Tag: News

We Don’t Need to Retreat From the Challenge of AI in Schools

One of the chief pleasures of traveling to schools and campuses to talk about More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI and my approaches to how we should approach the teaching of writing is getting the chance to see what other places are doing with the challenge of working in a world of generative AI technology.

My travels so far this semester have been very encouraging. It seems clear that we are in a new phase of reasoned consideration following on an earlier period of worry and uncertainty. I never saw outright panic, but there was a whiff of doom in the air.

There may be a selection bias in terms of the institutions that would invite someone like me to come work with them, but there is a clear impulse to figure out how to move forward according to institutional values, rather than being stuck in a defensive posture.

As I declared way back in December 2022, “ChatGPT can’t kill anything worth preserving.” The work of what must be preserved and how is definitely underway.

I want to share some impressions of what I think is working well at the institutions that are moving forward, so others may consider how they might want to do this work on their own campuses.

Going on Offense by Living Your Values

One clear commonality for successfully addressing the current challenges is by identifying the core institutional values and then making them central to the ongoing discussions about how instruction and institutional operations must evolve.

As one example, at my recent visit to Iona University, I was introduced to their framework of agency, expression and responsibility.

“Agency” is one of my favorite words when talking about learning, period, and in this case it means communicating to students that it is ultimately the students themselves who must choose the path of their own educations, including the use of AI technology. I’ve recently been speaking more and more about AI in education as a demand-side issue, where students need to see the pitfalls of outsourcing their learning. Agency puts the responsibility where it belongs: on students themselves.

Expression represents a belief that the ultimate goal of one’s education is to develop our unique voice as part of the larger world in which we work and live. Writing isn’t just producing text but using the tools of expression—including text—to convey our points of view to the world. Where LLMs use substitutes for or obscure our personal expression, they should be avoided.

Responsibility is related to agency in the “with great power comes great responsibility” sense. Students are encouraged to consider the practical and ethical dimensions of using the technology.

At other stops I’ve seen similar orientations, though often with wrinkles unique to local contexts. One common value is rather than retreating to assessments that can be monitored in order to prevent cheating, the goal is to figure out how to give life to the kinds of educational experiences we know to be meaningful to learning.

If you start with the values, things like policy can be evaluated against something meaningful and enduring. The conversations become more productive because everyone is working from a shared base.

I know this can be done, because I’ve been visiting institutions working on this problem for more than 18 months, and the progress is real.

Collective Spirit and Collaborative Action

Another common sign of progress is institutional leadership that communicates a desire to take a collective approach to tackle the issues and then puts specific, tangible resources behind this call to make collaborative action more possible and effective.

Several institutions I’ve visited have carved out spots for some version of AI faculty fellows, where these fellows are given freedom to explore the technology and its specific implications to their disciplines, before coming back to a group and institutional setting where this learning is shared.

To work, these must be more than groups tasked to figure out how to integrate AI technology into the university. I have not visited any institution that has done this—they are unlikely to invite someone like me—but I have been corresponding with people whose institutions are doing this who are looking for advice, and it seems like a sure route to a divided institution.

At my Iona visit, they took this approach to the next level by putting on a one-day conference and inviting community educators from all walks to hear not just yours truly, but also the AI fellows and other faculty discuss a variety of issues.

These conferences don’t solve every problem in a day, but simply demonstrating to the broader public that you’re working the problem is deeply encouraging.

Room and Respect for Difference

One of my favorite parts of my visits is the chance to talk with the faculty on a campus who have been wrestling with the same challenges I’m spending my time on. At the base level, we share the same values when it comes to what learning looks like and the importance of things like agency and transparency to achieving those things.

But when it comes to the application and use of generative AI technology to achieve these outcomes, there are often significant differences. I share my perspective, they share theirs, and while I don’t think we necessarily change each other’s minds, a great appreciation for a different perspective is achieved.

It’s a model of what I always based my courses in, the academic conversation, where the goal of writing and speaking is to gradually increase the amount of illumination on the subject at hand. We’re having a discussion, not a “debate.”

I am far more skeptical and circumspect about the utility of generative AI when it comes to teaching and learning than many. I often point out that anyone who is using the technology productively today established a whole host of capacities (or what I call a “practice”) in the absence of this technology, so it stands to reason that we should still be educated primarily without interacting with or using the technology.

But I’ve also seen tangible demonstrations of integrating the capacities of generative AI tools in ways that seem to genuinely open potential new avenues. These people need to keep experimenting, just as those of us who want to find ways to do our work in the absence of AI should be empowered to do so.

Do More Than ‘Doing School’

Maybe this belongs as part of the first point of “going on offense,” but the successes I’ve seen have come from a willingness to fundamentally question the system of schooling that has resulted in students primarily viewing their educations through a transactional lens.

In many cases, generative AI outputs satisfy the transaction of school in ways that mean students learn literally nothing. We’ve all read the viral articles about students using AI for everything they do.

But I can report from my visits to many different institutions and talking to people working at many more that this is not universally true. Many students are eager to engage in activities that help them learn. It then becomes the responsibility of schools and instructors to give students something worth doing.

Retreating to analog forms because they can be policed is a missed opportunity to rethink and redo things we know were not working particularly well.

There is not endpoint to this rethinking. Frankly, I find this energizing, and it’s clear lots of others do, too. This energy is something we can use to help students.

Source link

October 3, 2025
Indian Students Look Elsewhere After H-1B Visa Price Shock

The new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas could prove to be the final straw for Indian students’ plans to study in the U.S., with other destinations set to benefit as a result.

The move by the Trump administration—the latest in a long list of restrictions affecting international students—is set to impact Indians the most, given they account for more than 70 percent of H-1B recipients.

Many students enroll in courses with a view to progressing on to the visa, working in industries such as Silicon Valley.

“The sentiment among prospective … students is pretty dismal after this announcement,” said Sonya Singh, founder of SIEC, an education consultancy.

“The queries and applications for U.S. universities have seen a significant drop, and students are considering alternatives. Destinations such as the U.K., Germany and Australia are being explored, and Canada is proposing a dedicated work permit for current and potential U.S. H-1B holders. All these initiatives and policy changes are sure to bring about a massive shift in demand for the U.S. as a destination.”

Sagar Bahadur, executive director for Asia at international education consultancy Acumen, said the debate has created “a lot of talk, anxiety and perception-building” among prospective students.

He noted that students are increasingly deferring study plans, exploring alternative destinations or considering “transnational pathways” that allow them to start degrees elsewhere before moving to the U.S. if conditions improve.

Pankaj Mittal, secretary general of the Association of Indian Universities, said the fee hike was “shaking things up for Indian students eyeing the U.S. for education and careers.”

With uncertain job prospects and shifting policies, she argued, parents may no longer be willing to pay high tuition fees.

“Countries like Germany, Canada, Australia, U.K., Singapore and Malaysia may gain traction due to stable policies, work opportunities and affordability,” Mittal said, highlighting Germany’s free or low-cost tuition and work allowances as a growing draw for Indian students.

She also warned of wider repercussions for international collaboration. “This decision may impact partnerships with U.S. institutions as Indian universities explore alternatives and strengthen ties with European, Canadian or Australian institutions. STEM and health-care sectors may be particularly affected due to high H-1B dependency.”

Early signs of a shift are already emerging. Narender Thakur of the University of Delhi noted declining interest in short U.S. master’s courses in computing and engineering, fields closely tied to H-1B pathways.

He suggested that students may increasingly consider other global destinations or branch campuses in India, while research partnerships with U.S. institutions could slow. Opportunities in entrepreneurship and remote work may also appeal to students deterred from U.S. employment.

Andrew Morran, head of politics and international relations at London Metropolitan University, said the policy would “particularly hit Indian students, who last year made up 71 percent of international student applications, according to U.S. government statistics.”

He described the move as part of a broader trend restricting access to U.S. universities and warned it could make study in the U.S. “even more the preserve of the elite and the wealthy” while undermining classroom diversity.

“It will also impact the student experience, as diversity is undermined and the shared experience of a global classroom is weakened further,” Morran said. Universities might seek students elsewhere, he added, but the hostile political climate and attacks on immigration could blunt recruitment.

“Talent gaps cannot be filled overnight. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will take every opportunity it has to steal these students,” he said.

Source link

October 3, 2025
A Defining Choice for Higher Ed (opinion)

Ask people at Columbia, Harvard or UCLA how things are going for higher education, and they might rightly say that things are quite dismal. Those places have been early targets in the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to bring colleges and universities to heel.

Funding cutoffs, intrusive demands for data and investigations have made life pretty difficult for those universities and some others. In addition, they have had to confront the excruciating choice of whether to defy the administration’s demands or try to reach a settlement.

At Columbia, Harvard and UCLA, budgets have been squeezed. Uncomfortable adjustments have been made. Reputations and careers have been damaged or ruined.

While some college presidents have publicly condemned what the administration has been doing, many other college and university leaders have tried to keep their heads down, to say nothing or do nothing to join with and support places that have been prominent on the administration’s hit list. But the days of duck and cover in American higher education may be coming to a close.

On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the administration was considering a new strategy in its dealings with colleges and universities. The plan is to change the way the federal government awards research grants, “giving a competitive advantage to schools that pledge to adhere to the values and policies of the Trump administration on admissions, hiring and other matters.”

Then, on Wednesday, the administration sent letters to nine universities asking them to sign a 10-page “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” In exchange for getting preferential treatment for federal funds, among other benefits, colleges would agree “to freeze tuition for five years, cap the enrollment of international students and commit to strict definitions of gender.” They also must, per The New York Times, “change their governance structures to prohibit anything that would ‘punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.’”

The “Compact for Academic Excellence” seeks to get colleges and universities to sign onto President Trump’s priorities all at once. That means that the kinds of excruciating choices faced by a few colleges and universities will soon be coming to a campus near you.

Higher education is now facing an unprecedented moment of truth, with institutions needing to decide whether to stick to their commitments to independence and academic freedom at the cost of their financial well-being and capacity to carry out research, or to show their loyalty to the administration at a cost to their integrity and mission.

As I see it, there really is no choice. Colleges and universities must say no. They should do so now, when resistance might dissuade the administration from going any further with its plan.

If colleges relent, they will forfeit whatever moral capital they have left and send the message that the pursuit of truth matters less than loyalty to a political agenda and that colleges and universities can be made to give up their independence if the price of freedom is high enough.

I am enough of a realist not to take odds on what choices colleges and universities will make. And I know that resistance of the kind I am advocating may be very costly for students, faculty and staff, as well as the communities served by campuses that push back.

But as journalist Nathan M. Greenfield explained in 2021, “Academic freedom is the sine qua non of universities in common law countries as well as those in Western Europe and, indeed, is central to the functioning of universities in all but those countries with repressive governments.” Yale Law School professor Robert Post explains that “academic freedom rests on a bargain between society and institutions of higher education. Universities are granted independence so they can produce two necessities of modern life: knowledge and education.”

The very idea that the Trump administration is seeking to compel universities to adhere to the values and policies that it prefers suggests how little regard it has for either knowledge or education. Post gets it right when he says, “Democracy would become a farce, and the value of self-government meaningless, if the state could manipulate the knowledge available to its citizens.”

In 1957, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter approvingly cited a statement that identified four conditions for higher education to thrive: universities must be free to determine who may teach, what can be taught, how it is taught and who will be admitted. “For society’s good,” Justice Frankfurter wrote, “inquiries into [academic and social] problems, speculations about them, stimulation in others of reflection upon them, must be left as unfettered as possible. Political power must abstain from intrusion into this activity of freedom, pursued in the interest of wise government and the people’s wellbeing.”

The Trump administration is not displaying such restraint in dealing with all of American higher education. The Washington Post quotes Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, who said that the new policy is a frontal “assault … on institutional autonomy, on ideological diversity, on freedom of expression and academic freedom.”

“Suddenly, to get a grant,” Mitchell continued, “you need to not demonstrate merit, but ideological fealty to a particular set of political viewpoints … I can’t imagine a university in America that would be supportive of this.”

We may soon see whether he is right. But he may have framed the issue incorrectly.

The question is not whether America’s colleges and universities will support a clearly unconstitutional overreach by the Trump administration. The question is whether they will go along with it by signing on to the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

The administration is asking colleges and universities, “’What are the things that you believe? What are your values?” Justice Frankfurter must be rolling over in his grave.

We can only hope that the first nine universities asked to agree to the administration’s latest intrusion into higher education will follow his wisdom and refuse to do so. And other colleges and universities should make clear now that if they are asked to follow suit, they too will say no.

Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

Source link

October 3, 2025
Tuition Discounts Fuel Higher Ed Skepticism
Tuition discounting is a tactic private colleges have long used to control a primary revenue stream. But over the past decade, an increasingly precarious financial picture—driven in part by stagnating state funding and tuition caps—has pushed public institutions to adopt tuition-discounting policies, too.

According to an issue brief from the Strada Education Foundation, the share of first-time, full-time undergraduates receiving institutional grant aid at public four-year institutions increased from 49 percent to 62 percent between 2014–15 and 2021–22. The average discount rates increased from 24 percent to 31 percent over the same period.

Strada argued in the brief that tuition discounting sows confusion about the real cost of college among students and their parents. The practice also fuels increased public skepticism about the value of a college degree. It warned that growing financial uncertainty for public higher education could make the problem worse.

“State postsecondary budgets soon may face new strains stemming from federal actions, demographic shifts, and broader fiscal pressures,” the brief said. “Without intentional alignment between states and institutions, this environment could drive even more aggressive tuition discounting in the years ahead—further complicating cost transparency for students, public missions, and the perceived value of education.”

Tuition discounts allow institutions to maintain financial stability and recruit academically strong or underrepresented students who may be enticed by a big discount presented as a scholarship. However, increases in merit-based aid can “favor wealthier or out-of-state students at the expense of low-income, in-state residents,” according to Strada’s brief.

“These practices also leave students, families, and citizens confused and without a transparent understanding of the cost of higher education,” the report said, noting that low-income and first-generation college students are especially vulnerable to uncertainty around tuition prices. “As the debate over the value of postsecondary education continues, exaggerated prices and confusion over actual costs weigh heavily on public trust and whether ‘college is worth it.’”

The report recommends a set of guiding principles to address tuition discounts:
- Transparency and clarity for families;
- Alignment between state and institutional aid;
- Regular assessment of aid strategies;
- Ensuring discounting supports public mission and access goals, not just revenue; and
- Avoiding blunt, one-size-fits-all approaches.
Source link
October 3, 2025
Readers Respond on Advising The Girl
(Program note: In order to reduce the competition for attention, this column’s Monday and Thursday schedule has been changed to Monday and Friday.)

Monday’s post outlined The Girl’s many academic strengths and mourned some changes in the field that make pursuing her preferred career a high-risk enterprise. She’s a wildly talented reader and writer—insightful, distinctive and often funny—who would make a great English professor if the world still offered jobs like those in any meaningful number. She’s looking closely at an information science option. I asked my wise and worldly readers if they had any thoughts on advice I could offer her.

Luckily, I have the best readers ever. Folks responded thoughtfully and graciously. Some highlights and patterns:
- Readers within the library world responded with variations on “We love our jobs, but they’re getting scarcer, too.”
- Even there, though, hope could be found. A few pointed out that having a master’s degree in a discipline can be a selling point with academic libraries. They often suggested getting a foot in the door at a university library, then using the free tuition offered to staff to get the master’s in English. I have to admit that free tuition is a nifty benefit.
- They also pointed out that working full-time in a college or university library doesn’t preclude teaching the occasional English course on the side. Adjuncting for a living is brutal, but a course on the side—when the basic needs are met elsewhere—can be gratifying.
One wise and worldly reader took issue with the assumption that graduate programs are about getting jobs. As he put it,

“I tell students that, so long as you are going to grad school in a funded program, if no job in academia results, then you’ve had the privilege of spending fiveish years doing something that few people get to ever do. And then, in terms of career prospects, you’re right back where you were when you finished your B.A. Being in a funded grad program will allow you to tread water, financially speaking. So yes, you will be behind your friends from undergrad who went straight into careers and began building up equity in their homes and their 401(k)s, but that is the sacrifice one makes to get to spend time in grad school.”

Concur in part and dissent in part. (That’s language from the Supreme Court, from back when they used to explain their decisions.) It’s certainly true that the kind of extended reading of academic texts that grad students do is rare outside of the academy. And on good days, there can be real intellectual excitement. But I also remember a lot of posturing, preening, bluffing and one-upmanship that seemed as petty as would be found anywhere else. And while it’s true that a fellowship is a rare privilege, it’s also true that the opportunity cost of subsistence-level living for five or more years is shockingly high. So yes, it can be intellectually rewarding, but I suspect there are other ways to get that without being quite so broke.

Another reader reframed the issue, putting the field of study at the center:

“If I really believe in the importance of transmitting human culture across generations, then should I maintain that it’s worth doing only when it’s economically expedient? Would I have any real credibility with my students if I seemed to tell them, out of one side of my mouth, that reading Walden and Moby-Dick is a valuable use of their time and a potential source of future wisdom and happiness, and then also tell them, out of the other side of my mouth, that they should make career choices that are at odds with what they’re gleaning from these books—and also, by the way, not be bothered if those books disappear from their children’s and grandchildren’s civilization?”

It struck me as a variation on the much older idea of a calling. I’m sympathetic to that at some level—when I don’t write for a while, I feel out of tune—but I’ve seen the idea of a calling used to justify appalling levels of exploitation. While TG is wildly talented, she’s also pragmatic; her politics, like mine, are about rejecting poverty across the board, rather than romanticizing it. I consider her clear-sightedness a real strength. She wants to make an adult living, and I don’t blame her one bit.

On the opposite end, one reader suggested that she pick up some training in automotive repair, start working in a shop, and use her communication skills to move up over time. It’s an interesting theoretical point, and it brought back fond memories of Car Talk, but I don’t see her doing that. (She confirmed my hunch.)

High school teaching also showed up as a frequent option. Even as professor gigs seemingly vanish into the ether, many states have teacher shortages. As dual enrollment gains ground, opportunities for teaching at least introductory college-level courses may become easier to find. High school is a very different environment, but the option exists.

Several readers’ stories (or their children’s stories) started with traditional academic pathways and veered into institutional research (the in-house research office on campuses) or instructional design. Both fields draw on a general knowledge of the ways that higher ed works, and a rapport with faculty is helpful in both. The job market for instructional designers appears to be much healthier than the market for either librarians or humanities faculty. That may be because instructional design can lead to corporate training jobs, as well as jobs in the academy. A wider scope of potential options is not a bad thing.

Others made the point in various ways that career paths aren’t linear. One mentioned a daughter with a Ph.D. in physics who went on to become a successful patent attorney. Another started trying to be a librarian, switched to the tech world, got a Ph.D. in philosophy and now helps engineers with their people skills.

I had to smile at this argument, because I know it’s true. If you had told me, in the midst of my doctoral program, that I’d spend much of my career in community college administration, I would have looked at you quizzically. Yet here we are. Degrees matter most at the early stage; by a decade or two into a career, it’s not unusual for the job title to be pretty distant from the degree. But TG is at the early stage, so it still matters.

Thanks to everyone who wrote! I was gratified by the generosity of spirit that everyone showed. Best. Readers. Ever.
Source link
October 3, 2025
NIH Fires 4 Directors After Putting Them on Leave

The directors felt they were fired as part of the administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion and for political reasons.

Wesley Lapointe/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Four directors at the National Institutes of Health who were placed on administrative leave earlier this year have now been fired, Science reported.

The ousted leaders led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Tara Schwetz, the deputy director for program coordination, planning and strategic initiatives, was also fired. The directors were put on leave in the spring around the same time that the administration laid off thousands at the Department of Health and Human Services.

Science reported that the directors felt they were targeted as part of the administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion and for political reasons. Jeanne Marrazzo, the former NIAID director, took over for Anthony Fauci, a frequent target for Republicans who took issue with his approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Marrazzo filed a whistleblower complaint in early September that in part accused NIH leadership of downplaying the value of vaccines, The New York Times reported.

“It’s not surprising, but it’s still incredibly disappointing,” Marrazzo told Science. “I would have been quite happy to serve under the new administration as long as we were allowed to do our jobs.”

Source link

October 3, 2025
ED Put Political Out-of-Office Reply on Staff Emails

The department is largely closed due to the government shutdown. In the meantime, the Trump administration is using furloughed workers’ emails to make a political statement.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images | nevodka/iStock/Getty Images

Wednesday morning, as the government shutdown began, chief officers at the Department of Education distributed a standard out-of-the-office statement to all furloughed staff members and instructed them to copy and paste it into their email. So that’s what they did.

But just hours later, those same nonpartisan staffers began to hear that the message they’d pasted into their email account was not the message being received by the public.

“On Wednesday evening, my supervisor reached out to me on my personal equipment and said, ‘You’re going to want to log in and change your out-of-office status,’” one department staffer told Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity out of fear of losing her job.

When she followed her supervisor’s direction and logged in, the automatic message she saw was not the one she had saved earlier that morning.

Rather than the original note, which had said, “There is a temporary shutdown … due to a lapse in appropriations,” the new message said, “Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of [a bill] … which has led to a lapse in appropriations.”

This is one of the more than 10 emails Inside Higher Ed received as automatic responses including the same political message. Although Keast was appointed by Trump, most of the staffers we contacted were not.

The outgoing message had been changed internally without her consent. And this staffer was not alone. Inside Higher Ed emailed 10 separate Education Department staffers Thursday, all of whom had been placed on furlough, and each one bounced back with identical responses. One senior leader from the department, who also spoke anonymously, said that to his knowledge the politically charged message was set as the out-of-office notification for all furloughed employees.

(The Department of Education did not immediately provide comment. In fact, the emails sent to both deputy press secretary Ellen Keast and the general press team account were met with the same automatic response.)

The first staffer said that while she was caught off guard by the override at first, it made sense the more she thought about it. Similar messages blaming Democratic senators for the shutdown had already been put at the top of HUD.gov, the landing page for all things Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other federal websites.

As of Thursday evening, the HUD website noted, “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.”

Republicans control the White House, the House and the Senate. In the Senate, they need the votes of at least seven Democratic senators to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to overcome a filibuster.

“I was really surprised, because we had gotten such explicit instructions on what to use for our out-of-office message,” the staffer said. But “when I saw that message from my supervisor, I assumed it had been changed to something more political than the original neutral one.”

She has already logged back in multiple times to change the automatic response back to the neutral language. But each time, within hours, the department has overridden her changes.

“It’s what [is being sent] to people who contact me, and they could reasonably misunderstand it as coming from me, and I don’t feel comfortable as a federal employee communicating a political message like that,” she said.

A second staffer told Inside Higher Ed that he has worked through multiple shutdowns prior but not experienced anything like this.

“It’s just wild to see your name attached to a message that you had nothing to do with,” he said. “It feels like a violation … You know that you don’t have any expectation of privacy when you’re working for the federal government. But it’s a different thing to say that you don’t have autonomy over your own words.”

The second staffer noted that in his view, not only did this seem to be a violation of his personal rights, but also a violation of federal law.

The Hatch Act, passed in 1939, was intended to ensure that nonpartisan federal workers who worked across administrations remained just that—nonpartisan. And according to documents from the Office of Special Counsel website, the Hatch Act “limits certain political activities of federal employees,” like using official authority for political purposes, soliciting political donations, wearing partisan political gear at work and posting or sharing partisan content on government systems.

“It’s crazy to see the law violated on your behalf,” the second staffer said.

None of the department employees Inside Higher Ed spoke with intended to file an individual lawsuit, nor had they heard anything from their union about a collective legal response. But one shared that Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization that has sued the Trump administration several times this year, will be going to court over the matter as soon as Friday.

Source link

October 2, 2025
White House Floats Compact for Preferential Treatment
The Trump administration has asked nine universities to sign on to a proposed compact, mandating certain changes in exchange for preferential treatment on federal funding.

First reported by The Washington Post and confirmed, with additional details, by The Wall Street Journal, the proposal seeks an agreement with nine institutions that are being asked to commit to a 10-point memo referred to as the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

Among the various conditions, institutions are reportedly being asked to:
Ban consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions processes

Freeze tuition for a five-year period

Limit international undergraduate enrollment to 15 percent of the student body

Commit to institutional neutrality

Require applicants to take standardized tests, such as the SAT or ACT

Clamp down on grade inflation

Ensure a “vibrant marketplace of ideas on campus”

Restrict employees from expressing political views on behalf of the institution

Shut down departments that “punish, belittle” or “spark violence against conservative ideas”

Anonymously poll students and employees on compact compliance and publish the results
Another requirement mandates that signatories “deploy their endowments to the public good,” such as by not charging tuition to students “pursuing hard science programs (with exceptions, as desired, for families of substantial means)” for universities with more than $2 million per undergraduate student in endowment assets. Universities would also be required to post more details about graduates’ earnings and refund tuition to those who drop out in their first semester.

After leveraging funding freezes and other tactics to pressure colleges to make changes, the compact reflects a different approach from the administration while still geared toward the same goal—remaking higher education in Trump’s image. May Mailman, a Trump adviser, hinted at the plan in a New York Times interview a week before the proposal emerged, saying it could be a way for universities to affirm they are “doing the right things.”

“The Trump administration does not want to be all Whac-a-Mole or all negative, but these are the principles that universities and the Trump administration and, frankly, private donors can ascribe to to say, ‘This makes a great university,’” she told the Times.

Institutions reportedly invited to join are: Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University.

Those that agree will receive “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants,” according to a copy of the memo published by The Washington Examiner.

But failure to comply with the agreement would come with steep consequences. Noncompliant universities would “lose access to the benefits of this agreement” for a year. Subsequent violations would lead to a two-year punishment. And the federal government could claw back “all monies advanced by the U.S. government during the year of any violation.” Private donations would also be required to be returned, upon request.

The Department of Justice would be tasked to enforce the agreements.

Institutional Responses

Most universities did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed. But Texas officials seem eager to sign on, sharing a statement indicating their enthusiasm for the compact.

University of Texas system Board of Regents chairman Kevin P. Eltife wrote in the statement that the flagship was “honored” to be among the institutions “selected by the Trump Administration for potential funding advantages” under the proposed compact, which it is currently reviewing.

“Higher education has been at a crossroads in recent years, and we have worked very closely with Governor [Greg] Abbott, Lt. Gov. [Dan] Patrick and Speaker [Dustin] Burrows to implement sweeping changes for the benefit of our students and to strengthen our our [sic] institutions to best serve the people of Texas,” Eltife wrote. “Today we welcome the new opportunity presented to us and we look forward to working with the Trump Administration on it.”

University of Virginia spokesperson Brian Coy told Inside Higher Ed by email that interim president Paul Mahoney “created a working group under the leadership of Executive Vice President and Provost Brie Gertler and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer J.J. Davis to advise him” on UVA’s response to the letter but has not yet made a decision to sign or not.

USC simply said in a statement, “We are reviewing the Administration’s letter.”

Both the White House and the Department of Education initially responded to requests for comment with automatic replies because of the federal government shutdown, which began Wednesday. A press office official later responded only to confirm The Wall Street Journal’s reporting.

Outside Perspectives

News of the proposal prompted a flurry of criticism within academic circles.

American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson blasted the idea in a Thursday statement and called on governing boards to reject it.

“The Trump administration’s offer to give preferential treatment to colleges and universities that court government favor stinks of favoritism, patronage, and bribery in exchange for allegiance to a partisan ideological agenda. This compact is akin to a loyalty oath. Adherence by university administrations would usher in a new era of thought policing in American higher education,” Wolfson wrote.

The executive committee of Penn’s AAUP chapter also opposed the proposal.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression also criticized it in a post on X, writing that “the compact includes troubling language” specifically pointing to the call to eliminate academic departments critical of conservative ideas, which it cast as undermining free speech.

“A government that can reward colleges and universities for speech it favors today can punish them for speech it dislikes tomorrow. That’s not reform. That’s government-funded orthodoxy,” FIRE officials wrote.

Trinity Washington University president Pat McGuire called the proposal “political extortion.”

Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, told Inside Higher Ed there are multiple issues with the proposal, including vague language about political speech that could allow universities or the federal government to single out faculty members for publicly discussing topics within their expertise. He added that “enforcement is so vague” that it would be easy for the federal government to declare universities out of compliance with the agreement.

Cantwell suggested, “This is probably a bigger deal than the Columbia [settlement] because it’s creating an incentive structure” that spurs universities to go along or opens them up to retaliation from the federal government, making it risky whether a university signs on or not.

(Columbia agreed to far-reaching changes to admissions, hiring, disciplinary processes and more in July, including a $221 million fine, when it reached a deal with the federal government to settle over findings that it failed to properly police antisemitism on campus. Columbia did not admit to wrongdoing, but administrators have acknowledged the need for reforms.)

Brian L. Heuser, a Vanderbilt professor and long-standing member of the university’s Faculty Senate, urged fellow senators and other faculty colleagues to organize against the idea in an email shared with Inside Higher Ed. Heuser called the compact “a dangerous departure from the core values that should underpin our institutions—namely, free inquiry, open debate, and institutional autonomy” and argued that it endangers academic freedom, among other concerns.

But some conservatives have lauded the idea and want ED to push harder.

“Secretary [Linda] McMahon deserves credit for working to disincentivize the use of race or sex in college admissions,” U.S. Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, wrote in a social media post. “We must go further—federally accredited institutions should eliminate ALL preferences grounded in ancestry, such as legacy status, or other factors unrelated to merit.”

Why These 9?

While it is unclear how the federal government landed on the nine schools as candidates for the proposal, one official told The Wall Street Journal the Trump administration believed they would be “good actors.” But contextual clues offer insights into why some may have been picked.

Of the nine, only five presidents signed on to a letter published earlier this year by higher education organizations pushing back on government overreach and political interference, which ultimately gathered 662 signatures. Of those five presidents, one has since resigned: Jim Ryan at UVA, who faced pressure from the Trump administration after it claimed the university failed to fully dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Two institutions—Brown and Penn—previously struck deals with the federal government.

Others have drawn attention for political reasons. At Vanderbilt, Chancellor Daniel Diermeier has emerged as a leading voice advocating for institutional neutrality and has clashed with other campus leaders, arguing that higher education is in desperate need of reform, agreeing with frequent conservative criticisms of the sector. And Texas—one of three public institutions on the list—has an overwhelmingly conservative board, and both the system and flagship are led by former Republican elected officials.
Source link
October 2, 2025
How Credit for Prior Learning Strengthens Workforce Ties

In today’s rapidly evolving workforce landscape, higher education institutions face mounting pressure to demonstrate value, relevance and return on investment. Amid this challenge lies an underutilized strategy with remarkable potential: credit for prior learning.

We’ve long recognized CPL’s benefits for students. Learners who receive CPL credits are more likely to complete their degrees (49 percent vs. 27 percent for those without) and, on average, they earn 17.6 additional credits, finish nine to 14 months sooner and save between $1,500 and $10,200 in tuition costs (CAEL). But what’s often overlooked is CPL’s power to transform relationships between educational institutions and employers—creating a win-win-win for students, institutions and industry.

Beyond a Student Benefit

The traditional narrative around CPL emphasizes student advantages: increased enrollment, improved completion rates and reduced time to graduation. These metrics matter tremendously, but they tell only part of the story.

CPL can serve as a bridge between academia and industry, creating powerful new partnerships. When colleges and universities embrace robust CPL programs, they send a clear message to employers: We value the training and development you provide. Recognizing corporate training as creditworthy learning demonstrates respect for workplace knowledge and underscores higher education’s commitment to real-world relevance.

Employer and Workforce Gains

For employers, CPL validates that their internal training programs have academic merit. This recognition strengthens recruitment and retention efforts, as workers see clear pathways to advance their education without duplicating learning they’ve already mastered. Companies that invest in employee development also gain educational partners who understand industry needs and value the attributes that drive employee success.

The benefits extend further: Organizations with tuition remission or reimbursement programs can reduce costs while enhancing employee motivation and persistence.

Deeper Collaboration Between Higher Ed and Industry

As institutions evaluate workplace training for credit equivalency, they gain invaluable insights into industry practices and skill needs. This exchange allows colleges to refine curricula to better meet market demand, ensuring graduates possess the competencies employers seek—not just those defined within academic silos.

The hard but necessary conversations—between faculty and corporate training leaders—help ensure CPL evaluations are rigorous and relevant. Key questions include: Why include certain topics but not others? How do we know participants can demonstrate knowledge? Does the training align with broader disciplinary or leadership needs, or is it niche? These discussions strengthen both educational and workplace outcomes.

Reimagining CPL

The future of higher education lies in breaking down artificial barriers between academic and workplace learning. By embracing CPL as a cornerstone strategy—not only for student success but also for employer partnerships—institutions can position themselves at the nexus of education and employment.

This approach doesn’t diminish academic rigor; it expands our understanding of where and how meaningful learning occurs. Done well, CPL creates pathways that honor all learning, regardless of where it happens. And for learners, the message is clear: Your hard work counts.

Source link

October 2, 2025
Contextualizing Completion Gaps for First-Gen Students

First-generation students are twice as likely to leave college without completing a bachelor’s degree than their peers, even if they come from higher-income backgrounds and come to college academically prepared, according to a new report from the Common App. The findings suggest these factors do make a difference for student success outcomes but don’t erase other barriers first-generation students might face.

The report, released Thursday and the fourth in a series on first-generation students, used data from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center to track enrollment, persistence and completion rates for 785,300 Common App applicants in the 2016–17 application cycle. (Students whose parents didn’t complete bachelor’s degrees made up 32 percent of the sample.) The report also took into account how a range of factors could affect student outcomes, including students’ incomes, their levels of academic preparation and how well-resourced their colleges are.

Previous studies have shown that “first-generation students are certainly not a monolith,” said Sarah Nolan, lead author of the report and a research scientist at Common App. “We were hoping to give readers a sense for … which first-generation students might in particular need more support.”

The good news is the report found first-generation applicants enroll in college at rates on par with their peers. Over 90 percent of Common App applicants, first-generation and otherwise, enrolled in college within six years of applying.

But first-generation students were slightly more likely to not enroll immediately (17 percent) or to enroll at a two-year college (12 percent) compared to other applicants (14 percent and 4 percent, respectively). That gap mostly closed when comparing students with strong academic records, defined as having SAT or ACT scores or GPAs in the top quartile. According to the report, that finding may be because a higher share of first-generation students may need extra coursework before enrolling in a four-year institution.

Students might also work to save up for college first or opt for community colleges’ more affordable tuition rates, the report suggested. Lower-income first-generation students, who qualified for application fee waivers, were also less likely to immediately enroll at four-year institutions and more likely to first enroll at a community college compared to similar students not from first-generation backgrounds.

Over all, “we are really heartened to see that there’s really not very strong differences in college enrollment,” Nolan said.

Completion rates, however, are another story. While about 70 percent of first-generation students do complete a bachelor’s degree within six years of enrolling, the report found stark disparities between them and their peers.

About half of first-generation students completed a bachelor’s degree within four years, compared to 68 percent of continuing-generation students, a gap of 18 percentage points. And that disparity persisted when looking at six-year graduation rates. About 69 percent of first-generation students graduated within six years, compared to 86 percent of continuing-generation students, a 17-percentage-point difference.

These gaps shrank but didn’t disappear for first-generation students with strong academic records and higher incomes. Academically prepared first-generation students were twice as likely to disenroll with no degree than their continuing-generation counterparts, 14 percent and 6 percent, respectively. In a similar vein, 24 percent of higher-income first-generation students left college without a degree within six years compared to 12 percent of their continuing-generation counterparts. Even for first-generation students who were both academically prepared and relatively well-off, these gaps remained.

Differences in the institutions first-generation and continuing-generation students attend—and the levels of supports they offer—didn’t account for completion-rate gaps, either.

Even when attending the exact same institutions, first-generation students were 10 percentage points less likely to earn a bachelor’s degree within six years than continuing-generation students.

However, higher per-student expenditures did seem to contribute to better student success outcomes. At institutions that spent at least $20,000 per student, 84 percent of first-generation graduated within six years, compared to 94 percent of continuing-generation students. The gap between first-generation and continuing-generation students’ completion rates widened to 15 percentage points at colleges that spent more moderately, $10,000 to $15,000 per student, and 17 percentage points at colleges with low per-student expenditures, less than $7,500.

These findings suggest that, while first-generation students disproportionately face financial constraints and barriers to college prep, it doesn’t explain away their graduation rate gaps. And students attending less resourced institutions isn’t a full explanation, either. Other obstacles must be at play.

What those barriers are may be “best answered by speaking with first-generation students themselves and unpacking what’s happening at the individual level,” Nolan said. But first-generation students likely struggle with limited access to information about higher ed and its “hidden curriculum” of expectations, regardless of income, high school performance or which college they attend.

“Having the right resources at the right time on the pathway—that’s really critical for student success,” Nolan added.

The stakes of success are high—the report found many first-generation students spent considerable time and money on college with no degree to show for it. Almost a third of first-generation students who didn’t earn a degree were enrolled for at least four years.

But a hopeful finding is that “additional investment can be quite positive for helping these students really actualize their potential,” Nolan said.

Source link

October 2, 2025