Major accreditors are following through on their plans to bring new quality checks to the short-term credentialing landscape.
After years of preparation, the Higher Learning Commission is launching a new process to evaluate and endorse short-term credential providers this week, according to a Tuesday announcement from the HLC. The accreditor will be accepting applications for its first cohort of endorsed providers through Jan. 23.
Higher Learning Commission president Barbara Gellman-Danley said in the announcement that HLC’s goal is “to expand the nation’s pool of valuable, HLC endorsed providers, thereby increasing pathways for students to gain the qualifications they need to get ahead and succeed.”
The New England Commission of Higher Education also announced its inaugural cohort of eight recognized noncredit program providers last week, including higher ed institutions and external organizations.
“We know that there are increasing numbers of students enrolled in non-credit programs,” Michaele Whelan, chairperson of NECHE, said in a news release. “There has also been a growing need for quality assurance in this space. NECHE has taken the bold step to address this need and we are excited to expand our work into this area.”
Nearly 60 percent of all college students in the U.S. experience at least one form of basic needs insecurity, lacking stable housing and/or consistent access to food, according to national surveys.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress passed in July, creates sweeping changes to higher education—including a new tax rate for university endowments and accountability metrics for student income levels after graduation. It also directly impacts college students, threatening their access to food assistance programs and their ability to pay for college, which experts warn could hamper their persistence and completion.
Policy and higher education leaders convened during an Oct. 28 webinar hosted by the Hope Center for Student Basic Needs at Temple University to discuss how the new legislation threatens student financial wellness and success.
“We are very, very worried that student basic needs insecurity will be increasing dramatically over the next few years,” said Bryce McKibben, senior director of policy and advocacy at the Hope Center.
For current students, experts outlined three major shifts in federal financial supports.
1.Cuts to SNAP Funding
OBBBA includes $186 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides support obtaining food for nearly three million young adults, according to U.S. Census data. The bill places more requirements on SNAP recipients; at present, all funding for SNAP is at risk due to the government shutdown. Some states expect to run out of SNAP dollars as early as Nov. 1.
“[SNAP] is our first line of defense against hunger. It reduces health care–related issues and it bolsters local economies,” said Gina Plata-Nino, interim director of the SNAP, Food Research & Action Center. “It also provides jobs; it provides federal income taxes. And all of this is going to be threatened.”
Under the bill, all adults ages 18 to 64 must demonstrate they work at least 20 hours per week to be eligible for SNAP, Plata-Nino said.
Approximately one in four college students experience food insecurity. SNAP resources are largely underutilized by college students, in part because of complicated enrollment processes. Instead, many rely on campus pantries, which are mostly privately funded by individual donors or campus budgets. Plato-Nino anticipates the changes to SNAP will impact funding and capacity for higher education institutions to provide resources, “because now they have to focus on these issues,” she said.
The federal cuts could cause further damage to an already fragile system.
“We have a threadbare social safety net that really hits students when they can least afford to meet what are pretty acute and deep costs as they’re trying to get through their degree program,” said Mark Huelsman, director of policy and advocacy at the Hope Center.
Many colleges and universities expanded emergency grant funding for students during the COVID-19 pandemic to address sudden expenses that could threaten a student’s ability to remain enrolled. While supplemental funding can help ease this gap, it’s not sufficient, Huelsman said.
“Campuses don’t often have the resources to help students meet what can be an acute financial emergency,” Huelsman said.
An August 2025 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 64 percent of respondents said they didn’t know whether their college provides emergency financial aid, and an additional 4 percent indicated that resource was not available at their institution. Only 12 percent of respondents said they knew how to apply for emergency aid at their college.
2.Changes to Pell Grants
The reconciliation bill also includes a variety of changes to student eligibility for the federal Pell Grant program, which provides financial aid to low-income students.
Over one-third of Student Voice respondents indicated paying for college was a top source of stress while enrolled, second only to balancing family, academic, work and personal responsibilities.
For the academic year 2026–27, those with a student aid index (SAI) over $14,790, as identified by the FAFSA, are no longer eligible for Pell Grants. Similarly, students who receive scholarships that meet the full cost of attendance (including books, housing, food, tuition and fees) are not eligible for Pell, regardless of their SAI.
“We anticipate that this will affect a very small number of students,” said Jessica Thompson, senior vice president at the Institute for College Access and Success. “But this remains to be seen how this takes effect and what it looks like on the ground.”
3.Limits on Graduate and Parent Borrowing
OBBBA caps loans on professional degree programs (which include medical, law, veterinary and dentistry programs, among others) at $200,000, and other graduate programs at $100,000. It also eliminates Grad PLUS loans, which are unsubsidized federal loans with no borrowing limits. Students currently enrolled can borrow from Grad PLUS for three academic years or the remainder of their credential program, whichever is shorter.
While these limits can be beneficial for keeping student borrowing down, there may be unintended consequences regarding who can access the programs, Thompson said. For example, students who enroll at historically Black colleges and universities or minority-serving institutions are more likely to utilize Parent PLUS loans to pay for college.
“This has been a really big lifeline for accessing credit in order to cover college costs for people’s children, and there will be a disproportionate impact on these new caps on those types of institutions,” Thompson said.
Thompson also noted that a lack of federal loan opportunities for graduate and professional students may cause a rise in private loan borrowing, which often has higher interest rates and fewer protections for borrowers.
“We want to keep a really close eye on what it means for the availability of programs in general … but also access and looking at increasingly less diverse pipelines in terms of historically marginalized populations being able to access graduate and professional programs,” Thompson said.
Similar to SNAP cuts, Thompson anticipates the loan caps will add significant financial pressure on colleges and universities due to loss of revenue and enrollment.
Just 27 percent of undergraduates describe their mental health as above average or excellent, according to new data from Inside Higher Ed’s main annual Student Voice survey of more than 5,000 undergraduates at two- and four-year institutions.
Another 44 percent of students rate their mental health as average on a five-point scale. The remainder, 29 percent, rate it as below average or poor.
In last year’s main Student Voice survey, 42 percent of respondents rated their mental health as good or excellent, suggesting a year-over-year decline in students feeling positive about their mental health. This doesn’t translate to more students rating their mental health negatively this year, however, as this share stayed about the same. Rather, more students in this year’s sample rate their mental health as average (2025’s 44 percent versus 29 percent in 2024).
About the Survey
Student Voice is an ongoing survey and reporting series that seeks to elevate the student perspective in institutional student success efforts and in broader conversations about college.
Some 5,065 students from 260 two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to this main annual survey about student success, conducted in August. Explore the data captured by our survey partner Generation Lab here and here. The margin of error is plus or minus one percentage point.
The story is similar regarding ratings of overall well-being. In 2024, 52 percent of students described their overall well-being as good or excellent. This year, 33 percent say it’s above average or excellent. Yet because last year’s survey included slightly different categories (excellent, good, average, fair and poor, instead of excellent, above average, average, below average and poor), it’s impossible to make direct comparisons.
How does this relate to other national data? The 2024-2025 Healthy Minds Study found that students self-reported lower rates of moderate to severe depressive symptoms, anxiety and more for the third year in a row—what one co-investigator described as “a promising counter-narrative to what seems like constant headlines around young people’s struggles with mental health.” However, the same study found that students’ sense of “flourishing,” including self-esteem, purpose and optimism, declined slightly from the previous year. So while fewer students may be experiencing serious mental health problems, others may be moving toward the middle from a space of thriving.
Inside Higher Ed’s leadership surveys this year—including the forthcoming Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators—also documented a gap between how well leaders think their institutions have responded to what’s been called the student mental health crisis and whether they think undergraduate mental health is actually improving. In Inside Higher Ed’s annual survey of provosts with Hanover Research, for example, 69 percent said their institution has been effective in responding to student mental health concerns, but only 40 percent said undergraduate health on their campus is on the upswing.
Provosts also ranked mental health as the No. 1 campus threat to student safety and well-being (80 percent said it’s a top risk), followed by personal stress (66 percent), academic stress (51 percent) and food and housing insecurity (42 percent). Those were all far ahead of risks such as physical security threats (2 percent) or alcohol and substance use issues (13 percent).
Among community college provosts, in particular, food and housing insecurity was the leading concern, with 86 percent naming it a top risk.
Financial insecurity can impact mental health, and both factors can affect academic success. Among 2025 Student Voice respondents who have ever seriously considered stopping out of college (n=1,204), for instance, 43 percent describe their mental health as below average or poor. Among those who have never considered stopping out (n=3,304), the rate is just 23 percent. And among the smaller group of students who have stopped out for a semester or more but re-enrolled (n=557), 40 percent say their mental health is below average or poor, underscoring that returnees remain an at-risk group for completion.
Similarly, 43 percent of students who have seriously considered stopping out rate their financial well-being as below average or poor, versus 23 percent among students who’ve never considered stopping out—the same split as the previous finding on mental health.
The association between students’ confidence in their financial literacy and their risk of dropping out is weaker, supporting the case for tangible basic needs support: Some 25 percent of respondents who have considered stopping out rate their financial literacy as below average or poor, compared to 15 percent of those who have not considered stopping out.
Angela K. Johnson, vice president for enrollment management at Cuyahoga Community College in Ohio, said her institution continuously seeks feedback from students about how their financial stability and other aspects of well-being intersect.
“What students are saying by ‘financial’ is very specific around being unhoused, food insecurity,” she said. “And part of the mental health piece is also not having the medical insurance support to cover some of those ongoing services. We do offer some of them in our counseling and psychological services department, but we only offer so many.”
All this bears on enrollment and persistence, Johnson said, “but it really is a student psychological safety problem, a question of how they’re trying to manage their psychological safety without their basic needs being met.”
A ‘Top-of-Mind Issue’
Tri-C, as Johnson’s college is called, takes a multipronged approach to student wellness, including via an app called Help Is Here, resource awareness efforts that target even dual-enrollment students and comprehensive basic needs support: Think food pantries situated near dining services, housing transition coordination, childcare referrals, utility assistance, emergency funds and more.
Faculty training is another focus. “Sometimes you see a student sleeping in your class, but it’s not because the class is boring. They may have been sleeping in their car last night,” Johnson said. “They may not have had a good meal today.”
Political uncertainty may also be impacting student wellness. The American Council on Education hosted a webinar earlier this year addressing what leaders should be thinking about with respect to “these uncertain times around student well-being,” said Hollie Chessman, a director and principal program officer at ACE. “We talked about identity, different identity-based groups and how the safe spaces and places are not as prevalent on campuses anymore, based on current legislation. So some of that is going to be impacting the mental health and well-being of our students with traditionally underrepresented backgrounds.”
Previously released results from this year’s Student Voice survey indicate that most students, 73 percent, still believe that most or nearly all of their peers feel welcomed, valued and supported on campus. That’s up slightly from last year’s 67 percent. But 32 percent of students in 2025 report that recent federal actions to limit diversity, equity and inclusion efforts have negatively impacted their experience at college. This increases to 37 percent among Asian American and Pacific Islander and Hispanic students, 40 percent among Black students and 41 percent among students of other races. It decreases among white students, to 26 percent. Some 65 percent of nonbinary students (n=209) report negative impacts. For international students (n=203), the rate is 34 percent.
The Student Voice survey doesn’t reveal any key differences among students’ self-ratings of mental health by race. Regarding gender, 63 percent of nonbinary students report below average or poor mental health, more than double the overall rate of 29 percent. In last year’s survey, 59 percent of nonbinary students reported fair or poor mental health.
In a recent ACE pulse survey of senior campus leaders, two in three reported moderate or extreme concern about student mental health and well-being. (Other top concerns were the value of college, long-term financial viability and generative artificial intelligence.)
“This is a top-of-mind issue, and it has been a top-of-mind issue for college and university presidents” since even before the pandemic, Chessman said. “And student health and well-being is a systemic issue, right? It’s not just addressed by a singular program or a counseling session. It’s a systemic issue that permeates.”
In Inside Higher Ed’s provosts’ survey, the top actions these leaders reported taking to promote mental health on their campus in the last year are: emphasizing the importance of social connection and/or creating new opportunities for campus involvement (76 percent) and investing in wellness facilities and/or services to promote overall well-being (59 percent).
Despite the complexity of the issue, Chessman said, many campuses are making strides in supporting student well-being—including by identifying students who aren’t thriving “and then working in interventions to help those students.” Gatekeeper training, or baseline training for faculty and staff to recognize signs of student distress, is another strategy, as is making sure faculty and staff members can connect students to support resources, groups and peers.
“One of the big things that we have to emphasize is that it is a campuswide issue,” Chessman reiterated.
More on Health and Wellness
Other findings on student health and wellness from this newest round of Student Voice results show:
Mental health is just one area of wellness in which many students are struggling.
Asked to rate various dimensions of their health and wellness at college, students are most likely to rate their academic fit as above average or excellent, at 38 percent. Sense of social belonging (among other areas) is weaker, with 27 percent of students rating theirs above average or excellent. One clear opportunity area for colleges: promoting healthy sleep habits, since 44 percent of students describe their own as below average or poor. (Another recent study linked poor sleep among students to loneliness.)
Many students report using unhealthy strategies to cope with stress, and students at risk of stopping out may be most vulnerable.
As for how students deal with stress at college, 56 percent report a mix of healthy strategies (such as exercising, talking to family and friends, and prioritizing sleep) and unhealthy ones (such as substance use, avoidance of responsibilities and social withdrawal). But students who have seriously considered stopping out, and those who have stopped out but re-enrolled, are less likely than those who haven’t considered leaving college to rely on mostly healthy and effective strategies.
Most students approve of their institution’s efforts to make key student services available and accessible.
Despite the persistent wellness challenge, most students rate as good or excellent their institution’s efforts to make health, financial aid, student life and other services accessible and convenient. In good news for community colleges’ efforts, two-year students are a bit more likely than their four-year peers to rate these efforts as good or excellent, at 68 percent versus 62 percent.
‘It’s Easy to Feel Isolated’
The Jed Foundation, which promotes emotional health and suicide prevention among teens and young adults, advocates a comprehensive approach to well-being based on seven domains:
Foster life skills
Promote connectedness and positive culture
Recognize and respond to distress
Reduce barriers to help-seeking
Ensure access to effective mental health care
Establish systems of crisis management
Reduce access to lethal means
At JED’s annual policy summit in Washington, D.C., this month, advocates focused on sustaining the progress that has been made on mental health, as well as on the growing influence of artificial intelligence and the role of local, state and federal legislation on mental health in the digital age. Rohan Satija, a 17-year-old first-year student at the University of Texas at Austin who spoke at the event, told Inside Higher Ed in an interview that his mental health journey began in elementary school, when his family emigrated from New Zealand to Texas.
“Just being in a completely new environment and being surrounded by a completely new group of people, I struggled with my mental health, and because of bullying and isolation at school, I struggled with anxiety and panic attacks,” he said.
Satija found comfort in books and storytelling filled with “characters whom I could relate to. I read about them winning in their stories, and it showed me that I could win in my own story.”
Satija eventually realized these stories were teaching lessons about resilience, courage and empathy—lessons he put into action when he founded a nonprofit to address book deserts in low-income and otherwise marginalized communities in Texas. Later, he founded the Vibrant Voices Project for incarcerated youth, “helping them convert their mental health struggles into powerful monologues they can perform for each other.”
Currently a youth advocacy coalition fellow at JED, Satija said that college so far presents a challenge to student mental health in its “constant pressure to perform in all facets, including academically and socially and personally. I’ve seen many of my peers that have entered college with me, and a lot of us expect freedom and growth but get quickly bogged down with how overwhelming it can be to balance coursework, jobs, living away from your family and still achieving.”
Rohan Satija, center, speaks at JED’s annual policy summit in Washington earlier this month.
He added, “This competitive environment can make small setbacks feel like failures, and I’d say perfectionism can often become kind of like a silent standard.”
Another major challenge? Loneliness and disconnection. “Even though campuses are full of people, it’s easy to feel isolated, especially as a new student, and even further, especially as a first-generation student, an immigrant or anyone far from home.”
While many students are of course excited for the transition to adulthood and “finally being free for the first time,” he explained, “it comes with a lot of invisible losses, including losing the comfort of your family and a stable routine … So I think without intentional efforts to build connection in your new college campus, a lot of students feel that their sense of belonging can erode pretty quickly.”
In this light, Satija praised UT Austin’s club culture, noting that some of the extracurricular groups he’s joined assign a “big,” or student mentor, to each new student, or “little,” driving connection and institutional knowledge-sharing. Faculty members are also good at sharing information about mental health resources, he said, including through the learning management system.
And in terms of proactive approaches to overall wellness, the campus’s Longhorn Wellness Center is effective in that it “doesn’t promote itself as this big, like, crisis response space: ‘Oh, we’re here to improve your mental health. We’re here to make your best self,’ or anything like that,” he said. “It literally just promotes itself as a chill space for student wellness. They’re always talking about their massage chairs.”
“That gets students in the door, yeah?” Satija said.
This independent editorial project is produced with the Generation Lab and supported by the Gates Foundation.
Illinois has partnered with ReUp to bring stopped-out students back to college.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | rawpixel | Anand Raj/Pexels
Illinois has launched a statewide effort to re-enroll students who stopped out of college, in partnership with ReUp Education, a company focused on recruiting and supporting adult learners, according to a news release. ReUp has established a re-enrollment marketplace in Illinois that will connect stopped-out learners with 19 participating community colleges and universities and provide them with live coaching and other resources.
The platform will be accessible to 200,000 Illinois residents who have earned some college credits but not completed a degree. Nationwide, about 43 million Americans fall into that category.
Illinois joins several otherstates and institutions that have begun making a concerted effort to bring stopped-out individuals back to college. According to ReUp’s release, the company has supported 40,000 students in re-enrolling in college.
“Building a brighter future requires looking long and hard at the economic realities facing Illinois’ families and work force,” State Rep. Katie Stuart, chair of the Illinois House Higher Education Committee, said in the release. “Partnering with an established name in the adult education space to get more people skilled up for high-paying jobs is a big step in the right direction.”
Florida governor Ron DeSantis on Wednesday ordered the state’s public universities “to pull the plug on the use of these H-1B visas in our universities.” In doing so, the Republican appeared to call for his state to go further than President Trump in restricting entry of these foreign employees—an issue that has divided prominent conservatives.
Since fiscal year 2022, Florida public universities have employed nearly 2,000 people via the H-1B program—nearly half at the University of Florida. The program is capped at 85,000 new visas a year, but colleges, universities and some other organizations aren’t subject to that cap. In the first three quarters of 2025, nearly 16,800 visas were approved for employees at colleges and universities; 395 of the visas were for jobs at Florida’s public universities. Universities use the program to hire faculty, doctors and researchers and argue it’s required to meet needs in health care, engineering and other areas.
Last month, Trump announced a $100,000 application fee for H-1B visas. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says the fee will apply to new H-1B petitions filed on or after Sept. 21 and must be paid before the petition is filed. It said there could be exceptions from the fee in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance” in which the Homeland Security secretary determines a foreigner’s presence in the U.S. “is in the national interest.”
Lawsuits have been filed over the fee, and higher ed associations and institutions have spoken out in opposition. The Trump administration says employers are abusing the program to avoid hiring Americans.
In a speech at the University of South Florida on Wednesday, DeSantis called on the state board governing public universities to “pull the plug” on H-1B visa employees. He didn’t mention any exceptions.
If this the ban happens, it would be another example of a red state going further than the Republican-controlled federal government in restricting public higher ed institutions. In states such as Texas and Ohio, GOP politicians have exceeded Trump in regulating curricula and restricting faculty rights. Before Trump retook office, DeSantis put Florida on the leading edge of the conservative overhaul of higher ed, from cracking down on what he called “woke” education to putting allies in charge of universities—a playbook other states have followed.
It’s unclear, however, whether the Florida Board of Governors, which oversees the state’s public universities but not it’s public colleges, will follow DeSantis’s directive. Fourteen of the board’s 17 members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.
It’s also unclear what his directive specifically means; a news release the governor’s office issued Wednesday didn’t, unlike his speech, go as far as suggesting an end to all H-1B visa employees at public universities.
But neither the State University System of Florida nor the governor’s office provided more details in response to Inside Higher Ed’s questions about DeSantis’s intent. A news release from the governor’s office said DeSantis directed the board to “crack down on H-1B Visa abuse in higher education” but didn’t repeat the governor’s apparent call to end H-1B employment completely.
University of Florida interim president Donald Landry spoke at the press conference after DeSantis and mentioned his institution was called out.
“It’s a complex issue, and we can chat,” Landry said, to laughs from the audience. He did list one benefit, saying H-1Bs are mainly used at UF to hire new faculty from the international student population.
“Occasionally, some bright light might be good enough for the faculty, and then we will try and retain the person into whom we have invested so much,” he said.
UF is conducting its own review of the H-1B program, he added. “We know that H-1B is not handled in a pristine fashion, even in academia,” he said.
Robert Cassanello, president of the United Faculty of Florida union and a tenured associate history professor at the University of Central Florida, suggested that banning H-1B visa holders would be illegal.
“You can’t discriminate against someone based on foreign birth,” Cassanello said. “My big question coming away from this is: Where’s the authority?”
‘Do It’ With Florida Residents
In his speech, DeSantis started his criticism of the H-1B program from a national perspective. He said, “Tech companies will fire Americans and hire H-1B at a discount, and they’re basically indentured servants … They’re indentured to the company, so the company can basically pay them low.”
He then turned to Florida universities, appearing to read from a list of positions occupied by H-1B holders at unnamed institutions. (His office didn’t provide the list Wednesday.)
After mentioning a public policy professor from China, DeSantis said, “Why do we need to bring someone from China to talk about public policy?” Later—apparently looking at information on another H-1B holder—he exclaimed, “Wuhan, China!”
Although DeSantis’s complaints focused on supposed international scholars from China, he didn’t spare those from other countries.
“Assistant swim coach from Spain, on an H-1B visa—are you kidding me, we can’t produce an assistant swim coach in this country?” he said. He then turned to the Middle East.
“Clinical assistant professor from the West Bank, clinical assistant professor from supposed Palestine,” he said. “Is that just social justice that they’re doing? And that’s University of Florida.”
“We need to make sure our citizens here in Florida are first in line for job opportunities,” DeSantis said. But he also suggested he doesn’t fully know why universities are hiring H-1B workers.
“I guess there’s probably reasons why it ends up being this way,” DeSantis said. “But I think it’s a poor reflection on some of the decisions that some of these universities have made that they’re trying to say they need an H-1B visa to do some of these jobs … We can do it with our residents in Florida, or with Americans, and if we can’t do it then—man—we need to really look deeply about what is going on.”
Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said DeSantis’s move would limit universities’ ability to hire the best researchers.
“It’s going to have an enormous impact, obviously, on Florida institutions,” Spreitzer said.
Cassanello, who said his union includes some H-1B holders, called DeSantis’s speech a “xenophobic and nativist diatribe.”
“He’s a nativist, he’s anti-immigrant and so he’s coming to these decisions based on no facts,” Cassanello said. He also said DeSantis opposed diversity, equity and inclusion programs by arguing they were anti-meritocratic, but now, “all of a sudden, he’s willing to throw out meritocracy.”
“He’s using fear of people of color and fear of immigrants to sort of impose his will on the running of our public colleges and universities,” Cassanello said. He said the speech represents “a further attack from DeSantis and our state political leaders on the autonomy of our public colleges and universities.”
In a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, higher ed institutions say maintaining a consistent flow of international faculty and staff members is critical.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images
A number of higher education institutions and the associations that represent them are asking to be exempted from the new $100,000 H-1B visa application fee, saying the prohibitive cost could be detrimental to the recruitment and retention of international faculty, researchers and staff members.
In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security last week, the American Council on Education argued that such individuals “contribute to groundbreaking research, provide medical services to underserved and vulnerable populations … and enable language study, all of which are vital to U.S. national interests.” Without them, ACE and 31 co-signers said, key jobs in high-demand sectors such as health care, information technology, education and finance will likely go unfilled.
The letter came just days after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services launched a new online payment website and provided an updated statement on policies surrounding the fee. UCIS clarified that the fee will apply to any new H-1B petitions filed on or after Sept. 21, and it must be paid before the petition is filed.
The update also referenced possible “exception[s] from the fee” but said those exceptions would only be granted in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance where the Secretary has determined that a particular alien worker’s presence in the United States as an H-1B worker is in the national interest.”
ACE said that H-1B visa recipients in higher education certainly meet those standards, citing data from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources that shows that over 70 percent of international employees at colleges and universities hold tenure-track or tenured positions. The top five disciplines they work in are business, engineering, health professions, computer science and physical sciences.
“H-1B visa holders working for institutions of higher education are doing work that is crucial to the U.S. economy and national security,” the letter reads.
Despite the clarification provided by UCIS, ACE still had several remaining questions about the fee. These included whether the $100,000 would be refunded if a petition was denied and whether individuals seeking a “change of status” from an H-1B to an F-1 or J-1 would still be required to pay the fee.
At least two lawsuits have been filed against DHS concerning these visa fees. Neither has been issued a ruling so far.
A growing share of colleges and universities are embedding artificial intelligence tools and AI literacy into the curriculum with the intent of aiding student success. A 2025 Inside Higher Ed survey of college provosts found that nearly 30 percent of respondents have reviewed curriculum to ensure that it will prepare students for AI in the workplace, and an additional 63 percent say they have plans to review curriculum for this purpose.
In the latest episode of Voices of Student Success, host Ashley Mowreader speaks with Shlomo Argamon, associate provost for artificial intelligence at Touro, to discuss the university policy for AI in the classroom, the need for faculty and staff development around AI, and the risks of gamification of education.
An edited version of the podcast appears below.
Q: How are you all at Touro thinking about AI? Where is AI integrated into your campus?
Shlomo Argamon, associate provost for artificial intelligence at Touro University
A: When we talk about the campus of Touro, we actually have 18 or 19 different campuses around the country and a couple even internationally. So we’re a very large and very diverse organization, which does affect how we think about AI and how we think about issues of the governance and development of our programs.
That said, we think about AI primarily as a new kind of interactive technology, which is best seen as assistive to human endeavors. We want to teach our students both how to use AI effectively in what they do, how to understand and properly mitigate and deal with the risks of using AI improperly, but above all, to always think about AI in a human context.
When we think about integrating AI for projects, initiatives, organizations, what have you, we need to first think about the human processes that are going to be supported by AI and then how AI can best support those processes while mitigating the inevitable risks. That’s really our guiding philosophy, and that’s true in all the ways we’re teaching students about AI, whether we’re teaching students specifically, deeply technical [subjects], preparing them for AI-centric careers or preparing them to use AI in whatever other careers they may pursue.
Q: When it comes to teaching about AI, what is the commitment you all make to students? Is it something you see as a competency that all students need to gain or something that is decided by the faculty?
A: We are implementing a combination—a top-down and a bottom-up approach.
One thing that is very clear is that every discipline, and in fact, every course and faculty member, will have different needs and different constraints, as well as competencies around AI that are relevant to that particular field, to that particular topic. We also believe there’s nobody that knows the right way to teach about AI, or to implement AI, or to develop AI competencies in your students.
We need to encourage and incentivize all our faculty to be as creative as possible in thinking about the right ways to teach their students about AI, how to use it, how not to use it, etc.
So No. 1 is, we’re encouraging all of our faculty at all levels to be thinking and developing their own ideas about how to do this. That said, we also believe very firmly that all students, all of our graduates, need to have certain fundamental competencies in the area of AI. And the way that we’re doing this is by integrating AI throughout our general education curriculum for undergraduates.
Ultimately, we believe that most, if not all, of our general education courses will include some sort of module about AI, teaching students specifically about the AI-relevant competencies that are relevant to those particular topics that they’re learning, whether it’s writing, reading skills, presentations, math, science, history, the different kinds of cognition and skills that you learn in different fields. What are the AI competencies that are relevant to that, and to have them learning that.
So No. 1, they’re learning it not all at once. And also, very importantly, it’s not isolated from the topics, from the disciplines that they’re learning, but it’s integrated within them so that they see it as … part of writing is knowing how to use AI in writing and also knowing how not to. Part of learning history is knowing how to use AI for historical research and reasoning and knowing how not to use it, etc. So we’re integrating that within our general education curriculum.
Beyond that, we also have specific courses in various AI skills, both at the undergraduate [and] at the graduate level, many of which are designed for nontechnical students to help them learn the skills that they need.
Q: Because Touro is such a large university and it’s got graduate programs, online programs, undergraduate programs, I was really surprised that there is an institutional AI policy.
A lot of colleges and universities have really grappled with, how do we institutionalize our approach to AI? And some leaders have kind of opted out of the conversation and said, “We’re going to leave it to the faculty.” I wonder if we could talk about the AI policy development and what role you played in that process, and how that’s the overarching, guiding vision when it comes to thinking about students using and engaging with AI?
A: That’s a question that we have struggled with, as all academic leaders, as you mentioned, struggle with this very question.
Our approach is to create policy at the institutional level that provides only the necessary guardrails and guidance that then enables each of our schools, departments and individual faculty members to implement the correct solutions for them in their particular areas, within this guidance and these guardrails so that it’s done safely and so that we know that it’s going, over all, in a positive and also institutionally consistent direction to some extent.
In addition, one of the main functions of my office is to provide support to the schools, departments and especially the faculty members to make this transition and to develop what they need.
It’s an enormous burden on faculty members to shift, not just to add AI content to their classes, if they do so, but to shift the way that we teach, the way that we do assessments. The way that we relate to our students, even, has to shift, to change, and it creates a burden on them.
It’s a process to develop resources, to develop ways of doing this. I and the people that work in our office, we have regular office hours to talk to faculty, to work with them. One of the most important things that we do, and we spend a lot of time and effort on this, is training for our faculty, for our staff on AI, on using AI, on teaching about AI, on the risks of AI, on mitigating those risks, how to think about AI—all of these things. It all comes down to making sure that our faculty and staff, they are the university, and they’re the ones who are going to make all of this a success, and it’s up to us to give them the tools that they need to make this a success.
I would say that while in many questions, there are no right or wrong answers, there are different perspectives and different opinions. I think that there is one right answer to “What does a university need to do institutionally to ensure success at dealing with the challenge of AI?” It’s to support and train the faculty and staff, who are the ones who are going to make whatever the university does a success or a failure.
Q: Speaking of faculty, there was a university faculty innovation grant program that sponsored faculty to take on projects using AI in the classroom. Can you talk a little bit about that and how that’s been working on campus?
A: We have an external donor who donated funds so that we were able to award nearly 100 faculty innovation challenge grants for developing methods of integrating AI into teaching.
Faculty members applied and did development work over the summer, and they’re now implementing in their fall courses right now. We’re right now going through the initial set of faculty reports on their projects, and we have projects from all over the university in all different disciplines and many different approaches to looking at how to use AI.
At the beginning of next spring, we’re going to have a conference workshop to bring everybody together so we can share all of the different ways that people try to do this. Some experiments, I’m sure, will not have worked, but that’s also incredibly important information, because what we’re seeking to do [is], we’re seeking to help our students, but we’re also seeking to learn what works, what doesn’t work and how to move forward.
Again, this goes back to our philosophy that we want to unleash the expertise, intelligence, creativity of our faculty—not top down to say, “We have an AI initiatives. This is what you need to be doing”—but, instead, “Here’s something new. We’ll give you the tools, we’ll give you the support. We’ll give you the funding to make something happen, make interesting things happen, make good things for your students happen, and then let’s talk about it and see how it worked, and keep learning and keep growing.”
Q: I was looking at the list of faculty innovation grants, and I saw that there were a few other simulations. There was one for educators helping with classroom simulations. There was one with patient interactions for medical training. It seems like there’s a lot of different AI simulations happening in different courses. I wonder if we can talk about the use of AI for experiential learning and why that’s such a benefit to students.
A: Ever since there’s been education, there’s been this kind of distinction between book learning and real-world learning, experiential learning and so forth. There have always been those who have questioned the value of a college education because you’re just learning what’s in the books and you don’t really know how things really work, and that criticism has some validity.
But what we’re trying to do and what AI allows us to do [is], it allows us and our students to have more and more varied experiences of the kinds of things they’re trying to learn and to practice what they’re doing, and then to get feedback on a much broader level than we could do before. Certainly, whenever you had a course in say, public speaking, students would get up, do some public speaking, get feedback and proceed. Now with AI, students can practice in their dorm rooms over and over and over again and get direct feedback; that feedback and those experiences can be made available then to the faculty member, who can then give the students more direct and more human or concentrated or expert feedback on their performance based on this, and it just scales.
In the medical field, this is where it’s hugely, hugely important. There’s a long-standing institution in medical education called the standardized patient. Traditionally it’s a human actor who learns to act as a patient, and they’re given the profile of what disorders they’re supposed to have and how they’re supposed to act, and then students can practice, whether they’re diagnostic skills, whether they’re questions of student care and bedside manner, and then get expert feedback.
We now have, to a large extent, AI systems that can do this, whether it’s interactive in a text-based simulation, voice-based simulation. We also have robotic mannequins that the students can work with that are AI-powered with AI doing conversation. Then they can be doing physical exams on the mannequins that are simulating different kinds of conditions, and again, this gives the possibility of really just scaling up this kind of experiential learning. Another kind of AI that has been found useful in a number of our programs, particularly in our business program, are AI systems that watch people give presentations and can give you real-time feedback, and that works quite well.
Q: These are interesting initiatives, because it cuts out the middleman of needing a third party or maybe a peer to help the student practice the experience. But in some ways, does it gamify it too much? Is it too much like video games for students? How have you found that these are realistic enough to prepare students?
A: That is indeed a risk, and one that we need to watch. As in nearly everything that we’re doing, there are risks that need to be managed and cannot be solved. We need to be constantly alert and watching for these risks and ensuring that we don’t overstep one boundary or another.
When you talk about the gamification, or the video game nature of this, the artificial nature of it, there are really two pieces to it. One piece is the fact that there is no mannequin that exists, at least today, that can really simulate what it’s like to examine a human being and how the human being might react.
AI chatbots, as good as they are, will not now and in the near, foreseeable future, at least, be able to simulate human interactions quite accurately. So there’s always going to be a gap. What we need to do, as with other kinds of education, you read a book, the book is not going to be perfect. Your understanding of the book is not going to be perfect. There has to be an iterative process of learning. We have to have more realistic simulations, different kinds of simulations, so the students can, in a sense, mentally triangulate their different experiences to learn to do things better. That’s one piece of it.
The other piece, when you say gamification, there’s the risk that it turns into “I’m trying to do something to stimulate getting the reward or the response here or there.” And there’s a small but, I think, growing research literature on gamification of education, where if you gamify a little bit too much, it becomes more like a slot machine, and you’re learning to maneuver the machine to give you the dopamine hits or whatever, rather than really learning the content of what you’re doing. The only solution to that is for us to always be aware of what we’re doing and how it’s affecting our students and to adjust what we’re doing to avoid this risk.
This goes back to one of the key points: Our whole philosophy of this is to always look at the technology and the tools, whether AI or anything else, as embedded within a larger human context. The key here is understanding when we implement some educational experience for students, whether it involves AI or technology or not, it’s always creating incentives for the students to behave in a certain way. What are those incentives, and are those incentives aligned with the educational objectives that we have for the students? That’s the question that we always need to be asking ourselves and also observing, because with AI, we don’t entirely know what those incentives are until we see what happens. So we’re constantly learning and trying to figure this out as we go.
If I could just comment on that peer-to-peer simulation: Medical students poking each other or social work students interviewing each other for a social work kind of exam has another important learning component, because the student that is being operated upon is learning what it’s like to be in the other shoes, what it’s like to be the patient, what it’s like to be the object of investigation by the professional. And empathy is an incredibly important thing, and understanding what it’s like for them helps the students to learn, if done properly, to do it better and to have the appropriate sort of relationship with their patients.
Q: You also mentioned these simulations give the faculty insight into how the student is performing. I wonder if we can talk about that; how is that real-time feedback helpful, not only for the student but for the professor?
A: Now, one thing that needs to be said is that it’s very difficult, often, to understand where all of your students are in the learning process, what specifically they need. We can be deluged by data, if we so choose, that may confuse more than enlighten.
That said, the data that come out of these systems can definitely be quite useful. One example is there are some writing assistance programs, Grammarly and their ilk, that can provide the exact provenance of writing assignments to the faculty, so it can show the faculty exactly how something was composed. Which parts did they write first? Which parts did they write second? Maybe they outlined it, then they revised this and they changed this, and then they cut and pasted it from somewhere else and then edited.
All of those kinds of things that gives the faculty member much more detailed information about the student’s process, which can enable the faculty to give the students much more precise and useful feedback on their own learning. What do they perhaps need to be doing differently? What are they doing well? And so forth. Because then you’re not just looking at a final paper or even at a couple of drafts and trying to infer what the student was doing so that you can give them feedback, but you can actually see that more or less in real time.
That’s the sort of thing where the data can be very useful. And again, I apologize if I sound like a broken record. It all goes back to the human aspect of this, and to use data that helps the faculty member to see the individual student with their own individual ways of thinking, ways of behaving, ways of incorporating knowledge, to be able to relate to them more as an individual.
Briefly and parenthetically, one of the great hopes that we have for integrating AI into the educational process is that AI can help to take away many of the bureaucratic and other burdens that faculty are burdened with, and free them and enable them in different ways to enhance their human relationship with their students, so that we can get back to the core of education. Which really, I believe, is the transfer of knowledge and understanding through a human relationship between teacher and student.
It’s not what might be termed the “jug metaphor” for education, where I, the faculty member, have a jug full of knowledge, and I’m going to pour it into your brain, but rather, I’m going to develop a relationship with you, and through this relationship, you are going to be transformed, in some sense.
Q: This could be a whole other podcast topic, but I want to touch on this briefly. There is a risk sometimes when students are using AI-powered tools and faculty are using AI-powered tools that it is the AI engaging with itself and not necessarily the faculty with the students. When you talk about allowing AI to lift administrative burdens or ensure that faculty can connect with students, how can we make sure that it’s not robot to robot but really person to person?
A: That’s a huge and a very important topic, and one which I wish that I had a straightforward and direct and simple answer for. This is one of those risks that has to be mitigated and managed actively and continually.
One of the things that we emphasize in all our trainings for faculty and staff and all our educational modules for students about AI is the importance of the AI assisting you, rather than you assisting the AI. If the AI produces some content for you, it has to be within a process in which you’re not just reviewing it for correctness, but you’re producing the content where it’s helping you to do so in some sense.
That’s a little bit vague, because it plays out differently in different situations, and that’s the case for faculty members who are producing a syllabus or using AI to produce other content for the courses to make sure that it’s content that they are producing with AI. Same thing for the students using AI.
For example, our institutional AI policy having to do with academic honesty and integrity, is, I believe, groundbreaking in the sense that our default policy for courses that don’t have a specific policy regarding the use of AI in that course—by next spring, all courses must have a specific policy—is that AI is allowed to be used by students for a very wide variety of tasks on their assignments.
You can’t use AI to simply do your assignment for you. That is forbidden. The key is the work has to be the work of the student, but AI can be used to assist. Through establishing this as a default policy—which faculty, department chairs, deans have wide latitude to define more or less restrictive policies with specific carve-outs, simply because every field is different and the needs are different—the default and the basic attitude is, AI is a tool. You need to learn to use it well and responsibly, whatever you do.
Q: I wanted to talk about the future of AI at the university. Are there any new initiatives you should tell our listeners about? How are you all thinking about continuing to develop AI as a teaching and learning tool?
A: It’s hard for me to talk about specific initiatives, because what we’re doing is we believe that it’s AI within higher education particularly, but I think in general as well, it’s fundamentally a start-up economy in the sense that nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what to do with it, how to deal with it, how does it work? How does it not work?
Therefore, our attitude is that we want to have it run as many experiments as we can, to try as many different things as we can, different ways of teaching students, different ways of using AI to teach. Whether it’s through simulations, content creation, some sort of AI teaching assistants working with faculty members, whether it’s faculty members coming up with very creative assignments for students that enable them to learn the subject matter more deeply by AI assisting them to do very difficult tasks, perhaps, or tasks that require great creativity, or something like that.
The sky is the limit, and we want all of our faculty to experiment and develop. We’re seeking to create that within the institution. Touro is a wonderful institution for that, because we already have the basic institutional culture for this, to have an entrepreneurial culture within the university. So the university as a whole is an entrepreneurial ecosystem for experimenting and developing ways of teaching about and with and through AI.
The Trump administration reportedly froze nearly $6 billion in grants and contracts, but most of that has since been restored.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | arlutz73 and Wolterk/iStock/Getty Images
Thanks to a series of settlements and court orders, some universities that had their grants frozen by the Trump administration earlier this year have seen that funding restored.
But others are still trying to unfreeze the grants and learn more about why they were suspended in the first place.
Since March, the Trump administration has said that it put nearly $6 billion on hold at nine universities. Three universities—Columbia, Penn and Brown—cut deals with the administration to restore the funding, while the University of California, Los Angeles, and Harvard got the money back via court orders. The fate of the remaining four freezes—at Duke, Cornell, Northwestern and Princeton Universities—remains uncertain.
Princeton has seen about half of its frozen grants restored, President Christopher Eisgruber told the alumni magazine in late August. Roughly $200 million was put on hold initially.
Eisgruber said Princeton never learned why the funds were frozen, beyond media reports that connected it to concerns over antisemitism on campus. A Princeton spokesperson confirmed the magazine’s report but declined to share more details about the status of the remaining grants.
At Northwestern, the Trump administration reportedly froze about $790 million in early April, though officials said at the time they never received formal notification about why the funds were put on hold. Since then, Northwestern officials have said they are working to restore the grants—a process that apparently hasn’t gone smoothly.
Northwestern University interim president Henry Bienen toldThe Daily Northwestern in an Oct. 17 interview that “a negotiation really requires two parties, at least, and at the present time, there’s not been anybody on the other end of the line.”
As the freeze persists, Northwestern has said it will continue to support researchers’ “essential funding needs” at least through the end of the calendar year. Bienen told the student newspaper that supporting the research costs $30 million to $40 million a month.
The university has laid off more than 400 employees and instituted other measures to cut costs, though officials said those moves were driven by more than just the funding freeze.
Cornell University is also in talks with the administration to find a solution to the freeze. However, President Michael Kotlikoff recently shared new information about the impact of the freeze that calls into question the Trump administration’s figures.
Trump officials told media outlets in April that they froze more than $1 billion at Cornell. But Kotlikoff said last week in his State of the University address that Cornell is actually facing about $250 million in canceled or unpaid research funds. (The university’s research expenditures totaled $1.6 billion in the 2023–24 academic year.)
Like Northwestern and Princeton, Cornell hasn’t received a formal letter about the freeze, though media reports suggested that the administration froze the grants “because of concerns around antisemitism following pro-Palestinian activities on campus beginning in fall of 2023,” Kotlikoff said.
Following news stories about the freeze, Kotlikoff said the university “started receiving stop-work orders ‘by direction of the White House’: halting research on everything from better tests for tick-borne diseases, to pediatric heart assist pumps, to ultrafast lasers for national defense, to AI optimization for blood transfusion delivery. At the same time, many other research grants, while not officially canceled, stopped being paid.” (About $74 million of the $250 million is in unpaid bills, he said.)
Kotlikoff added that Cornell has been talking with the federal government for six months “to identify their concerns, provide evidence to address them, and return to a productive partnership.” In August, Bloombergreported that the White House wanted to reach a $100 million settlement with Cornell.
But Kotlikoff also criticized the administration for not using established legal processes to investigate potential civil rights violations, echoing a point expertshavemade for months.
“I want to be clear that there are established procedures in place for the government to handle such concerns,” he said in his State of the University address. “Accusations of discrimination should be supported by, and adjudicated on the basis of, facts. This has not happened.”
Kotlikoff, who was appointed president in March, made clear in his address to the Board of Trustees and university alumni that Cornell won’t agree to give up control of admissions or curricular decisions, among other things.
“We will not agree to allow the government to dictate our institution’s policies, or how to enforce them,” he said. “And we will never abandon our commitment to be an institution where any person can find instruction in any study.”
The administration has also said it froze about $108 million at Duke University, but neither Duke nor the National Institutes of Health responded to Inside Higher Ed’s request for an update.
Reid retired in August after 30 years at New College.
Thomas Simonetti/The Washington Post/Getty Images
Amy Reid, a former professor of French at New College of Florida, was granted “honorary alumni” status by the New College Alumni Association Board of Directors in a unanimous vote nearly three weeks after she was denied emerita status by college president Richard Corcoran.
“I was honored when my colleagues nominated me for emerita status and when the New College Alumni Association adopted me as one of their own, in recognition of my long teaching career and my vocal advocacy for the College, its academic program, and for the position of gender studies in the liberal arts,” Reid said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “New College students have made their mark because they are fiercely independent and courageous learners. I’ll try to live up to their standards. To the Novo community: Honor & Respect.”
The honorary designation, rarely bestowed, gives Reid the same “rights and privileges” as other New College alumni, including access to alumni events, according to the alumni association’s motion. Reid retired in August after teaching at New College for more than 30 years and now serves as interim director of PEN America’s Freedom to Learn program.
Reid was also the founder of the now-defunct gender studies program at New College, which the then–newly appointed conservative board eliminated in 2023. The college was mired in controversy again the following summer when officials tossed books from its former Gender and Diversity Center in the trash.
Despite what alumni association governance committee chair Chris Van Dyk described as “overwhelming recommendation” for emerita status, including from New College provost David Rohrbacher and leaders in the Division of Humanities, Corcoran denied Reid the emerita title because of her outspoken faculty advocacy and criticism of conservative leadership at New College.
“Although I recognize Professor Reid’s contributions to New College in teaching and scholarship, I cannot concur with the Division and Provost that she be honored with the title of emeritus,” Corcoran wrote in an email to Rohrbacher. “When I became president with a mandate for change from the Board of Trustees, there was need for reasoned and respectful exchange between the faculty and administration. Regrettably, Professor Reid was one of the leading voices of hyperbolic alarmism and needless obstruction. In her letter of resignation, Professor Reid wrote that ‘the New College where I once taught no longer exists.’ She need not be burdened by further association with it.”
After the former faculty representative to the New College Board of Trustees quit in protest, Reid was elected to fill the role in 2023. She and student representative Grace Keenan were the only two board members to vote against Corcoran’s appointment as permanent president, Florida Politics reported.
Emeritus status is largely symbolic, but it does usually come with some concrete perks, including the continued use of institutional email accounts, library and athletic facilities access, and sometimes free campus parking.
