors like technology, health care and the service industry—fields that often emphasize educational attainment, interpersonal skills and adaptability. Many men who once relied on stable blue-collar jobs have struggled to transition to these new fields, either due to a lack of qualifications or because the roles simply don’t align with the values and identities they were raised with. As a result, these men experience economic precarity, often living paycheck to paycheck, juggling temporary or part-time work without benefits, or relying on the gig economy, which lacks the long-term stability they might have expected earlier in life.

    The rise of “kinless America” has compounded the problem of economic insecurity, leading to a broader crisis of social disconnection. In the United States, rates of marriage have declined significantly and divorce rates remain high. For men, divorce and separation often mean loss of regular contact with children, limited social networks and, sometimes, an emotional isolation that they struggle to overcome.

    Marriage and family life once provided social stability, companionship and a sense of purpose. Without these connections, many men find themselves living alone or in shared, temporary arrangements, removed from the grounding influence of family. For those who are also economically disadvantaged, the struggle to form new partnerships or social networks can be insurmountable, leaving them largely kinless and isolated.

    This demographic shift affects friendships, too. Research shows that men, more than women, often depend on their partners to maintain social ties and that they struggle to form friendships as adults. As such, unpartnered men frequently end up in a kind of social desert, with few meaningful connections to rely on for emotional support or companionship.

    Cultural shifts have further deepened this sense of alienation. Over recent decades, there has been a growing emphasis on individual achievement and self-realization, sometimes at the expense of communal identity and traditional values. While this shift has empowered many, it has also led to the devaluation of certain traditional roles that many men historically occupied. Traits associated with traditional masculinity, such as stoicism, physical labor or even traditional provider roles, are sometimes framed as outdated or even “toxic,” leaving some men feeling that their core values and sense of identity are now stigmatized.

    Furthermore, as cultural narratives around gender have evolved, men who do not or cannot align with these new expectations often feel marginalized or invisible. Messages around the importance of academic achievement and professional success can leave those who have struggled to meet these expectations feeling dismissed or left behind.

    Adding to this sense of disrespect is the rise of social media and a culture of comparison, where it can feel as though one’s successes or failures are on display for public scrutiny. Men who feel they don’t measure up may withdraw even further, reinforcing their isolation and frustration. For those experiencing economic precarity or relationship struggles, these messages compound an existing sense of inadequacy.

    These changes have left many men feeling disconnected from their families, their communities and their traditional roles. For many working-class men, in particular, these economic and social shifts can lead to a crisis of identity, with few alternative sources of meaning or recognition to replace the roles they once filled. Lacking the dignity they once found in hard but honorable work, many now worry they are being dismissed as “losers” or that their labor is undervalued.

    This shift often translates into feelings of anger, shame and frustration. Without clear avenues for expressing or resolving these feelings, some men may withdraw, becoming more isolated and resentful.

    The isolation, loneliness and frustration felt by these men manifest in various ways, including higher rates of mental health issues, substance abuse and even suicide. Data shows that men, particularly middle-aged men, have some of the highest rates of suicide in the United States, and they are also disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis. Lacking strong social support systems, they often fall through the cracks of mental health and social services, either because they lack the resources or because they feel stigmatized in seeking help.

    Politically, this alienation can drive disenchantment with mainstream narratives and established institutions. Many feel overlooked or even disrespected by a society they perceive as indifferent to their struggles. As a result, some turn to populist figures who channel their frustrations, adopting hypermasculine postures that seem to defy what they view as a culture overly critical of traditional masculinity. They are often receptive to leaders who emphasize strength, defiance of convention and a willingness to challenge norms—qualities that appear to stand in opposition to the mainstream culture they feel has rejected or devalued them. Political rhetoric that champions the “forgotten man” resonates deeply with these individuals, promising to restore the dignity and respect they feel has been taken from them.

    Gender antagonism has surged due to a complex mix of economic, social and cultural changes that have disrupted traditional roles, heightened insecurities and polarized public discourse.

    With the decline of traditionally male-dominated industries and growth in service sectors, many men face economic insecurity, disrupting the breadwinner role that historically provided identity and respect. Meanwhile, women’s increased workforce participation challenges traditional male roles, creating frustration and resentment as economic stability and established identities shift.

    As expectations for equal partnerships grow, many men raised with conventional norms feel unprepared for these shifts. New dynamics around independence and equity can fuel misunderstandings, alienation and resentment, especially when traditional gender expectations clash with modern relationship ideals.

    Increased awareness of issues like misogyny and toxic masculinity has led to critiques that some men feel unfairly target their identities. Misunderstandings around terms like “toxic masculinity” can foster defensiveness, as positive models for masculinity are often lacking in these discussions.

    Social media amplifies divisive, adversarial portrayals of gender, reinforcing stereotypes and fostering resentment. Gender issues have also become politicized, making nuanced conversations difficult and polarizing gender dynamics further.

    Traditional gender roles are evolving quickly, leading to identity crises as qualities like stoicism or assertiveness are redefined. Without inclusive pathways to navigate these changes, many feel insecure or alienated, fueling tension.

    Social isolation, especially among men, has intensified, with limited support systems leading to loneliness and resentment. Emphasis on victimhood narratives also fuels a “competition of grievances,” as men’s economic and social struggles seem to compete with women’s issues, leading to mutual resentment.

    What is the path forward?

    To address the rising sense of alienation among American men and reduce gender antagonism, we need practical solutions that validate their experiences, offer purpose and foster constructive engagement. This isn’t solely about economic or demographic shifts; it requires holistic policies and social initiatives that support men’s economic stability, familial roles and community involvement without condescension.

    1. Economic stability and accessible upskilling. Policies that support well-paying, stable jobs, especially in trades and skilled labor, can help restore pride and purpose. Expanding accessible training—through apprenticeships, vocational programs and targeted certifications—can revitalize pathways to economic self-sufficiency and respect. Higher education, particularly community colleges, can play a vital role, but they must adopt practical, flexible models that allow working men and women to balance existing responsibilities with upskilling opportunities. Here are some strategies:
    • Employer partnerships for on-the-job training: Colleges can work with local industries to design programs that meet workforce needs and offer on-site training, allowing employees to earn while they learn.
    • Affordable, results-oriented programs: Expanding low-cost programs that focus on high-demand skills provides a clear incentive for workers to invest their time, with direct connections to jobs, salary increases and career advancement.
    • Mentorship and career support: Programs that connect students with mentors who have successfully upskilled can offer both guidance and motivation, especially for those hesitant about returning to school.
    • Enhanced job placement and counseling services: Colleges can offer support in aligning new skills with market demands, ensuring students can quickly apply their skills to new roles or promotions.
    • Skills-based certifications in growth sectors: Short-term certifications in fields like cybersecurity, skilled trades and advanced manufacturing can appeal to workers by providing clear pathways to better jobs.

    Higher education must provide clear, realistic pathways to secure employment, with affordable, high-quality vocational training and credentialing programs that align tightly with job market needs.

    1. Supporting fathers and family involvement. Fostering men’s roles as fathers, particularly those separated from their children, is essential. Legal reforms that promote equitable custody arrangements, along with targeted support for single fathers, can help men stay actively involved in family life. Programs offering parental counseling and father-centered parenting classes can restore purpose and fulfillment, reducing feelings of alienation from loved ones.
    2. Building community and combating isolation. To address social isolation, we need community spaces where men can forge friendships and feel connected. Initiatives centered on shared activities—such as sports leagues, volunteer groups or veterans’ organizations—offer valuable opportunities for camaraderie, helping men form supportive networks and reinforcing a sense of belonging and social cohesion.
    3. Recognizing and celebrating men’s contributions. Society benefits from recognizing men’s contributions through mentorship, craftsmanship, coaching and community leadership. Programs that emphasize these roles and celebrate male contributions can help men find renewed purpose in positive, community-oriented activities. Acknowledging these contributions adds value to society without diminishing other forms of progress.
    4. Addressing gender antagonism with understanding. Reducing gender antagonism requires an approach that acknowledges the unique challenges men and women face without casting all men as insensitive or prone to toxic traits. Public discourse should address specific actions or attitudes within their contexts rather than implying these are inherent in all men. Media portrayals that reinforce negative stereotypes about masculinity need to be challenged. Inclusive narratives that recognize both men’s and women’s struggles and contributions foster empathy, helping bridge divides rather than deepen them.
    5. Embracing shared human values. Many core values—compassion, respect, integrity, resilience—are universal. Shifting our focus from gendered virtues to shared human qualities can foster unity and mutual respect, emphasizing individual strengths over rigid gender norms.

    The erosion of traditional male roles has left many men feeling adrift, disconnected from the sources of pride and identity that once defined them. Only by acknowledging these challenges and investing in creative solutions that restore economic stability, respect, connection, meaning and purpose can we create a healthier, more balanced and respectful society for all.

    Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author, most recently, of The Learning-Centered University: Making College a More Developmental, Transformational and Equitable Experience.

    Source link

  • How the humanities got us through the pandemic (opinion)

    How the humanities got us through the pandemic (opinion)

    For a moment, best-selling novelist Julia Alvarez sounded abashed. She was being interviewed by National Public Radio’s Scott Simon on April 4, 2020, about her new novel, Afterlife.

    “I’ve got to say this, too, Scott, it feels kind of weird to be talking about my novel, and somehow promoting it, at a time like this,” she explained. “I feel like it just doesn’t quite feel right, because, you know, it’s not business as usual.”

    “But you know,” Simon responded, “reading your novel this week gave me great pleasure. I think there’s no reason for you to feel that there’s something unusual in this. You’ve created a splendid work of art that can give comfort to people now, and I’m glad you can talk about it. I think people need to hear that, too.”

    This brief exchange almost perfectly encapsulates the public insecurity many felt about discussing the value of the humanities in a moment of global medical calamity. To discuss fiction, poetry, painting and music under the shadow of mass death threatened to make discussants appear dilettantish at best, and insensitive snobs at worst.

    But that perception did not match reality during the COVID-19 pandemic. We all read books, found new music to enjoy, watched TV and streaming movies, and communicated widely about how the humanities provided succor and catharsis during a time of enormous emotional stress. Our social media feeds and group texts throughout 2020 and 2021 were filled with recommendations to others about the movies, books and music we enjoyed.

    But today, those conversations are largely forgotten. Public discourse around the COVID-19 pandemic now revolves around public health decision-making, scientific arguments about vaccines and the origins of the virus, and other debatable propositions. Remembrance of what actually happened—that is, our daily habits and activities under lockdown—is rarely chronicled in detail. Everyone wants to move on.

    Yet such intentional amnesia obscures the ways the humanities got us through those difficult months.

    The truth is the humanities—that is, the use of creativity and imagination, in questioning the human condition—remained absolutely central to our collective survival. The evidence, though difficult to measure in quantitative metrics, exists in the atmospheric ways that humanities media continually provided relief and distraction when scientific answers were still unknown and we all felt threatened by an unknown future.

    With the fifth anniversary of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic upon us, we are undoubtedly going to hear much about Operation Warp Speed, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other scientific and medical legacies.

    We’ll hear much less about the humanities and the role they played.

    The problem is we’re loath to label Netflix, YouTube, podcasts and other technological marvels as humanities media. Instead, we talk about how new technologies distract, mislead and misinform us. We do not remember how we reached for them in the search for comfort in a time of true existential crisis, and the vital role they played in social cohesion.

    There’s been a lot written about the crisis in the humanities. There’s been far less written about the humanities during a crisis. And that’s a mistake, because as we move further past 2020–2021, we will all likely forget when the power and vitality of the creative arts helped keep us grounded, sane, curious and, if necessary, distracted.

    The very invisibility today of what occurred then needs to be illuminated. Even at the time—as evidenced by Julia Alvarez’s reservations about talking about her novel—it seemed almost embarrassing to celebrate witty scenes from Broadway plays, to choreograph interpretative dances or jot down lines of poetic observation. Yet moments of sublime, thoughtful, philosophical and engaging artistry arose everywhere.

    How many people today recall the brilliant daily updates provided by Dr. Craig Smith, the chief of surgery at Columbia University Irving Medical Center? Smith continually quoted Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain, Rudyard Kipling, Bertrand Russell, T. S. Eliot and others for inspiration in his daily updates. The Wall Street Journal labeled Smith “the pandemic’s most powerful writer” while noting the “elegant, almost poetic” prose of his daily dispatches. Smith often relied on poetry to express the inexpressible, and many Americans eagerly read his work—not just to be informed, but to also be comforted emotionally. Smith understood the enormity of the existential confrontation that faced every American in 2020, and so employed his knowledge of the humanities to help others comprehend the incomprehensible. His artistry as a writer provided an enormous public service.

    That’s precisely what Scott Simon was telling Julia Alvarez. She had nothing to apologize for, and, in fact, her artistic achievement in an unprecedented era of doubt, anxiety and uncertainty was a gift that would be gratefully received and appreciated.

    A major problem with the humanities is that so much of its success will always remain invisible to the audiences that consume it. We are primed to take for granted the artistic process, now that AI can mimic it. History videos and podcasts remain available anytime, and ebooks can be downloaded so easily. We can see the Mona Lisa at any moment. Many of the world’s greatest artworks, and the most beautiful song performances, can be found instantly. It’s a miracle unimaginable to earlier generations, but it also paradoxically devalues the time, effort and creativity that inspired such beauty.

    Debates about how to make the humanities more visible and relevant arise often. Some argue that the humanities should emphasize the analytics and metrics concerning job development and career preparation, or comparative salary growth over the course of a career. Others counsel the embrace of new avenues of promotion and marketing. But the first step needs to be simple recognition. We must make immediately clear—without obfuscatory language or elevated rhetoric—the impact of the humanities in the present and in the near past.

    When the pandemic threatened the stability of the world, the answers people sought were primarily medical and scientific. But intertwined with anger and impatience in that moment was a yearning for meaning far more spiritual than empirical. As our regular routines of time and space became unsettled, and communication and interactivity more ambiguous, the need to explore the essence of what it means to be human naturally arose. People became creative, trying out new baking recipes, teaching themselves to play guitar or piano, or drawing sketches or drafting poetry. This was not simple escapism—it was engagement with our imaginations.

    We also wondered about the future of humankind. We might not have called our ruminations, prayers, thoughtfulness, curiosity and questioning “philosophy,” but that’s what we were practicing. Those moments got many of us through when daily anxiety threatened existential desperation.

    That the humanities sustained us through the pandemic is undeniable. The evidence is everywhere: We just need to see it, remember it and celebrate it. When a global primal moment of fear exploded—seemingly out of nowhere—to take control over our lives, it was fiction, movies, poetry, art, philosophy and music that moved us forward into the future. It was not solely the vaccines.

    That’s history. And now it’s memory, too. The key question is whether humanities scholars understand these great achievements and will make them more widely known.

    Michael J. Socolow is a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Maine and formerly served as director of U Maine’s McGillicuddy Humanities Center from 2020 to 2022.

    Source link

  • U.S. can improve data collection on AI/AN college students

    U.S. can improve data collection on AI/AN college students

    Native American student enrollment has been on the decline for the past decade, dropping 40 percent between 2010 and 2021, a loss of tens of thousands of students. Of the 15.4 million undergraduate students enrolled in fall 2021, only 107,000 were American Indian or Alaska Native, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

    Researchers argue that the small population is not as small as it seems, however, due in part to federal practices of collecting data on Native populations, according to a new report from the Brookings Institute, the Institute for Higher Education Policy and the Urban Institute.

    Federal measures of race and ethnicity in postsecondary education data undercount the total population of Native American students, in part due to insufficient sampling, lack of data on tribal affiliation and aggregation practices that erase Native identities, researchers wrote.

    “For too long, Native American students have been severely undercounted in federal higher education data, with estimates suggesting that up to 80 percent are classified as a different race or ethnicity,” Kim Dancy, director of research and policy at IHEP, told Inside Higher Ed. “This chronic data collection failure renders Native students invisible in federal data systems and prevents clear assessments of the resources necessary to support student success.”

    In May 2024, the federal government announced new standards for collecting data on American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations, which would improve the inclusivity and accuracy of data for students from these groups.

    The Obama administration introduced similar changes in 2016, but they were never implemented under the first Trump administration in 2017. Researchers worry a similar pattern may follow under the second Trump administration.

    “The second Trump Administration has demonstrated reluctance to prioritize data transparency, which could further jeopardize these efforts and stall progress,” Dancy said. “Without strong implementation of these standards, Native students will continue to be overlooked in federal policy decisions.”

    “It is critical that the Trump administration allow the revised SPD 15 standards to remain in effect, and for officials at ED and elsewhere throughout government to implement the standards in a way that provides Native American students and communities with the same high-quality data that all Americans should be able to access,” report authors wrote.

    Data Analysis at Risk

    The Education Department has canceled dozens of contracts in recent weeks, tied to the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency. Many of these contracts related to student data analysis in both K-12 and postsecondary education.

    State of play: Degree attainment for Native Americans is bleak, according to data presently available. Twenty-six percent of Native American adults in the U.S. hold an associate degree or higher, and only 16 percent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, according to 2024 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In comparison, bachelor’s degree attainment by all other races is higher: 20 percent for Latino, 25 percent for Black, 38 percent for multiracial, 40 percent for white and 61 percent for Asian American students.

    Of the 58 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students who enrolled in higher education beginning in 2009, over half (55 percent) didn’t earn a credential. In 2023, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reported six-year completion rates had fallen two percentage points among Native Americans, to 47.5 percent—21 percentage points lower than their white peers and 27 percentage points lower than Asian students in the 2016 cohort.

    Data collection is not the only barrier to Native student representation and completion in higher education, researchers wrote, “but until data on Native American students are more accurate, accessible, and meaningful, it will prove difficult to address these issues,” which include affordability, disparities in access and retention, and a lack of culturally informed wraparound services.

    Digging into data: Data collection at the U.S. Department of Education has several problems that disadvantage Native students more than other groups, according to the report. Native student data is often “topcoded” as Hispanic or Latino, essentially erasing Native student identities, filed under “more than one race” without further detail, or coded without tribal affiliation or citizenship.

    While topcoding students as Latino or Hispanic or categorizing learners as more than one race applies to all racial categories, Native American individuals are categorized this way at a higher rate than any other major group, which diminishes their representation.

    Additionally, ED independently makes decisions to not disaggregate or provide detailed data on racial and ethnic subgroups, such as topcoding Latino or Hispanic students, that is not modeled at other federal agencies, such as the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    The last time the Office of Management and Budget revised data-reporting processes for colleges and universities, which allowed individuals to identify as more than one racial group, final implementation took place in the 2010–11 academic year.

    In the decade and a half since, Native American student enrollment has declined, and researchers say, “The limitations of ED’s student data made it challenging to discern whether this decline represented an actual change in enrollment trends or was due to the new reporting practices’ undercounting of Native college students.”

    A lack of data impacts institutions, tribes and others tracking student outcomes, reducing opportunities to support learners, and the challenges may perpetuate continued misperceptions of Native students’ journeys through higher education.

    New policies: In 2024, OMB created new federal standards around collecting data on race and ethnicity that would enhance data collection when it comes to Native populations. Federal agencies are required to create plans for implementation by September 2025 and be in full compliance by March 2029, leaving the Trump administration responsible for implementation of the revised standards.

    OMB outlined three approaches for agencies on how they might consider presentation of aggregated data on multiracial populations:

    • Alone or in combination, which includes students who identify with more than one racial or ethnic group in all reporting categories.
    • Most frequent multiple responses, reporting on as many combinations of race and ethnicity as possible that meet population thresholds.
    • Combined multiracial or multiethnic respondents into a single category.

    This third option would be most harmful to Native students, because it would perpetuate undercounts, researchers caution, and therefore policymakers should avoid it.

    Moving forward, report authors recommend ED and Congress collect and publish disaggregated data on Native American students, partner with tribal governments to increase data transparency and provide guidance and resources to institutions to improve their quality of data.

    “We encourage the Education Department to continue seeking input from Native communities, including voices that have been historically excluded from policy-development efforts,” Dancy said. “Accurate data alone won’t eliminate the structural inequities Native students face. But without the data, we cannot begin to dismantle the inequities.”

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

    Source link

  • Heterodox Academy report finds spike in neutrality statements

    Heterodox Academy report finds spike in neutrality statements

    Since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, triggering a brutal retaliatory war in Gaza, at least 140 colleges and universities have adopted statements of institutional neutrality—up from just eight prior to the attacks, according to a new report from Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit advocacy group seeking to promote viewpoint diversity on college campuses.

    The vast majority of institutions—97 percent—cited the values of “community and inclusion” to justify their embrace of statement neutrality. “Free speech and academic freedom” and “public trust” were each referenced as a rationale by 88 percent of institutions; 64 percent attributed the move to “balancing rights and responsibilities.”

    Of the institutions that have adopted neutrality statements since 2023, 78 percent are public and 22 percent private. Governing boards drove the change at 68 percent of the public institutions; at more than a quarter of those—including in Indiana, Utah and North Carolina—state legislatures mandated the shift. At private institutions, presidents and faculty were much more likely than governing boards to instigate the push for institutional neutrality.

    “The rapid adoption of institutional statement neutrality policies marks a major shift in how colleges and universities engage with broader societal debates,” the Heterodox report reads. “Statement neutrality not only empowers students, faculty, and staff to engage in robust debate, it also reinforces the critical values of seeking truth and generating knowledge rather than advocating for partisan political positions. In an era of declining public confidence in higher education, these policies represent a critical step toward restoring universities as trusted spaces for free inquiry and intellectual growth.”

    Source link

  • AI tools deepening divides in graduate outcomes (opinion)

    AI tools deepening divides in graduate outcomes (opinion)

    Since OpenAI first released ChatGPT in November 2022, early adopters have been informing the public that artificial intelligence will shake up the world of work, with everything from recruitment to retirement left unrecognizable. Ever more cautious than the private sector, higher ed has been slow to respond to AI technologies. Such caution has opened a divide within the academy, with the debate often positioned as AI optimism versus pessimism—a narrow aperture that leaves little room for realistic discussion about how AI is shaping student experience.

    In relation to graduate outcomes (simply put, where students end up after completing their degrees, with a general focus on careers and employability), universities are about to grapple with the initial wave of graduates seriously impacted by AI. The Class of 2025 will be the first to have widespread access to large language models (LLMs) for the majority of their student lives. If, as we have been repeatedly told, we believe that AI will be the “great leveler” for students by transforming their access to learning, then it follows that graduate outcomes will be significantly impacted. Most importantly, we should expect to see more students entering careers that meaningfully engage with their studies.

    The reality on the ground presents a stark difference. Many professionals working in career advice and guidance are struggling with the opposite effect: Rather than acting as the great leveler, AI tools are only deepening existing divides.

    1. Trust Issues: Student Overreliance on AI Tools

    Much has been said about educators’ ability to trust student work in a post-LLM landscape. Yet, when it comes to student outcomes, a more pressing concern is students’ trust in AI tools. As international studies show, a broad range of sectors is already placing too much faith in AI, failing to put proper checks and balances in place. If businesses beholden to regulatory bodies and investors are left vulnerable, then time-poor students seeking out quick-fix solutions are faring worse.

    This is reflected in what we are seeing on the ground. We were both schoolteachers when ChatGPT launched and both now work in student employability. As is common, the issues we first witnessed in the school system are now being borne out in higher ed: Students often implicitly trust that AI will perform tasks better than they are able to. This means graduates are using AI to write CVs, cover letters and other digital documentation without first understanding why such documentation is needed. Although we are seeing a generally higher (albeit more generic) caliber of writing, when students are pressed to expand upon their answers, they struggle to do so. Overreliance on AI tools is deskilling students by preventing them from understanding the purpose of their writing, thereby creating a split between what a candidate looks like on paper and how they present in real life. Students can only mask a lack of skills for so long.

    1. The Post-Pandemic Social Skills Deficit

    The generation of students now arriving at university were in their early teens when the pandemic hit. This long-term disruption to schooling had a profound impact on social and emotional skills, and, crucially, learning loss also impacted students from disadvantaged backgrounds at a much higher rate. With these students now moving into college, many are turning to AI to try and ameliorate feelings of being underprepared.

    Such a skills gap is tangible when working with students. Those who already present high levels of critical thinking and independence can use AI tools in an agile manner, writing more effective prompts before tailoring and enhancing answers. Conversely, those who struggle with literacy are often unable to properly evaluate how appropriate the answers provided by AI are.

    What we are seeing is high-performing students using AI to generate more effective results, outpacing their peers and further entrenching the divide. Without intervention, the schoolchildren who couldn’t answer comprehensions questions such as “What does this word mean?” about their own AI-generated homework are set to become the graduates left marooned at interview where they can no longer hide behind writing. The pandemic has already drawn economic battle lines for students in terms of learning loss, attainment and the very awarding of student grades—if we are not vigilant, inequitable AI use is set to become a further barrier to entry for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    1. Business Pivots, Higher Ed Deliberates

    Current graduates are entering a tough job market. Reports have shown both that graduate-level job postings are down and that employers are fatigued by high volumes of AI-written job applications. At the same time, employers are increasingly turning to AI to transform hiring processes. Students are keenly attuned to this, with many reporting low morale that their “dream role” is now one that AI will fulfill or one that they can see becoming replaced by AI in the near future.

    Across many institutions, higher education career advice and guidance is poorly equipped to deal with such changes, still often rooted in an outdated model that is focused on traditional job markets and the presumption that students will follow a “one degree, one career” trajectory, when the reality is most students do not follow linear career progression. Without swift and effective changes that respond to how AI is disrupting students’ career journeys, we are unable to make targeted interventions that reflect the job market and therefore make a meaningful impact.

    Nonetheless, such changes are where higher education career advice and guidance services can make the greatest impact. If we hope to continue leveling the playing field for students who face barriers to entry, we must tackle AI head-on by teaching students to use tools responsibly and critically, not in a general sense, but specifically to improve their career readiness.

    Equally, career plans could be forward-thinking and linked to the careers created by AI, using market data to focus on which industries will grow. By evaluating student need on our campuses and responding to the movements of the current job market, we can create tailored training that allows students to successfully transition from higher education into a graduate-level career.

    If we fail to achieve this and blindly accept platitudes around AI improving equity, we risk deepening structural imbalances among students that uphold long-standing issues in graduate outcomes.

    Sean Richardson is a former educator and now the employability resources manager at London South Bank University.

    Paul Redford is a former teacher, now working to equip young people with employability skills in television and media.

    Source link

  • Education Department to reduce staff by nearly half

    Education Department to reduce staff by nearly half

    The Department of Education is expected to lay off nearly half its workforce as of Tuesday.

    J. David Ake/Getty Images

    The Education Department is moving to lay off nearly 50 percent of its more than 4,100 employees as of Tuesday evening, according to four sources inside the agency who were told about the plans.

    It’s not yet clear what specific departments or positions were affected, though officials planned to tell affected employees this evening, sources told Inside Higher Ed. The department previously offered employees buyouts to cut down the workforce. The goal to reduce staff by 50 percent includes prior reductions. Those affected will receive 90 days’ severance and will have 10 days to transfer their job duties to another staffer or political appointee, according to a longtime staffer with inside knowledge of the reduction-in-force details.

    The department said in its announcement that the employees will be placed on administrative leave, starting March 21, and that core programs such as distributing student loans and Pell Grants will continue.

    “Today’s reduction in force reflects the Department of Education’s commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. “This is a significant step toward restoring the greatness of the United States education system.”

    The Washington Post reported that 1,315 employees would lose their jobs, in addition to the roughly 600 who took the buyouts. The reductions will bring the total workforce down to fewer than 2,200.

    Earlier on Tuesday, the department told staff that D.C. offices will be closed Wednesday and reopen Thursday for “security reasons,” according to an email obtained by Inside Higher Ed. One staffer said they were told by department officials that the closure was due to the reduction in force.

    The email instructed department staff to take their laptops home with them on Tuesday in order to telework Wednesday, and that they would “not be permitted in any ED facility on Wednesday, March 12th, for any reason.”

    Some department staff were notified of the impending layoffs during meetings with top department officials—including an acting deputy secretary—on Tuesday afternoon, according to sources inside the department who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on background.

    Sheria Smith, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents over 2,800 workers at the Department of Education, pledged to fight the cuts in a statement released Tuesday evening. Smith said that the Trump administration “has no respect for the thousands of workers who have dedicated their careers to serve their fellow Americans.”

    “We will not stand idly by while this regime pulls the wool over the eyes of the American people,” Smith added. “We will state the facts. Every employee at the U.S. Department of Education lives in your communities—we are your neighbors, your friends, your family. And we have spent our careers supporting services that you rely on.”

    The expected cuts are part of a governmentwide strategy to reduce the federal workforce. All federal agency officials were told last month to start preparing for a “large scale reduction in force” and to eliminate all “non-statutorily mandated functions.”

    While the government layoffs are far-reaching, President Trump has frequently targeted the Education Department for cuts, even vowing to shut down the agency. That would require congressional action, but Trump and McMahon can make deep cuts to the agency even if they don’t abolish it altogether.

    Trump is reportedly planning to sign an executive order directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps” to return authority over education to the states and facilitate closure of the Department of Education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law,” according to draft text reviewed by Inside Higher Ed.

    Higher education groups and advocates have warned that cutting staff and programs at the department would be catastrophic for institutions and students, though critics say the agency is in need of a serious overhaul. State higher education officials, university administrators, nonprofit advocacy groups and students depend on the Education Department to oversee federal student aid, manage the student loan portfolio, investigate civil rights complaints and allocate billions of dollars in institutional aid, among other operations. The department, which has an $80 billion discretionary budget, issues about $100 billion in student loans every year and more than $30 billion in Pell Grants.

    The massive personnel cuts—the largest in the department’s history—will likely impact most agencies and offices in the department, including the Office of Federal Student Aid, sources say. Within FSA, the cuts will be most severe among teams that work directly on policy and higher education oversight, including the Ombudsman Office, which investigates complaints into student loan practices and financial aid.

    Staffers at the Education Department have been anticipating the reduction in force for the past week. Last Tuesday, department leaders called a meeting to discuss the impending layoffs but canceled at the last minute. Meanwhile, staff have been awaiting the executive order from Trump to close down the department since last Wednesday.

    “Everyone’s ready,” one exhausted staffer told Inside Higher Ed.

    Other federal agencies have started to lay off thousands of employees via a planned reduction in force, a process that should give them 60 days’ notice. At the Environmental Protection Agency, Trump expects 65 percent of the workforce to go, according to Government Executive, a trade publication tracking the layoffs. Last week, the Veterans Affairs Department said it was laying off 80,000 people.

    Source link

  • How standardized tests became part of the DEI debate

    How standardized tests became part of the DEI debate

    In the Education Department’s sweeping Dear Colleague letter last month, acting assistant secretary for civil rights Craig Trainor wrote that colleges must eliminate all race-conscious programs and policies, from scholarships and admissions practices to campus cultural groups and DEI training.

    One surprising mention: standardized testing policies.

    Trainor wrote that test-optional policies could be “proxies for race” to help colleges “give preference” to certain groups.

    “That is true whether the proxies are used to grant preferences on an individual basis or a systematic one,” he wrote. “It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.”

    Higher education leaders and researchers have long debated the pros and cons of standardized testing in admissions: Some believe they’re a meritocratic predictor of academic success, while others say they’re more aligned with family wealth. In recent years, those debates have become entangled with discussions of systemic racism in the American education system.

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of colleges waived test requirements for applicants. Five years later, most have retained their test-optional policies—though a year ago some selective institutions began returning to score requirements, reigniting a charged debate about the role of standardized tests in admissions.

    After the Supreme Court banned affirmative action in 2023, experts said test-optional policies could serve as race-neutral measures to help colleges maintain diversity in their applicant pools. They cited research showing that colleges with test-optional policies enrolled 10 to 12 percent more students from underrepresented racial backgrounds; other studies found that doing away with test requirements simplified the application process and thus removed barriers for first-generation and other underserved students. The Biden administration even included test-optional policies in its guidance for colleges adjusting to the court ruling.

    If colleges cited such research in keeping their test-optional policies, Trainor’s letter implied it could be grounds for a civil rights investigation.

    In a Frequently Asked Questions document meant to clarify the broad scope of the Dear Colleague letter, OCR made no mention of testing policies. But in response to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed about how the department views test-optional policies, Trainor left the door open to federal scrutiny.

    “This isn’t complicated,” he wrote. “When in doubt, every school should consult the [Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard] legal test contained in the [Dear Colleague letter]: ‘If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than it treats another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law.’”

    Harry Feder, executive director of FairTest and an outspoken critic of standardized testing, said assessments like the SAT have long been embroiled in debates about racial equity in education, but the discourse grew more prominent as attacks on DEI and affirmative action intensified.

    “The SAT has racial bias baked into it from its origins as an early IQ test to keep out the riffraff,” he said. “What Republicans are now saying is, that’s an objective measure of merit, and if white and Asian kids do better on them over all, then colleges not considering those scores is a form DEI run amok.”

    John Friedman, an economics professor at Brown University, has published numerous influential studies on the effects of standardized testing policies, including those cited by the majority of Ivy League institutions that decided to return to test requirements. He said he understands where the Education Department’s skepticism comes from.

    “Schools might be tempted to continue test-optional policies to make it easier to maintain diverse classes, even if that makes it harder to assess students’ academic preparation,’” Friedman said. “I think that’s where some of the angst comes from, as part of a larger concern about higher education moving away from the traditional sense of meritocracy.”

    At the same time, he said the department should consider how institutions use test scores in admissions, which can vary widely.

    “The point is not that you can’t go test-optional. It’s that you shouldn’t if your goal is an end run around the SFFA decision,” Friedman said. “It would be bad to force institutions that decided thoughtfully that test requirements are not best for them to adopt those policies anyway.”

    Dominique Baker, associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, said she doesn’t believe it should matter whether colleges are considering racial diversity in deciding on their testing policies. The truth, she said, is that research on how testing policies affect applicant diversity is murky, and many of the colleges where the policies could have a demonstrable impact have already returned to requiring scores.

    For her, the mention of testing policies alongside other DEI initiatives is “head-scratching.”

    “The places the administration cares about have largely already returned to testing, or are certainly poised to do so soon. So who is this for?” Baker said. “It’s bananas that testing is even in here.”

    Reversing the Test-Optional Tide?

    So far, the letter hasn’t had any effect on institutions’ testing policies. But colleges are starting to respond to the Dear Colleague letter’s guidance in other ways, changing the names of student service offices, scrubbing mentions of race and equity from their websites, eliminating race-conscious programs, and canceling affinity group events.

    “It would be naïve to believe that certain institutions wouldn’t, at the very least, strongly consider changing their testing policies in order to fly under the radar with the administration,” Baker said.

    Some colleges are pushing ahead with their test-optional policies regardless. Last Thursday the University of Vermont announced that its test-optional policy, put in place during the pandemic, would become permanent.

    Jay Jacobs, vice president for enrollment management at Vermont, told Inside Higher Ed the decision was based on years of research that found that removing test requirements not only had little effect on students’ academic performance and persistence, but also helped UVM achieve its goal of enrolling more local and first-generation students.

    He said the university did not take racial diversity into account when measuring the policy’s enrollment impact—“we didn’t want that to be construed as the reason,” he explained—but said that whatever the rationale, he doesn’t believe the Education Department’s guidance should have any influence.

    “No external party should have a say in dictating institutional policy,” Jacobs said.

    Meanwhile, leaders in the assessment industry have remained largely silent about the Trump administration’s promotion of their exams as part of the war on DEI.

    The College Board, which owns and administers the SAT, did not release a public statement about the letter, nor did ACT, Educational Testing Services or any other major assessment organization.

    College Board communications director Holly Stepp wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the organization believes testing can promote college access, but it does not usually comment on policy matters.

    “College Board provides access and opportunity to millions of students from every background through programs that are mission-driven, evidence-based, and nonpartisan,” Stepp wrote. “We do not set policies around how our exam is used by higher education institutions and scholarship providers.”

    Juan Elizondo, ACT’s strategic communications director for government and public relations, told Inside Higher Ed that the company stands behind institutions’ freedom to set their own testing policies.

    “ACT respects the authority of our higher education partners to decide the admission standards that are right for their institutions,” he wrote.

    Failing the Logic Test

    As colleges like Yale, Harvard and MIT returned to test requirements last year, many cited the same new research: a study from Opportunity Insights that found that test-optional policies made it more difficult for selective institutions to admit students who could succeed academically—and to find qualified applicants from diverse racial and economic backgrounds. Statements from both Yale and Dartmouth said that test scores could “help expand access” for underrepresented groups, including students of color.

    So if both test-optional and test-mandatory policies can promote racial diversity depending on the institution, how will the Trump administration enforce its guidance?

    When asked this question, Trainor did not respond directly but implied that any institution using racial diversity as a justification for any policy, or even citing it as a potential benefit, could be in violation of the current Education Department’s views on civil rights law.

    Friedman, one of the researchers who produced the Opportunity Insights study, said his research showed that for some highly selective colleges, requiring test scores could help “a little bit” with diversity in the selection process. The argument is that by providing a standardized measure of academic preparedness, selective colleges can find a “diamond in the rough”—applicants from underresourced high schools who would struggle to stand out otherwise.

    “For some schools, going back to requiring testing may help improve diversity, but my sense is that improving diversity is not the primary motivation behind this policy change,” he said.

    Feder agreed but had a different prediction.

    “If I’m at the OCR and an Ivy League college is saying, ‘We went back to test requirements because it’s good for diversity,’ even if that’s not really the case, I’d go investigate them,” he said. “By their own logic, they’d have to.”

    Baker said there hasn’t been enough research to determine whether test-optional policies make a huge difference in promoting diversity. Many of the colleges that have kept them in place, she said, have also made more holistic changes to their admissions process that could account for diversity gains. But she believes ending the experiment early by government coercion would be a major step backward.

    “Researchers in the field are doing some real deep dives to better understand the effects of test-optional policies themselves. The people writing the [Dear Colleague] letter have no clue about any of that; they just read about how these policies are part of an anti-white war on meritocracy,” she said. “They’re just throwing spaghetti at the wall.”

    Source link

  • Higher ed must be proactive

    Higher ed must be proactive

    Sonny Ramaswamy retired from his role as president of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities in February, concluding an almost seven-year run at the accrediting body.

    His retirement comes after a lengthy career in higher education, which included stints at Cornell University, Mississippi State University, Kansas State University, Purdue University and Oregon State University before former president Barack Obama appointed him as director of the National Institute for Food and Agriculture in 2012. Ramaswamy also served for roughly 18 months during Donald Trump’s first presidential term before returning to higher education as the head of NWCCU, a post he held from July 2018 until earlier this year, when he stepped down.

    In his retirement, he plans to continue serving on nonprofit boards, particularly those in the world of food and agriculture, an area where much of his career was focused. Ramaswamy also plans to write, starting with an illustrated book of poetry to help children learn about the environment.

    Ramaswamy spoke with Inside Higher Ed about his retirement plans, his experience as an accreditor, the challenges facing the sector and the need for a robust defense of higher education.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: First, tell me about your retirement. What prompted you to step down early?

    A: I came on board in 2018 and had a five-year agreement. June 2023 is when the agreement would have ended, and then our commissioners pleaded with me, saying, “You’ve got to stay on with all the uncertainties with the impending elections next year, etc., etc.” Plus we were going through our [National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity] recognition process. Well, another year comes and goes and they asked if I could stay for some more time, past the elections. We were all expecting the elections to go in a certain way, but who would have thought that the Democrats would self-destruct? But that’s another story.

    I reluctantly said OK. We had talked about staying on the whole year, but they left it to me to make the determination of when I would step out. Then the 2024 elections happened and we started seeing the handwriting on the wall, and it concerned me tremendously. I thought, “I can do a lot more being outside of the system as a spokesperson for education.”

    Q: What initially interested you in the NWCCU job?

    A: This was not something on my radar. My life has been about food and agriculture. I’m an entomologist. My passion is hunger, being that I was hungry growing up in India at a time when India could not feed itself. And my path was through academics, food and agricultural sciences.

    I was headhunted [while director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture] and went through some interviews with a couple of land-grant universities for the presidency. I was all set to become president of a land-grant university, then I was headhunted by the Northwest Commission, and [their recruiter] said, “You’ve got to do this—you bring exquisite leadership skills, and that’s what they’re looking for. I said, “But I’ve not done anything related to accreditation,” and she said, “That’s not the point—what they want is somebody that can be a leader.” What they were looking for was somebody to set the ship in the right direction and create a compelling vision.

    Q: What was the hardest part about the job?

    A: The hard part was the complaints that we would receive about our colleges and universities. On some of those, there’s egregiousness on the part of the institutions, ignoring their own policies and things like that. We also got complaints that basically were frivolous. We created, I think, an excellent way to handle the complaints with the processes and procedures that we put together. But the hardest part was to see policies and procedures being ignored. I don’t know if those were ignored purposefully and wantonly, or it was just that some institutions are so huge, and that the bureaucracy is so huge that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

    Q: What was the most rewarding aspect of the job?

    A: What surprised me the most was how archaic the system was [at NWCCU]. It was thousands of pages of documentation being printed. I thought, “We need to come up with a way to use data to inform decisions, to look at how institutions are making progress and hold them accountable based on evidence and data, and not just the fact that they write these hundreds of pages of narrative.” It’s like the old adage that if you can’t bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. So I worked with our commissioners and our staff and went around America, listening to what needs to be done [to revise] our standards. My gosh, we had eight standards and 142 substandards, and the word “student” was invoked in the very last standard. It was pathetic.

    So I said, “We have to focus on the students.” We did listening sessions and people gave us an earful [including think tanks], so we brought that back and went through the listening sessions and surveys, and we went from eight standards and 142 substandards to two standards. No. 1: Students, that’s where they’re supposed to be. And No. 2 is all the other stuff about compliance and governance and other issues. We changed all of that to focus on students.

    The most rewarding piece was to see those changes take place.

    Q: There seems to be a changing of the guard at accrediting bodies, with turnover at the top. What advice do you have for anyone stepping into that job in the current political climate?

    A: Go into it thinking, “What is the value proposition we want to demonstrate?” I’m paraphrasing Pogo: I have seen the enemy and he is us. Accreditors are as much to blame as the institutions in that we have never been able to provide that compelling value proposition. To be accused by various individuals that there’s an accreditation cartel, that everything is done behind closed doors like the Wizard of Oz, that we impose diversity, equity and inclusion on these institutions—it’s all a false narrative. None of us have imposed critical race theory on our institutions. It’s a false narrative that has been grabbed by [anti-DEI activists] like Chris Rufo and Scott Yenor.

    We pat ourselves on the back, saying, “We’re holding universities accountable.” But when a bit more than one out of every two students graduate, there’s something wrong with that picture.

    Use your critical thinking and problem-solving skills and put the students at the core of your mission and demonstrate that value proposition, demonstrate why education is critically important for America, and the accountability piece of it that the accreditors bring to the effort.

    Q: What do you think the near future holds for accreditation? Do you expect any big changes?

    A: I’m reading the tea leaves, and it’s like our investment advisers tell us: Past results have no bearing on future returns. I worked in the Trump administration for a year and a half, and I saw a lot of things in there. But it means nothing, because now they’ve come in with a much better thought-out process, a blueprint. Hope springs eternal, but there’s going to be some changes.

    But before whatever it is that’s coming down the pike, let us as educators, let us as accreditors demonstrate that value proposition [and] tell the story. Don’t wait. Get college presidents, students and alumni to speak to the value of higher education. All these companies—the people that are hiring our graduates—should be extolling America’s higher education system, which is why people like me came to this country from overseas. There has to be a concerted effort by everybody. The accreditors have a secondary role, since the primary role is going to be institutional leadership and alumni and board members and others to speak to why the accountability system that we have is important. Be proactive, don’t be reactive, don’t wait for the winter or fall to go to work.

    And if we don’t do it, shame on us and we deserve what we get.

    Source link