Tag: Jobs

ED Designates 23% of Colleges “Lower Earnings”

First-time undergraduates applying for federal student aid will now receive a warning if they indicate interest in an institution where graduates don’t earn more than an adult with a high school diploma.

The new earnings indicator on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid is aimed at ensuring students have more information about their postsecondary options, Education Department officials said in a news release Monday. Consumer protection advocates generally praised the department’s move, while institutional groups criticized it.

About 23 percent of the nearly 5,900 institutions in the department’s database will be labeled as “lower earnings.” Those colleges enroll fewer than 3 percent of undergraduates and receive about $2 billion in federal student aid annually. That’s a fraction of the more than $100 billion in federal aid that’s doled out each year. The department pulled from publicly available data to generate the label, and program-level data is available online on the College Scorecard.

This warning comes after years of debates over how to give students more information about the outcomes at institutions and specific programs. An Obama-era effort was scuttled after higher ed groups and institutions pushed back. However, a new rule drafted by the Biden administration will eventually provide more program-level data on earnings, which consumer protection advocates say will help to steer students away from those that don’t pay off.

“This new indicator will help students and families better understand how their choices could translate into real-world outcomes, and it will be provided at a crucial moment in the college decision-making process,” Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent wrote in a blog post. “This indicator is designed to inform—not limit—student choices. It’s one additional resource students can use—alongside factors like cost, mission, location, and personal interests—to identify the path that best aligns with their goals.”

Most of the 1,365 institutions flagged for lower earnings are for-profits and beauty schools. A few on the list are community colleges and historically Black colleges and universities.

The association that represents cosmetology schools didn’t respond to a request for comment Monday. However, the group has fought efforts to tie financial aid eligibility to students’ earnings, arguing in part that the underlying data is inaccurate.

The left-leaning think tank New America released a report critical of the industry earlier this year, calling it “predatory.” Meanwhile, Michelle Dimino, director of the education program at Third Way, a left-of-center think tank, expects the lower-earnings list to add to the scrutiny on beauty schools.

“Well over half [on the list] were [beauty schools and cosmetology institutes],” Dimino said. “That continues to really raise the temperature around that industry and some of the questions about return on investment and supply and demand in that space, how they might think about licensing and other requirements to be able to appropriately calibrate their costs with their outputs.”

Institutional representatives said Monday afternoon that while they support greater transparency, they are concerned about the department’s methods to create the designation, such as which students are included in the calculations and how the earnings metric doesn’t take into account regional variations and differences in earnings for specific fields.

“This is a blunt tool for a nuanced process that has enormous potential for creating misleading outcomes,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “Much more care, time and attention should have gone into it, and it would be all the better for it if ED had done that. Regardless of their motivations, there are good reasons to question the process and how useful it will actually be. “

Fansmith added that if the department is flagging low performers, it should also highlight high performers.

In the release, Kent’s blog post and other online information about the earnings flag, the department made clear that it’s not taking a “position on the underlying value of educational services provided by any institution of higher education.”

Jordan Wicker, senior vice president of legislative and regulatory affairs at Career Education Colleges and Universities, which represents the for-profit sector, said in a statement that he appreciates that the earnings indicator applies to all institutions.

“CECU believes disclosures like this can be improved by including non-completer earnings data, which the College Scorecard currently lacks,” he said. “Similarly, CECU is consistent in its critique of the dataset for the comparison group age 25-34, as well as accounting for regional variations in earnings. We share the Department’s commitment to transparency and will work with them to ensure that the most accurate disclosures are provided to help students select the school that best fits their needs and wishes.”

First-year undergraduates will see the label on their FAFSA Submission Summary. From there, they can click to receive more detailed earnings information on the institutions they selected. Students can then opt to remove a flagged institution.

Even students who have already submitted their FAFSA can see whether any of their chosen schools have been flagged. In his blog post, Kent said the notices have “no impact on FAFSA completion, submission, or eligibility for aid.”

Starting next July, all college programs will have to show their graduates make more than the average adult with only a high school diploma in order to access federal student aid. The department is still working through the specifics of how that test, known as Do No Harm, will work.

To Dimino of Third Way, the launch of the indicator is a sign of growing momentum toward greater transparency and more information about earnings.

Dimino particularly likes the department’s decision to tell students about the earnings data after they complete the FAFSA. She thinks disclosure at that step will help ensure students actually see the information and can use it as they consider their options. She is interested in learning more about how students act on the data and whether they decide against sending the lower-earnings institutions their aid application.

Students lack awareness about available earnings data or where to find it, according to Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Student Voice survey, conducted in August. About 11 percent of students said they don’t know where to find postgraduation outcomes information and an additional 8 percent said they “know nothing” about postgraduation outcomes. Just 12 percent said they knew detailed outcome data for their program.

Michael Itzkowitz, founder of higher education research and policy firm HEA Group, said the earnings indicator is “a step in the right direction for transparency.”

“Students today primarily attend college to secure better employment opportunities, and they deserve to know up front whether an institution simply isn’t delivering on that promise,” he said. “Most institutions deliver on the promise of economic prosperity but, unfortunately, some do not.”

Source link

December 9, 2025
AI Can Help With Viewpoint Diversity Challenges (opinion)

Viewpoint diversity and artificial intelligence are two of the most widely discussed challenges facing higher education today. What if we could address these two simultaneously, employing AI to create productive intellectual friction across different political and philosophical positions?

Consider taking this approach: Whom do you ardently disagree with, philosophically or morally, but view as smart and rigorous in their analysis and arguments? I can think of one of my high school heroes, Ayn Rand, whose The Fountainhead I initially regarded as a powerful affirmation of creativity and innovation without knowing much about her deeper political ideology. This summer, I decided to read her collection of essays on capitalism, which I suspected I would disagree with at a fundamental level. Then I looked to AI. Could I engage Ayn Rand’s ideas through a large language model that would “disagree” with me, allowing me to experience intellectual friction with less at stake personally?

I began my conversation with the chatbot Claude 3.5, asking it to play the role of Ayn Rand, by addressing her core argument: Capitalism is the only moral system because it honors the rights and liberty of every person to reap the benefits of their own creativity and effort without being coerced to give up some of what they have produced to “benefit” society. Here is how it went.

Me: In your version of capitalism, how do humans/societies decide to produce something bigger than anyone could do alone? What if sending someone to the moon could never be coordinated through independent, voluntary contracts and instead requires some larger entity, like a government, to coordinate and incentivize? If democratic citizens vote to have the government organize a mission to the moon, why is that coercive?

*Adjusting her glasses with a stern expression* (Stage cues provided by the bot)

Rand bot: Your question reveals the very philosophical premises I reject. You speak of “democratic citizens” voting to achieve something “greater together”—but greater for whom? By what right do these citizens vote to expropriate the wealth of others for their collective fantasy?

The fact that some men dream of reaching the moon does not give them the moral right to force others to fund their dream. If reaching the moon is truly valuable, let those who see that value risk their own capital, form their own companies and make voluntary contracts. Look at what private enterprises like SpaceX have achieved through voluntary cooperation and the profit motive!

You present a false dichotomy between individual rights and large-scale achievement. The greatest achievements in human history—from the transcontinental railroad to the electric light—came from private individuals working through voluntary contracts, not government force. Even when multiple parties were involved, they chose to cooperate for mutual benefit.

The moment you accept that it’s acceptable to violate individual rights for some “greater good,” you’ve accepted the premise of every dictator and looter in history. There is no such thing as a “right” to violate rights. A group’s desire, no matter how noble-sounding, does not trump an individual’s right to the product of their own effort.

*Takes drag from cigarette* (more stage cues …)

Would you care to explain why you believe some men have the right to enslave others for their collective goals?

I was fully engaged at this point, and I wanted to expose her rigid thinking, so I raised the stakes.

Me: Would you agree that public health might require a “collective response”? Let’s say that individuals acting independently have no incentive to invest in clean water, vaccines or databases that collect public health data. Is it better to allow millions of people to die from the spread of disease in the name of maximum individual freedom, or to have the government coordinate action to provide public health benefits to everyone?

Rand bot: *Tapping cigarette ash with visible irritation*

Your premise rests on the most dangerous of all moral fallacies— that the mere existence of a problem justifies the use of force to solve it. You speak of “public health” as if it were some mystical collective entity that supersedes individual rights. There is no such thing as “public health”—there are only individual human beings, each with the right to make their own decisions about their health and well-being.

This back-and-forth went on for more than an hour, covering topics like innovation, market failures and unequal access to basic resources. I was worn out, so I closed the conversation.

Me: I am arguing that humans can create mixed economic and political systems and that those systems can muddle along—imperfectly—and people may live with those compromises because they still have freedom while affording greater opportunity to their fellow citizens. You believe in an inevitable slide toward destruction and loss of freedom. I don’t see that slide happening in much of the democratic world. So compromise is possible. So I think we can work with this hybrid system—improve, find the right balance, and continue to advance a more perfect union.

And then, “Ayn Rand” made her final summation:

Rand bot: You want me to acknowledge that reality has not matched my darkest predictions. That humans have found ways to maintain significant freedom and progress despite what I see as moral compromise. And you argue that evidence matters—that decades of relative prosperity and innovation under mixed systems deserve consideration.

I cannot and will not concede the fundamental moral principle: that force is force, whether applied by a dictator or a democratic majority. Your “muddling along” is built on a fundamental contradiction that I believe must eventually resolve itself—either toward freedom or toward force …

I was impressed that the bot could articulate Rand’s core arguments, impersonate her direct writing and speaking style, question my own logic, provide specific examples, “reason” beyond the time and place of her original writing, and offer creative analogies (when pressed to explain the economic success of today’s welfare capitalism, she responded, “You are celebrating reaching the 2nd floor while I am pointing out that we could have built a skyscraper”). This was one of the most intellectually engaging 90 minutes I have spent in a long time.

I wanted to check my reactions against the wisdom and judgment of one of our philosophy professors at Hamilton College, so I sent the entire exchange to him. He noted that the AI bot argued like a robot and relied too heavily on rhetoric rather than sound argumentation. Ultimately, the problem, as he sees it, is that “an AI Bot will never be able to genuinely distinguish between debating with the intent of ‘winning’ an argument and debating with the intent of arriving at a deeper understanding of the subject matter at hand.” It is also worth pointing out that debating across a screen, with AI or with friends and strangers, is partly why we are having so much trouble talking to each other in the first place.

AI is not a substitute for what we learn in our philosophy classes. But there is something powerful about practicing our ideas with people across time and place—debating race with James Baldwin, asking Leonardo da Vinci to think about how we reconcile innovation with destruction.

One of our faculty members worked with our technology team to create an AI agent based on thousands of documents and writings from our nation’s founders. At the end of this class on the founding of America, the students debated with “Alexander Hamilton” about the role of the central government, inherited wealth and his views on war. Perhaps the answers were a bit robotic, but they were based on Hamilton’s documented thoughts, and as our language models get better, the richness of the discussion and debate will grow exponentially.

The best classes and teachers maximize learning by bringing opposing ideas into conversation. But we know that college students, faculty and many others in America find it very difficult to engage opposing views, especially those we find fundamentally objectionable. Ultimately, this must happen on a human-to-human level with skilled educators and facilitators. But can we also use AI to help us practice how we engage with difference, better formulate our arguments and ask deeper and more complex questions?

AI can be part of the solution to our challenge of engaging with ideas we disagree with. If you disagree, try your argument with an AI bot first, and then let’s talk.

Steven Tepper is president of Hamilton College.

Source link

December 9, 2025
Closing Equity Gaps in CTE Programs for Black Students

Black students enroll in career and technical education programs at rates on par with their peers, but studies suggest they’re overrepresented in service-oriented fields that lead to lower-wage jobs, and less likely to participate in CTE courses in potentially lucrative STEM fields.

A new research brief, released last week by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, delved into such inequities and explored possible solutions based on qualitative interviews with Black program staff, current and former CTE students, members of workforce development organizations, training providers, researchers, and other CTE experts. The authors argue those voices are especially critical when federal legislation funding the programs—the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, or Perkins V—is poised for reauthorization in fiscal year 2026.

The report pointed out that in the 2022–23 academic year, Black students made up about 13 percent of high school students and about 15 percent of college students in CTE programs. But a 2020 analysis of CTE data in 40 states by Hechinger Report and the Associated Press found that Black students were less likely than their white peers to enroll in courses focused on science, technology, engineering, math and information technology, and more likely to take classes in fields such as hospitality and human services.

A 2021 report by the Urban Institute also found that compared to their white peers, Black students in CTE courses had significantly lower grade point averages, lower rates of earning credentials or degrees at their first colleges, and a lower likelihood of finding a job in a related field. On average, Black participants in these programs earned more than $8,200 less than white students six years after starting CTE programs, controlling for the highest degree attained and sector of study. Earnings gaps worsened for Black students in online CTE programs; Black students who enrolled in those earned less than half of what their white peers did, despite having started in the same program in the same year, eventually earning the same degrees.

“These disparities are major barriers to increasing the earning potential of Black workers and learners and to narrowing the racial wealth divide,” Joint Center president Dedrick Asante-Muhammad said in a news release.

Lessons Learned

In interviews with the Joint Center, Black CTE experts shared insights into some of the challenges of providing more equitable CTE programs.

Some emphasized that Black CTE teachers, and technical instructors in general, are hard to recruit and retain because they can make better salaries working industry jobs in their fields, leaving students without mentors who look like them. In general, the experts raised concerns about CTE instructors lacking professional development, including on culturally responsive teaching.

The research brief also suggested that Black communities don’t always trust CTE programs because historically, schools funneled Black students into low-quality technical programs. CTE programs hold a stigma for some potential students who still view them as pathways for students of color considered unlikely to attend college rather than a viable career step that doesn’t preclude higher education, the brief said.

Experts also noted that while Perkins V funds require states to submit a local needs assessment, which involves reviewing enrollment and performance data for CTE students, data collection varies across states and gaps in data too often serve students poorly. For example, the mandatory accountability measures for Perkins V funds require data on CTE concentrators—high school students who finished at least two courses in the same CTE program—but that doesn’t include college students or students who dabble in CTE but don’t qualify as a concentrator.

Co-author of the brief and Joint Center workforce policy director Kayla Elliott also acknowledged that the Trump administration’s recent decision to shift management of CTE programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor creates new uncertainty for the programs.

“This raises real concerns for the program’s effectiveness and the efficiency of support services for state administrators,” she said in the release. “Some states have already reported waiting months for their Perkins funding with little communication or support from the administration.”

But CTE experts also said Perkins V funding is flexible in ways that can help support Black students. For example, states can use up to 15 percent of the federal funds to drive innovation and implement new programs. States can also combine Perkins V funding with other funding sources, like the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which can help states better align CTE programs and workforce development programs. The funds can also be used for career exploration activities to introduce Black students to these programs.

The research brief offered recommendations to improve Black student access and outcomes in CTE, including increasing federal funding during the next reauthorization; improving retention and recruitment strategies for Black CTE teachers, including by raising instructor wages; and enhancing data collection standards. The authors also suggested CTE programs better align with workforce development efforts at the state level and do more engagement and outreach to help Black families better understand how these programs can lead to high-earning technical careers.

Source link

December 9, 2025
Why Universities Need a Strategic Marketing Shift
This past week, presenting at the UPCEA MEMS conference in Boston, we explored a question that is becoming central to the future of higher education: What does it actually take to engage learners in lifelong learning with an institution?

In a moment of rising enrollment volatility, shifting global dynamics and accelerating technological change, this question cuts to the heart of what universities must become. For decades, higher education has centered its marketing and enrollment strategy around discrete, program-level recruitment pipelines: find prospective students, convert them into a program and repeat the cycle for the next cohort.

But today’s learners don’t behave in discrete cycles. Their lives aren’t structured around one big decision. They move fluidly across roles, industries and learning needs. They progress in fits and starts. They upskill to chase opportunity or reskill to navigate disruption. They return to learning not once, but many times over.

And that means universities have a unique opportunity—if they choose to seize it.

Rethinking Acquisition

Rather than thinking transactionally—acquiring each enrollment anew—we can build relationships that honor a simple premise: If we provide value consistently, learners will keep choosing us.

This is about rewriting the social contract. Not only with current students, but with alumni, midcareer professionals, online learners and the millions of individuals who may engage with us long before (or long after) a degree is on the table.

Gone are the days when it is sufficient for a university to promise that earning a college degree is all that is needed for a long, successful career. Today’s learners and our broader society demand more.

Instead, imagine a world where a learner begins with a short online experience or a noncredit course from an institution and immediately encounters a clear, welcoming pathway:

Try something, learn something, earn a credential, return to learn more; stack the credentials and pursue a degree; return again for what’s next in their career and life.

This is not an acquisition and retention strategy rooted in constraints. It is a relationship strategy rooted in community, trust and relevance.

Lifetime learning becomes a shared journey and not simply a recruitment goal.

Why Strategic Marketing Must Shift

Much of higher ed’s traditional marketing infrastructure was built for a different era—one where programs were stable, pipelines were predictable and learners followed linear paths. Budgets are owned by program leaders, who allocate a portion to marketing “their” program. Central marketing functions may provide brand guidelines and a few templates. Marketing happens in silos across the institution.

Challenges to this model today abound: from surging paid media costs and the rise of nontraditional learners to how AI is reshaping both labor markets and learner preferences. In this landscape, marketing single programs in isolation is not only inefficient—it’s misaligned with how learners actually behave.

The more effective and learner-centered approach is clear.

Market On-Ramps and Pathways, Not Just Destinations

Instead of funding dozens of disconnected campaigns across schools and units, universities can invest centrally in marketing strategic portfolios of programs, composed of not just degrees but noncredit courses, certificates and more. This aligns messaging, reduces duplication, supports brand coherence, expands reach and—most importantly—mirrors the way different learner segments make decisions.

People don’t all jump straight into an undergraduate degree or master’s program. They explore. They try something small and low-risk. They re-engage when life or work creates new urgency. They seek clarity, not complexity.

Portfolio-based marketing meets them where they are.

Building for Lifelong Value

At the University of Michigan, we have been reorganizing our approach to online learning and marketing through this lens. Michigan Online, stewarded by the Center for Academic Innovation, serves as our unified destination for online, noncredit and for-credit learning opportunities.

When a learner enters Michigan Online, our goal is not simply to direct them to a single offering; we welcome them into a coherent ecosystem.
1. Pathways That Make Progression Clear
We’ve aligned noncredit courses and certificates with for-credit opportunities, creating intentional pathways that help learners move from exploration to deeper engagement. When learners earn value early, the transition to degrees becomes more natural and more meaningful.
1. CRM and Automation as Relationship Infrastructure
We invested in CRM and marketing automation, bringing together noncredit and for-credit learner records into a single enterprise system. Just as importantly, we invested in the people and processes to use the tools well. This allows us to nurture learners over time, personalize recommendations, track cross-program engagement and create communications that feel relevant rather than transactional.
1. A Shared Experience, Not a Siloed One
By unifying messaging, branding and learner pathways, Michigan Online makes it easier for individuals to see themselves across programs, schools and stages of life. Instead of navigating institutional boundaries, they navigate opportunities.
1. Reduced Reliance on Expensive Paid Media
When the value is built into the learning itself—and when pathways clearly connect noncredit to for-credit—universities can rely less on costly late-funnel advertising. The relationship, not the ad spend, becomes the engine of enrollment.

The Future Belongs to Institutions That Build Relationships, Not Funnels

A lifetime-value approach to learners is not simply a marketing strategy. It is an institutional strategy. It asks universities to:
- Design portfolios—not just degree programs
- Welcome learners early—with value, not pressure
- Create seamless transitions between credential types
- Embrace personalization at scale
- Invest in shared infrastructure instead of parallel campaigns
- Build trust by offering meaningful learning at every stage
Learners are telling us, through their behavior and their choices, that the old model no longer fits. They want ecosystems, guidance and clarity. They still want courses and content but they also want coaching and community. They want to return again and again, not because they’re targeted—but because they’re well served.

The question for universities is not whether this shift is coming. It’s whether they will lead it. Leading means protecting a direct relationship with learners—so access, quality, privacy and long-term benefit remain anchored in educational values, not solely in market logic

We believe that if institutions embrace this more holistic, value-centered approach—one rooted in lifelong relationship-building—they will not only strengthen enrollment resilience. They will also deepen their impact, broaden their reach and fulfill the promise at the heart of higher education: to support learners not just once, but throughout their lives.

James DeVaney is associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

James Cleaver is chief marketing officer for the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

Carol Podschwadt is associate director of marketing for the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.
Source link
December 9, 2025
Making OBBBA Implementation Work for Students

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is the biggest shake-up to federal higher education policy in more than a decade. And while the bill passed on partisan lines, implementing it to maximize student success and postsecondary value requires real bipartisan cooperation. With negotiated rule making under way, and 2026 implementation deadlines looming, a new deep-dive report from Inside Higher Ed, “After Reconciliation: Higher Ed Reform and Where Left–Right Collaboration Matters Most,” looks at conservative, progressive and institutional priorities and perspectives on three key areas of OBBBA: institutional accountability for student outcomes; new loan limits and payment reforms; and changes to the Pell Grant program, including the introduction of Workforce Pell.

Join the Discussion

On Wednesday, Jan. 21 at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will host a live webcast discussion on the report and OBBBA’s impact on higher education. Register for that here. Download the free report here.

Despite clear differences of opinion on various areas of the bill, many experts agree on the need for accountability, limits on excessive graduate debt and support for high-value training programs.

“The underlying principles here of stronger accountability for financial outcomes, of reining in excessive borrowing, especially in the graduate education space—those are bipartisan priorities that have been expressed for a long time,” says Michelle Dimino, director of education programs at the think tank Third Way. “These are conversations that we have been having in the higher education reform space for the last decade and beyond.”

Common concerns also emerge around the tight timeline for adoption, the data infrastructure to support changes, aligning earnings regulations, handling repayment plan transfers with care, protecting the Pell Grant budget and more. Another challenge: execution by an Education Department in transition.

“After Reconciliation: Higher Ed Reform and Where Left–Right Collaboration Matters Most” was written by Ben Upton. The independent editorial project is supported by Arnold Ventures.

Source link

December 9, 2025
ED Calls Civil Rights Workers It’s Trying to Ax Back to Work

The OCR employees were fired in March as part of a broader reduction in force at the Education Department.

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

The Education Department is calling Office for Civil Rights employees who were fired earlier this year back to work.

The Trump administration tried to ax half of the Education Department’s OCR staff in March, but it has been paying them not to work since then while it continues to fight litigation contesting its plan. The department says it hasn’t given up on defending that move, but now says it’s “important to refocus OCR’s work and utilize all OCR staff to prioritize OCR’s existing complaint caseload.”

“In order for OCR to pursue its mission with all available resources, all those individuals currently being compensated by the Department need to meet their employee performance expectations and contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints,” the department said in Friday emails obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “Utilizing all OCR employees, including those currently on administrative leave, will bolster and refocus efforts on enforcement activities in a way that serves and benefits parents, students, and families.”

One email gave an employee a Dec. 15 return date, while another said Dec. 29. It’s unclear how many workers will return. Bloomberg reported that the order went out to “more than 260,” while USA Today cited the department as saying “roughly 250,” but the Associated Press said “dozens.” Inside Higher Ed is awaiting clarification from the department.

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents department employees, said her union hasn’t been told how many workers in its bargaining unit received the email. She said in a statement Monday that “while we are relieved these public servants are finally being allowed to return to work, Education Secretary Linda McMahon has made clear that she would rather play politics than uphold her responsibility to protect students’ rights.”

“For more than nine months, hundreds of employees at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have been sidelined from the critical work of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students and families,” Gittleman said. She said the administration’s actions keeping these employees out of work and on leave “wasted more than $40 million in taxpayer funds.”

“By blocking OCR staff from doing their jobs, Department leadership allowed a massive backlog of civil rights complaints to grow, and now expects these same employees to clean up a crisis entirely of the Department’s own making,” she added.

Source link

December 8, 2025
U of Kansas Expands Program for Students With Disabilities

The University of Kansas has received a five-year, $1.9 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education to grow the university’s transition program for students with intellectual disabilities.

KU Transition to Postsecondary Education (KU TPE) first launched at the Lawrence campus in 2015 to provide experiences for such students to engage in higher education and land a meaningful job. Now, the program will expand to two neighboring institutions, increasing opportunities for learners in the state.

The background: Approximately one in five individuals with disabilities graduate from college, compared to 38 percent of people without disabilities, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

The Transition and Post-secondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) grant provides funding to colleges and universities to create or expand programming for students who meet the criteria.

Other colleges, including Utah Valley University, have received similar grants from ED to kick-start educational programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities. For the 2025 award year, Northeastern State University in Oklahoma, Washington State University, Texas A&M University–San Antonio, Georgian Court University in New Jersey, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, the University of Memphis and Curry College in Massachusetts were among the grant recipients.

How it works: Students enrolled in KU TPE complete two-year undergraduate certificates, with the goal of landing a competitive job after graduation that aligns with their personal and career goals, according to the university press release.

“Students come in as full-fledged, card-carrying Jayhawks,” Dana Lattin, research project director at KU TPE, said in a university press release. “They take courses like those in any other program of study that are aligned with their career and personal interest.”

TPE students complete 24 credit hours—about six credits per semester—including nine credits on career and life planning, three credits for communication coursework, three credits for health and wellness classes, and nine for electives. In addition, students are encouraged to find employment and paid internships while enrolled, helping set them up for success after graduation.

Part of the program’s effectiveness stems from the students’ integration into campus life, researchers said. TPE participants engage in campus resources and activities—including clubs, organizations and events—just like their peers enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs.

Data shows that 74 percent of graduates are employed in their communities after completing their credential; by comparison, only 6 percent of all adults with disabilities in Kansas are employed in a competitive role.

Scaling up: Campus leaders plan to use the funding to increase program supports for KU TPE participants, including adding credential programs, bolstering peer supports and establishing more career development elements, according to the program abstract submitted to ED.

The university will also establish a consortium with Wichita State University Tech and Benedictine College, also in Kansas, to create additional transition programs for students with disabilities. The goal is to increase enrollment opportunities for as many as 48 students across the state.

The KU research team is also looking for additional funding from the state to ensure the programs are sustainable.

“Sharing that 75 percent of people with intellectual disability who attend college are competitively employed, many of which are working full-time, will help show the value of ongoing support for these programs in Kansas,” Lattin said.

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

Source link

December 8, 2025
Harvard Prof to Leave U.S. After Immigration Arrest

At the time of his initial arrest, Gouvea said he was hunting rats.

APCortizasJr/iStock/Getty Images

Immigration authorities arrested Carlos Portugal Gouvea, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, on Wednesday after his J-1 visa was revoked for shooting a BB gun outside of a Boston-area synagogue Oct. 2, the day of Yom Kippur. Gouvea agreed to voluntarily leave the United States rather than be deported.

The Department of State revoked Gouvea’s visa Oct. 16, and a month later, Gouvea accepted a plea deal “on the charge of illegal use of the air rifle while his other charges for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, and vandalizing property were dismissed,” the Department of Homeland Security wrote in a news release.

Gouvea shot the pellet gun outside Temple Beth Zion in Brookline, Mass., just a few miles south of the Harvard campus, The New York Times reported. Private security guards for the synagogue heard a loud noise outside, and the temple was put in a lockdown. When a guard saw Gouvea behind a tree and attempted to arrest him, they engaged in a brief physical struggle and then Gouvea fled, the Times reported. He was later arrested by Brookline police. Gouvea fired two total shots, one of which police later discovered had shattered a car window. Harvard officials put Gouvea on administrative leave shortly after his October arrest.

In its news release, the Department of Homeland Security called the act an “anti-Semitic shooting incident,” a characterization federal officials have maintained since the incident.

“It is a privilege to work and study in the United States, not a right. There is no room in the United States for brazen, violent acts of anti-Semitism like this. They are an affront to our core principals as a country and an unacceptable threat against law-abiding American citizens,” Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, said in a statement. “We are under zero obligation to admit foreigners who commit these inexplicably reprehensible acts or to let them stay here. Secretary Noem has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and commit anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism should think again. You are not welcome here.”

At the time of his initial arrest, Gouvea said he was “hunting rats.” He was not charged with a hate crime by local police, and leaders from Temple Beth Zion told the Times they did not believe the shooting was motivated by bias.

“From what we were initially told by police, the individual was unaware that he lived next to, and was shooting his BB gun next to, a synagogue, or that it was a religious holiday,” Benjamin Maron, the synagogue’s executive director, and Larry Kraus, its president, wrote in the statement to the Times. “It is potentially dangerous to use a BB gun in such a populated spot, but it does not appear to have been fueled by antisemitism.”

A lawyer for Gouvea also told the Times in October that the matter was “a total misunderstanding of an entirely innocent situation.”

Source link

December 8, 2025
Coach Buyouts Boom to Record Highs

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania State University announced it would close seven campuses due to financial constraints, while Louisiana State University implemented a hiring freeze and other cost-cutting measures.

Months later both institutions fired their head football coaches—for a price. Despite Penn State’s financial challenges, administrators were willing to pay more than $45 million to make head coach James Franklin go away after the Nittany Lions posted a 6-3 record. LSU fired Brian Kelly after a 5-3 start and gave him a buyout of $54 million.

Franklin’s total buyout was ultimately reduced to $9 million when he landed the head coaching job at Virginia Tech, and Kelly’s exit package will also shrink should he find another position. But the eye-popping compensation numbers are adding up—and setting new records at a time when many colleges and universities are cutting costs.

Record Buyouts

Recent data compiled by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics shows that failing is a lucrative business for college football coaches. Fifteen fired football coaches have already racked up collective buyouts of nearly $228 million from public universities, compared to $120 million in fiscal year 2024. (Those totals are for Football Bowl Subdivision coaches only, formerly known as Division I-A, and only include public universities, since private institutions don’t release such contract details.)

Former LSU coach Brian Kelly landed one of the largest buyouts in the history of college sports.

Gus Stark/LSU/University Images/Getty Images

The Knight Commission noted that individual coaching buyouts this year “are the second, third, fourth, and fifth highest severance pay obligations in history.” The top slot still belongs to Texas A&M University, which fired Jimbo Fisher in 2023 with an exit package of more than $75 million.

Looking across a longer timeline, the commission estimates that universities shelled out a total of $852 million in severance pay for football coaches, including assistants, between 2012 and 2024.

University Responses

Universities often stress that coaching buyouts are paid with donor funds, not public money. Even so, some experts argue that paying vast sums of money to fire coaches is problematic and damages faculty and staff morale, especially at universities that are slashing jobs and budgets.

Penn State defended its recent buyout to Inside Higher Ed by emphasizing that its athletic program is among the few in the nation “that is self-sustaining and therefore does not use any tuition or taxpayer dollars.” In addition, the university said, it has a major economic impact on the surrounding area.

“Decisions regarding budgets and operations of the academic enterprise are separate and distinct,” a spokesperson wrote in an emailed response to a question about closing rural campuses across Pennsylvania. “As noted, no tuition or tax dollars are used for athletics. The difficult but necessary decisions Penn State has made impacting campuses and unit budgets, have been made with a core focus on setting our students up with the best opportunities for success.”

LSU did not provide a statement to emailed questions prior to publication.

Congressional Scrutiny

While Congress has deliberated capping pay for college athletes—whom institutions can now pay directly, as of earlier this year—Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics CEO Amy Privette Perko has encouraged lawmakers to rein in coaching salaries.

“As Congress debates the merits of federal legislation to place limits and guardrails on college athlete compensation, it should also examine the conditions that allow for the continued growth of excessive compensation and severance for football coaches at non-profit universities,” she said in a statement accompanying the organization’s report on buyouts.

Some members of Congress appear interested in taking on runaway salaries and buyouts.

In October, Representative Michael Baumgartner, a Washington Republican, introduced the Correcting Opportunity and Accountability in Collegiate Hiring Act, a proposal that would cap annual pay for all athletics department employees. Baumgartner’s proposed bill would limit annual pay to no more than 10 times the cost of in-state tuition for undergraduate students.

While new LSU coach Lane Kiffin is set to make $13 million a year, his annual salary would be dramatically lower—about $280,000—under the pay scheme proposed by Baumgartner.

Multiple state attorneys general have already voiced opposition to the proposal.

New LSU coach Lane Kiffin is poised to make $13 million a year.

Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images

Some lawmakers have also questioned whether college sports should remain tax-exempt. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat representing Washington, wrote a letter to the Joint Committee on Taxation earlier this year, seeking an analysis of the implications of stripping the NCAA, member institutions and athletic conferences of their ability to continue as tax-exempt organizations.

“Given the evolving market dynamics of college sports coupled with changes in the legal framework affecting college athletes, legitimate questions have been raised about whether it is time to rethink the tax-exempt regime under which college sports currently operates,” she wrote.

But so far, legislation to alter the college sports landscape has proven difficult to pass. The latest effort to overhaul athletics—which would have limited student transfer eligibility and how much universities can spend on name, image and likeness deals—collapsed short of the end zone last week when House members balked on the GOP-backed bill and sponsors pulled it from a vote.

Source link

December 8, 2025
Conservative Think Tank AEI Names Ben Sasse Senior Fellow

Former University of Florida president Ben Sasse is now an American Enterprise Institute fellow.

The American Enterprise Institute, a prominent conservative-leaning think tank, has named former U.S. senator and university president Ben Sasse a nonresident senior fellow, AEI announced Friday. Its website says his work there will focus on “higher education, innovation, technology, American history and culture, and national security.”

Sasse’s AEI post and his continuing voice at other major conservative institutions—The Wall Street Journal has run at least three op-eds by him this year, including one calling on university board members across the country to stand up to faculty “radicals” and “encourage greater intellectual diversity”—shows he’s not persona non grata after his abrupt exit from the University of Florida last year.

Sasse attributed his resignation from UF to his wife’s health, though the student newspaper, The Independent Florida Alligator, has reported the board may have forced him out. During the first year of his roughly 18-month presidency, his office spent more than $17 million. Sasse denied wrongdoing and argued that driving new initiatives at UF required major investments.

Sasse, a Republican who represented Nebraska in the Senate, remains a professor in UF’s Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education. He previously was president of Midland University.

Source link

December 8, 2025