Tag: Jobs

  • GMU President Responds to Civil Rights Investigation

    GMU President Responds to Civil Rights Investigation

    In a pointed letter to the George Mason University community Wednesday, President Gregory Washington defended his institution against the Trump administration, which launched an investigation last week into the university’s alleged violations of Title VI.

    According to an announcement from the Education Department, GMU “illegally uses race and other immutable characteristics in university policies, including hiring and promotion.”

    In his letter, Washington vowed to “cooperate fully” with the Office for Civil Rights.

    “I can assure you that George Mason has always operated with a commitment to equality under the law, ever since our inception,” he wrote. ”It is simply the Mason way, and in my experience, it has not discriminated based on race, color, national origin, or otherwise. Our diversity efforts are designed to expand opportunity and build inclusive excellence—not to exclude or advantage any group unlawfully.”

    He offered a brief history of Title VI—which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in federally funded programs—and the rest of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Then, without naming any names, he essentially accused the Trump administration of willfully misinterpreting the law.

    “Today, we are seeing a profound shift in how Title VI is being applied,” he wrote. “Longstanding efforts to address inequality—such as mentoring programs, inclusive hiring practices, and support for historically underrepresented groups—are in many cases being reinterpreted as presumptively unlawful. Broad terms like ‘illegal DEI’ are now used without definition, allowing virtually any initiative that touches on identity or inclusion to be painted as discriminatory.

    “This shift represents a stark departure from the spirit in which civil rights law was written: not to erase difference, but to protect individuals from exclusion and to enable equal opportunity for all.”

    He noted that GMU—which enrolls roughly 40,000 students—admits 90 percent of applicants and has more Pell-eligible students than any other institution in Virginia.

    The university’s mission “includes the belief that diversity includes thought, background, and circumstance and any attempt to artificially redefine our diversity, as one of race-based exclusivity, is doomed to fail no matter who ends up being excluded,” he wrote.

    Source link

  • Why I Teach in Prison (opinion)

    Why I Teach in Prison (opinion)

    When people hear that I teach sociology in a maximum-security prison, they often ask if I’m afraid. Then they assume I enter the prison, share knowledge and transform incarcerated students. That’s not the story I’m telling. The real transformation isn’t theirs. It’s mine.

    For more than a decade, I have facilitated prison programs and worked with individuals who have been impacted by the justice system. For the past three years, I have made the hour-long drive, passed barbed-wire fences, walked through metal detectors and taken the escorted journey to the education wing of a Connecticut state prison to teach college-level sociology.

    My desire to work with people in prison honors those who protected me, allowing me to survive, thrive and give something back. I grew up in Harlem during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. Public housing was my home. The stench of urine in the elevators, the hunger-inducing aroma of fried food wafting through the hallways, the ever-present sound of sirens and the fear of dying young all shaped my early years. Yet, amid these challenges, I also experienced love and protection.

    Many of the older guys on my block were deeply involved in street life. However, they saw something in me. They never attempted to pull me into their activities. Instead, they ensured I stayed away. They often said, “Nah, you’re smart. You’re gonna do something with your life.” That kind of protection and love doesn’t appear in statistics or stories about the hood, but it saved me.

    I didn’t make it out because I was exceptional. I made it because people believed in me. They helped me imagine a different life. I carry their love with me when I step into that prison classroom. I teach because I owe a debt—not in a way that burdens me, but in a way that allows me to walk in my purpose and see people through the same lens of possibility that allowed me to live my dreams.

    Entering the prison each week requires mental preparation. Before the lesson begins, I go through multiple security checks. Doors buzz open and lock behind me. I never get comfortable with the experience, even though I know I will leave at the end of class. I often describe teaching in prison as a beautiful-sad experience. It’s beautiful because of the energy and connection in the classroom. It’s sad because many of my students may never see life beyond the gates.

    These men, some of whom have already served decades, come ready to engage. We break down theories of race, class, power, socialization, patriarchy and other related concepts. We analyze films, question systems and interrogate assumptions. But what stays with me most are the unscripted moments, like when someone connects a sociological theory to their own story and says, “This sounds like what happened to me.”

    One of the most unforgettable moments came during a group debate assignment. I divided the class into small groups and asked them to analyze a text using different sociological theories. I stepped back and simply observed. I saw a group of 15 men serving long sentences, passionately debating whether structural strain theory, social learning theory or a Marxist conflict perspective was the best lens for analysis. These weren’t surface-level conversations. They were sharp, layered and theoretically rigorous. At that moment, I told them, “This is what the world doesn’t get to see.”

    People carry assumptions about incarcerated individuals and what they are capable of. But they don’t see these men breaking down theories, challenging one another and demonstrating intellectual brilliance. We cannot record inside the prison, so moments like this remain confined to the room. But they are real. And they matter.

    Another day, I asked students to reflect on the last time they cried or heard someone say, “I love you.” One student responded, “I don’t cry. Crying doesn’t change anything.” A week later, after completing an assignment to write a letter to his younger self, that same student began reading aloud to his 8-year-old self and broke down in tears. No one laughed. No one turned away. The other men gave him their attention, encouragement and support. In that room, we created a space where his vulnerability was met with care, even inside the walls of a prison.

    These experiences forced me to confront my purpose. I stopped seeing myself solely as a professor or administrator. I reflected on what it means to serve and show up for people who’ve been pushed to the edges of society. I began to question the boundaries we draw between campus and community. Universities, especially those with the most resources, need to be more than institutions of learning for those lucky enough to be admitted. We are called to be and do more.

    Throughout my career, I’ve worked to ensure my spheres of influence extend beyond the edge of campus. I’ve leveraged my position to build bridges by connecting faculty and students to re-entry programs, supporting formerly incarcerated scholars and creating opportunities for others to teach inside. Teaching in prison has made me more grounded. As a sociologist, I am keenly aware of how little separates my students’ lives from mine and how my path could have easily been theirs.

    The United States leads the world in incarceration, holding more than 20 percent of the world’s prisoners despite representing less than 5 percent of the world’s population. According to the Prison Policy Initiative and the American Civil Liberties Union, many incarcerated people come from overpoliced, underresourced communities like the one I grew up in.

    Yet even with this reality, some argue that people in prison don’t deserve education—that offering college courses to incarcerated individuals is a misuse of resources. I’ve heard those arguments, and I reject them. Education in prison isn’t special treatment. It’s human dignity. It’s recognizing that people can and do change when given the tools to reflect, grow and imagine a life beyond a perpetual existence in survival mode.

    If higher education is serious about equity and access, we cannot limit our classrooms to students with perfect transcripts and traditional résumés. The men I teach do not need saving. They need space to grow, question and contribute. And our institutions need them, because any university that claims to care about justice, resilience or humanity cannot ignore the people our country has locked away.

    Every day, I am reminded that none of my accomplishments happened in isolation. I think about what it means to repay a debt on which you cannot put a dollar amount. I think about honoring those who believed in me before I believed in myself. I’ve stood on the shoulders of people who never had the opportunities I did. I carry their investment into every space I enter, especially those where others have been forgotten.

    One of the lessons I’ve held onto is this: The gifts we have are not for us to keep. They’re meant to be shared. Teaching in prison is my way of honoring that truth.

    Don C. Sawyer III is an associate professor of sociology and vice president of diversity, inclusion and belonging at Fairfield University.

    Source link

  • Colleges Need to Tell Their Stories, Then Live Up to Them

    Colleges Need to Tell Their Stories, Then Live Up to Them

    According to Gallup, after reaching an all-time low in the past two years, American confidence in higher education has risen to where those expressing “quite a lot” or “a great deal” of confidence is now 42 percent (up from 36 percent), while those with little or no confidence has decreased from 32 percent to 23 percent.

    A poll out of New America shows that Democrats and Republicans align with about 42 percent of respondents from both parties saying that higher education is “fine as it is.”

    Higher education appears to be experiencing the “thermostatic model” of public opinion, where opinion moves in opposition to government action. The Trump administration attacks on higher ed have triggered some measure of backlash among public opinion, creating a certain rallying effect around the sector. Republicans saying that higher ed is “fine as it is” is essentially a declaration that they’d like to see institutions left alone.

    Considering the scope and severity of the attacks, this is not particularly good news, but it is interesting news, and it is news that higher ed institutions should note and make use of moving forward. One of the realities I think everyone in higher ed must embrace is that the future is going to be different from the past and attempts to return to the past are unlikely to be successful, particularly since the return will be predicated on a rose-colored-glasses view of that past, rather than recognizing the real tensions prior to the present assault.

    I am a believer in the thinking of Brendan Cantwell, a Michigan State professor who works on issues of institutional structure and operations and who believes in an “impoverished” future. As Cantwell says, “I do not believe Trump will be able to destroy American higher education, but his administration will try, and the sector will suffer.”

    The aftermath of the suffering and how public opinion may ameliorate that suffering is what we’re talking about here.

    During my post–grad school career as a market research consultant, I learned about something called SWOT analysis, where you draw a plus sign to make four quadrants, headlining the individual boxes with “strengths,” “weaknesses,” “opportunities” and “threats” and then listing the things you can think of that fit under the different categories in the individual boxes.

    I will admit, I rolled my eyes the first time I witnessed this exercise, and continued to roll my eyes many times after that, because it often felt like a SWOT analysis was just something to do because you have to do something, rather than a truly useful tool.

    For example, when “no one likes our product because it doesn’t work like we claim” is in the weakness category, whatever you might find in the opportunity box isn’t relevant.

    That said, when there is something solid and meaningful at the core, threats often do come bundled with opportunities. My messaging around teaching writing and large language models has been to acknowledge the threat, but also to suggest that the existence of these text extruders can be viewed as an opportunity to move toward work that is meaningful to humans.

    If we are in the midst of a rise in positive feeling toward higher education, the opportunity to shape public opinion around the attacks and to bolster the defenses must be seized.

    Deeper in the data from New America, we see specific alignment around what institutions should be doing. As reported by Kathryn Palmer here at IHE, interpreting the results, “the vast majority of Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats, believe higher education should function as more than a transaction. They say it should not only equip students with the skills and knowledge to succeed in their chosen fields (97 percent of Democrats; 98 percent of Republicans), but also help students become informed citizens (97 percent of Democrats; 89 percent of Republicans) and critical thinkers (97 percent of Democrats; 92 percent of Republicans).”

    People also want colleges and universities to do what colleges and universities do. They believe in education and opportunity and research and helping people reach their potential. Those of us who work within or are close observers of higher education understand that while these institutions are significantly flawed and could do better at this work, they also, often and for millions of people … work.

    It’s important to recognize that this increased confidence has nothing to do with actions universities have taken thus far. If thermostatic politics are at work—and I think the evidence is significant—it is the outside attacks that have fueled it. It seems as though figures like Chris Rufo are overplaying their hand, as he did again recently in a statement published at the Manhattan Institute in which he declares, “Now, the truth is undeniable. Beginning with the George Floyd riots and culminating in the celebration of the Hamas terror campaign, the institutions of higher education finally ripped off the mask and revealed their animating spirit: racialism, ideology, chaos.”

    The recent public opinion polling cited above suggests that a core plurality or majority of the public does not believe this. This is an opportunity.

    The unfortunate wrinkle in seizing this opportunity is that what bipartisan supermajorities want from higher ed institutions (skills and knowledge to succeed, informed citizens, critical thinkers) is open to many different interpretations when it comes to actual institutional operations.

    Indiana University has recently pivoted to becoming a place where the humanities are almost absent. Those currently in power at the University of Virginia are apparently trying to revivify the past, when it was primarily a finishing school for landed gentry. Florida has put their money down on being “anti-woke.”

    Some schools will insist that the future is AI. Others will go the opposite way. As vague as those public desires are, and as unhelpful as they are in determining the specific path an institution must take, they are an excellent guide for how to frame the work of your institution, whatever it might be doing.

    It is also a way to push back against things like the gutting of the student loan program, an initiative that will make it hard to impossible to do these things everyone wants colleges to do.

    The assault on universities, first prosecuted by people like Rufo and partially fueled—whether intentional or not—by groups like Heterodox Academy before being put to work by Trump, was a narrative not really based in reality but sufficiently plausible to enough people to make things happen.

    Resistance starts with a counternarrative. We have enough data to get going.

    Source link

  • An Ultrarunner’s View on Higher Ed Leadership (opinion)

    An Ultrarunner’s View on Higher Ed Leadership (opinion)

    Last weekend, I completed my third 12-hour ultramarathon, finally achieving my goal of logging 50 miles (51.3 miles, to be exact!). For the past two years, I’ve finished the same course with exactly 47.5 miles each time. This year’s personal best felt both within reach and incredibly distant during my training. Reaching it required not just physical preparation, but strategic thinking and flexibility.

    Leading up to the race, as I fine-tuned my training plan, adjusted my fueling strategy and mapped out rest intervals, I was struck by how much this preparation mirrors the leadership challenges in higher education today. Just as I could not control the weather on race day or predict which mile would test my resolve, today’s college and university leaders cannot anticipate every funding cut, technological disruption or student crisis that will demand our immediate attention and creative response.

    The parallels run deep. Both ultrarunning and higher education leadership require what I’ve come to recognize as “adaptive preparation”—the ability to plan meticulously while remaining nimble enough to pivot when circumstances change.

    Scenario Planning on the Trail and in the Boardroom

    During my ultramarathon training, I spend considerable time visualizing different race-day scenarios. What if temperatures soar beyond those forecasted? What if my nutrition strategy fails at mile 30? What if an injury forces me to completely restructure my pacing? These aren’t pessimistic exercises—they’re strategic preparations that allow me to respond rather than react when challenges arise.

    Higher education leaders must engage in similar scenario planning, particularly as we navigate an increasingly volatile landscape. Will federal funding for essential student support programs face cuts? How will evolving AI capabilities reshape our academic programs, student support services and the ways we engage with donors?

    Just as I map out multiple fueling stations and gear adjustments, we must develop multiple contingency plans for our institutions. The leader who only prepares for the best-case scenario—whether on a 50-mile trail or in a strategic planning meeting—will find themselves unprepared when reality delivers its inevitable surprises.

    The Creativity of Endurance

    People often assume ultrarunning is about grinding through pain with sheer determination. While mental toughness matters, the most successful ultrarunners are creative problem-solvers. When your planned nutrition strategy isn’t working at mile 25, you don’t quit—you improvise. When equipment fails, you find workarounds.

    This creative problem-solving has become essential for higher education leaders. Traditional approaches to student retention and institutional sustainability aren’t sufficient in our current environment. We need leaders who can think like ultrarunners: methodical in preparation, creative in execution and resilient in the face of setbacks.

    Consider how institutions have had to reinvent student support services in response to changing needs. At Holyoke Community College, our foundation exemplifies this adaptive creativity. Rather than limiting support to traditional scholarships, the HCC Foundation distributed more than $5.5 million this past year across an innovative spectrum of student and institutional needs: a six-week faculty training program on trauma-informed practices, a menstrual equity initiative ensuring feminine products are available in high-traffic restrooms, funding for student travel to leadership development conferences and essential equipment for theater, science labs and our radio station. Like that runner who creatively problem-solves when their original strategy isn’t working, our foundation recognized that supporting today’s students requires addressing the full ecosystem of their educational experience, not just the financial barriers.

    The Collaborative Nature of Solitary Pursuits

    Ultrarunning appears to be the ultimate individual challenge, but successful runners know better. Every long training run depends on a network of support: the running group that motivates you through dark winter mornings, the crew that will meet you at aid stations, the community that shares advice and encouragement. Even in the loneliest miles of a race, you’re drawing on collective wisdom and support.

    Higher education leadership, despite its often-isolating responsibilities, must embrace this same collaborative spirit. The challenges facing our institutions—from enrollment pressures to mental health crises to technological disruption—are too complex for any single leader to solve alone. We need cross-functional teams that can respond as dynamically as an ultrarunner adjusting strategy midrace.

    The most effective higher education leaders I know have built networks that extend far beyond their campus boundaries. They’re learning from peers at other institutions, collaborating with community partners and drawing insights from sectors beyond academia. Like ultrarunners who study the strategies of athletes in other endurance sports, these leaders understand that innovation often comes from unexpected sources.

    Training for the Unknown

    As I prepared for my 50-mile goal, I knew that no amount of training can eliminate uncertainty. Weather patterns can shift, my body might respond differently than expected and race-day dynamics will present challenges I hadn’t anticipated. The certainty of uncertainty is precisely why my training needed to be comprehensive and adaptable.

    The same principle applies to higher education leadership. We cannot predict every challenge our institutions will face, but we can develop the skills and mindsets necessary to respond effectively. This means building diverse teams, fostering cultures of innovation and maintaining the kind of institutional fitness that allows for quick pivots when circumstances demand them.

    The leaders who will guide higher education through its current transformation are those who understand that preparation and flexibility aren’t opposing forces—they’re complementary strengths. Like ultrarunners who train obsessively while remaining ready to throw out their race plan if conditions change, effective leaders combine rigorous planning with adaptive execution.

    The question, on race day or in our day-to-day work, isn’t whether we’ll face unexpected obstacles. The question is whether we’ve developed the endurance, creativity and collaborative spirit necessary to navigate them successfully. In both arenas, the longest distances are covered not by those who avoid challenges, but by those who have learned to run through them.

    Amanda E. Sbriscia, Ed.D., is vice president for institutional advancement and executive director of the HCC Foundation at Holyoke Community College.

    Source link

  • 4 Things to Know About In-State Tuition for Noncitizens

    4 Things to Know About In-State Tuition for Noncitizens

    Undocumented students who grew up in the U.S. were allowed to pay in-state college tuition in roughly half of states. But now those benefits are under attack, and some states are walking back their policies, leaving thousands of students scrambling.

    This summer, the U.S. Department of Justice sued three states—Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas—over laws that permit noncitizens who grew up in these states to pay the same rates as their peers.

    In a shocking move, Texas sided with the federal government within hours of the first lawsuit in June, abruptly ending in-state tuition for noncitizens in the state. Now undocumented students in Texas and multiple civil rights groups are seeking to intervene and reopen the case. They argue Republican state lawmakers and the federal government colluded to reach a speedy resolution, and affected students didn’t get to have their day in court.

    The defendants in the Kentucky case—Gov. Andy Beshear, Commissioner of Education Robbie Fletcher and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education—have until mid-August to respond to an amended complaint from the DOJ. The Minnesota lawsuit has been assigned to a federal district judge. Gov. Tim Walz, Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison and the Minnesota Office of Higher Education received a summons in late June.

    The rash of lawsuits comes after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April calling for a crackdown on sanctuary cities and state laws unlawfully “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” citing in-state tuition benefits for noncitizens as an example. The recent DOJ lawsuits allege that these state laws favor undocumented students over American out-of-state students.

    As these in-state tuition policies become a political flashpoint across the country, here’s what you need to know about them.

    1. These laws are more than two decades old.

    Texas became the first state to offer in-state tuition rates to certain undocumented students in 2001 when the Texas Dream Act was signed into law. California soon followed, enacting a similar law later that same year.

    Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have such policies, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal. Another four states allow in-state tuition rates for noncitizens at some but not all public universities. And five states permit in-state tuition only for participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. For about a decade, Florida also allowed in-state tuition for undocumented students who met certain requirements, but the state rolled back the policy earlier this year.

    2. They’ve historically been bipartisan.

    While in-state tuition for noncitizens has become a politically polarizing issue, these policies historically enjoyed broad support from state lawmakers of both parties. Republican and Democratic advocates argued that helping undocumented students who attended local high schools go to college would set these students on career paths that benefit state economies. Opponents now argue these laws incentivize illegal immigration.

    The Texas Dream Act was signed by Republican governor Rick Perry 24 years ago. He stood by the policy during his 2012 run for president, despite pushback.

    “If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought there through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said during a 2011 Republican primary debate. “We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society.”

    Perry opposed the federal DREAM Act, which would have created a pathway to citizenship, but advocated for in-state tuition decisions to be left up to states.

    The author of Oklahoma’s in-state tuition law, enacted in 2007, was also a Republican lawmaker, Oklahoma representative Randy Terrill. His bill, which won bipartisan support in the state House and Senate, was signed into law by Democratic governor Brad Henry.

    Florida Republican governor Rick Scott signed a similar law in 2014, which was scrapped as part of broader immigration legislation signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year.

    When asked about the prospect of the law’s repeal in 2023, Scott told The Florida Phoenix he was “proud” to have signed the bill and “would sign [it] again today.”

    Other Republicans rescinded their support.

    “It’s time to repeal this law,” Jeanette Nuñez, former lieutenant governor of Florida and current president of Florida International University, wrote on X shortly before the law’s demise. “It has served its purpose and run its course.”

    3. Undocumented students must meet specific criteria in each state to qualify.

    Each state law comes with different requirements, but undocumented students generally need to prove they’ve lived in a state for a significant amount of time and attended local high schools to qualify for in-state tuition benefits.

    For example, in Oklahoma, noncitizens must have graduated from an Oklahoma high school and spent two years with a parent or guardian in the state while taking classes. They also must sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal status when able or show proof they’ve already petitioned U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for legal status.

    Undocumented students in Washington State must have spent their senior year at a local high school or earned a G.E.D. in the state, live in the state for at least three consecutive years, as of the date they graduated, and pledge to seek legal permanent residency as soon as legally possible.

    4. The laws are designed to also apply to citizens.

    These in-state tuition laws are typically crafted to offer in-state tuition rates to students who meet their specific criteria—regardless of immigration status.

    That means, in California, for example, any nonresident who spent three years in California high schools is eligible for in-state tuition. So, the policy not only applies to undocumented students but also U.S. citizens who perhaps grew up in the state but may have left and returned for any reason.

    Similarly, before the Texas law was dismantled, out-of-state students could gain residency and eligibility for in-state tuition if they graduated from a Texas high school and spent at least three years prior in the state. The policy benefited citizens born and raised in Texas whose parents moved out of the state before they enrolled in college, according to an amicus brief filed by the Intercultural Development Research Association in 2022, when the law faced a legal challenge from the Young Conservatives of Texas.

    Advocates for these policies say that’s why they don’t violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which prohibits states from providing higher ed benefits to undocumented immigrants unless citizens are also eligible. Trump cited the federal statute in his executive order.

    Over the years, these laws have been challenged multiple times in court, but until the DOJ’s lawsuit against Texas, none succeeded.

    Source link

  • Humanities Students Participate in Faculty-Led Research

    Humanities Students Participate in Faculty-Led Research

    On-campus engagement is one metric that can predict student success, but external factors including needing to work, caretaking responsibilities or living off campus can hinder students’ participation in activities.

    At Stony Brook University, part of the State University of New York system, institutional data showed retention rates lagged for students in the humanities and social science disciplines. In response, leaders created several programs to incentivize students in those majors to build relationships with others in their field and engage in hands-on work.

    Three Stony Brook leaders—Tiana De Jesus, lead academic success advisor and retention specialist; Richard Tomczak, director of faculty engagement; and Jennifer Rodriguez, associate director of the student success and retention center—shared details of the program and initial results at NASPA’s Student Success in Higher Education conference in Denver last month.

    The background: The Undergraduate Retention Initiatives and Success Engagement (U-RISE) office houses a variety of innovative retention supports, including a research lab, called SSTAR, and re-engagement advising.

    One of the more recent projects the staff at SSTAR—short for Student Success Through Applied Research—have taken on is addressing gaps in retention for non-STEM students.

    University data pointed to six majors in the humanities and social sciences with the lowest retention rates as well as relatively high admission rates of students with lower grade point averages from high school.

    Research shows that students who are engaged on campus are more likely to feel a deep sense of belonging and establish meaningful relationships with peers and faculty, as well as develop career skills. Students who have a strong sense of belonging in their major program are also more likely to have higher retention rates and levels of faculty connection.

    SSTAR team members sought to foster relationships between students and their instructors, improve students’ academic readiness and provide financial support to ensure equitable retention for students across socioeconomic groups.

    A National Picture

    Research from the Student Experience in the Research University Consortium at the University of California, Berkeley, found fewer students participating in faculty-led research post-pandemic compared to their peers enrolled in 2019, showing a gap in experiential learning opportunities.

    One of the more common reasons why students are unable to take on research roles is a lack of pay or needing to work for pay. A significant number of colleges have established financial aid for students to receive a stipend for participating in unpaid or underpaid experiential learning opportunities, ensuring the inability to pay does not prevent participation.

    To accomplish these goals, campus leaders created three interventions: research assistantship positions in faculty-led research, a first-year seminar for academic preparation and paid on-campus jobs for humanities students.

    In focus: This past spring, Stony Brook hired 12 first-year students out of an application pool of over 100 to serve as research assistants. Each student was matched with a faculty member from one of a variety of departments, including English, art, history, linguistics and Asian and Asian American studies. Research assistants committed to eight to 10 hours of work per week and were paid a stipend. Funding came from the provost’s office.

    The projects varied; one English and sociology student analyzed TikTok videos of social activists to challenge stereotypes, while an English and psychology student trained artificial intelligence on European literature from the 1700s, according to a university press release.

    The impact: Across interventions, students who participated in the programs were more likely to say they feel connected to their peers, see the value of their degree and intend to persist, according to pre- and post-survey data.

    Many students said the experiences helped open their eyes to the career and research opportunities available to them in their field and made them feel faculty were more accessible to them. Of the students who participated in the three interventions, 92.8 percent enrolled as a sophomore the following year, compared to 91.8 percent of their peers who didn’t participate, surpassing the university’s 92 percent retention goal. Students also had higher cumulative GPAs, showing a correlation between engagement and academic achievement.

    An unexpected finding was that before participating in the program, many students said they felt stigmatized for their major choice (Stony Brook is a majority of STEM learners), but afterward they felt more connected to those in similar fields, even if not in their exact major.

    In the future, researchers hope to recruit a larger number of students and expand their work to other humanities and social sciences majors.

    Source link

  • Navajo Nation Considers Higher Ed Funding Boost

    Navajo Nation Considers Higher Ed Funding Boost

    A month after President Donald Trump proposed slashing some $105 million in federal funding for tribal colleges next year, the Navajo Nation is considering legislation that would provide $30 million in recurring annual funding for tribal colleges and scholarships, Native News Online reported Thursday. 

    The Health, Education and Human Services Committee of the 25th Navajo Nation Council passed the proposal earlier this week, but it still has to get the approval of the full council. If it does, Diné College, Navajo Technical University and the Office of Navajo Nation Scholarship and Financial Assistance would each get $10 million a year beginning in 2027, potentially indefinitely.

    The plan would more than double the current funding allocations for those institutions, which receive a total of $12.4 million from the Navajo Nation. Each one would be required to put at least 1 percent of the $10 million allocation toward support for Diné language teacher programs, institutional endowments and K–12 education pipeline efforts. 

    According to Council Delegate Andy Nez, who sponsored the legislation, fewer than half of Navajo students who apply for scholarships through ONNSFA get one. 

    “This legislation provides a stable source of funding that directly supports our students and institutions, while investing in the longevity of learners and Diné speakers,” he told Native News Online. “We are moving beyond limited five- or 10-year grants to a consistent, annual allocation. This ensures funds go directly to the institutions and scholarship office without delay.”

    (This story has been updated to correct the amount of federal funding cut.)

    Source link

  • Podcast: AI and jobs, provider closure, UCAS figures

    Podcast: AI and jobs, provider closure, UCAS figures

    This week on our final podcast before the summer break, we unpack the mounting panic about graduate jobs – is AI really to blame, or are today’s students simply paying the price for a sluggish economy, a stalling skills strategy, and shifting recruitment practices?

    Plus we discuss new figures from UCAS that show a record number of 18-year-olds applying to university, and we look at a major new report on how provider closures are affecting students, and what the sector should do next to avoid chaos when courses collapse.

    With Hillary Gyebi-Ababio, Head of Public Affairs at Jisc, Hugh Jones, independent consultant and higher education postcard maestro, Michael Salmon, News Editor at Wonkhe, and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    UCAS applications and offer making by June deadline, 2025

    Student protection through market exit is not a compliance exercise

    Source link

  • Closed Limestone University Owes Students Money

    Closed Limestone University Owes Students Money

    Limestone University, which shuttered abruptly in May after years of financial woes and a failed fundraising effort, owes nearly $400,000 to students affected by the closure, The State reported.

    Tuition refunds reportedly promised by university officials have not yet been disbursed.

    Altogether, Limestone owes $381,405 to 281 students, according to a report submitted to the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education by a consulting firm managing the university’s assets. A representative from that firm, Aurora Management Partners, declined to tell the newspaper when students may be reimbursed, noting that their agreement was confidential. 

    While students are due an average of more than $1,350 each, some are owed more.

    Michael Thielen, a former graduate student affected by the closure, told the newspaper that Limestone owes him more than $4,000, but he hasn’t heard from officials in almost two months. He bemoaned the university’s lack of accountability and transparency.

    “Everyone has washed their hands of this,” Thielen said.

    The private Christian university was one of the more jarring closures of the year, given how quickly it folded amid clear warning signs of financial distress, as noted in its latest audit.

    In April, Limestone officials punted on the closure decision, indicating they were in talks for a $6 million lifeline that would keep the university open. But that funding source never materialized, prompting a reversal from leadership and the abrupt closure of the 180-year-old institution.

    Former employees also sued Limestone recently over how it handled mass layoffs.

    Source link

  • Morningside University to Absorb St. Luke’s College

    Morningside University to Absorb St. Luke’s College

    Morningside University in Iowa is absorbing nearby St. Luke’s College, officials announced.

    St. Luke’s, which is focused on nursing and other health-care professions, is part of Unity Point Health, a hospital system with locations in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin. It will merge with Morningside in a deal that is expected to be finalized in late 2026, pending regulatory approvals.

    The two institutions have previously collaborated on bachelor’s degrees in radiologic technology and respiratory therapy, according to the announcement. Now Morningside will expand its health-related degree offerings as part of the merger, adding associate degrees in the above fields, an associate of science in nursing and an accelerated bachelor of science in nursing.

    Morningside, the larger of the two institutions, enrolled 2,056 students last fall. Nursing is one of the university’s most popular majors with 113 students in that field, according to its fact book.

    “Our commitment to excellence in nursing education is stronger than ever as we prepare to greet the talented students of St. Luke’s College,” said Jackie Barber, dean of the Nylen School of Nursing and Health Sciences at Morningside, in a news release. “We are excited to expand our program and offer these students support to help their academic journeys.”

    Morningside interim president Chad Benson called the merger “pivotal” for the nursing program.

    Source link