My column about gaslighting has drawn some criticism that I want to address. Noam Schimmel argues in his letter that “gaslighting” is a correct term to use when people face “hostile claims that their reported experiences are fabricated, exaggerated or made with malicious intent.” But we must always have debates about whether general claims of bigotry are exaggerated or understated, and we shouldn’t presume malicious intent from anyone.
Schimmel claims that “it is inimical to the respect and fulfillment of civil rights and human rights to focus on debating whether terms such as ‘gaslighting’ or ‘institutional discrimination’ are appropriate to describe real and widespread experiences of exclusion and abuse.” Actually, it’s never inimical to human rights to discuss the extent of forms of discrimination or to debate how we should describe bigotry. Free speech is essential to human rights, and that includes allowing people to deny that human rights are being violated, even if they are wrong.
In fact, gaslighting and institutional discrimination are radically different concepts. The latter describes an institutional failure to prevent discrimination by a legal standard, but gaslighting describes a kind of conspiracy theory that suggests everyone who questions these demands for censorship is plotting against recognition of an obvious truth about antisemitism.
Another letter in response to my column comes from William Mills IV, which I will post here in its entirety:
Gaslighting About Gaslighting
Yes, gaslighting is real even if it doesn’t involve turning down gas lights to drive someone crazy.
By William T. Mills IV, Ph.D.
In his opinion column on Wednesday, author John Wilson derides the author of an email he received accusing him of gaslighting when he referred to antisemitism at Harvard as a “myth.” In his rebuttal to a private email, Mr. Wilson says that he is not gaslighting because he is not literally turning down gas lights to drive his wife crazy, as the husband in the 1944 film Gaslight did. Interestingly, Mr. Wilson defends of his use of the word “myth” to describe antisemitism at Harvard, even though he is not literally referring to antisemitism at Harvard as, for example, a historic tale about a creator sending birds to retrieve mud from the bottom of a primordial ocean to form the earth. Of course, the use of the word “myth” does not denote the literal origin of the word but rather the meaning we all understand today.
So yes, in fact, claiming that antisemitism at Harvard is a “myth” is gaslighting readers, as it tells them a lie and denies that they are being told one. There is no other reason I can conceive of, at least not a charitable one, to tell people who watched antisemitism—that Harvard admitted to—with their own eyes that antisemitism is a “myth,” than to drive them insane.
Mr. Wilson says that “universities are not guilty of antisemitic discrimination if they allow free expression of hateful ideas.” And herein lies the problem. Yes, of course, free expression does not equal antisemitism. But having a stated policy against “bullying, harassment, intimidation” and not enforcing that policy when death is openly called for against Jewish students is antisemitism in its truest form. Protecting everyone except Jewish students from “bullying, harassment, intimidation” is the definition of antisemitic discrimination. The entire country watched this fact be highlighted by Rep. Elise Stefanik in her takedown of Harvard president Claudine Gay, but I suppose we are also expected to believe that the thing we watched with our own eyes wasn’t really happening. But it did happen, and Mrs. Gay [sic] is no longer the president because of it.
In his conclusion, Mr. Wilson laments the negative impact that using the term “gaslight” will have on intellectual discussion. But in reality, nothing could do more harm to “intellectual discussion” than telling people lies, then telling them they are not being lied to, and then telling them that they are not being lied to about not being lied to. The way to protect “intellectual discussion” is not to bar the use of the word “gaslight,” but rather to stop lying. Antisemitism is present at Harvard. Antisemitism is allowed by the administration at Harvard. Antisemitism at Harvard is not a myth.
William T. Mills IV, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Mount St. Mary’s University
The existence of antisemitism and other forms of bigoted beliefs is deplorable, but it is not evidence of antisemitic discrimination by a college if a college allows hateful beliefs on campus.
Mills may believe that Harvard is “protecting everyone except Jewish students,” but I see no evidence to support that claim, and a great deal of evidence that contradicts it.
One reason why we must have free speech in the fight against antisemitism and other isms is that it’s dangerous to allow presumptions of bigotry to dictate repression. Mills claims that “when death is openly called for against Jewish students is antisemitism in its truest form” which I think is true when it happens, but not necessarily true whenever the phrase “from the river to the sea” is uttered. Mills claims that my defense of free speech is gaslighting him, which is precisely my problem with the term.
Just like Mills and Schimmel, I think my critics are getting the facts wrong and have a false view of the world. I think they are in error, but unlike them, I don’t think they’re gaslighting me. I don’t think they’re intentionally telling lies or downplaying discrimination they know is real against other groups. I like they’re simply making mistakes, in their facts and values, concerning an issue they care about deeply. We can debate ideas and have strongly worded arguments without presuming that the people on the other side are bigoted and evil.
When people claim that denying bigotry or failing to silence bigotry is itself a form of bigotry, then we run the risk of creating a growing cycle of censorship—first the alleged bigots are to be punished, then anyone who defends the bigots and then any college that fails to silence the bigots. And that’s precisely the crisis of censorship we face in America today, where accusations of bigotry happening on campuses without proof of systematic discrimination are being used to punish colleges and seek suppression of free speech.
John K. Wilson was a 2019–20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (Routledge, 2008), and his forthcoming book The Attack on Academia. He can be reached at [email protected], or letters to the editor can be sent to [email protected].
Amy Wax was suspended and had her pay cut for the 2025–26 academic year after repeatedly making disparaging remarks.
Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
A Pennsylvania district judge dismissed a lawsuit Thursday against the University of Pennsylvania filed by Amy Wax, a tenured law professor who was suspended for the 2025–26 academic year on half pay as part of a punishment for years of flagrantly racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic remarks.
University of Pennsylvania
In the suit filed in January, Wax claimed that the university discriminated against her by punishing her—a white Jewish woman—for speech about Black students but not punishing pro-Palestinian faculty members for speech that allegedly endorsed violence against Jews.
“As much as Wax would like otherwise, this case is not a First Amendment case. It is a discrimination case brought under federal antidiscrimination laws,” senior U.S. district judge Timothy Savage wrote in a 16-page opinion. “We conclude Wax has failed to allege facts that show that her race was a factor in the disciplinary process and there is no cause of action under federal anti-discrimination statutes based on the content of her speech.”
Savage also refuted Wax’s argument that the court should view “her comments disparaging Black students as a statement on behalf of a protected class.”
“Nothing in the disciplinary process or her comments leads to the conclusion that she was penalized for associating with a protected class. Her comments were not advocacy for protected classes,” he wrote. “They were negative and directed at protected classes. Criticizing minorities does not equate to advocacy for them or for white people. Her claim that criticism of minorities was a form of advocating for them is implausible.”
Wax was sanctioned in September 2024 after a years-long disciplinary battle over a laundry list of offensive statements she made during her tenure at the law school, including that “gay couples are not fit to raise children,” “Mexican men are more likely to assault women” and that it is “rational to be afraid of Black men in elevators.” Wax has worked at the law school since 2001.
In addition to a one-year suspension on half pay, the school eliminated her summer pay in perpetuity, publicly reprimanded her and took away her named chair. In 2018, she was removed from teaching required courses after commenting on the “academic performance and grade distributions of the Black students in her required first-year courses,” according to former dean of the law school Theodore W. Ruger.
Funds from the sale of the campus will pay off a portion of MCNY’s $67.4 million outstanding debt.
Cash-strapped Metropolitan College of New York is planning to sell its Manhattan campus to the City University of New York for $40 million, a regulatory filing first reported by Bloomberg shows.
The two institutions signed a letter of intent on Monday, according to the regulatory filing, which notes that proceeds will be used to pay off a portion of MCNY’s $67.4 million outstanding debt.
MCNY agreed to sell the site last year as part of a forbearance agreement with bondholders.
Metropolitan College of New York has struggled to keep up with debt in recent years and failed to maintain the agreed-upon ratio of liquid assets, according to a regulatory filing from July. The small college enrolled fewer than 500 students, according to the latest state data, and posted a deficit of more than $7 million in fiscal year 2023, publicly available financial data shows.
CUNY is purchasing 101,542 square feet across three floors in the shared building, which officials told Bloomberg they intend to use as a temporary site for the Hunter-Bellevue School of Nursing amid ongoing construction projects. The sale will require approval from bondholders as well as Metropolitan College’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
Lake-Sumter State College named GOP lawmaker John R. Temple as its president Thursday, making him the latest politician to helm a state institution, the Orlando Business Journal reported.
Temple, an ally of Republican governor Ron DeSantis, breaks with many of his fellow politicians who have become college presidents in that he does have administrative experience in higher education. Temple was hired as the college’s associate vice president for workforce in 2023. Previously he was a teacher and administrator in K–12 schools.
Other recent political hires include former lieutenant governor Jeanette Nuñez at Florida International University, lobbyist and DeSantis ally Marva Johnson at Florida A&M University, and former education commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. in an interim role at the University of West Florida.
Multiple others have been hired across the state college system. A recent analysis by Inside Higher Ed found at least a dozen executive hires with ties to the Republican Party or DeSantis since 2022. Multiple others donated thousands of dollars to GOP candidates and causes.
Another state institution, North Florida College, is also considering a political candidate for its next president. Mike Prendergast, former Citrus County sheriff and chief of staff for Rick Scott, the Republican governor–turned–U.S. senator, is one of several finalists for the North Florida job.
The University of Florida also hired an interim president last week, tapping for the job Donald Landry, a former Columbia University Medical School administrator with ties to conservative academic organizations. Landry was hired after the Florida Board of Governors rejected former University of Michigan president Santa Ono for the UF job for his past support of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, which he sought to distance himself from amid his candidacy.
Faculty and administrators’ opinions about generative artificial intelligence abound. But students—path breakers in their own right in this new era of learning and teaching—have opinions, too. That’s why Inside Higher Ed is dedicating the second installment of its 2025–26 Student Voice survey series to generative AI.
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 1,047 students from 166 two- and four-year institutions, public and private nonprofit, responded to this flash survey about generative artificial intelligence and higher education, conducted in July. Explore the data, captured by our survey partner Generation Lab, at this link. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.
See what students have to say about trust in colleges and universities here, and look out for future student polls and reporting from our 2025–26 survey cycle, Student Voice: Amplified.
Some of the results are perhaps surprising: Relatively few students say that generative AI has diminished the value of college, in their view, and nearly all of them want their institutions to address academic integrity concerns—albeit via a proactive approach rather than a punitive one. Another standout: Half of students who use AI for coursework say it’s having mixed effects on their critical thinking abilities, while a quarter report it’s helping them learn better.
Here are seven things to know from the survey, plus some expert takes on what it all means, as higher education enters its fourth year of this new era and continues to struggle to lead on AI.
Most students are using generative AI for coursework, but many are doing so in ways that can support, not outsource, their learning.
The majority of students, some 85 percent, indicate they’ve used generative AI for coursework in the last year. The top three uses from a long list of options are: brainstorming ideas (55 percent), asking it questions like a tutor (50 percent) and studying for exams or quizzes (46 percent). Treating it like an advanced search engine also ranks high. Some other options present more of a gray area for supporting authentic learning, such as editing work and generating summaries. (Questions for educators include: Did the student first read what was summarized? How substantial were the edits?)
Fewer students report using generative AI to complete assignments for them (25 percent) or write full essays (19 percent). But elsewhere in the survey, students who report using AI to write essays are somewhat more likely than those using it to study to say AI has negatively impacted their critical thinking (12 percent versus 6 percent, respectively). Still, the responses taken as a whole add nuance to ongoing discussions about the potential rewards, not just risks, of AI. One difference: Community college students are less likely to report using AI for coursework, for specific use cases and over all. Twenty-one percent of two-year students say they haven’t used it in the last year, compared to 14 percent of four-year students.
Performance pressures, among other factors, are driving cheating.
The top reason students say some of their peers use generative AI in ways that violate academic integrity policies is pressure to get good grades (37 percent over all). Being pressed for time (27 percent) and not really caring about academic integrity policies (26 percent) are other reasons students chose. There are some differences across student subgroups, including by age: Adult learners over 25 are more likely than younger peers to cite lack of time due to work, family or other obligations, as well as lack of confidence in their abilities, for example. Younger students, meanwhile, are more likely to say that peers don’t really care about such policies, or don’t connect with course content. Despite the patchwork of academic integrity policies within and across institutions, few students—just 6 percent over all—blame unclear policies or expectations from professors about what constitutes cheating with AI.
Nearly all students want action on academic integrity, but most reject policing.
Some 97 percent believe that institutions should respond to academic integrity threats in the age of generative AI. Yet approaches such as AI-detection software and limiting technology use in classrooms are relatively unpopular options,selected by 21 percent and 18 percentof students, respectively. Instead, more students want education on ethical AI use (53 percent) and—somewhat contradicting the prior set of responses about what’s driving cheating—clearer, standardized policies on when and how AI tools can be used. Transparency seems to be a value: Nearly half of students want their institutions to allow more flexibility in using AI tools, as long as students are transparent about it.
Fewer support a return to handwritten tests or bluebooks for some courses, though this option is more popular among students at private nonprofit institutions than among their public institution peers, at 33 percent versus 22 percent. Those at private nonprofit institutions are also much more in favor of assessments that are generally harder to complete with AI, such as oral exams and in-class essays.
Students have mixed views on faculty use of generative AI for teaching.
The slight plurality of students (29 percent) is somewhat positive about faculty use of AI for creating assignments and other tasks, as long as it’s used thoughtfully and transparently. This of course parallels the stance that many students want from their institutions on student AI use, flexibility underpinned by transparency.
Another 14 percent are very positive about faculty use of AI, saying it could make instruction more relevant or efficient. But 39 percent of students feel somewhat or very negatively about it, raising concerns about quality and overreliance—the same concerns faculty members and administrators tend to have about student use. The remainder, 15 percent, are neutral on this point.
Generative AI is influencing students’ learning and critical thinking abilities.
More than half of students (55 percent) who have used AI for coursework in the last year say it’s had mixed effects on their learning and critical thinking skills: It helps sometimes but can also make them think less deeply. Another 27 percent say that the effects have actually been positive. Fewer, 7 percent, estimate that the net effect has been negative, and they’re concerned about overreliance. Men—who also report using generative AI for things like brainstorming ideas and completing assignments at higher rates than their women and nonbinary peers—are also more likely to indicate that the net effect has been positive: More than a third of men say generative AI is improving their thinking, compared to closer to one in five women.
Students want information and support in preparing for a world shaped by AI.
When thinking about their futures, not just academic integrity in the present, students again say they want their institutions to offer—but not necessarily require—training on how to use AI tools professionally and ethically, and to provide clearer guidance on ethical versus misuse of AI tools. Many students also say they want space to openly discuss AI’s risks and benefits. Just 16 percent say preparing them for a future shaped by generative AI should be left up to individual professors or departments, underscoring the importance of an institutional response. And just 5 percent say colleges don’t need to take any specific action at all here. Adult students—many of whom are already working—are most likely to say that institutions should offer training on how to use AI tools professionally and ethically, at 57 percent.
Less popular options from the full list:
Integrate AI-related content into courses across majors: 18 percent
Leave it up to individual professors or departments: 16 percent
Create new majors or academic programs focused on AI: 11 percent
Connect students with employers or internships that involve AI: 9 percent
Colleges don’t need to take any specific actions around AI: 5 percent
On the whole, generative AI isn’t devaluing college for students—and it’s increasing its value for some.
Students have mixed views on whether generative AI has influenced how they think of the value of college. But 35 percent say there’s been no change, and 23 percent say it’s more valuable now. Fewer, 18 percent, say they now question the value of college more than they used to. Roughly another quarter of students say it has changed how they think about college value, they’re just not sure in what way. So college value hasn’t plummeted in students’ eyes due to generative AI—but the technology is influencing how they think about it.
‘There Is No Instruction Manual’
Student Voice poll respondent Daisy Partey, 22, agreed with her peers that institutions should take action on student use of generative AI—and said that faculty members and other leaders need to understand how accessible and potent it is.
Daisy Partey
“I’d stress that it’s super easy to use,” she said in an interview. “It’s just so simple to get what you need from it.”
Partey, who graduated from the University of Nevada at Reno in May with a major in communications and minor in public health, said using generative AI became the default for some peers—even for something as simple as a personal introduction statement. That dynamic, coupled with fear of false positives from AI-detection tools, generally chilled her own use of AI throughout college.
She did sometimes use ChatGPT as a study partner or search tool, but tried to limit her use: “Sometimes I’d find myself thinking, ‘Well, I could just ChatGPT it.’ But in reality, figuring it out on my own or talking to another physical human being—that’s good for you,’” she said.
As for how institutions should address generative AI, Partey—like many Student Voice respondents—advocated a consistent, education-based approach, versus contradictory policies from class to class and policing student use. Similarly, Partey said, students need to know how and when to use AI responsibly for work, even as it’s still unknown how the technology will impact fields she’s interested in, such as social media marketing. (As for AI’s impact on the job market for new graduates, the picture is starting to form.)
“Provide training so that students know what they’re going into and the expectations for AI use in the workplace,” she emphasized.
Another Student Voice respondent at a community college in Texas, who asked to remain anonymous to speak about AI, said she uses generative AI to stay organized with tasks, create flash cards for tests and exams, and come up with new ideas.
“AI isn’t just about cheating,” she said. “For some students, it’s like having a 24-7 tutor.”
Jason Gulya, a professor of English and media communications at Berkeley College who reviewed the survey results, said they challenge what he called the “AI is going to kill college and democratize all knowledge” messaging pervading social media.
That the majority of students say AI has made their degree equally or more valuable means that this topic is “extremely nuanced” and “AI might not change the perceived value of a college degrees in the ways we expect,” he added.
Relatedly, Gulya called the link between pressure to get good grades and overreliance on AI “essential.” AI tools that have been “marketed to students as quick and efficient ways to get the highest grades” play into a “model of education that places point-getting and grade-earning over learning,” he said. One possible implication for faculty? Using alternative assessment practices “that take pressure away from earning a grade and that instead recenter learning.”
Jill Abney, associate director of the Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching at the University of Kentucky, said it makes “total sense” that students also report thattime constraints are fueling academic dishonesty, since many are “stretched to the limits with jobs and other responsibilities on top of schoolwork.” To this point, one of the main interventions she and colleagues recommend to concerned instructors is “scaffolding assignments so students are making gradual progress and not waiting until the last minute.”
On clarity of guidelines around AI use, Abney said that most instructors she works with have, in fact, “put a lot of time into crafting clear AI policies.” Some have even moved beyond course-level policies toward an assignment-by-assignment labeling approach, “to ensure clear communication with students.” Tools to this end include the university’s own Student AI Use Scale.
Mark Watkins, assistant director of academic innovation and lecturer of writing and rhetoric at the University of Mississippi, underscored that both faculty-set policies for student use of AI and expectations for faculty use of AI have implications for faculty academic freedom, which “should be respected.”
At the same time, he said, “there needs to be leadership and a sense of direction from institutions about AI integration that is guided. To me, that means institutions should invest in consensus-building around what use cases are appropriate and publish frameworks for all stakeholders,” including faculty, staff and administrators.” Watkins has proposed his own “VALUES” framework for faculty use of AI in education, which addresses such topics as validating and assessing student learning.
Ultimately, Abney said, it’s a good thing students are thinking about how AI is impacting their cognition—a developing area of research—adding that students tend to “crave shared spaces of conversation where they can have open dialogues about AI with their instructors and peers.”
That’s what learning about generative AI and establishing effective approaches requires, she said, “since there is no instruction manual.”
This independent editorial project is produced with the Generation Lab and supported by the Gates Foundation.
As of 2024, 55 percent of law schools offered courses on AI.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Maxxa_Satori and PhonlamaiPhoto/iStock/Getty Images
As more and more law firms integrate generative artificial intelligence into their practices, a growing number of law schools are preparing future lawyers to adapt.
Nearly three years after OpenAI’s ChatGPT went mainstream—followed by Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini and a host of other similar platforms—some 30 percent of law offices are using AI-based technology tools, according to data published by the American Bar Association this past spring. While ChatGPT is the most widely used, legal research–specific tools, such as Thomson Reuters’ CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI and Westlaw AI, are also catching on in the sector.
At the same time, 62 percent of law schools have incorporated formal opportunities to learn about or use AI into their first-year curriculum; 93 percent are considering updating their curriculum to incorporate AI education. In practice, however, many of those offerings may not be adequate, said Daniel W. Linna Jr., director of law and technology initiatives at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law.
“Law firms are starting to expect more and more that students will be exposed to this in law school,” he said. “But they also understand that the current reality is that not many law schools are doing much more than basic training. And some may not even be doing that.”
AI-Savvy Will Have ‘Leg Up’
At its best, experts believe AI has the power to make lawyers more efficient and accurate, as well as the potential to expand public access to legal services. But as fake citations and misquotes appearing in AI-generated legal filings have already shown, lawyers need more than access to these tools to get the most out of using them. They need to know how they work and recognize their limitations.
“Law schools have to prepare students to be intentional users of this technology, which will require them to have foundational knowledge and understanding in the first place,” said Caitlin Moon, a professor and founding co-director of Vanderbilt Law School’s AI Law Lab. “We have to preserve that core learning process so that they remain the human expert and this technology complements and supports their expertise.”
It’s not clear yet the extent to which AI will reshape the legal job market over the next several years, especially for new lawyers whose first jobs after law school have historically involved reviewing documents and conducting legal research—two areas where AI tools excel. According to one interpretation of a new report from Goldman Sachs on how AI could affect the workforce, 17 percent of jobs in the legal sector may be at risk.
“Law firms on the cutting edge of innovation are certainly trying to figure out how leveraging this technology improves their bottom line,” Moon said. “For recent graduates, those who are coming into firms with an understanding and familiarity with AI have a leg up.”
Pressure on Law Schools
Regardless of what’s to come, all this uncertainty is putting pressure on law schools across the country to meet the moment, said Gary Marchant, faculty director of the Center for Law, Science and Innovation at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, which began offering an AI specialization last year.
“It creates a requirement for law schools and law firms to train future lawyers differently, so that they learn some of the third- and fourth-year associate skills while they’re still in law school,” Marchant said. “Even if AI doesn’t advance any further, it’s already come so far that it’s transforming the practice of law, and it could change even more. Right now, the conclusion is that lawyers who know AI will replace lawyers who don’t know AI.”
Recognition of that reality drove the University of San Francisco School of Law to become the first in the country to integrate generative AI education throughout its curriculum. Those efforts will be aided through partnerships with Accordance and Anthropic, the school announced last week.
“AI is something every student needs to understand, no matter what kind of law they want to do,” said Johanna Kalb, dean of USF’s law school. “Given how quickly these AI tools are improving and becoming more specialized, each of these innovations is going to change what lawyers are being asked to do and what skills they really need.”
While USF may be one of the few law schools with an AI curriculum mandate, 55 percent of programs offered specialized courses designed to teach students about AI in 2024, according to the most recent available ABA data.
That percentage has likely increased over the past year, said Andrew Perlman, dean of Suffolk University Law School and a member of the ABA’s Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence.
This fall Suffolk’s law school, which launched one of the country’s first legal technology programs nearly a decade ago, is requiring all first-year students to complete a custom generative AI learning track as part of its course on legal practice skills.
“There was a lot of hesitation early on about how useful AI may be inside law practices, but there is now an increasingly widespread recognition that hiring lawyers who understand both the traditional methods of practicing law and have the ability to embrace AI is a useful combination,” Perlman said. “Training students with that new skill set is going to put our graduates in a better position to succeed in the long run.”
Jacob Levine, a second-year student at Harvard Law School, got a taste of the demand for that balance during an internship at a law firm this summer.
“AI was a tool that was present and using it was permitted, but there was a lot of emphasis on gauging the ability of the individual to be able to do the analytical work that’s expected of a young attorney,” he said. “It’s important to know how to use AI but not purely rely on it and use it blindly. A big part of being able to do that is knowing how to do everything yourself.”
In recent decades, the extra money that graduates earn has been touted as a good reason to attend university. But that has recently come under scrutiny with evidence suggesting the graduate premium has fallen.
And now two separate papers have found that another supposed benefit of higher education—increased lifetime happiness—is also not quite as straightforward as thought.
A new study, which analyzed data from 36 countries, reveals that both higher education graduates and the rest of the population experience a steady increase in well-being as a country’s social and economic prosperity gradually improves.
However, the well-being gains associated with higher education were found to “level off” when a country becomes more economically developed.
Therefore, the paper argues that graduates in countries with lower GDP per capita experience greater relative gains in terms of economic security, social mobility, higher social status and life satisfaction—leading to a higher sense of well-being.
In contrast, the “happiness advantage” of a university degree in countries with a higher GDP per capita is less pronounced.
The paper suggests that stress and dissatisfaction can be caused by rising expectations, increased competition and a “relentless emphasis on achievement,” particularly among highly educated individuals.
“Highly educated individuals in more prosperous countries are generally much happier than their counterparts in less prosperous countries, although they may be less happy than less educated individuals within their own country,” writes author Samitha Udayanga, a doctoral candidate at the University of Bremen.
A separate study published in June found that the level of happiness associated with completing college has quadrupled since the mid-1970s.
The study of over 35,000 people in the U.S. showed that higher education has shifted over this time from contributing to happiness through occupations to improving wages.
The “happiness return” of higher education increased over the 45 years of the study and remains higher than the happiness linked to not studying for a degree.
But the researchers discovered it “nosedived” in 2021–22 during the COVID-19 pandemic. And satisfaction linked to postgraduate degrees has stalled since the 2000s.
“University graduates in contemporary America have a certain chance of gaining monetary rewards [by] bypassing occupations, resulting in a relatively higher probability of feeling happy,” they said. “Meanwhile, the same mechanism rarely operates for advanced degree holders, whose happiness largely depends on their occupational attainment.”
The paper concludes that the overall happiness premium for higher education at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level may “vanish once their economic rewards become less pronounced.”
Thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act becoming law this summer, workforce Pell is now a reality and federal aid dollars are expected to flow to low-income students in short-term programs as soon as next July.
But now comes the hard work of figuring out which programs are eligible—and some states aren’t ready, according to a new report from the State Noncredit Data Project, which helps community college systems track data related to noncredit programs. Not all states collect the data needed to make that determination, and some offer programs that wouldn’t make the cut, the report concluded.
Under the legislation, short-term programs need to meet certain requirements to qualify for Pell money. For example, state governors need to verify they align with high-skill, high-wage or in-demand jobs. Programs also must be able to build toward a credit-bearing certificate or degree program and be “stackable and portable across more than one employer” unless preparing students for jobs with just one recognized credential. They have to exist for at least a year and meet outcomes goals, including completion and job-placement rates of at least 70 percent. And programs can’t charge tuition higher than graduates’ median “value-added earnings,” or the degree to which their income exceeds 150 percent of the federal poverty line three years out of the program.
But some states collect more data than others on community colleges’ noncredit education, which encompasses many of the programs likely to qualify for workforce Pell, according to the report. It based its findings on course and program-level data from eight states: Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
“What we’re going to see is varying degrees of difficulty” for different states, said co-author Mark D’Amico, a higher education professor at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “States that have more robust data on noncredit community college education are going to be at a little bit of an advantage.”
The report found that most states track basic metrics such as the length of a program. But two out of the eight states had no state-level data on noncredit credential outcomes. Half of the states didn’t collect any data on labor market outcomes like earnings and employment rates. And multiple states didn’t keep track of whether students completed credentials or went on to pursue credit-bearing programs. The report emphasized that while individual institutions might have more detailed data on their programs, gaps in statewide data could create challenges as states work with institutions to prove their programs’ eligibility for workforce Pell.
“Most states have some of the fundamental data,” D’Amico said, “but I think when it comes to the credentials’ labor market outcomes, completion, stackability, those are going to be a little bit more difficult to identify.”
The report predicted that some states, like Iowa, Louisiana and Virginia, may have an easier time proving which programs meet the criteria because they already have state funding for noncredit programs that requires colleges to report relevant data. For example, Iowa includes noncredit education in its state funding formula for workforce training programs, and Louisiana has a state scholarship for such programs.
Co-author Michelle Van Noy, director of the Education and Employment Research Center at Rutgers University, said states’ data infrastructure for noncredit programs is still a “work in progress,” but she’s seen “quite a progression” in recent years. She’s optimistic they’ll continue to improve.
“It is my hope that Workforce Pell implementation can be done in a way that will support the broader development of data and quality systems for noncredit education and nondegree credentials within states,” Van Noy wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.
But data isn’t the only issue. The report also found that typical noncredit programs weren’t necessarily long enough to meet the standards for workforce Pell. Except for lengthier workforce programs at the Tennessee Colleges of Applied Technology, the median number of hours for occupational training programs ranged from 15 hours in New Jersey to 100 hours in Virginia, falling short of the 150-hour, eight-week threshold. Institutions could group their courses into longer programs in the coming months. But it’s not yet clear if making such a change would affect the requirement that programs exist for at least a year.
“Anyone that may be thinking that all of a sudden, all noncredit programs are going to be eligible, the data show that’s not the case,” D’Amico said. “We’ll see what happens over time.”
The report offered a set of recommendations for how states can ready themselves for workforce Pell. For example, it urged state officials to take stock of which metrics they still need to collect to fall in line with the policy’s guardrails and encouraged state and college officials to work together to start identifying programs that could be eligible. The report also suggested colleges consider reconfiguring programs so noncredit offerings serve as on-ramps to credit-bearing programs and meet other structural requirements.
Further details about how workforce Pell will work are going to be hashed out in a negotiated rule-making process this fall, but D’Amico said states shouldn’t wait for that.
“I would use the guardrails now, use the data that they have now, to begin to do that pre-identification” so they have “a little bit of time to begin to fill some of those gaps in existing data,” D’Amico said.
He also hopes states’ preparation for workforce Pell pushes forward “a larger conversation” they’re already having about the quality of short-term noncredit programs over all.
The overarching goal is “ensuring that noncredit programs are designed well, have credentials associated with them linked to further education and are really designed in a way that’s going to be beneficial to students and ultimately help the local and state economies that these programs are going to serve,” D’Amico said.
Gores is the self-proclaimed leader of an online group called Purgatory, which is linked to a violent online extremist network called The Com, according to Wired. Alongside another Purgatory member called tor, Gores began placing fake calls to campus and local emergency services about active shooters about noon Aug. 21, the same day the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and Villanova University received swatting calls.
As of Wednesday afternoon, Inside Higher Ed counted 19 confirmed swatting calls since Aug. 19, including at Mercer University, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, the University of Utah and the University of New Hampshire.
Not all of the calls placed by Purgatory have been successful. In some cases, authorities correctly identified the calls as hoaxes. When the group placed a call to Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa., a researcher listening in on the call was able to alert the university. The FBI is investigating the uptick in swatting calls and has not publicly confirmed Purgatory’s involvement. Gores told Wired that the swatting spree will continue for another two months.
Purgatory offers to make swatting calls for as little as $20, though the price has increased to $95 since this recent campaign of calls began, according to Wired. Three members of Purgatory were arrested in 2024 and pleaded guilty earlier this year for threats made to a Delaware high school, a trailer park in Alabama, Albany International Airport, an Ohio casino and a private residence in Georgia.
Many institutions, including the SUNY system, have invested in Title VI coordinators in recent months.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | howtogoto/iStock/Getty Images
New York is mandating that all colleges in the state designate a coordinator to oversee investigations into discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin and shared ancestry, which is prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office announced Wednesday.
According to Hochul, the state is the first in the country to pass such a law.
“By placing Title VI coordinators on all college campuses, New York is combating antisemitism and all forms of discrimination head-on,” she said in the press release. “No one should fear for their safety while trying to get an education. It’s my top priority to ensure every New York student feels safe at school, and I will continue to take action against campus discrimination and use every tool at my disposal to eliminate hate and bias from our school communities.”
Many colleges have begun hiring for Title VI coordinator roles in the past several months in response to the surge in reports of antisemitism and Islamophobia following Hamas’s fatal Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israeli civilians. In some cases, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights required institutions to add these roles after finding that they failed to adequately address complaints of discrimination on their campuses.
The State University of New York system had already mandated each of its campuses to bring on a Title VI coordinator by the fall 2025 semester.
