As colleges roll out a wave of new programs to prepare students for an AI-driven workforce, a new partnership between New York University and the State University of New York is trying to answer an increasingly urgent question: Which of these efforts actually work?
This month, NYU and SUNY launched the Higher Education Design Lab, a joint effort to evaluate which higher education programs are most effective at preparing students for a workforce reshaped by AI and other technological and cultural changes.
The lab will study new and established initiatives on NYU’s and SUNY’s own campuses, starting with programs that teach civic engagement, career readiness, first-year programming and innovation to understand their real impact on student learning.
“We’re bringing together two really significant and very diverse institutions, and it’s a big-scale operation, so we’ll be able to look at a lot of things across a lot of different environments,” said Mindy Tarlow, senior fellow and professor at NYU’s Marron Institute of Urban Management, where the lab will initially be housed.
The partnership appears timely; Inside Higher Ed’s latest Student Voice survey of more than 5,000 two- and four-year undergraduates found that about 40 percent of respondents think professors could better connect classroom lessons to issues outside class or to students’ career interests.
A separate Student Voice survey of more than 1,000 two- and four-year undergraduates found that nearly 50 percent of students want their colleges to offer training on how to use AI tools ethically in their careers. By contrast, only 16 percent said preparing them for a future shaped by generative AI should be left to individual professors or departments, and just 5 percent said colleges do not need to take any action at all—underscoring the demand for a coordinated, institutionwide response.
“This is a research partnership,” said Elise Cappella, vice provost for universitywide initiatives at NYU. “This lab is not about creating a lot of new things. It’s about studying what we already have and making sure we’re reaching the students we need to reach.”
The approach: The Higher Education Design Lab will examine a broad range of programs and practices designed to strengthen student learning. Its initial focus includes initiatives aimed at fostering dialogue—including university speaker series, co-curricular training and exposure to diverse perspectives—to better understand how these experiences shape engagement, collaboration, critical thinking and confidence in discourse.
The lab will also study career-readiness programs, evaluating which approaches, such as employer partnerships, provide the strongest outcomes for both students and employers.
First-year and orientation experiences, including civics and community-building modules, will be analyzed to see how required versus optional participation affects leadership skills, critical discourse and student well-being.
Teaching and learning innovations, from faculty development programs to instructional tool kits, will be assessed for their impact on classroom and campus learning.
Finally, the lab will explore experiential and community-based learning, including service learning and study away programs, to determine how high-impact practices cultivate skills for navigating diverse perspectives and preparing students for leadership opportunities.
Tarlow said the lab will rely on both qualitative and quantitative data to understand not just whether programs work, but under what conditions and for which students.
The qualitative and quantitative data “often play off each other in really interesting ways,” she said. “We keep coming back to the same core question: What works best, in what conditions and for whom? And depending on what we’re studying, we’ll use the methodology that best helps us answer that, because not everybody responds the same way to the same things.”
What’s next: The Higher Education Design Lab will have an advisory board of higher education leaders and other institutions, including the City University of New York, and intends to invite additional universities, research centers and government partners to participate over time.
Tarlow said the lab’s first year will focus on identifying the pilot projects and specific parts of campus life the team wants to study most closely.
“There is already a lot of knowledge and good work happening in all of our institutions,” Cappella said. “What is new and exciting about this particular initiative is that we’re really dedicating time and attention internally and across institutions to doing this more collaboratively and more intentionally.”
Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.
Dropping the appeal ends a yearlong legal battle over the guidance that declared race-based programming illegal.
Celal Gunes/Anadolu/Getty Images
Education Secretary Linda McMahon and her legal team have dropped their appeal of a federal court ruling that blocked the department from requiring colleges to eradicate all race-based curriculum, financial aid and student services or lose federal funding.
The motion to dismiss was jointly approved by both parties in the case Wednesday, ending a nearly yearlong court battle over the department’s Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter that declared race-based programming and policies illegal. If institutions didn’t comply within two weeks, department officials threatened to open investigations and rescind federal funding.
In response, colleges closed offices related to diversity, equity and inclusion; scrubbed websites; and cut other programming.
First Amendment advocacy groups and the DEI leaders who remain in higher ed declared it a major victory for public education. Democracy Forward, the legal group that represented educators in the case, went as far as to say that it marks the “final defeat” of Trump’s effort to censor lessons and scrub student support programs.
Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, said it should encourage those affected by the Trump administration’s “unlawful crusade against civil rights” to keep fighting back.
“Today’s dismissal confirms what the data shows: government attorneys are having an increasingly difficult time defending the lawlessness of the president and his cabinet,” she said in a news release about the court filing. “When people show up and resist, they win.”
The court filing did not explain why the department chose to abandon the case, and Ellen Keast, a department spokesperson, declined to provide any further comment.
Trump officials had argued that they were merely enforcing existing federal civil rights laws and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that struck down affirmative action. They claimed race-based programming constitutes discrimination.
But 10 days later, a coalition of education unions, a national association and a public school district challenged the letter in court, arguing it violated administrative procedure law and institutions’ First Amendment rights. Then, in August, federal district Judge Stephanie Gallagher struck down the department’s guidance, arguing it “ran afoul” of procedural requirements and that “the regulation of speech cannot be done casually.”
Colleges and universities aren’t entirely in the clear, though. Just days before the Maryland District Court issued its ruling on the ED letter, the Department of Justice released its own nine-page memo on DEI.
That guidance, which went even further than ED’s guidance, said that basing services on stand-ins for race—like “lived experience,” “cultural competence” and living in a minority-heavy geographic area—could also violate federal civil rights laws. In response, colleges have closed campus centers and publications cater to certain racial or ethnic groups.
Still, many educators see this as a significant step forward.
“When you fight you don’t always win, but you never win without a fight,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the cases’ plaintiffs, in a news release. “We are proud that this case has once again halted the administration’s pattern of using executive fiat to undermine America’s laws that enshrine justice and opportunity for all.”
The Department of Education has had a successful few months when it comes to advancing policies that could dramatically reshape federal student aid. But officials’ tactics for doing so have raised concern among many of higher ed’s top leaders and policy analysts.
Over the course of the last four months, Under Secretary Nicholas Kent and his staff secured unanimous support from a variety of college leaders, state officials and student advocates on plans that cap graduate student loans, expand the Pell Grant to short-term job training programs and establish a new accountability measure for all colleges and universities—an outcome that defied initial expectations and one Kent touted.
“Here’s the reality: When you come to the table prepared with smart and dedicated people that are focused on a clear goal, you can move quickly and intentionally without sacrificing the thoroughness and the careful deliberation that this process deserves,” he said in December. “We have proven that speed and quality are not mutually exclusive.”
Kent went on to tell Inside Higher Ed this month that in order to implement the policies under a tight July 1 deadline set by Congress, he needed to finalize his proposals and do it fast. The key to doing so, he said, was using open dialogue and compromise to reach consensus—even as the department held fast to its core principles. He also believed that unanimous agreement could put an end to years of back-and-forth over higher ed policy and provide clarity for the institutions and students it would affect.
Nicholas Kent
But some involved in the negotiations as well as outside policy analysts say the department “strong-armed” committee members into agreement by threatening them with what could happen if they voted no—if the committee didn’t reach consensus, department officials could scrap any compromises made and rewrite the proposal as they saw fit.
Antoinette Flores, a higher ed policy expert who led similar negotiation sessions under the Biden administration and now works at a left-leaning think tank, said the committee members were repeatedly called into private meetings with Kent and department staff in which there was “heavy political pressure” to agree to the department’s proposal.
“They were leveraging the power of consensus with a little bit of fear,” she said.
Other observers, however, viewed the department’s tactics as nothing more than part of good dealmaking—a typical aspect of the rule-making process.
Either way, the talks shed light on how determined department negotiators can control the direction and outcome of the discussion, in part by coming to the table with explicit priorities and refusing to give much ground, according to more than half a dozen committee members and outside experts.
We were very honest throughout the process that this was a give-and-take. And we reminded people what was at stake and what the regulatory community could gain and lose.”
—Under Secretary Nicholas Kent.
Those interviewed cautioned that these talks aren’t necessarily a blueprint for future negotiations because they were largely driven by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which gave the department little wiggle room. Still, the rounds of negotiations revealed more about Kent’s playbook and how this Trump administration is more prepared to leverage the complicated policymaking process and advance the president’s priorities.
And the department’s policy agenda for 2026 suggests that there are still many negotiations to come as officials plan to rework the rules for accreditation, civil rights investigations and foreign gifts.
“Everybody should buckle up,” Kent said. “We’ve got a lot of work to do here.”
Setting the Tone
Before department staff reached the negotiating table, they knew what a tight timeline they’d be operating under. So with their eyes set on consensus, they worked to be “more prepared than [they] ever had been,” said Kent, who was hands-on during the talks and at one point made the unprecedented move to join the negotiating table.
The department conducted listening sessions with multiple constituency groups to get a sense of the challenges and opportunities they may face, and officials then released drafts of their proposals ahead of the meetings, coming armed with data presentations to back up their policy changes.
In two of the three rule-making sessions, Kent opted to condense negotiations that usually took place over the course of months down to one week. Public comment for all three was limited to one session held before any of the discussions began.
The threats were not thinly veiled. They were very bold.”
—Former Biden official
Noting that the department dealt with some of the topics for many years, Kent said, “There’s no reason that we needed to come and ask people very philosophical questions at the beginning.”
But coming in with detailed plans to kick off the talks also gave the department an upper hand. It narrowed the scope of debate and placed the burden on committee members to argue why and how any changes should be made, policy experts explained.
“Twenty years ago when you did neg reg, the department would [merely] have ideas about what it wanted to workshop with the negotiators,” said Aaron Lacey, a higher education lawyer who negotiated the policies for Workforce Pell and new accountability measures. But that’s not the case anymore. “It also puts a much greater burden on the negotiators. You’re just working around the clock, drafting, reviewing and justifying proposals. Whereas in years past, it was four o’clock and you were done until the next day started. It’s just a totally different exercise.”
To Lacey, the department was essentially working to “orchestrat[e] a consensus vote” on their plans.
“I don’t know how I feel about that,” he said. “But I have to acknowledge that that’s what they’re doing, and they seem to be doing it very well.”
Drawing Hard Lines
Another, more direct way, that the department pushed for unanimous agreement, policy analysts said, was by limiting the changes it would consider and making clear that there would be consequences if consensus wasn’t reached.
During the first negotiation over student loan caps in early fall, the department publicly dug its heels in over what programs could qualify for higher borrowing limits. And while ED made a few small concessions, multiple sources told Inside Higher Ed that those changes were used as bait to compel them to vote yes, even as they didn’t agree with other key issues in the department’s final proposal.
They could have just treated neg reg as a formality, failed [to reach consensus] and then written the rule that they wanted to in the first place.”
—Preston Cooper, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
In a series of private caucuses with negotiators, department officials conveyed that if committee members didn’t vote in favor, they would not only drop their small concession on loan caps but void other changes in the loan-repayment regulations, which were also part of the negotiations.
“The threats were not thinly veiled,” one former Biden appointee said on the condition of anonymity due to conflict with their current job. “They were very bold.”
Then, in January, as the committee negotiated accountability measures, department officials made a similar move, telling some committee members that they would scrap a rule aimed at holding nondegree programs and for-profit colleges accountable. At the time, the department was seeking to water down the rule known as gainful employment in order to match it with a new one for all other college programs.
Although the department’s threats once again worked, one negotiator spoke up about the tactics at the meeting.
In her closing remarks, Tamar Hoffman, a consumer rights attorney who had represented the higher ed legal aid groups on both committees, said she wanted to vote no but was choosing to abstain from the vote—a move that didn’t block consensus.
The students covered by gainful employment were “just too important for me to take that risk,” she said.
Lacey, the committee member representing nonprofit institutions, later told Inside Higher Ed thatthe department suggested to him they could leave gainful employment and its higher standards if the institutional representatives didn’t vote yes.
Congress passed a slew of higher education policy changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
To Kent and some negotiators, reminding committee members what was at stake was just the art of the deal.
“We were very honest throughout the process that this was a give-and-take. And we reminded people what was at stake and what the regulatory community could gain and lose,” Kent said. “The department was very clear in the caucuses that we were not threatening, that we were not strong-arming, but that we were simply reminding people what’s at stake.”
Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at a right-leaning think tank who represented taxpayers in the negotiation, said the department’s actions were a reasonable use of its upper hand in the rule-making process. Like Hoffman, he wanted to keep gainful employment, but he knew that ED didn’t have to try for consensus at all. In fact, he noted, that’s what previous administrations have done, so, in his eyes, Kent wasn’t twisting negotiators’ arms. Instead, he was invested in creating long-lasting solutions.
“They could have just treated neg reg as a formality, failed [to reach consensus] and then written the rule that they wanted to in the first place,” he said.
Will Consensus Last?
At most, consensus on the policies will last until the department receives public comment. At that point, the department has to review and respond to those comments and can make changes to the regulations.
“Consensus doesn’t get you that much. The department could, and has in the past, completely backtracked,” a former Biden official said. “So it will be very telling whether the administration is simply trying to stick with its consensus agreements, or whether the administration is trying to be responsive to the comments they get and set in place rules that are legally defensible, politically sustainable and that will let them implement these rules quickly.”
Beyond the immediate rule-making process, not everyone is as convinced as Kent that these consensus votes are enough to end the game of higher ed policy ping-pong that’s played out over the last 10 years.
The Education Department held three rounds of rule-making sessions over the last four months.
Jessica Blake/Inside Higher Ed
Flores, another former Biden appointee who is now at New America, isn’t so sure that the department would have achieved consensus if they hadn’t used such a “fear-based approach.” As a result, she said, it makes the legitimacy of the agreement “somewhat surface level.”
If these regulations do last, she believes it will be because they are rooted in legislation.
“It won’t be a consensus, per se, that leads to ending the whiplash. It is that we have big legislative changes and those things are hard to change overnight,” Flores explained.
But even then, she noted, the legislation was passed on a rushed schedule through an atypical budget bill without bipartisan support. If Democrats win back power on the Hill, there could be future legislation to tweak the reforms. In the meantime, she said, the department’s approach, which included little opportunity or consideration for public feedback, could lead to legal challenges.
A group of bipartisan lawmakers has already introduced legislation that would adjust the programs eligible for loan caps, following significant pushback from nurses and other health-care professionals who were not deemed professional and placed in the lower bracket.
“I’d expect a legal challenge on the professional definition as soon as the rule is finalized, which will lead these questions to kind of linger and might delay implementation down the line,” Flores said.
Over the past five years, I have adapted to a litany of new policies, procedures and restructurings at both the level of the college and the state: a shift in summer semester length, increased class sizes, a collegewide administrative reorganization, a syllabus review searching for language related to the Israel-Palestine conflict and state rewriting of course outcomes. Throughout all this, I remained radically optimistic, suspending any criticism—and the anticipated upheaval usually subsided. Most changes happen for good reason (they are not, usually, implemented arbitrarily) and are unobtrusive to my activities as a professor. In short, I am noncynical and receptive to change, up to a reasonable threshold.
Florida’s newly amended regulations for college syllabi, which require professors at public universities to publish their syllabi at least 45 days before the first day of class, crosses the threshold of reason. While there are concerns about the laboriousness of submitting a syllabus 45 days prior to the term, as well as potential political issues of censorship (some faculty argue syllabi are being made public to persecute unfavored views), my objection to this new policy is neither labor-based nor political. What is plainly concerning to me is the stipulation that all “required and recommended” readings must be included on the syllabus before the semester starts. This means that no new readings can be added (since that would violate the binding, prepublished syllabus), making the reading list inflexible and leading to pedagogically stunted classrooms.
This is not a proxy for a covert political argument. Actually, my criticism of static reading lists has nothing to do with politics, though the policies reflect a partisan political agenda: It is about pedagogy. The problem is not that the readings would be made public, but instead that they would be fixed, circumscribing professors’ creative interventions after a term has begun. Transparency is not what is at stake here; it is agency. Every instructor collates readings for a course before the start date (and, to be charitable, ensuring faculty prepare courses early—when possible—may be a good thing), but losing the ability to substitute readings during a semester is a diminution of effective teaching, which demands perpetual refinement.
A good class will always evolve, however subtly, from semester to semester—a change in course policy, an additional reading (or omitted reading), a tweaked assignment or a new in-class activity that one discovers at a teaching conference. Occasionally, these changes are made intrasemesterly, spurred by the realization that another approach will better serve student learning. To be clear, an instructor probably should not outright replace their entire reading list midsemester, yet they must retain the ability to make decisions regarding readings as the semester unfolds, rather than be tethered to a static reading list. A college classroom necessitates instructor agency, and anything meaningfully restricting that agency renders the classroom, in turn, less dynamic for students.
Consider how limiting an instructor’s ability to change readings, as needed, undermines a course’s engagement with the outside world. In the fall, I took a doctoral-level course on AI in the humanities. Although there were set readings each week, the professor provided weekly readings on AI software that was being developed in real time. The static readings, no matter how meticulously chosen, simply could not keep pace with this emergent technology, and the newly added weekly readings were often the most insightful. Florida’s new syllabus policy will preclude a practice like this. It is crucial to note that this was not, in any way, an unprepared instructor lazily adding readings as the term went on, but rather an instructor who was working harder by supplementing an already-robust reading list with freshly published material.
In my own courses, as an instructor of first-year composition, I walk a continually renegotiated line between challenging students and facilitating discussion and interest. I’m aware that some of the readings may be difficult for students (for instance, when teaching them how to read peer-reviewed academic articles), yet other times, I want more accessible readings, ones that develop arguments that students can become really invested in, frequently on a topic they are already familiar with. That way, students can reflect on how compelling they find an argument (on something they may already have a partially developed position on)—and then, from there, we can dissect the argument together.
Last semester, I swapped out some in-class readings for two recently published argumentative essays on the Labubu toy trend (a polished, well-researched article from a national publication and an imperfect opinion piece from a smaller publication). In this instance, the readings worked perfectly: The essays generated a lively discussion, not only about their content (Labubus and fleeting collectible trends in general) but also about the structure of the essays and their rhetorical effectiveness. Assigning texts like these demonstrates to students that writing isn’t a practice only occurring in the classroom, but an activity contending with the actual world, whether the subject is as timeless as poverty or as ephemeral as Labubus.
How would it be possible to assign readings about a passing trend—to capture student interest—when all readings must be fixed before the trend even begins? A course can only be responsive to the world if the instructor has the requisite agency over the readings they assign. To a reasonable degree, reading lists must be adjustable.
Of course, my example of arguments about Labubus is, in a sense, trivial—it isn’t actually about the content of the essays, but the fact that students could relate to the topical content (my courses teach students writing, argumentation and research—not consumer trends). Consider, though, a course in the hard sciences: If an instructor becomes aware of a new discovery, rendering a previous scientific claim outdated, should they not be permitted to exchange readings about the old claim with those about the new discovery? Or should they remain bound to outdated science in the name of “transparency”?
I view the new mandate on syllabi and reading lists as an unfortunate precursor to overstandardization (the kind pervasive in the K–12 educational environment), which is explicitly restrictive. Pragmatically, as I’ve argued, there are grounds to avoid this encroachment into the instructor’s classroom since it subdues pedagogical inventiveness. However, we should think not only about the utility of autonomy, but also about the principle. A professor should retain autonomy over the delivery of material—structured around the state- and college-mandated outcomes of the course—because this is what it means for a student to take a course in college. A professor is not a convenient vessel for predetermined content; they are, at their best, an expert curator of material to facilitate student learning.
Ask anyone, instructor or student, if they are better served by increased standardization and attenuated classroom novelty (whether in the name of transparency or not), and it seems to me beyond doubt that neither will say they prefer rote modes of learning to those that enable improvisation and up-to-the-moment expert curation.
Teddy Duncan Jr. is an assistant professor of English at Valencia College.
While everyone was knocked sideways by the events of 2025, our small but mighty newsroom has exhausted itself making sure you’re aware of all the changes in the sector. And you’ve shown us that you need to know what we’re covering. Last year our page views went up by 40 percent and traffic from our core readership rose nearly 65 percent. Readers engaged with us on our social platforms 60 percent more than in 2024.
It’s heartening to know Inside Higher Ed’s journalism matters at a time when the sector faces existential threats on multiple fronts. Highlights from the year include our map of canceled international student visas, our investigation into fake colleges and our rigorous coverage of the shifting relationship between the federal government and higher education. I’m grateful that after 20 years, Inside Higher Ed remains a trusted source of news and analysis for the higher education sector.
The news has already picked up speed this year, with the Department of Education wrapping up negotiated rule making and setting the stage to overhaul accreditation. We’ll continue to cover everything happening on the Hill as well as track how colleges respond to artificial intelligence, find new ways to be financially sustainable and continue to innovate what they do in the classroom. We’ve also got some exciting projects coming out later this year, including one that looks at how apprenticeships can be a crucial bridge between higher ed and workforce readiness.
Yet even as we celebrate our successes, we also face significant headwinds. The journalism industry has similar challenges to those plaguing higher ed: the rise of misinformation, a loss of trust in institutions, financial instability and a resistance to change. The business models that support high-quality journalism are evolving, and the rise of artificial intelligence and changes to the way people find and use information threaten the future of news reporting.
And like colleges, Inside Higher Ed goes back to our mission when things get tough. We know our purpose: to report the issues that matter most to the rich ecosystem of U.S. higher education institutions—from the open-access community colleges and regional publics to the bigger, wealthier and more selective privates and everything in between—and help connect the dots for our readers.
That mission requires a strategic shift in how we operate. Starting in April, we will be asking our readers to support us by becoming paying subscribers to access our news and deep dives. Readers will be able to access a few free articles a month. And all our surveys, student success advice, Views, career content and columns will remain open for anyone to read. We’ll offer a variety of ways readers can subscribe, including rates for institutions, groups and individuals.
This represents a significant evolution in our model and will enable us to continue to invest in Inside Higher Ed’s high-quality, independent journalism. We are passionate about higher education and its power to transform students’ lives and protect our democracy. This change will ensure that Inside Higher Ed can continue informing this crucial work by providing the journalism the sector deserves and depends on for another 20 years (and more!).
Thank you for reading Inside Higher Ed and for your continued support. We’ll be back in touch with more information in the coming weeks. If you have any immediate questions, you can email [email protected].
Sara Custer is editor in chief at Inside Higher Ed.
Trump officials have said that colleges could receive some benefits, such as preferential treatment for grant funding, if they agreed to the compact, which required several policy changes.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Apparently emboldened after cutting deals with several universities last year, Trump administration officials are reworking their controversial compact for higher ed that many institutions rejected outright, The New York Timesreported.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon backed up the Times report in an interview with The Daily Signal published Wednesday. She told the conservative outlet that the administration is “working on developing the right kind of compact with some input that we’re already getting.”
“So I expect that once that’s done, we’ll see a lot more people signing up, a lot more universities signing up for that,” said McMahon, adding that she expected the universities that gave input will be “even more pleased with” the final version. She didn’t give a timeline for when a second version would be released.
Of the initial nine, most declined to sign the compact, which would have required signatories to make policy changes to admissions, hiring and other areas in order to receive preferential treatment for grant funding. In her response to the government, MIT president Sally Kornbluth said, “The document also includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution.”
Vanderbilt University and Arizona State University have said they would provide the requested feedback and haven’t ruled out signing on to the compact. Meanwhile, New College of Florida, Saint Augustine’s University and Valley Forge Military College have indicated interest.
According to the Times, the administration is looking for ways beyond the compact to bring change to colleges. For instance, the State Department is prioritizing visa requests at universities where undergraduate international students make up 15 percent or less of the student body, the Times reported. (The first draft of the compact required signatories to cap their international student enrollment at 15 percent.)
Madeleine Green, executive director of the College-in-3 Exchange, called the findings “a positive indicator.”
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Chris Ryan/OJO Images/Getty Images
As a handful of colleges debuted 90-credit degrees this fall, one of the questions most top of mind for students, institutions and accreditors alike was whether graduate schools would admit students with these unusual degrees.
Now, the College-in-3 Exchange, an organization that advocates for the creation of such programs, has compiled some evidence that they will. The nonprofit conducted a study interviewing 10 graduate school admissions leaders from a range of institution types about how they would hypothetically respond if an applicant had a bachelor’s degree with fewer than the traditional 120 credits. The study was led by Christa Lee Olson, a senior program specialist with College-in-3.
The majority of respondents said their policies currently preclude reduced-credit degrees, but several said they could see that changing in the future, especially as three-year degrees become more common. Two of the interviewees reported that their institutions had changed their policies to accommodate international three-year degrees, which are common in countries like the U.K. Some also indicated that while they don’t accept reduced-credit degrees, they have mechanisms to make exceptions for specific applicants, especially at the request of a faculty member.
It’s an important step for College-in-3. As accreditors and state higher education leaders evaluate whether to allow institutions to launch three-year programs, one of their top concerns has been whether employers and graduate schools will accept the shortened degrees. Madeleine Green, the executive director of College-in-3, said she believes this report will serve as evidence to institutions, accreditors and state leaders that graduate programs are open to considering these degrees.
“Because College-in-3 is such a young movement, and we don’t have evidence of what happens to the graduates … this is suggestive evidence,” she said. “We plan to disseminate this, share it with the states, share it with our members and use it as a positive indicator.”
The recent surge in three-year programs seems to have shifted the perspectives of some of the admissions leaders included in the report. One respondent noted that institutions near them are creating reduced-credit degrees; when asked if their institution will consider accepting these three-year degrees, “the respondent replied that the value of the bachelor’s degree is not based on the arbitrary length of the degree but rather on how the program enables a student’s learning and development,” the report noted.
Three respondents also said that their own institution was considering or in the process of developing reduced-credit programs.
But not every participant felt positively about three-year degrees; one “expressed caution” about the programs and said they’re taking their cues from accreditors, according to the study. (Many accreditors have begun accepting 90-credit degrees, although in some cases, the programs are considered pilots that will be evaluated for their efficacy in several years.)
The question of whether graduate schools would admit students with a reduced-credit degree speaks to one of the most fundamental challenges of graduate admissions, said Julie Posselt, a scholar of higher education at the University of Southern California and the author of Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping (2016, Harvard University Press): How does one translate the information on a transcript into information about a student’s knowledge and abilities?
Posselt told Inside Higher Ed she could imagine master’s programs—many of which are revenue generators for their institutions—being open to admitting students with three-year degrees. But she has doubts that doctoral programs, especially at selective institutions, would be as welcoming.
“A fundamental challenge of selection is that no two humans are created equal or have fundamentally equivalent records. All we have is the information the applicant gives us. Professors have a tendency when making decisions, and admissions decision-makers of all kinds have a tendency, to rely on the metrics they have in front of them,” she said. “Especially in the current environment and in selective programs, I think it’s unlikely to be that any three-year program is likely to generate the same perceived competence, excellence and academic preparation.”
For that to change, the degrees would not only have to become significantly more common, she said; they would have to crop up at institutions perceived as prestigious.
One of the respondents in the College-in-3 report shared a similar perspective, emphasizing “the value of engaging high-profile institutions in this conversation to elevate the status of these degrees.”
The report concludes with recommendations about how to support students in three-year programs who hope to pursue graduate education. Along with continuing to familiarize the higher education world with the idea of three-year degrees, the report’s author also encouraged programs to prepare their students to explain the structure of their degree to graduate schools. In addition, it floated the idea of creating agreements between three-year degree programs and graduate programs.
“Conventional wisdom tells us that colleges and universities are very slow to change but change they do,” the report concludes. “Although ten interviews did not provide exhaustive information, the willingness of the respondents to consider different pathways to graduate studies suggests that master’s and even doctoral degrees will not be beyond the reach of 3-year degree program graduates.”
It’s truly incredible how much new technology has made its way into the classroom. Where once teaching consisted primarily of whiteboards and textbooks, you can now find tablets, smart screens, AI assistants, and a trove of learning apps designed to foster inquiry and maximize student growth.
While these new tools are certainly helpful, the flood of options means that educators can struggle to discern truly useful resources from one-time gimmicks. As a result, some of the best tools for sparking curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking often go overlooked.
Personally, I believe 3D printing is one such tool that doesn’t get nearly enough consideration for the way it transforms a classroom.
3D printing is the process of making a physical object from a three-dimensional digital model, typically by laying down many thin layers of material using a specialized printer. Using 3D printing, a teacher could make a model of a fossil to share with students, trophies for inter-class competitions, or even supplies for construction activities.
At first glance, this might not seem all that revolutionary. However, 3D printing offers three distinct educational advantages that have the potential to transform K–12 learning:
It develops success skills: 3D printing encourages students to build a variety of success skills that prepare them for challenges outside the classroom. For starters, its inclusion creates opportunities for students to practice communication, collaboration, and other social-emotional skills. The process of moving from an idea to a physical, printed prototype fosters perseverance and creativity. Meanwhile, every print–regardless of its success–builds perseverance and problem-solving confidence. This is the type of hands-on, inquiry-based learning that students remember.
It creates cross-curricular connections: 3D printing is intrinsically cross-curricular. Professional scientists, engineers, and technicians often use 3D printing to create product models or build prototypes for testing their hypotheses. This process involves documentation, symbolism, color theory, understanding of narrative, and countless other disciplines. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how these could also be beneficial to classroom learning. Students can observe for themselves how subjects connect, while teachers transform abstract concepts into tangible points of understanding.
It’s aligned with engineering and NGSS: 3D printing aligns perfectly with Next Gen Science Standards. By focusing on the engineering design process (define, imagine, plan, create, improve) students learn to think and act like real scientists to overcome obstacles. This approach also emphasizes iteration and evidence-based conclusions. What better way to facilitate student engagement, hands-on inquiry, and creative expression?
3D printing might not be the flashiest educational tool, but its potential is undeniable. This flexible resource can give students something tangible to work with while sparking wonder and pushing them to explore new horizons.
So, take a moment to familiarize yourself with the technology. Maybe try running a few experiments of your own. When used with purpose, 3D printing transforms from a common classroom tool into a launchpad for student discovery.
Jon Oosterman, Van Andel Institute for Education
Jon Oosterman is a Learning Specialist at Van Andel Institute for Education, a Michigan-based education nonprofit dedicated to creating classrooms where curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking thrive.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
The Indiana Hoosiers defeated the Miami Hurricanes 27 to 21 to win the university’s first-ever NCAA Division I college football national championship this week. Any school would be thrilled to clinch this title and take home the trophy that accompanies it. But I will explain in this article why it hits different for IU students, alumni, employees and other supporters. Before doing so, I’ll first disclose how I know.
Five of the best years of my life were spent in Bloomington. I have a master’s degree and Ph.D. from the extraordinary university that is the heartbeat of that beloved community. IU subsequently bestowed upon me two distinguished alumni awards. The university presented its first Bicentennial Medal to Indiana governor Eric Holcomb in July 2019; that same month, I became the second recipient.
Since graduating with my doctorate 23 years ago, I have returned to campus to deliver several lectures and keynote speeches, including the 2024 Martin Luther King Jr. Day Address. My favorite trip back was in 2011 to celebrate my fraternity’s centennial. Ten visionary Black male students founded Kappa Alpha Psi there, a brotherhood that now has more than 150,000 members. I am proud to be one of them. These are just a few of countless reasons why I have long been one of IU’s proudest alums.
Here is what I remember about football games in the late ’90s and early 2000s: Whew, yikes! Tons of people showed up to tailgate outside our stadium on Saturday mornings before home games. I was often one of them. Those gatherings were probably just as fun there as they were at schools that had won Power 4 conference titles and national championships. But there was one embarrassing feature of our pregame tailgates: Few people actually went inside Memorial Stadium for games. When I say “few,” I mean at least two-thirds of stadium seats were empty. I thought it rude and unsupportive of student athletes to eat and drink in the parking lot for hours then skip the game—hence, I opted for the tailgate-only experience no more than four times each season. I was inside cheering all the other times.
Despite what had long been its shady tailgating culture, IU has amazing fans. I often screamed alongside them at basketball games. During one of my most recent visits to campus, President Pam Whitten generously hosted me for a Big Ten matchup in her fabulous suite inside the iconic Assembly Hall. I was instantly reminded that my beloved alma mater has an electrifying, inspiringly loyal fan base—for basketball. As it turns out, winning five men’s national basketball championships, clinching 22 Big Ten conference titles and making 41 NCAA tournament appearances (advancing to the Final Four eight times) excites people. Suffering so many defeats in football year after year, not so much.
Throughout the last two seasons, ESPN commentators and other sportscasters have annoyingly repeated that Indiana has long been the losingest major college football team of all time; I will leave it to someone else to fact-check that. Going from being so bad for so long to an 11–2 season and playoff berth last year, followed by a Big Ten Championship, a flawless 16–0 season and a national championship win this year, are just some reasons why IU alumni and others are so excited. Oh, and then there is Fernando Mendoza, our first-ever Heisman Trophy winner, and Curt Cignetti, the inspirational head coach who accelerated our football program to greatness in just two seasons.
Instantly improving from (reportedly) worst of all time to college football’s undisputed best is indeed exciting. Nevertheless, it is not the only reason why the Indiana faithful are so amped. Our university is beyond extraordinary in numerous domains. Academic programs there are exceptional; many, including the one from which I graduated, are always ranked in the top nationally. The university employs many of the world’s best professors and researchers. Its connection to the Hoosier State is deep, measurable and in many ways transformative. The Bloomington campus, framed by its gorgeous tulip-filled Sample Gates, is a vibrant, exciting place to be a student. It feels like a great university because it has long been, still is and forever will be. It is birthplace of the greatest collegiate fraternity, a fact that requires no verification.
Finally having a football program that matches all the other great things that IU is and does is why those of us who have experienced the place are so freakin’ excited about our first-ever college football national championship. Greatness deserves greatness. Thanks to Cignetti and his staff, Mendoza and every other student athlete on their team, Indiana University has finally achieved football greatness. They have given others and me one more reason to be incredibly proud of a great American university that excels in academics, public outreach, athletics and so many other domains. I conclude with this: Hoo-Hoo-Hoo-Hoosiers!
Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Business and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership. His most recent book is titled Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.
Michigan State University paid nearly $30 million to settle with three people injured in a 2023 campus shooting.
Jeffness/Wikimedia Commons
A new report by the United Educators insurance company shows that universities spent hundreds of millions of dollars on damages in 2025, according to an analysis of publicly reported settlements.
Legal cases involved a variety of issues, ranging from deaths on campus to antitrust issues, cybersecurity breaches, discrimination, sexual misconduct and pandemic-era policy fallout.
Columbia University and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital had the largest settlement at $750 million in a case related to hundreds of instances of sexual abuse by Robert Hadden, a former doctor who worked at both Columbia’s Irving Medical Center and the hospital. United Educators noted that there is no clear breakdown of which entity shouldered the brunt of the settlement.
Michigan State University followed with the next-largest settlement at $29.7 million. Michigan State settled with three victims injured in a campus shooting that killed three students in 2023.
Other notable settlements include:
Pennsylvania State University paid $17 million to settle claims that it overcharged students when officials shifted from in-person to remote instruction during the coronavirus pandemic. Penn State was one of five institutions in the report to settle lawsuits amid allegations that they overcharged students, with damages ranging from a high of $17 million to a low of $3.5 million.
The University of Colorado Anschutz reached a $10 million settlement with 18 plaintiffs, both staff and students, who were denied religious exemptions to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The report noted that most of the incidents highlighted did not involve United Educators members. The full report can be read here and also includes major losses for K–12 schools.
