Tag: News

  • Penn State Closure Plan Prompts Sharp Reactions

    Penn State Closure Plan Prompts Sharp Reactions

    As Pennsylvania State University’s Board of Trustees prepares to decide the fate of seven of its 19 Commonwealth Campuses where enrollment has collapsed over a decade, faculty, lawmakers and some board members are questioning the university’s commitment to the state and say administrators haven’t been transparent about their decision-making process.

    University administrators say the enrollment numbers alone don’t support keeping open the seven campuses slated to close. Several of those campuses have seen enrollment fall by more than 40 percent since fall 2014.

    Penn State’s Board of Trustees met last week in a private executive session but did not vote on the plan. They’re expected to do so Thursday.

    President Neeli Bendapudi has made the case for the closures, arguing such actions are necessary, as the university can no longer sustain all of its branch campuses financially amid severe enrollment declines. She proposed closing the Dubois, Fayette, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Shenango, Wilkes-Barre and York campuses. Those campuses enroll almost 3,200 students altogether, the largest of which is Penn State York with 703 students last fall. The smallest is Shenango, which enrolled 309 students in fall 2024.

    Now, as the proposal nears the finish line, its fate is up the air and Bendapudi is facing concerns about the process of reaching the seven names.

    A ‘Difficult But Necessary’ Plan

    University leadership began drawing up those plans in February after a difficult year for higher education across the Keystone State. Four universities in the state shut down (or ended degree programs, as in the case of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts) in 2024. The closures were mostly brought on by enrollment challenges, though some were dogged by concerns about fiscal mismanagement.

    University administrators spent the last several months reviewing 12 campuses for possible closure before the list of seven leaked to media outlets last week.

    Officials in a 143-page document cast the plan as “difficult but necessary decisions to ensure its long-term sustainability, allowing for continued investment in student success and dynamic learning environments for years to come” amid plunging enrollment and broad demographic challenges.

    Officials argued that the seven campuses identified for closure “face overlapping challenges, including enrollment and financial decline, low housing occupancy, and significant maintenance backlog.” They added that “projected low enrollments pose challenges for creating the kind of robust on-campus student experience that is consistent with the Penn State brand” and would require significant investments, including $200 million for facilities alone.

    “I believe the recommendation balances our need to adapt to the changing needs of Pennsylvania with compassion for those these decisions affect, both within Penn State and across the commonwealth,” Bendapudi said in a statement when the plan was released.

    She added that there is a two-year timeline for closing campuses, so they wouldn’t shut down until the end of the spring 2027 semester.

    Now the plan heads to the 36-member Board of Trustees. However, some trustees have openly expressed their opposition to the proposal.

    Jay Paterno is one of several board members who have pushed back on the plan, writing an op-ed last month with four other trustees that argued Penn State should explore other options.

    In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Paterno criticized the proposal as rushed.

    “We’ve been presented with two options. One is the status quo, which everybody knows is not viable and is kind of a straw man. The other option is to close all seven campuses,” he said.

    Given that the costs of operating those campuses comprise “less than half of 1 percent of our budget,” Paterno said the board should take more time to explore solutions. He argues that the university has not tried to leverage fundraising to support struggling Commonwealth Campuses and that the administration should slow the process down and reach out to potential donors.

    “We’d rather be a year late than a day early,” Paterno said.

    He also noted the decision to close campuses is not Penn State’s alone. The university is state-affiliated but not state-owned, which gives it a greater degree of autonomy than fully public institutions. But since the university receives some public funds, it must submit plans to close campuses to the Pennsylvania secretary of education, who must then approve the proposal.

    ‘A Betrayal’

    Faculty have concerns about job losses, what will become of rural student populations and an alleged lack of transparency in the closure process.

    One faculty member at Penn State Wilkes-Barre, speaking anonymously due to concerns about retribution, noted, “While most faculty saw this coming, it was heartbreaking to see it in writing.”

    They questioned Penn State’s support for its Commonwealth Campuses, arguing that “the decision to decrease funding” to those locations that serve in-state students sends a strong message about where Penn State places its priorities” while it invests heavily in its main campus. They also pointed to renovations at Beaver Stadium projected to cost $700 million.

    (That project is believed to be the most expensive renovation in the history of college athletics.)

    “The lack of shared governance, transparency, and respect for contributions of faculty to Penn State University makes it easy to see why unionization efforts among faculty are needed,” they wrote, highlighting ongoing efforts by the Penn State Faculty Alliance and SEIU 668 to unionize.

    Some state politicians have also panned the plan.

    State Senator Michele Brooks, a Republican who represents a district that includes the Shenango campus, told Inside Higher Ed in an emailed statement that she recently met with trustees, who conveyed to her and others “that they feel this has been a deeply flawed process.”

    She urged Penn State’s administration and governing board to re-evaluate the decision and to work “with communities on innovative ways to reinvest in these campuses and help them grow.”

    Republican state representative Charity Grimm Krupa, who serves a district that includes the Fayette campus slated for closure, accused Penn State of betraying its mission in a fiery statement.

    “Shutting down the Fayette campus isn’t about financial responsibility; it’s about walking away from the very students Penn State was created to serve,” Grimm Krupa said last week. “It’s a betrayal of the university’s land-grant mission and a slap in the face of rural communities. Abandoning this campus sends a clear message: if you’re not from a wealthy or urban area, Penn State doesn’t see you as worth the investment. That’s disgraceful, and I urge every trustee to vote no against these closures.”

    Source link

  • How I Lost Faith in My University’s Mission (opinion)

    How I Lost Faith in My University’s Mission (opinion)

    I am currently chair of the philosophy department at the University of Utah. I have taught at “the U” for 32 years. We are a flagship but not an elite university; we admit 89 percent of applicants. Our students range from quite unprepared to extremely capable. For the most part, I have loved my job and have put my heart and soul into it. I have always been proud to be on this faculty helping students at all levels of academic readiness acquire skills in reading, writing, speaking and reasoning that enhance their lives and prepare them for virtually any job. But recently, my pride has evaporated and been replaced with feelings of grief and shame.

    This year—my first as chair—has seen profound upheaval. In January 2024, shortly before my term began, the State Legislature passed an anti-DEI bill, prohibiting, among other things, offices and programs related to diversity, equity or inclusion. Administrators were required to purge these three words from university websites and other documents, such as RPT—retention, promotion and tenure review—guidelines, and the university administration interpreted the law as requiring that the Women’s Resource Center, the Black Cultural Center and the LGBT Resource Center be shuttered.

    The state has also imposed a “bathroom bill” requiring trans university students to use locker rooms aligning with their sex assigned at birth, has banned Pride flags in public spaces (and in faculty offices if they can be seen through a window), and now requires faculty to post their syllabi in a publicly searchable database. It also prohibits university presidents from taking a stand on any issue that does not bear upon the “mission, role or pedagogical objectives” of the institution. And finally, as the coup de grâce for academic freedom and faculty expertise, it has funded and established the Center for Civic Excellence at Utah State University, mandating that all students take general education courses on the topics of Western civilization and the rise of Christianity. The law establishing the center identifies it as a pilot program to be rolled out to other Utah universities in the future.

    Then there is the state of Utah’s version of the national campaign against alleged “waste, fraud and abuse.” Recently passed laws dictate the process by which all post-tenure reviews of faculty must be conducted, curtail shared governance and cut state funds to all Utah public institutions by 10 percent ($60.5 million). Universities can have the funds “reallocated” if they use them for high-demand, high-wage majors. As a result, we lost our History and Philosophy of Science major, which drew some of our best students, many of them double majoring in STEM subjects and working toward careers in medicine and public health. To be clear, eliminating this major will reduce opportunities for students while producing no savings whatsoever; offering it requires no additional staff, advisers or courses beyond what is already in place for our philosophy major. These funding cuts also mean that tenure-line faculty in my department will receive a zero percent raise this year.

    In addition to the state’s actions, the upper administration—in seeming alignment with Facebook’s motto of “move fast and break things”—has instituted so many changes in such a short time it is hard to keep track. It abruptly revamped the advising system, brought four colleges under the umbrella of a Colleges and Schools of Liberal Arts and Sciences in a “shared services” arrangement, and keeps rolling out new “student success initiatives.” Whether these changes are wise or not, the pace at which they were made imposed a crushing amount of (mostly stultifying) work on deans and department chairs. Aside from refereeing a few manuscripts for journals, I have not read a piece of philosophy since I became chair, much less written one. In the midst of this, the dean of my college, a strong supporter of philosophy, resigned in the middle of the fall semester and was replaced by someone from outside our college, essentially putting us in receivership.

    While all this is happening, my youngest child, who is queer, is deciding where to attend college. He applied to the University of Utah, where he was admitted to the Honors College and received a scholarship. But how can I send him here? I fear for his safety no matter where he lives in our current hate-filled political climate, but still I hesitate to subject him to the environment on my own campus. I will likely incur a hefty bill, then, so he can attend a university out of state.

    I had more or less come to terms with this constraint, and was also managing to persevere in my job, when something happened that finally took the wind out of my sails: The president of the university announced, to the surprise of faculty, that returned missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be eligible to receive up to 12 college credits for their service to the church.

    I am galled by what all this says about who matters at my university. While students like my child can’t even have a designated room on campus to hang out in with like-minded others—and while the main symbol reminding us of the existence and dignity of students like him is banned from public spaces—returned LDS missionaries, who have an entire institute across from campus dedicated to their spiritual support, can get a full semester of credit, at a greatly reduced cost, essentially for going door to door trying to persuade people to join their church. This set of priorities is so wrong-headed that it verges, for me, on surreal. And yet the administration sees no irony or hypocrisy in naming its Office of Student Experience “U Belong.”

    Soon I will be hosting a retirement party for a wonderful colleague who joined the faculty one year before I did. In another era, I would have been sad to see him go but glad to be continuing in what I regard as my vocation. Now I feel nothing but envy. It is time for me, too, to retire, but, alas, that is not an option, because I have four years of out-of-state tuition to pay.

    Cynthia Stark is a professor and chair of the philosophy department at the University of Utah.

    Source link

  • A Primer on Commercialization Postdocs (opinion)

    A Primer on Commercialization Postdocs (opinion)

    When you finish a Ph.D., it often feels like you’re standing at a professional fork in the road: stay in academia or go into industry. But what if the real opportunity lies not on either of those well-worn paths, but at their intersection?

    That’s where commercialization postdoctoral programs come in—an option many early-career researchers don’t know exists but for which you may be ideally suited.

    These programs provide the tools to turn your research into real-world impact. They explore how discoveries made in the lab can become products, services or systems that solve real problems. And they teach you how to think like an entrepreneur, even if you don’t plan to start your own company, which many postdocs find helps them become more competitive for faculty and industry roles.

    If you’re curious about how your work could make a broader impact or simply what technology transfer, commercialization or innovation looks like from inside the university, this is your invitation to learn more.

    What Are Commercialization Postdocs?

    At a basic level, commercialization postdoc programs support Ph.D.s learning how to move research from discovery to application. These programs fall into two general categories:

    1. Technology transfer fellowships train you to manage intellectual property (IP), evaluate market potential and support licensing processes.
    2. Entrepreneurial and IP commercialization fellowships let you work hands-on with university-owned (or your own) innovations to develop them for real-world use.

    Both paths expand your skill set well beyond most traditional academic training and do so in a way that positions you to lead innovation in any field or sector.

    Why This Training Matters

    Here’s a truth we don’t talk about enough—Ph.D.s are already practicing innovation.

    You’re trained to identify gaps, solve problems and produce new knowledge. Commercialization programs help you understand how to apply those same skills in ways that create value beyond the lab or scholarly community.

    Even if you don’t see yourself launching a start-up, learning to assess market needs, build relationships across disciplines and effectively communicate your research vision and unique value proposition can open doors to new kinds of funding, partnerships and diverse career prospects.

    From Mindset to Practice: A Case Study in Entrepreneurial Thinking

    In spring 2024, Virginia Tech worked with Archer Career to develop a program focused on helping postdocs adopt an entrepreneurial mindset. Through online modules and a full-day, in-person workshop, 19 postdocs from across multiple disciplines engaged in activities including:

    • Crafting elevator pitches
    • Identifying the innovative aspects of their research
    • Mapping and mobilizing their personal and professional networks

    Those that attended the program said they felt it filled a gap in their knowledge and appreciated hearing from current Ph.D. entrepreneurs and connecting with peers. They also realized they weren’t alone in their questions about research commercialization and start-up company creation, and that there was space for conversations about innovation that didn’t require giving up their scholarly identities. This event also demonstrated the need for more discussions about the value of an entrepreneurial mindset among academics.

    Where Commercialization Postdoc Programs Live

    While commercialization postdoc programs are still emerging, there’s a growing list of opportunities across the U.S. that support Ph.D.s building critical technology transfer and entrepreneurial skills.

    Technology Transfer-Focused Programs

    Entrepreneurial and Start-up–Oriented Programs

    • Innovation Commercialization Fellows Program—Carnegie Mellon University: Current graduate and Ph.D. students, postdocs and research assistants at Carnegie Mellon apply to work on a start-up based on university research with a faculty member.
    • ASPIRE to Innovate Postdoctoral Fellowship Program—Vanderbilt University: Current Ph.D. students studying biomedical sciences and postdocs affiliated with Vanderbilt School of Medicine apply to receive mentorship, training and networking opportunities to learn how to launch a company and to commercialize technologies discovered at Vanderbilt.
    • Postdoctoral Entrepreneurship Program—University of Washington: This program gives strong preference to UW postdoctoral researchers or graduating Ph.D. students. It funds “commercially focused individuals” to work in UW labs on translational experiments to identify and obtain funding and to develop a business model.
    • Presidential Postdoctoral Innovation Fellowship Program—Virginia Tech: This fellowship provides up to two years of support for Ph.D.s working to commercialize Virginia Tech intellectual property alongside a faculty mentor at the university.
    • Ignite Fellow for New Ventures Program—Cornell University: The program aims to build new businesses, “grow entrepreneur scientists and engineers,” and “enrich Cornell’s venture ecosystem.” The program is open to graduating Ph.D.s or master’s students working with a faculty inventor to commercialize technology developed on a Cornell campus.
    • Activate Fellowship: This program provides two years of support, including “funding, technical resources, and unparalleled support from a network of scientists, engineers, investors, commercial partners, and fellow entrepreneurs.” The program accepts applications in the fall of each year, with the fellowship beginning in early summer the following year. Prospective fellows can apply to work in their local ecosystem or in hubs located across the U.S.:
    • Runway Startup Postdoc Program—Cornell Tech: “Part business school, part research institution, and part startup incubator,” Runway is focused on digital technologies, and Startup Postdocs are provided with training, mentorship and other resources to support their growth as entrepreneurs. Startup Postdocs arrive with ideas that require time and specialized guidance to develop. The program accepts candidates from anywhere around the world.

    Each of these programs offers something slightly different, but they share a common goal—to empower researchers to think beyond the bench and take an active role in translating ideas into action. The Activate Fellows and Runway program at Cornell Tech are especially unique, as they allow a Ph.D. to bring their own ideas with them. The Runway program, which to date has trained 55 postdocs, has also been featured in The Journal of Technology Transfer.

    One advantage of participating in a commercialization-focused postdoc program is the access to resources that support your growth. Many programs are embedded in innovation ecosystems, such as tech transfer offices, legal support, start-up incubators and translational research centers. Some even offer seed funding or business mentorship to help you move a technology forward.

    What’s Next? A Call to Action

    If you’re a postdoc or advising one, you don’t need to have a ready-to-pitch product to benefit from this kind of training. You just need to be curious.

    Ask yourself:

    • What problems does my research help solve?
    • Who beyond my field might care about this work?
    • What skills could help me turn this into something people can use?
    • What resources are available to me to learn more about commercializing research and entrepreneurship?

    Whether you want to start a company, work at the intersection of science and policy, or simply make your research more impactful, commercialization training can help you get there.

    We also need to do more, collectively, to bring visibility to commercialization programs available to Ph.D.s. This includes:

    Most importantly, we need to keep reminding ourselves and our colleagues that commercialization and entrepreneurship isn’t a detour: It’s a destination that many Ph.D.s are uniquely equipped to reach.

    Final Thoughts

    You don’t need to have a CEO title in your sights to benefit from entrepreneurial thinking. At its core, commercialization is about connecting your work to the world, and that’s something every researcher and scholar should know how to do. Whether through a fellowship, a campus workshop or self-guided exploration, now is a great time to start learning how your research can make a difference in the world.

    And who knows? You might just discover that innovation is your next career frontier.

    Chris Smith is Virginia Tech’s postdoctoral affairs program administrator. He serves on the National Postdoctoral Association’s Board of Directors and is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing a national voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Tomer Joshua serves as associate director of the Runway Startup and Spinouts programs at Cornell Tech and the Jacobs Technion–Cornell Institute, where he supports deep tech and digital start-ups.

    Source link

  • Chat Bot Passes College Engineering Class With Minimal Effort

    Chat Bot Passes College Engineering Class With Minimal Effort

    Since the release of ChatGPT in 2022, instructors have worried about how students might circumvent learning by utilizing the chat bot to complete homework and other assignments. Over the years, the large language model has enabled AI to expand its database and its ability to answer more complex questions, but can it replace a student’s efforts entirely?

    Graduate students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s college of engineering integrated a large language model into an undergraduate aerospace engineering course to evaluate its performance compared to the average student’s work.

    The researchers, Gokul Puthumanaillam and Melkior Ornik, found that ChatGPT earned a passing grade in the course without much prompt engineering, but the chat bot didn’t demonstrate understanding or comprehension of high-level concepts. Their work illustrating its capabilities and limitations was published on the open-access platform arXiv, operated by Cornell Tech.

    The background: LLMs can tackle a variety of tasks, including creative writing and technical analysis, prompting concerns over students’ academic integrity in higher education.

    A significant number of students admit to using generative artificial intelligence to complete their course assignments (and professors admit to using generative AI to give feedback, create course materials and grade academic work). According to a 2024 survey from Wiley, most students say it’s become easier to cheat, thanks to AI.

    Researchers sought to understand how a student investing minimal effort would perform in a course by offloading work to ChatGPT.

    The evaluated class, Aerospace Control Systems, which was offered in fall 2024, is a required junior-level course for aerospace engineering students. During the term, students submit approximately 115 deliverables, including homework problems, two midterm exams and three programming projects.

    “The course structure emphasizes progressive complexity in both theoretical understanding and practical application,” the research authors wrote in their paper.

    They copied and pasted questions or uploaded screenshots of questions into a free version of the chat bot without additional guidance, mimicking a student who is investing minimal time in their coursework.

    The results: At the end of the term, ChatGPT achieved a B grade (82.2 percent), slightly below the class average of 85 percent. But it didn’t excel at all assignment types.

    On practice problems, the LLM earned a 90.4 percent average (compared to the class average of 91.4 percent), performing the best on multiple-choice questions. ChatGPT received a higher exam average (89.7 percent) compared to the class (84.8 percent), but it faltered much more on the written sections than on the autograded components.

    ChatGPT demonstrated its worst performance in programming projects. While it had sound mathematical reasoning to theoretical questions, the model’s explanation was rigid and template-like, not adapting to the specific nuances of the problem, researchers wrote. It also created inefficient or overly complex solutions to programming, lacking “the optimization and robustness of considerations that characterize high-quality student submissions,” according to the article.

    The findings demonstrate that AI is capable of passing a rigorous undergraduate course, but that LLM systems can only accomplish pattern recognition rather than deep understanding. The results also indicated to researchers that well-designed coursework can evaluate students’ capabilities in engineering.

    So what? Based on their findings, researchers recommend faculty members integrate project work and open-ended design challenges to evaluate students’ understanding and technical capabilities, particularly in synthesizing information and making practical judgements.

    In the same vein, they suggested that faculty should design questions that evaluate human expertise by requiring students to explain their rationale or justify their response, rather than just arrive at the correct answer.

    ChatGPT was also unable to grasp system integration, robustness and optimization over basic implementation, so focusing on these requirements would provide better evaluation metrics.

    Researchers also noted that because ChatGPT is capable of answering practice problems, instruction should focus less on routine technical work and more on higher-level engineering concepts and problem-solving skills. “The challenge ahead lies not in preventing AI use, but in developing educational approaches that leverage these tools while continuing to cultivate genuine engineering expertise,” researchers wrote.

    Source link

  • What’s in House Republicans’ Risk-Sharing Plan?

    What’s in House Republicans’ Risk-Sharing Plan?

    Under a new accountability measure recently proposed as part of a larger House budget bill, colleges would have to pay millions of dollars each year to reimburse the government for their students’ unpaid loans.

    The plan builds on an idea—known as risk-sharing—that lawmakers and policy analysts have been toying with since at least 2015. As the federal student loan portfolio grew, the goal was to require colleges to have some skin in the game and incentivize them to improve student outcomes.

    And while the concept has gained some bipartisan support in theory, higher education institutions have repeatedly argued that it is difficult to create a fair accountability system when many of the variables involved are out of an institution’s control and depend on the decisions of individual students and borrowers.

    So far, the higher ed lobby has successfully defeated proposed risk-sharing plans such as the one included in a Republican bill from the last Congress, known as the College Cost Reduction Act. But now, an almost identical proposal is back and at the heart of House Republicans’ plan to cut at least $330 billion from higher education programs over the next 10 years. The overall legislation, which aims to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget, could receive a vote on the House floor this week, though some lawmakers have threatened to block the measure amid concerns that it doesn’t include deeper cuts. Even if the bill fails, it serves as a marker of what House Republicans hope to accomplish moving forward.

    Many higher education policy experts warn that practically speaking, the latest risk-sharing plan relies on a complicated formula that’s essentially a black box. Released in late April, the proposal has not been tested enough to know its ramifications, they say, and the limited data available is inconclusive. Some analyses released by conservative groups say the program will be a financial boost for efficient public institutions and penalize bloated private ones. But one study conducted by a lobbying group suggests that public regional and minority-serving institutions that serve high populations of low-income students will get hit the hardest.

    “Fundamentally it’s an astonishing level of federal overreach to essentially lump in all institutions of higher education together—public, private, for-profit—and run a convoluted formula to determine winners and losers at the federal level and then redistribute funding,” said Craig Lindwarm, senior vice president of government affairs for the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.

    Democratic politicians also argue that the purpose of the legislation is not truly to hold colleges accountable for student outcomes like graduation rates and income levels, but to crack down on what the government considers overly liberal institutions and fund President Donald Trump’s priorities.

    Even some conservative supporters acknowledge that it’s difficult to know the full scope of the bill’s potential impact this early. But they say risk-sharing is a necessary tool to penalize colleges that provide a poor return on investment and ensure the production of a well-prepared, financially stable workforce. They also suggest that the incentives such as additional grant funding to institutions that keep costs low and graduation rates high will offset the penalty for most public institutions.

    “With any policy change, we’re not going to be able to predict in advance 100 percent of how this is going to affect everyone, everywhere, all the time. But I don’t think that should be an excuse to not make policy changes,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. “I still think the data we have gives us a general idea of which sorts of institutions would be affected and the magnitudes of the penalties involved.”

    So How Does It Work?

    The proposed risk-sharing plan would kick in for new loans starting in July 2027, said an aide for Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce Committee. That means colleges wouldn’t be penalized for disruptions to the student loan system that occurred during the pandemic or efforts during the Biden and Trump administrations to overhaul repayment.

    If we don’t even understand how this works, why the heck are we passing it? I mean, it’s a concept, but I don’t think it’s the concept that people think it is.”

    Jason Delisle, nonresident senior fellow at the Urban Institute

    And because borrowers don’t have to start paying back their loans until six months after they graduate or stop out, institutions likely won’t have to pay a penalty until 2029 or 2030 at the earliest, the aide added.

    But from then on, institutional payments would be calculated annually—major by major—for each new cohort of borrowers and would continue until they’ve paid off their loans. The amount per cohort could change from year to year, depending on factors such as borrower behavior, postgraduation earnings and college costs. But it’s expected to grow as more and more cohorts are added to the lump sum.

    Under the bill, the amount per cohort would be calculated using a three-part formula, which is largely unchanged from what Republicans proposed last Congress in the CCRA.

    The first step is to determine a college’s risk-sharing liability, which is how much each institution owes the government. To do that, the formula looks at the difference between how much students were supposed to repay during a given year and how much they actually did. The calculation takes into account the value of any missed or partial payments as well as any interest that the government waived or principal contributions it matched, the committee aide said. It does not, however, include debt waived through programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which was a concern for institutions.

    This is the part of the formula that raises the most questions for institutions, as the mechanics of exactly how the risk-sharing liability is calculated are not clearly outlined in the legislation or in a CCRA database published by the education committee Republicans in 2024. And even if it were, much of the data needed to run the formula is not publicly accessible.

    “How the formula works is the million-dollar question, and something that we’ve been trying to work on for a year and a half,” one policy expert said. “It’s very complicated and relies on metrics that aren’t publicly available.”

    House committee aides counter that colleges have access to student borrower data via the National Student Loan Data System, which can be used to predict future risk-sharing payments. They also point to a recent Dear Colleague letter reminding colleges of their responsibility to monitor borrower payments.

    But even then, higher ed lobbyists say, it’s not clear who will be responsible for calculating the liability. If any part of that responsibility falls to campus financial aid administrators, higher ed groups say the plan will increase the administrative burden on colleges.

    “If I were a lobbyist, I would just say to all of my members, go to your congressman and say, ‘We don’t know what this does,’” said Jason Delisle, a policy analyst who has worked at think tanks across the political spectrum but is now based at Urban Institute where he’s a nonresident senior fellow. “If we don’t even understand how this works, why the heck are we passing it? I mean, it’s a concept, but I don’t think it’s the concept that people think it is.”

    Incentives to Lower Costs

    Once that risk-sharing liability is known, the next step in the formula is to figure out how much of that liability fee a college will have to pay. That’s done using what the legislation calls an earning-price ratio, which compares students’ earnings to the federal poverty line and college cost. A higher EPR means a lower final payment. For example, if an institution’s EPR is 0.3, or 30 percent, then it has to pay 70 percent of the original liability.

    To further offset the risk-sharing penalty, colleges can also qualify for a new pot of funding proposed in the bill called the PROMISE Grant, which is the third step of the formula. How much a college would get in PROMISE funding depends on the total value of Pell Grants received and the graduation rate of Pell-eligible students. This grant is funded by other colleges’ risk-sharing payments.

    Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, is leading the effort to cut billions from higher education programs.

    Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

    So, according to data from the House committee, the State Technical College of Missouri should get $3,230,130.50 in PROMISE grants. But the community college would have to pay $9,688, bringing its net gain down to $3,220,442.50. Washington University in St. Louis, however, would receive no PROMISE Grant funding and lose about $3.5 million. (The House Committee data only lists the final risk-sharing payment—not original liability values or EPRs.)

    In theory, this data demonstrates how the EPR and the PROMISE Grant are supposed to support colleges that serve low-income students, but many higher ed lobbyists are worried the program will actually do the opposite. That’s largely because colleges can only receive a PROMISE Grant if they agree to lock in tuition rates for each new freshman class. If they can keep tuition costs low, then their EPR scores will only be strong. Some lobbyists say that neither is a feasible option for public colleges and minority-serving institutions, which rely heavily on funding from the state.

    “It’s not a coincidence that some of our schools that would get hit the hardest are in states that invest very little in public higher education. Some of our schools in Pennsylvania and Arizona, for example, would fare extremely poorly, and it’s by and large because tuition levels are such a determinative component as it relates to the penalty assessment,” said MacGregor Obergfell, director of governmental affairs at APLU. “To think of what traditional conservative orthodoxy is, it seems pretty unusual that a conservative position is using the federal government to punish state institutions for decisions made by their states.”

    Reward or Penalty?

    Some higher ed groups also noted that much of the formula either depends on or fails to acknowledge factors outside of a college’s control. Much of this has to do with unpredictable borrower behavior, but there are other factors at play, too; for example, when calculating discounts with the EPR, the formula doesn’t account for differences in the cost of living from college to college.

    “Institutions in higher-cost areas are at more of a disadvantage than other institutions,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations for the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “They have to charge higher prices to reflect higher costs of labor, maintaining facilities and all those types of things.”

    The burden of risk-sharing payments may be so high that colleges elect to opt out of the federal student loans program entirely, she added: “Ultimately it would have an impact on lower-income students who have a need both for a Pell Grant and a direct loan to help them meet their cost of attendance.”

    Of colleges that enrolled 70 percent or more low-income, Pell-eligible students, 96 percent would have to pay a risk-sharing penalty and 91 percent would lose money over all when PROMISE Grant is factored in, according to the American Council on Education’s analysis of the House data.

    The committee countered that finding with its own analysis of the data, sent to Inside Higher Ed, showing how colleges that enroll the highest share of low-income students should see about $99 more per student, while those that enroll the lowest share would lose about $66 per student.

    The ACE analysis as well as the committee’s data are among the few studies that show the estimated impact of the previously proposed risk-sharing plan. None have been updated yet to reflect the latest iteration.

    Another analysis from Cooper, the AEI fellow, estimated that public institutions as a whole should get more money under the plan, but private nonprofits are expected to face a substantial penalty.

    Although critics point to how the plan would affect individual institutions, particularly small, underresourced schools, proponents argue that the focus should be on the impact to higher education over all, and that colleges can lower their costs to see a payoff.

    “Because the net gains are significantly larger, the sector as a whole sees a net gain even though more institutions have net losses,” Cooper said. “So, the upside for institutions here is that there are significant rewards available to those which can improve their outcomes.”

    At the end of the day, it’s all about how you choose to look at the data.

    “I would just like to see [the formula of risk-sharing] play out for a couple of hypothetical colleges based on data that has some bearing on reality,” said Delisle from Urban Institute. “And that’s a hard thing to come by right now.”

    Source link

  • Defense Department Caps Universities’ Indirect Cost Rates

    Defense Department Caps Universities’ Indirect Cost Rates

    The Department of Defense is planning to cap indirect cost reimbursement rates for higher education institutions at 15 percent, according to a May 14 memo signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. 

    “The Department of Defense (DoD) is the steward of the most critical budget in the Federal Government—the budget that defends our Nation, equips our warfighters, and secures our future. That stewardship demands discipline. It demands accountability. And it demands that we say no to waste,” wrote Hegseth.

    The memo directs the DOD to develop the new policy within 21 days, marking the fourth federal agency—including the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation—that has enacted a plan to cap indirect cost rates at 15 percent. For decades, universities have negotiated with the federal government to calculate bespoke indirect cost reimbursement rates to pay for research costs that support multiple grant-funded projects, such as facilities maintenance, specialized equipment and administrative personnel. (The paragraph has been updated.)

    Universities and their trade associations have already sued the NIH, DOE and NSF over these plans, arguing that capping indirect costs would hurt research production and compromise global competitiveness, all while violating multiple aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act, including bypassing congressional authority required to alter indirect cost rates. So far, federal judges have blocked indirect cost caps from taking effect at the NIH and DOE. The NSF agreed to pause the cap until June 13 in order to proceed to summary judgment, which is a way to resolve the case quickly without a full trial.

    Matt Owens, president of COGR, which represents research institutions, condemned the DOD’s newly announced plan. 

    “DOD research performed by universities is a force multiplier and has helped to make the U.S. military the most effective in the world. From GPS, stealth technology, advanced body armor, to precision guided missiles and night vision technology, university-based DOD research makes our military stronger,” Owens said in a statement. “A cut to DOD indirect cost reimbursements is a cut to national security. Less funding for research means less security for our nation.”

    Hegseth’s memo claimed that capping the Defense Department’s indirect cost rate for universities would “save up to $900 [million] per year on a go-forward basis,” while also claiming that the department’s “objective is not only to save money, but to repurpose those funds—toward applied innovation, operational capability, and strategic deterrence.” The NIH has also made similarly incompatible assertions. It touted on social media its indirect rate cap plan’s potential to save taxpayers more than $4 billion, while a lawyer for the NIH told a federal judge that the cut was simply a reallocation of funds. 

    The Defense Department’s plans “will not stop at new grants,” Hegseth wrote, adding that “meaningful savings can also be achieved by revisiting the terms of existing awards to institutions of higher education.” The memo directed the under secretary of defense for research and engineering to do the following within 30 days:

    • Initiate a departmentwide effort to renegotiate indirect cost rates on existing financial assistance awards to institutions of higher education. “Wherever cooperative, bilateral modification is possible, it shall be pursued.”
    • “Where bilateral agreement is not achieved, identify and recommend lawful paths to terminate and reissue the award under revised terms.”
    • “Complete renegotiations or terminations for all contracts by 180 days from the date of this memorandum.”

    Source link

  • USDA Canceled Funding to Help Source Produce for Schools – The 74

    USDA Canceled Funding to Help Source Produce for Schools – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    In 2020 and 2021, the COVID pandemic exposed weaknesses in the United States’ supply chain for key items in American households.

    The Biden administration spent millions of dollars through the U.S. Department of Agriculture on new programs that helped farmers sell their produce to local schools, create produce boxes for households and provide more direct food access to their communities.

    The Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) and Local Food for Schools (LFS) programs provided incentives for schools and community organizations to buy food from local farmers. They allowed states to create contracts with farmers so schools could purchase their foods and gave farmers the promise of a guaranteed sale when harvest time arrived.

    Now, with rocky trade partnerships and tariffs looming, President Donald Trump’s administration has slashed the remaining money for the programs, leaving farmers across the country heading into their growing season unsure who will buy their produce.

    “We really figured out how to get local farm product into community spaces under LFS and LFPA,” said Thomas Smith, the chief business officer at the Kansas City Food Hub, a cooperative of farmers near the Kansas City area. “We were making our whole organization around meeting those new needs, because we believe in the government’s promise that they believe in local food.”

    The Trump administration canceled about $660 million in funding for the programs that was to be paid out over the next few years. Through the programs so far, USDA has paid out more than $900 million to states and other recipients.

    KC Food Hub took on the challenge of helping farmers, school districts and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education work together to streamline the processes under the Biden-era programs. It was almost an instant success.

    In 2024, the cooperative brokered more than $500,000 in sales for small farmers in the Kansas City region — more than the group had seen in its first five years of operation.

    KC Food Hub hoped that the new partnerships would continue putting money back into farmers’ pockets and was aiming for over $1 million in sales for the farmers they represent. Now, they’re huddling with school districts across Kansas and Missouri to try and keep some of the contracts alive in the absence of the federal money.

    How purchasing agreements relieve stress for small farmers

    The local food programs were an extra pillar of support for small farmers across the country.

    USDA data show that since 1980, the number of farms across the U.S. has decreased from about 2.5 million to 1.88 million in 2024. Part of that struggle, Smith said, is like many small-business owners, farmers are forced to take on many different roles.

    “What they really want to be doing is farming, knowing their soil, knowing their land,” Smith said. “But because there is no distributor like the Food Hub in most communities, they have to be business people, too. They have to be in the board meetings, meetings with school administrators. And that just puts so much stress onto the food system.”

    Over the years, as small farms have dwindled and larger operations have consolidated agricultural production in the United States, the middle market and distributors like the Food Hub have phased out.

    When it comes to large-scale distributors, there are plenty of places a farmer could turn to sell their products. But the return for that farmer when selling to a large distributor is much lower.

    “You get pennies on the dollar,” Smith said. “No respect to your work, no respect for your worth.”

    There are other USDA programs that dedicate money to states through their nutrition assistance programs and set aside funds for seniors and low-income families to buy produce from local farmers.

    Studies show ripple effects through local economies when higher quantities of local food are purchased. A 2010 study found that for every dollar spent on local food products, there is between 32 cents and 90 cents in additional local economic activity.

    For Mike Pearl, a legacy farmer in Parkville, the programs pushed him to expand faster than he’d planned. Now, without the guarantee of those contracts, he’s scaling back his production plan for the year.

    “If you think about it, it was an early game changer,” Pearl said. “We were able to, for the first

    time … grow on a contracted basis for a fair price for the farmer, in a way that we never would have been able to do before.”

    That encouraged Pearl to increase production and begin making upgrades before he felt completely ready to do so, he told The Beacon. New equipment, growing more produce and hiring more staff were all side effects of the local food purchasing agreements.

    “I’m not sure that a lot of vegetable farmers were actually ready for it,” Pearl said. “I wasn’t prepared for it. But we made some changes to grow a bit more and do as much as we can on a short runway. We were set up for a perfect storm.”

    Anything extra Pearl produces will be donated, as his farm is one of the largest donors of food in the Kansas City area. But other farmers are left with questions about what will happen with their crops — and their revenue.

    It raises a question of trust that Maile Auterson has encountered throughout her life as a fourth-generation farmer in the Ozarks and the founder of Springfield Community Gardens, which facilitates local produce boxes and the LFS programs in the Springfield, Joplin and Rolla areas.

    “We promised the farmers,” Auterson said. “The biggest insult to us is that we cannot follow through on the promises we made to the farmers that we had made with that money.”

    The area her group serves was set to get $3 million in federal funds over the next three years. While Auterson is trying to fulfill some of those contracts, the trust that small farmers were building with the government through the program has been severed, she said.

    “We talked the farmers into participating and scaling up specifically for this program,” Auterson said. “Then when we can’t follow through, the government has done what they were afraid the government would do, which would be to not look out for the small farmer. It’s a terrible moral injury to all of us.”

    What’s next for small farmers and local food purchasers?

    Smith said the Food Hub is in talks with its participating school districts — including Lee’s Summit, Blue Springs and Shawnee Mission — to continue their purchasing agreements even without the federal funds.

    So far, even with the funding cancellation, 95% of 2024’s produce sales are set to be maintained through this year, Smith said.

    “As small farmers, they can’t meet the streamlined industrial agriculture price points, but we can come close,” said Katie Nixon, a farmer and the co-director of New Growth Food Systems, which is affiliated with the West Central Missouri Community Action Agency.

    “Our quality is usually a lot higher,” Nixon said. “Lettuce, for example, will last three weeks in the cooler, whereas lettuce coming from greenhouses in God knows where will last a week before they turn to mush.”

    The Blue Springs School District saw a 40% increase in the use of its cafeteria salad bars after switching to local produce, Smith said. And school districts often find less waste and more savings, despite the slightly higher price when purchasing the produce, Nixon said.

    Research shows that farm-to-school programs, like sourcing local produce and teaching kids about farming, resulted in students choosing healthier options in the cafeteria and eating more fruits and vegetables. Schools also saw an average 9% increase in students eating their meals from the school cafeteria when they participated in farm-to-school programming.

    During Trump’s most recent Cabinet meeting at the White House, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kenendy Jr. said the administration is planning a massive overhaul of the federal school meals program.

    “It’s going to be simple, it’s going to be user friendly. It is going to stress the simplicity of local foods, of whole foods and of healthy foods,” Kennedy said. “We’re going to make it easy for everyone to read and understand.”

    Auterson and Nixon feel that the cancellation of the program is retribution for those who benefited from policies and funds initiated during the Biden administration.

    “They’re hurting everyone,” Auterson said. “Everyone is suffering from them being retributional.”

    This article first appeared on Beacon: Missouri and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • San Jose Middle School Offers College Class to 13-Year-Olds – The 74

    San Jose Middle School Offers College Class to 13-Year-Olds – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

    By 2:45 p.m. the regular school day at August Boeger Middle School had already ended, but one class is about to start. More than 20 eighth graders drop their backpacks and settle into desks — not for extra credit but for college credit.

    These 13- and 14-year-old students in East San Jose are taking their first college course, an entry-level class on career planning. This middle school is one of the first in the state to offer a college-level course. In the coming years, the San Jose Evergreen Community College District wants all middle school students in this school district to be able to complete three college courses before they start high school, and soon, the district plans to offer other courses, such as sociology and ethnic studies, said Beatriz Chaidez, the chancellor for the community college district.

    Middle schoolers have long been eligible to enroll in college classes in California, though only a few, high-achieving students actually do it. By offering a college class at a middle school — especially one in a high-poverty area — the community college district is looking to make that enrollment easier. The class is taught by a middle school staff member, and it’s reserved exclusively for middle school students.

    But with so few programs, there is little research about whether students are benefitting, and the local faculty union is worried middle school students might not be ready.

    Chaidez disagrees. “Navigating (college) as early as middle school is unheard of in their community,” she said. “So when they experience success, it really motivates them to continue.”

    California is increasingly pushing high schools to offer community college classes directly to students during the regular school day, a set-up known as “dual enrollment.” Unlike AP classes, which include expensive exams and are limited to certain subjects and high-performing students, these community college classes cover a range of topics and are open to all students. By 2030, California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Chiristian wants all high school students to graduate with at least four college courses completed.

    Chaidez wants to go further. She wants every local high school student to be able to complete about 20 college courses by the time they graduate — enough to earn an associate’s degree.

    CalMatters reached out to the college district’s faculty union, which was surprised to learn the district is offering classes at a middle school.

    “This opens up some problems,” said Jessica Breheny, an English professor and the union’s vice president. “I’m sure there are 12-year-olds that are college-ready, but there are just less of them and it’s less likely. Developmentally, they have other things going on.”

    Research shows that high schoolers who take college classes are more likely to attend college and graduate, but there’s little research on how middle school students fare, said John Fink, a senior researcher at Columbia University’s Community College Research Center. “Nationally, and in most states, this is very, very rare, and in many states this is not allowed.” Instead, he said the focus is typically on enrolling more 10th, 11th and 12th graders in college courses.

    A college-level course, with a few middle school games

    About 10% of California’s high school students took a community college class in the 2021-22 school year, according to an analysis by professors at UC Davis using the most recent data. California’s community college system doesn’t track how many middle school students take college courses.

    So far, the Mount Pleasant Elementary School District, which includes August Boeger Middle School, offers only one college course, called “Career Planning,” and it’s almost indistinguishable from any other class on its campus. The college course is taught in a regular middle school classroom, and the professor, Oscar Lamas, already works at the middle school, where he’s a counselor. Perhaps the only noticeable difference is the timing: The middle school day ends at 2:30 p.m. and Lamas’ course starts at 2:45. He’s paid separately by the community college to teach the course.

    Career Planning helps students learn about career paths, practice resume-writing and learn psychological theories related to professional success. A governing board of college district professors, known as the Academic Senate, sets the objectives for each college course, but Lamas has broad discretion in teaching it. The Academic Senate responsible for setting the parameters of Lamas’ course did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

    The dean of the community college’s counseling department, Victor Garza, refused an interview request from CalMatters but issued a written statement. Garza said the middle school class is akin to other dual enrollment courses, which maintain the college’s “academic rigor.”

    “Some adjustments might be needed to cater to the unique needs and experiences” of students, he added.

    On a Thursday before spring break, Lamas tries to make his class more fun by breaking the students into five teams to play a Jeopardy-style quiz game on the topic of the day, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

    Natalie Mendoza, 14, becomes the default spokesperson of her team, named the “Tacos R Us Club,” but she answers the first question wrong, putting her team back 300 points and prompting her classmates to burst into chatter and analyze their mistakes.

    As part of the class, she has to study a career, write a short essay about it and present it at a career fair. She picked intellectual property law. “A lot of people say I’m assertive,” she said. “I think that’s a really good trait for a lawyer, and I think it’d be fun to fight for people who have created stuff.”

    Natalie said she’d be the first in her family to attend college but she’s already planning to go and has a few schools in mind, including UC Berkeley and San Jose State. If she does attend one of those schools, her grade in this counseling class would be part of her official college transcript.

    Breheny, with the union, said she’s concerned about the quality of the classes, especially once the college district begins teaching other subjects, such as ethnic studies.

    “Faculty designed their courses for adult learners,” Breheny said. An ethnic studies class may cover topics such as sexual violence and genocide, she added — topics that may be difficult to convey to a middle schooler. “Some of the material assumes a certain knowledge about the world, about politics, which you may not have at 11, 12, 13 years old.”

    High schools offer few dual enrollment classes

    August Boeger Middle School sits at the base of the Diablo Range mountains, tucked between the ranch-style homes and strip malls that color East San Jose. Teachers and staff greet each other with mucho gusto instead of hello. All around the open-air campus, murals tell the story of the region’s multi-cultural heritage, especially its Mexican and Chicano roots.

    That celebration of culture is a direct response to a history of adversity, Lamas said. “East San Jose has always been a marginalized, disadvantaged environment.” As a result, schools in the community contend with education disparities, he said, such as a high dropout rate and a high teen pregnancy rate.

    Offering a college class to these middle school students allows them to “see a possibility for their future that doesn’t exist within these walls here” and can inspire them to reach for a higher goal, said Marisa Peña, a school advisor.

    Male students, Black and Latino students and students from rural areas are underrepresented in the community college courses offered at California’s school districts. California lawmakers have signed numerous bills in the hopes of expanding access but certain regions in the state, such as Los Angeles, enroll a higher percentage of students.

    Natalie said she hopes to continue taking college courses when she starts at Mount Pleasant High School this fall, which is just around the corner from her middle school. But her options are limited.

    Mount Pleasant High School offers just three community college courses, which serve about 10% of the school’s roughly 1,000 students, said Kyle Kleckner, the school district’s director of instructional services. All of the classes are in “multimedia” studies, he said, which teaches students how to create their own podcasts or YouTube channels, along with other digital marketing skills. 

    Although Mount Pleasant High School’s dual enrollment is about on par with the state average, it trails other districts in the region. Less than 20 miles away, at high schools in the Milpitas Unified School District, roughly 25% of students enrolled in a community college class in 2021-22, according to the UC Davis analysis.

    Finding professors to teach middle school

    Part of the dual enrollment challenge is finding qualified college professors who are willing and able to work at a high school or middle school. Existing middle and high school teachers are allowed to teach college courses but they have to meet the qualifications, which usually include a master’s degree in the area of instruction. Most of California’s high school and middle school instructors lack a master’s degree, according to a study by the Public Policy Institute of California.

    “We have graduation requirements that students have to accomplish,” Kleckner said. “The trick is finding that community college course that also fulfills those requirements and also finding a teacher who can teach it.” He said Mount Pleasant High School is committed to expanding the number of college courses but noted that it’s smaller and therefore has fewer teachers who meet the requirements to teach a college course.

    In turn, many college professors lack experience teaching children, said Breheny, who teaches at San Jose City College. “We have had some problems already with dual enrollment where faculty have gone to different (high schools) to teach and have dealt with classroom management issues that they wouldn’t have in a college course.” In one case, she said a college faculty member saw bullying in a high school classroom but didn’t feel equipped to respond.

    Lamas has a master’s degree, which is required for most school counselors. He’s gentle with the middle school students in his class, occasionally awarding points in the Jeopardy game even when the answer isn’t perfect. Lamas had two quiz games planned that day, each one covering a different topic, but the first game took up almost all of the class time.

    He ends class by taking questions about the upcoming final project. Although spring break is minutes away, the students sit still through the final minutes, except for the occasional joke and bursts of laughter. Not a single phone was in sight.

    Once class ends, however, chatter ensues, the students pull out their phones, and staff escort them to the parking lot. While they may be taking a college course, they still must wait for their parents to pick them up.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Florida A&M Hires DeSantis Ally as President

    Florida A&M Hires DeSantis Ally as President

    Florida A&M’s Board of Trustees voted 8 to 4 Friday to hire Marva Johnson as president.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Jemal Countess/Getty Images for NOBCO | JHVEPhoto/iStock/Getty Images

    Following a contentious selection process, Florida A&M University hired a new president with no experience working in higher education but long-standing ties to Republican governor Ron DeSantis.

    Marva Johnson, a lobbyist for Charter Communications, faced sharp opposition from students and alumni, who dubbed her “MAGA Marva.” But despite questions about her lack of experience, Florida A&M’s board voted 8 to 4 in a Friday meeting to make her the next president.

    Johnson was also criticized by community members and board chair Kristin Harper for her salary demands, which included base pay of $750,000 plus performance bonuses. (Two other candidates requested compensation in the $500,000 range, while one other was negotiable.)

    Harper was one of the four trustees who voted against hiring Johnson.

    “In an age of merit-based hiring decisions, how can one justify settling for a candidate who does not meet all of the position criteria? Or turning a blind eye to exceptionally qualified candidates?” Harper asked.

    She added that FAMU community members “have been very clear” with their feedback.

    But other trustees emphasized Johnson’s experience in the political world. Jamal Brown, the Faculty Senate president, who sits on the board, argued that FAMU needed a president who has “access and political connections” to ensure the university’s financial success. In voting for Johnson, he argued that “this moment calls for someone who understands the systems that fund and govern us, because right now our survival depends on how we navigate those systems.”

    While Johnson has never worked in higher education in any capacity, she spent eight years on the Florida State Board of Education, including time as chair. During the hiring process, critics highlighted her lack of experience, as did some trustees who voted against her.

    Johnson beat out Donald Palm, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Florida A&M, who received four votes. Other candidates included Rondall Allen, provost and vice president for academic affairs at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, and Gerald Hector, senior vice president for administration and finance at the University of Central Florida.

    Palm, the internal candidate, was overwhelmingly endorsed by FAMU’s alumni association.

    At a tense meet-and-greet with Johnson on Wednesday, the candidate assured the university community she was “not a Trojan horse” and promised she “would fight and win for FAMU.”

    However, critics have argued she failed to articulate a clear vision for the university.

    Additional drama accompanied the hire when the board cut Harper out of contract negotiations. While board chairs have traditionally negotiated the contract with incoming presidents at Florida A&M, trustees voted to delegate that responsibility to another member at Friday’s meeting.

    “I take personal offense at what is happening,” Harper said during that discussion.

    Another controversy arose earlier in the search amid speculation that Johnson was added to a list of three finalists at the last minute. Last month trustee Ernie Ellison called to restart the search, arguing, “There are too many clouds hanging over this process.” He stepped down earlier this month and was quickly replaced by a new DeSantis appointee, who then voted to hire Johnson.

    Johnson steps into the FAMU job, which is currently held by an interim, after Larry Robinson, who led the university from 2017 to 2024, resigned amid controversy over a fraudulent gift.

    Last spring Florida A&M announced at commencement that the university had received a $237 million donation from Greg Gerami, a relatively unknown businessman with no connection to the institution. Florida A&M appeared to ignore warning signs that Gerami had also pledged $95 million to Coastal Carolina University in 2020, despite having no ties to CCU other than previously dating an employee. Gerami walked that donation back due to what he viewed as disrespect by officials at Coastal Carolina. Gerami’s FAMU donation was later invalidated.

    Despite the opposition to her candidacy, Johnson fits the profile favored in recent years by the governing boards at Florida’s public institutions, which have emphasized nontraditional applicants. Johnson is one of multiple presidential hires with ties to DeSantis or the GOP since 2022, when the State Legislature passed a bill allowing universities to shield applicant identities until the end of the hiring process, breaking with a long-standing tradition of making those names public. State lawmakers recently proposed injecting more transparency into searches, but that effort failed.

    Other political hires include Ben Sasse, a former Republican U.S. senator from Nebraska, who had a short-lived presidency at the University of Florida; former Florida lieutenant governor Jeanette Nuñez at Florida International University; and former state lawmakers Adam Hasner at Florida Atlantic University and Richard Corcoran at New College of Florida, among several others. Former GOP lawmaker Ray Rodrigues was also hired to lead the State University System of Florida in 2022.

    The University of Florida is currently in the process of replacing Sasse with an interim appointed to the job after his abrupt departure. Sole finalist Santa Ono, a traditional academic who left the University of Michigan to take the Florida job, marks a reversal of course compared to recent hires. However, Ono’s candidacy has sparked criticism from some conservative power players.

    Source link

  • ICE Warns International Students of More SEVIS Terminations

    ICE Warns International Students of More SEVIS Terminations

    Immigration officials sent letters to international students on short-term work visas Thursday night, threatening to terminate their legal status in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System and remove them from the country. The number of affected students is still unknown, but Inside Higher Ed can confirm at least 35.

    It’s the first sign that the Trump administration is resuming its campaign to deport student visa holders, weeks after restoring the statuses of thousands of students. ICE recently released an updated policy that significantly expands the agency’s authority to terminate students’ SEVIS status and pave the way for deportation proceedings. 

    This time, they’re targeting students on Optional Practical Training visas, or OPTs, which allow international postgraduates the opportunity to work in a field relevant to their study on a short-term extension. Students on OPT are allowed a total of 90 days of unemployment every 12 months before falling out of compliance. It’s still not known whether any of the affected students were on a special visa extension known as OPT for STEM, awarded to graduates in high-demand technology, science and engineering fields. 

    One international student adviser, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity, said 28 of his institution’s students on OPT received the letter in the past day, and he expects that number will grow. 

    In a copy of one letter received by an international student and obtained by Inside Higher Ed, Immigration and Customs Enforcement warned those who have not reported employment status within 90 days of starting their OPT visa that they must do so in 15 days. If they don’t, the Student Exchange and Visitor Program “will set your SEVIS record to ‘terminated,’” the letter reads, which “may result in the initiation of immigration proceedings to remove you from the United States.”

    The letter is nearly identical to those sent by officials during the first Trump administration in 2020. The only difference: Back then, the Student Exchange and Visitor Program was the letter’s sole signatory. This time, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are also named. 

    The 2020 letters were sent two years after officials issued an update to designated school officials informing them that the administration had begun a review of OPT students’ employment status to find noncompliant visa holders. But that notice also said SEVP would not automatically terminate students’ SEVIS status for going over the 90-day unemployment limit before notifying students. 

    It’s not clear whether immigration officials engaged in a review process before beginning to notify students of potential SEVIS terminations this week. Spokespeople for ICE and DHS did not respond to questions in time for publication. 

    It was also not immediately clear if OPT students’ SEVIS terminations would result in subsequent visa revocations, which are the purview of the State Department. A spokesperson for the State Department wrote in an email that they “cannot preview future visa-related decisions, which are made on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual facts relevant to the case,” and deferred other questions sent by Inside Higher Ed to DHS.

    In an internal communication sent to international student advisers and support specialists, NAFSA, an organization of international educators, urged college officials to regularly check the SEVIS database for notices of OPT students’ compliance with “accrued unemployment days” and to reach out to any students who are over the 90-day limit as soon as possible. 

    Immigration officials began systematically terminating thousands of students’ SEVIS statuses along with their visas in late March, an unprecedented move that threw international student support offices into chaos and left students scrambling to avoid deportation. 

    Last month, immigration officials restored the SEVIS statuses of more than 5,000 international students after losing dozens of court cases challenging the legality of efforts to revoke foreign students’ legal residency at a breakneck pace.

    The anonymous international student adviser said students on OPT often forget to report their employment details before the 90-day deadline. Many are distracted by graduations and finals well after they receive approval for the visa and forget, he said; in other cases, the lapse can be due to technical issues within SEVIS.

    Because of that, they’re often given some leeway, and he said he’s never seen or heard of a student having their SEVIS status terminated for not reporting employment details on time, including the last time these letters were sent in 2020. Then again, much of the Trump administration’s treatment of student visa holders is unprecedented, and he’s worried this could be a real danger for them.

    “There’s a lot of panic and uncertainty as our students are waiting to see what will happen, and we’re waiting to see if they’ll really go through with it,” he said. “I think this is the real deal.”

    Source link