Tag: News

  • Trump administration allows immigration arrests at colleges

    Trump administration allows immigration arrests at colleges

    The acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday rescinded guidance that prevented immigration arrests at schools, churches and colleges.

    Since 1993, federal policy has barred immigration enforcement actions near or at these so-called sensitive areas. The decision to end the policy comes as the Trump administration is moving to crack down on illegal immigration and stoking fears of mass deportations. 

    “This action empowers the brave men and women in [Customs and Border Protection] and [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens—including murders and rapists—who have illegally come into our country,” acting DHS secretary Benjamine Huffman said in a statement. “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

    Advocates for undocumented people have warned that such a policy change was possible, and some college leaders have said they won’t voluntarily assist in any effort to deport students or faculty solely because of their citizenship status, although they said they would comply with the law. On Wednesday, the Justice Department said it would investigate state and local officials who don’t enforce Trump’s immigration policies.

    Source link

  • Building common ground in higher education

    Building common ground in higher education

    Welcome to year four of the “Beyond Transfer” blog on Inside Higher Ed. We’re humbled by and thankful for the lively and passionate community this has become. We continue to be impressed with the levels of readership, the exemplary work that various authors describe, the connections that are made as people respond to one another’s work and the dedication to students that jumps off the page. We begin 2025 feeling truly grateful to all those working hard every day to ensure fair treatment of students and their learning. Thank you for all you do.

    Each year, we kick off the “Beyond Transfer” blog with some reflections on what we’ve learned from you and all our partners on the ground and what that means for the year ahead. We are excited to welcome Sova’s new partner Marty Alvarado to this endeavor. Marty has a long history of leading impactful transfer and learning mobility work, and while she’s new to Sova, her insights have long guided our work.

    In 2024, Sova’s transfer and learning mobility team was far-flung and working deeply in many contexts. As a result, we begin 2025 midstride on a variety of fronts:

    • In states: The Sova team is embedded in truly consequential transfer and learning mobility work in several states. This hard, on-the-ground work includes facilitating state-level, cross-sector leadership tables, providing technical assistance for institutional collaborations, supporting implementation of legislatively mandated reforms and serving as a thought partner to state agencies and system offices in diverse political and governance contexts.

    The new year is a time when people reflect on the year that passed and make commitments for the year ahead. This year, we thought we’d play on that theme by sharing some reflections on the past year and what that means for our team’s commitments in the year ahead.

    You may have heard that Merriam-Webster’s 2024 Word of the Year was “polarization,” which Merriam-Webster defined as “division into two sharply distinct opposites; especially, a state in which the opinions, beliefs or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes.” For anyone who lived through the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the selection of this word of the year probably comes as no surprise.

    This led us to reflect on a hard lesson we have learned through our transfer and learning mobility work, which is that this, too, is a space that can quickly lead to polarization. So often, we hear blame placed on receiving institutions for not taking enough credits or on sending institutions for not preparing students well enough. We see examples of administration pitted against faculty for control over decision-making related to transfer credits. We even see the needs of transfer students held up against the needs of students who started and stayed at an institution. Sound familiar?

    So our first commitment for 2025 is to practice the art of depolarization. What do we mean by that? In many ways, this feels like a recommitment to values we already hold, but (being human) sometimes don’t fully live up to. We will welcome hard conversations. We will actively listen, with the goal of building understanding and empathy. We will begin hard conversations with a reminder to honor the perspectives and expertise of all present. We will focus on the human dimensions of change, which includes recognizing that people bring the beauty of their identities and experiences to the work alongside fear of loss, discomfort with conflict and differing styles. We will actively find ways to include all participants. We will transparently document differing perspectives. We will avoid overgeneralizations and stereotypes. We will remember that we work with educators who care about students and welcome being invited into collaborative problem-solving. And when we fall short of these recommitments, we will be open to others holding us accountable.

    Another commitment we have for 2025 is the work of finding and expanding the common ground. This too flows from an interest in depolarization and our shared conviction that common ground exists but can be easily drowned out amid the din of partisan hostility.

    We know that transfer touches many learners—in fact, likely more learners than we previously thought. New data from a survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans, conducted in a partnership between Public Agenda and Sova for “Beyond Transfer,” found that four in 10 respondents tried to transfer some type of credit toward earning an associate degree, bachelor’s degree or certificate. Moreover, those respondents shared that their credit transfer journeys took many forms, including seeking credit transfer for military experience, work-based learning and dual-credit courses in high school. Despite their different journeys, many shared the common experience of credit loss, with 58 percent of respondents indicating they had lost some number of credits when transferring. These data points demonstrate there is a large and diverse population of mobile learners that we should bring into the conversation to build awareness of the high incidence of transfer and generate support for policy action.

    While there are many contentious issues in higher education—including how to improve affordability and how to address ballooning student loan debt—transfer is an area with bipartisan support that, if we can improve, can generate downstream improvements in other areas, such as completion and affordability.

    In the same Public Agenda survey, respondents of all political backgrounds expressed strong support for a variety of policy ideas intended to improve credit transfer. Credit mobility and transfer might well be an issue around which Republicans, Democrats and Independents prove they are capable of agreement and joint action. Improving transfer stands to offer a triple bottom line for learners, institutions and taxpayers:

    • For learners: Recognizing more of their hard-earned credit is the fair thing to do, and research makes clear it will also advance their success by increasing retention and shortening time and cost to completion.
    • For institutions: Public appetite for transparency and accountability clearly cuts across political identities, and institutions would be well served by paying attention to this growing appetite and its relationship to the ongoing decline of public confidence in the value of higher education.
    • For taxpayers: Maximizing the credits earned for students will ensure taxpayer dollars are used to best effect.

    As we dive into 2025, we’ll keep working to dial down the finger-pointing and blaming, cut across silos and divides of our own making, and expand the common ground that already exists on transfer. We hope you’ll join us in finding ways to come together across multiple fronts—within institutions and systems, with government and policymakers at all levels, with accreditors and associations—to serve our students. They deserve it.

    Want to share your commitments for 2025? Please send your thoughts to lara.couturier@sova.org by Feb. 15. We will synthesize your thoughts and reflect them in an upcoming post.

    Source link

  • Dual leadership controversies plague Seton Hall

    Dual leadership controversies plague Seton Hall

    Seton Hall University president Monsignor Joseph Reilly is facing mounting pressure from public officials and demands for transparency following a report alleging that he looked the other way on sexual abuse cases.

    At the same time, the university is contending with a lawsuit filed last year by former president Joseph Nyre, which alleges retaliation, breach of contract and various other misdeeds by the Board of Regents.

    The regents have remained silent on the Reilly situation and said little about Nyre’s lawsuit, beyond a report issued in July. Now lawmakers are ratcheting up pressure on the private institution to take action, raising questions about how the board is navigating the dual controversies behind closed doors with little public oversight.

    A Bombshell Report

    Reilly, who was hired as president in April, has a long history with Seton Hall.

    The new president earned a psychology degree from the university in 1987; in 2002, he became rector of the College Seminary at St. Andrew’s Hall, the undergraduate seminary of the Archdiocese of Newark, which is part of Seton Hall. A decade later Reilly became rector and dean of the university’s graduate seminary, a position he held until 2022. Then he took a yearlong sabbatical before returning as vice provost of academics and Catholic identity.

    Reilly also served on Seton Hall’s Board of Trustees—one of two governing bodies—during his time as an administrator.

    It was during his time at the graduate School of Theology that Reilly is accused of knowing about sexual abuse allegations that he did not report, according to documents reviewed by Politico. The case is linked to sprawling sexual abuse allegations involving disgraced cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the news outlet reported, who “created a culture of fear and intimidation” and “used his position of power as then–Archbishop of Newark”—which sponsors Seton Hall—“to sexually harass seminarians” for decades, according to a university report released in 2019.

    McCarrick, who sat on both of Seton Hall’s boards, was defrocked by the Vatican after he was found guilty of sexual misconduct in a canonical trial. A criminal case against McCarrick was suspended last year due to his inability to stand trial because of a dementia diagnosis.

    While Seton Hall never released to the public its full report on the abuse McCarrick allegedly committed, Politico’s review of the findings revealed that Reilly knew about the allegations against the cardinal and failed to report to university officials a student complaint about sexual assault by a seminarian. Politico also reported that Reilly dismissed another seminarian in 2012 who had allegedly been sexually abused and that he did not investigate the incident. In another instance, Reilly was allegedly made aware of a 2014 sexual harassment charge and did not report it.

    Politico also reported that Reilly did not fully cooperate with a 2019 investigation into McCarrick’s alleged abuse. A task force set up in 2020 to mete out discipline after the McCarrick scandal reportedly recommended removing Reilly from board and leadership roles.

    As the controversy has unfolded, Seton Hall has said little publicly.

    “As part of the search for the university’s 22nd president, the Board of Regents reviewed several candidates and overwhelmingly selected Monsignor Joseph Reilly to lead Seton Hall in recognition of his decades of effective service and leadership,” a Seton Hall spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “The Board of Regents remains unequivocal in its support of Monsignor Reilly and firmly believes in his ability and vision to enhance Seton Hall’s standing as one of the nation’s foremost Catholic universities.”

    The university did not provide a requested interview with regents, but the spokesperson added that following a 2019 review by a law firm, “the board determined that Monsignor Reilly should remain in his role and eligible for future roles at the University.” Seton Hall declined to provide a copy of the report.

    Demanding Answers

    Seton Hall’s silence has not gone unnoticed by Democratic state senator Andrew Zwecker, who chairs the Senate Oversight Committee and is vice chair of the higher education committee.

    “I’m appalled at the fact that they’ve just doubled down at this point without any transparency, just generic statements about values and doing a good job, et cetera,” he told Inside Higher Ed.

    Though Seton Hall is private, Zwecker noted that it receives about $2.5 million in state funding for certain programs. He added that the state could cut those funds—an option he might pursue if the university doesn’t respond transparently to concerns that Reilly ignored sexual abuse.

    “That is a lever that we must absolutely consider to keep the pressure on,” Zwecker said.

    He’s also weighing a public hearing. But Zwecker said he would rather see Seton Hall address the issue and answer questions about what Reilly knew about sexual abuse and whether the Board of Regents ignored those findings when it voted to hire him.

    If regents knew and “voted to install this president anyway, they should resign immediately,” Zwecker said.

    Democratic governor Phil Murphy also weighed in last week.

    “The Governor is deeply concerned by the allegations and believes that Seton Hall University must release the full report,” press secretary Natalie Hamilton told Inside Higher Ed by email.

    The Star-Ledger editorial board has challenged the university on its opacity, publishing an opinion piece on Monday under the headline “Why is Seton Hall hiding this sex abuse report?”

    Faculty members at Seton Hall are also pressing for transparency.

    Nathaniel Knight, chair of Seton Hall’s Faculty Senate, noted “considerable concern” among the professoriate and said he wants to see a “greater degree of transparency” from the university.

    Knight said he supported Reilly’s hiring when he was named president, noting he “had the institutional memory” given his years of service and seemed to “embody the spirit of Seton Hall.” But now Knight wants the university to fully explain the concerns around the new president.

    “I support Monsignor Reilly. I supported his hiring. I think he’s a good man, a man of integrity and religious faith, and is someone who brought a promise of bringing the university, the community, together around its core values as a Catholic institution of higher education. Whatever is out there, I’d like to be able to weigh that against the positives that I see with Monsignor Reilly,” Knight said.

    An Explosive Lawsuit

    For Seton Hall, the Reilly controversy comes on the heels of Nyre’s unexpected exit in 2023, which shocked many in the community.

    “It was a surprise. I think we were bewildered. He had been brought in with great fanfare not long before,” Knight said. “He saw the university through the COVID years with a steady hand and was in the process of implementing this strategic plan that he had crafted. We saw no indication that there were any problems in the works. It was out of the blue and had us all scratching our heads.”

    Nyre sued Seton Hall last February, alleging breach of contract and retaliation by the board.

    In the lawsuit, Nyre alleges he was pushed out by the Board of Regents following a clash with then-chair Kevin Marino, whom he accused of micromanagement, improperly inserting himself into an embezzlement investigation at the law school and sexually harassing his wife, Kelli Nyre, among other charges. Marino, who is no longer on the board, was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit despite being at the center of many of the allegations.

    “Our litigation centers on the alleged systemic failures of the Board of Regents and their unwillingness to comply with federal laws, including Title IX, Title VII, and Title IV, as well as university bylaws and policies,” Matthew Luber, an attorney representing Nyre, said in a statement. “As alleged in the Complaint, the Defendants prioritized self-preservation, suppressing dissent and retaliating against individuals like Dr. Nyre who reported misconduct and advocated for meaningful change. As further alleged in the Complaint, the Board of Regents not only neglected their fiduciary responsibilities, but exposed the University and its personnel to significant risk. No matter the outcome, change is urgently needed at Seton Hall.”

    The university has pushed back in court. Officials filed a motion to dismiss last March, alleging that Nyre failed to state a claim and that the terms of his exit agreement barred him from filing a lawsuit against Seton Hall and/or its Board of Regents. Lawyers for Seton Hall wrote in a brief that Nyre’s lawsuit “can best be described as gamesmanship, and at worst sheer dishonesty.”

    University officials did not address the Nyre lawsuit in a statement to Inside Higher Ed, but last July they released a report from an outside law firm rejecting the claims against Marino. Attorneys for the firm, Perry Law, wrote that they “found no evidence to substantiate Mrs. Nyre’s allegations regarding Mr. Marino, despite the purported harassment allegedly occurring in public places in close proximity to numerous other individuals.”

    The Perry Law report was issued July 2, one day after Reilly assumed office. The report did not include interviews with the Nyres, who the authors noted did not participate in the investigation. Witnesses present for the alleged incidents told investigators that they did not see Marino engage in the behavior he is accused of, and the former board chair has denied the claims and blasted the lawsuit as “desperate and pathetic.” And, in a statement to Inside Higher Ed last year, Seton Hall said the claims were without merit.

    As controversies around Seton Hall’s current and former leaders play out, more details are likely to emerge in the Nyre case, barring a dismissal or settlement. But the Reilly review may remain shrouded in mystery as Seton Hall hunkers down, ignoring widespread calls for transparency.

    Source link

  • Probabilities of generative AI pale next to individual ideas

    Probabilities of generative AI pale next to individual ideas

    While I was working on the manuscript for More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI, I did a significant amount of experimenting with large language models, spending the most time with ChatGPT (and its various successors) and Claude (in its different flavors).

    I anticipated that over time this experimenting would reveal some genuinely useful application of this technology to my work as a writer.

    In truth, it’s been the opposite, and I think it’s interesting to explore why.

    One factor is that I have become more concerned about what I see as a largely uncritical embrace of generative AI in educational contexts. I am not merely talking about egregiously wrongheaded moves like introducing an AI-powered Anne Frank emulator that has only gracious thoughts toward Nazis, but other examples of instructors and institutions assuming that because the technology is something of a wonder, it must have a positive effect on teaching and learning.

    This has pushed me closer to a resistance mindset, if for no other reason than to provide a counterbalance to those who see AI as an inevitability without considering what’s on the other side. In truth, however, rather than being a full-on resister I’m more in line with Marc Watkins, who believes that we should be seeing AI as “unavoidable” but not “inevitable.” While I think throwing a bear hug around generative AI is beyond foolish, I also do not dismiss the technology’s potential utility in helping students learn.

    (Though, a big open question is what and how we want them to learn these things.)

    Another factor has been that the more I worked with the LLMs, the less I trusted them. Part of this was because I was trying to deploy their capabilities to support me on writing in areas where I have significant background knowledge and I found them consistently steering me wrong in subtle yet meaningful ways. This in turn made me fearful of using them in areas where I do not have the necessary knowledge to police their hallucinations.

    Mostly, though, just about every time I tried to use them in the interests of giving myself a shortcut to a faster outcome, I realized by taking the shortcut I’d missed some important experience along the way.

    As one example, in a section where I argue for the importance of cultivating one’s own taste and sense of aesthetic quality, I intended to use some material from New Yorker staff writer Kyle Chayka’s book Filterworld: How Algorithms Flattened Culture. I’d read and even reviewed the book several months before, so I thought I had a good handle on it, but still, I needed a refresher on what Chayka calls “algorithmic anxiety” and prompted ChatGPT to remind me what Chayka meant by this.

    The summary delivered by ChatGPT was perfectly fine, accurate and nonhallucinatory, but I couldn’t manage to go from the notion I had in my head about Chayka’s idea to something useful on the page via that summary of Chayka’s idea. In the end, I had to go back and reread the material in the book surrounding the concept to kick my brain into gear in a way that allowed me to articulate a thought of my own.

    Something similar happened several other times, and I began to wonder exactly what was up. It’s possible that my writing process is idiosyncratic, but I discovered that to continue to work the problem of saying (hopefully) interesting and insightful things in the book was not a summary of the ideas of others, but the original expression of others as fuel for my thoughts.

    This phenomenon might be related to the nature of how I view writing, which is that writing is a continual process of discovery where I have initial thoughts that bring me to the page, but the act of bringing the idea to the page alters those initial thoughts.

    I tend to think all writing, or all good writing, anyway, operates this way because it is how you will know that you are getting the output of a unique intelligence on the page. The goal is to uncover something I didn’t know for myself, operating under the theory that this will also deliver something fresh for the audience. If the writer hasn’t discovered something for themselves in the process, what’s the point of the whole exercise?

    When I turned to an LLM for a summary and could find no use for it, I came to recognize that I was interacting not with an intelligence, but a probability. Without an interesting human feature to latch onto, I couldn’t find a way to engage my own humanity.

    I accept that others are having different experiences in working alongside large language models, that they find them truly generative (pardon the pun). Still, I wonder what it means to find a spark in generalized probabilities, rather than the singular intelligence.

    I believe I say a lot of interesting and insightful things in More Than Words. I’m also confident I may have some things wrong and, over time, my beliefs will be changed by exposing myself to the responses of others. This is the process of communication and conversation, processes that are not a capacity of large language models given they have no intention working underneath the hood of their algorithm.

    Believing otherwise is to indulge in a delusion. Maybe it’s a helpful delusion, but a delusion nonetheless.

    The capacities of this technology are amazing and increasing all the time, but to me, for my work, they don’t offer all that much of meaning.

    Source link

  • Trump’s stated promise: ‘Stop all government censorship’ and his free speech Executive Order — First Amendment News 454

    Trump’s stated promise: ‘Stop all government censorship’ and his free speech Executive Order — First Amendment News 454

    Unprecedented.

    Let’s begin with President Donald Trump’s second inaugural address (Jan. 20), if only to contrast it with last week’s condemnation of his lawsuit against J. Ann Selzer, the Des Moines Register, and its parent company Gannett (see also FAN 451, 449 and 436). 

    Ready? Here it goes: 

    After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.

    Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents, something I know something about. We will not allow that to happen. It will not happen again. Under my leadership, we will restore fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.

    Never again! It will not happen again! Stop all government censorship! 

    And there’s more: When it comes to free speech, all views will be treated with “impartial justice.” Against that promissory note, let us turn to his unprecedented executive order as discussed below.

    Executive Order: Jan. 20, 2025

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    What follows is a brief description of the Executive Order along with some preliminary comments.

    Section 1. Purpose

    This section opens with an attack on the Biden administration’s alleged “trampl[ing of] free speech rights” when it comes to “online platforms.” Such abridgments, it is asserted, were done in the name of combating “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation” in order to advance the Biden administration’s “preferred narrative.” 

    Note at the outset that this section is primarily addressed to reversing the Biden administration’s apparent censorship of online expression. Even so, there is a generalized statement: “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

    Keep that in mind when it comes to what is set out in Section 4 below.

    Section 2. Policy

    This section focuses on four commitments: (i) securing free speech rights of all “American[s]”; (ii) mandating that “no [federal] agent engages in or facilitates” abridgments of free speech; (iii) ensuring that no “taxpayer resources” are used to abridge free speech; and (iv) identify and correct any past federal abridgments of free speech.

    Unlike Section 1, the explicit focus of this section is not confined to any free speech abridgments committed by the previous administration. The focus is on securing free speech rights of “citizens.” Hence, the policy is directed to an affirmative obligation of the Executive branch to protect free speech rights. The operative action words are “secur[ing],” “ensur[ing],” and “identify[ing].”

    Thus, there is a duty to ensure that no federal officers are used or taxpayer dollars expended in violation of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Also, unlike Section 1, much of Section 2 applies to all free speech rights and not those confined to social media. There is also a promise to investigate for any and all existing abridgments of free speech committed by “past misconduct by the Federal Government.”

    Section 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech

    Like Section 1, this section focuses on the actions of the past administration (i.e., abridgments committed “over the past four years”). This section, unlike section 2, explicitly applies to federal departments and agencies, though it also applies to federal officers, agents and employees. Such agencies and departments must comply with the requirements of Section 2.

    The second portion of this section deals with the investigative powers of the attorney general working “in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies.” Again, this investigation is confined to wrongs committed by the past administration. Following such investigations, a “report” shall be submitted to the President suggesting “remedial actions.”

    Much of this section seems repetitive of what is set out in Section 2, save for the references to federal departments and agencies and the need for investigation followed by a report to the President. Note that under Section 3, remedial action is suggested, whereas under Section 4, per this Executive Order, remedial action against the United States and its officers is prohibited.

    Section 4. General Provisions

    In order to appreciate the import of this clause, it is best to quote the final provision (sub-section (c) it in its entirety (with emphasis added):

    This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    The opening provisions of this Section refer to authorizations of grants of executive power. The Order is to be implemented consistent with the “applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”

    Importantly, While the First Amendment is a prohibition against the federal government and all its officers, this Executive Order:

    1. applies to free speech wrongs committed during “the last 4 years” or “past misconduct by the Federal Government” or abridgments occurring “over the last 4 years,” though there is a passing mention of securing the free speech rights of all “American[s].” 
    2. Yet even as against such past alleged free speech wrongs, the sole remedy is by way of corrective action taken by the Executive Branch. 
    3. If such corrective action, or any other actions taken by Executive officials in pursuance of this Executive Order, themselves abridge First Amendment rights, there is no independent remedy secured by the Order.

    Related

    FIRE weighs in with its own free speech recommendations to the President

    Below are the four general categories of recommendations made (see link above for specifics):

    1. Support the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act
    2. Address the abuse of campus anti-harassment policies
    3. Rein in government jawboning
    4. Protect First Amendment rights when it comes to AI

    “As president, Trump inherits the privilege and the obligation to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint — and FIRE stands ready to help in that effort.”

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in free expression mode at the Inauguration?

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at Trump Inauguration in 2024 wearing a distinctive collar adorned with cowrie shells, which are believed to offer protection from evil.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2024. (Imagn Images)

    According to Christopher Webb, such “a distinctive collar adorned with cowrie shells . . . are believed to offer protection from evil in African traditions.” (See also, Josh Blackman, “Justice Jackson Did Not Wear a Dissent Collar To The Inauguration. She Apparently Wore a Talisman To Ward Off Evil,” The Volokh Conspiracy (Jan. 21))

    Excerpts from Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Patel v. CNN, Inc.

    Kash Patel at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference

    Kash Patel, seen here at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference, is President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the FBI. (Consolidated News Photos / Shutterstock.com)

    An excerpt from today’s Virginia Court of Appeals decision in Patel v. CNN, Inc., decided by Judge Rosemarie Annunziata, joined by Judge Vernida Chaney (the opinions weigh in at over 12,000 words, so I only excerpt some key passages).

    Abortion picketing case lingers on docket

    The cert. petition in the abortion picketing case, with Paul Clement as lead counsel, has been on the Court’s docket since July 16 of last year. It has been distributed for conferences seven times, the last being Jan. 21. In his petition, Mr. Clement (joined by Erin Murphy) explicitly called on the Court to “overrule Hill v. Colorado.” (See FAN 433, July 31, 2024))

    Paul Clements and Erin Murphy

    Paul Clements and Erin Murphy

    More in the News

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 453: “‘The lawsuit is the punishment’: Reflections on Trump v. Selzer”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • chief education solutions officer at Michigan

    chief education solutions officer at Michigan

    James DeVaney and the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan are no strangers to this community. James has a number of titles at U-M, including special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation. Today, I’m talking to James about a new leadership role he is recruiting for at CAI, that of the chief education solutions officer.

    Q: What is the university’s mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

    A: First of all, thank you for the opportunity to share more about this exciting new position. I’m thrilled about the potential of this role and the chance to welcome a new colleague to the Center for Academic Innovation—an extraordinary organization that I care deeply about—who will join us in shaping the future of education.

    The inaugural chief education solutions officer (CESO) is pivotal to CAI’s mission to collaborate across campus and around the world to create equitable, lifelong educational opportunities for learners everywhere. By helping CAI deliver offerings that are learner-centered, research-driven, scalable and sustainable, the CESO will directly support the University of Michigan’s Vision 2034, particularly the impact area of life-changing education.

    This role is designed for a dynamic leader ready to solve organizational learning and workforce development challenges while driving growth through innovative, impactful solutions. By developing scalable and sustainable educational models, the CESO will ensure U-M remains at the forefront of lifelong learning and talent development on a global scale.

    The CESO is not just about executing current strategies—it’s a leadership role charged with helping to forge a bold new path for education. By addressing emerging trends like workforce transformation, AI and the growing demand for upskilling, this role will help learners and organizations thrive in a rapidly evolving world. The CESO’s work will empower learners and position U-M as a leader in education innovation for generations to come.

    Q: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?

    A: The CESO will report directly to me in my capacity as the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation and will be an additional key member of the senior leadership team at CAI. This role sits at the intersection of education innovation, strategic partnerships and business development, ensuring seamless collaboration between external stakeholders and CAI’s internal teams.

    The CESO will work closely with units that already engage with industry and organizational partners and schools and colleges across campus that extend their reach through innovative programs and initiatives. Through these collaborations, the CESO will help identify and deliver innovative solutions to meet workforce development needs and support sustainable partnerships with organizations looking to support their current and future employees in a rapidly changing economy.

    For example, the CESO might work with a school to design a custom program for an industry partner, collaborate with units across campus to expand U-M’s impact in key markets, help an organization to effectively utilize Michigan Online offerings or integrate CAI’s expertise into new initiatives that benefit learners and organizations alike. This role is about connecting ideas, people and resources to drive impact. By aligning CAI’s innovative capabilities with partner needs, the CESO ensures U-M’s resources create transformative outcomes both on campus and beyond.

    Q: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

    A: Success in this role is all about creating momentum—whether by building early partnerships, driving measurable growth or laying the groundwork for transformative initiatives. Here’s what we envision at each stage of this journey:

    In one year: The CESO will have established a strong foundation for growth by building early partnerships with industry leaders, meeting key growth targets and launching initial programs that deliver measurable value for learners and organizations. This first year is about setting the stage—building relationships, aligning CAI’s capabilities with external needs and creating momentum for the future. Importantly, the CESO will work alongside a really talented senior leadership team. Year one is also about creating strong connections within this group, building trust and finding ways to support each other.

    In three years: The CESO will have significantly scaled CAI’s impact, with a portfolio of partnerships that reflect innovative, sustainable approaches to workforce development and lifelong learning. Internally, we’ll see streamlined systems for managing partnerships, delivering programs and providing exemplary relationship support. Externally, CAI will be recognized as a trusted leader in educational solutions that address real-world challenges through highly relevant programs that build on interdisciplinary breadth of excellence.

    Beyond three years: Long-term success means driving transformative innovation in education—at both the individual and organizational levels. The CESO’s work will have deepened CAI’s reputation for empowering learners everywhere while also positioning U-M as a leader in lifelong learning and workforce development. The legacy of this role will be an ecosystem of partnerships and programs that inspire and uplift learners across the globe.

    At every stage, success in this role is about creating meaningful, lasting impact for learners and partners. That said, I’m looking to hire a colleague who will not only embrace this vision of success but also challenge it—pushing us to explore uncharted possibilities and reach new heights we haven’t yet imagined.

    Q: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

    A: The CESO role is an incredible opportunity for someone looking to advance their career in business development, partnership leadership or workforce innovation—whether within higher education or in related industries.

    This role provides direct experience in managing high-impact partnerships, driving revenue growth and designing innovative learning solutions for diverse audiences. It’s a unique combination of strategic thinking, relationship management and educational innovation that builds a strong foundation for future leadership roles.

    The skills developed in this position—including expertise in lifelong learning, workforce transformation and sustainable business growth—are highly transferable to roles in education, industry or even global organizations. Whether leading similar initiatives at another institution or shaping workforce strategies for a global enterprise, the CESO will leave this role with the tools to make an even bigger impact.

    This position enhances vital leadership skills, such as building trust with stakeholders, navigating complex organizational challenges and creating scalable solutions. It’s a perfect launchpad for individuals ready to shape the future of education at the intersection of academia and industry.

    Joining this team means stepping into a vibrant, forward-thinking environment where your contributions will be valued, your ideas will have impact and you’ll have the space to grow, innovate and truly make a difference.

    I’m truly excited to welcome a dynamic new partner to our team—could it be you?

    Source link

  • Laken Riley Act passes Senate

    Laken Riley Act passes Senate

    The House is preparing to take up the Laken Riley Act later this week after the Senate passed the bill Monday, Politico reported.

    Twelve Democrats joined all of the higher chamber’s Republicans to vote for the immigration bill, named for a 22-year-old woman killed by an undocumented immigrant in Georgia last year. Immigration policy experts say the bill could have consequences for international students applying to study in the U.S.

    The bill would primarily force harsher detention policies for undocumented immigrants charged with crimes, but it also expands the power of state attorneys general, allowing them to sue the federal government and seek sweeping bans on visas from countries that won’t take back deportees. 

    The Department of Homeland Security has said the bill would require billions of dollars in additional funding to enforce.

    The legislation now goes back to the House, which passed a similar but not identical bill earlier this month. If it passes the House a second time, it would then land on President Donald Trump’s desk, providing an early win on one of his highest-priority issues, immigration.

    Source link

  • The rise of multidisciplinary research stimulated by AI

    The rise of multidisciplinary research stimulated by AI

    AI research tools such as OpenAI o1 have now reached test score levels that meet or exceed the scores of those who hold Ph.D. degrees in the sciences and a number of other fields. These generative AI tools utilize large language models that include research and knowledge across many disciplines. Increasingly, they are used for research project ideation and literature searches. The tools are generating interesting insights to researchers that they may not have been exposed to in years gone by.

    The field of academe has long emphasized the single-discipline research study. We offer degrees in single disciplines; faculty members are granted appointments most often in only one department, school or college; and for the most part, our peer-reviewed academic journals are in only one discipline, although sometimes they welcome papers from closely associated or allied fields. Dissertations are most commonly based in a single discipline. Although research grants are more often multidisciplinary and prioritize practical solution-finding, a large number remain focused on one field of study.

    The problem is that as we advance our knowledge and application expertise in one field, we can become unaware of important developments in other fields that directly or indirectly impact the study in our chosen discipline. Innovation is not always a single-purpose, straight-line advance. More often today, innovation comes from the integration of knowledge of disparate fields such as sociology, engineering, ecology and environmental developments, and expanding understanding of quantum physics and quantum computing. Until recently, we have not had an efficient way to identify and integrate knowledge and perspectives from fields that, at first glance, seem unrelated.

    Most Popular

    AI futurist and innovator Thomas Conway of Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology addresses this topic in “Harnessing the Power of Many: A Multi-LLM Approach to Multidisciplinary Integration”:

    “Amidst the urgency of increasingly complex global challenges, the need for integrative approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries has never been more critical. Climate change, global health crises, sustainable development, and other pressing issues demand solutions from diverse knowledge and expertise. However, effectively combining insights from multiple disciplines has long been a significant hurdle in academia and research.

    “The Multi-LLM Iterative Prompting Methodology (MIPM) emerges as a transformative solution to this challenge. MIPM offers a structured yet flexible framework for promoting and enhancing multidisciplinary research, peer review, and education. At its core, MIPM addresses the fundamental issue of effectively combining diverse disciplinary perspectives to lead to genuine synthesis and innovation. Its transformative potential is a beacon of hope in the face of complex global challenges.”

    Even as we integrate AI research tools and techniques, we, ourselves, and our society at large are changing. Many of the common frontier language models powering research tools are multidisciplinary by nature, although some are designed with strengths in specific fields. Their responses to our prompts are multidisciplinary. The response to our iterative follow-up prompts can take us to fields and areas of expertise of which we were not previously aware. The replies are not coming solely from a single discipline expert, book or other resource. They are coming from a massive language model that spans disciplines, languages, cultures and millennia.

    As we integrate these tools, we too will naturally become aware of new and emerging perspectives, research and developments generated by fields that are outside our day-to-day knowledge, training and expertise. This will expand our perspectives beyond the fields of our formal study. As the quality of our AI-based research tools expands, their impact on research cannot be overstated. It will lead us in new directions and broader perspectives, uncovering the potential for new knowledge, informed by multiple disciplines. One recent example is Storm, a brainstorming tool developed by the team at Stanford’s Open Virtual Assistant Lab (OVAL):

    “The core technologies of the STORM&Co-STORM system include support from Bing Search and GPT-4o mini. The STORM component iteratively generates outlines, paragraphs, and articles through multi-angle Q&A between ‘LLM experts’ and ‘LLM hosts.’ Meanwhile, Co-STORM generates interactive dynamic mind maps through dialogues among multiple agents, ensuring that no information needs overlooked by the user. Users only need to input an English topic keyword, and the system can generate a high-quality long text that integrates multi-source information, similar to a Wikipedia article. When experiencing the STORM system, users can freely choose between STORM and Co-STORM modes. Given a topic, STORM can produce a structured high-quality long text within 3 minutes. Additionally, users can click ‘See BrainSTORMing Process’ to view the brainstorming process of different LLM roles. In the ‘Discover’ section, users can refer to articles and chat examples generated by other scholars, and personal articles and chat records can also be found in the sidebar ‘My Library.’”

    More about Storm is available at https://storm.genie.stanford.edu/.

    One of the concerns raised by skeptics at this point in the development of these research tools is the security of prompts and results. Few are aware of the opportunities for air-gapped or closed systems and even the ChatGPT temporary chats. In the case of OpenAI, you can start a temporary chat by tapping the version of ChatGPT you’re using at the top of the GPT app, and selecting temporary chat. I do this commonly in using Ray’s eduAI Advisor. OpenAI says that in the temporary chat mode results “won’t appear in history, use or create memories, or be used to train our models. For safety purposes, we may keep a copy for up to 30 days.” We can anticipate these kinds of protections will be offered by other providers. This may provide adequate security for many applications.

    Further security can be provided by installing a stand-alone instance of the LLM database and software in an air-gapped computer that maintains data completely disconnected from the internet or any other network, ensuring an unparalleled level of protection. Small language models and medium-size models are providing impressive results, approaching and in some cases exceeding frontier model performance while storing all data locally, off-line. For example, last year Microsoft introduced a line of SLM and medium models:

    “Microsoft’s experience shipping copilots and enabling customers to transform their businesses with generative AI using Azure AI has highlighted the growing need for different-size models across the quality-cost curve for different tasks. Small language models, like Phi-3, are especially great for:

    • Resource constrained environments including on-device and offline inference scenarios
    • Latency bound scenarios where fast response times are critical.
    • Cost constrained use cases, particularly those with simpler tasks.”

    In the near term we will find turnkey private search applications that will offer even more impressive results. Work continues on rapidly increasing multidisciplinary responses to research on an ever-increasing number of pressing research topics.

    The ever-evolving AI research tools are now providing us with responses from multiple disciplines. These results will lead us to engage in more multidisciplinary studies that will become a catalyst for change across academia. Will you begin to consider cross-discipline research studies and engage your colleagues from other fields to join you in research projects?

    Source link

  • Q&A with retiring National Student Clearinghouse CEO

    Q&A with retiring National Student Clearinghouse CEO

    Ricardo Torres, the CEO of the National Student Clearinghouse, is retiring next month after 17 years at the helm. His last few weeks on the job have not been quiet.

    On Jan. 13, the clearinghouse’s research team announced they had found a significant error in their October enrollment report: Instead of freshman enrollment falling by 5 percent, it actually seemed to have increased; the clearinghouse is releasing its more complete enrollment report tomorrow. In the meantime, researchers, college officials and policymakers are re-evaluating their understanding of how 2024’s marquee events, like the bungled FAFSA rollout, influenced enrollment; some are questioning their reliance on clearinghouse research.

    It’s come as a difficult setback at the end of Torres’s tenure. He established the research center in 2010, two years after becoming CEO, and helped guide it to prominence as one of the most widely used and trusted sources of postsecondary student data.

    The clearinghouse only began releasing the preliminary enrollment report, called the “Stay Informed” report, in 2020 as a kind of “emergency measure” to gauge the pandemic’s impact on enrollment, Torres told Inside Higher Ed. The methodological error in October’s report, which the research team discovered this month, had been present in every iteration since. And a spokesperson for the clearinghouse said that after reviewing the methodology for their “Transfer and Progress” report, which they’ve released every February since 2023, was also affected by the miscounting error; the 2025 report will be corrected, but the last two were skewed.

    Torres said the clearinghouse is exploring discontinuing the “Stay Informed” report entirely.

    Such a consequential snafu would put a damper on anyone’s retirement and threaten to tarnish their legacy. But Torres is used to a little turbulence: He oversaw the clearinghouse through a crucial period of transformation, from an arm of the student lending sector to a research powerhouse. He said the pressure on higher ed researchers is only going to get more intense in the years ahead, given the surging demand for enrollment and outcomes data from anxious college leaders and ambitious lawmakers. Transparency and integrity, he cautioned, will be paramount.

    His conversation with Inside Higher Ed, edited for length and clarity, is below.

    Q: You’ve led the clearinghouse since 2008, when higher ed was a very different sector. How does it feel to be leaving?

    A: It’s a bit bittersweet, but I feel like we’ve accomplished something during my tenure that can be built upon. I came into the job not really knowing about higher ed; it was a small company, a $13 million operation serving the student lending industry. We were designed to support their fundamental need to understand who’s enrolled and who isn’t, for the purposes of monitoring student loans. As a matter of fact, the original name of the organization was the National Student Loan Clearinghouse. When you think about what happened when things began to evolve and opportunities began to present themselves, we’ve done a lot.

    Q: Tell me more about how the organization has changed since the days of the Student Loan Clearinghouse.

    A: Frankly, the role and purpose of the clearinghouse and its main activities have not changed in about 15 years. The need was to have a trusted, centralized location where schools could send their information that then could be used to validate loan status based on enrollments. The process, prior to the clearinghouse, was loaded with paperwork. The registrars that are out there now get this almost PTSD effect when they go back in time before the clearinghouse. If a student was enrolled in School A, transferred to School B and had a loan, by the time everybody figured out that you were enrolled someplace else, you were in default on your loan. We were set up to fix that problem.

    What made our database unique at that time was that when a school sent us enrollment data, they had to send all of the learners because they actually didn’t know who had a previous loan and who didn’t. That allowed us to build a holistic, comprehensive view of the whole lending environment. So we began experimenting with what else we could do with the data.

    Our first observation was how great a need there was for this data. Policy formulation at almost every level—federal, state, regional—for improving learner outcomes lacked the real-time data to figure out what was going on. Still, democratizing the data alone was insufficient because you need to convert that insight into action of some kind that is meaningful. What I found as I was meeting schools and individuals was that the ability and the skill sets required to convert data to action were mostly available in the wealthiest institutions. They had all the analysts in the world to figure out what the hell was going on, and the small publics were just scraping by. That was the second observation, the inequity.

    The third came around 2009 to 2012, when there was an extensive effort to make data an important part of decision-making across the country. The side effect of that, though, was that not all the data sets were created equal, which made answering questions about what works and what doesn’t that much more difficult.

    The fourth observation, and I think it’s still very relevant today, is that the majority of our postsecondary constituencies are struggling to work with the increasing demands they’re getting from regulators: from the feds, from the states, from their accreditors, the demand for reports is increasing. The demand for feedback is increasing. Your big institutions, your flagships, might see this as a pain in the neck, but I would suggest that your smaller publics and smaller private schools are asking, “Oh my gosh, how are we even going to do this?” Our data helps.

    Q: What was the clearinghouse doing differently in terms of data collection?

    A: From the postsecondary standpoint, our first set of reports that we released in 2011 focused on two types of learners that at most were anecdotally referred to: transfer students and part-time students. The fact that we included part-time students, which [the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System] did not, was a huge change. And our first completion report, I believe, said that over 50 percent of baccalaureate recipients had some community college in their background. That was eye-popping for the country to see and really catalyzed a lot of thinking about transfer pathways.

    We also helped spur the rise of these third-party academic-oriented organizations like Lumina and enabled them to help learners by using our data. One of our obligations as a data aggregator was to find ways to make this data useful for the field, and I think we accomplished that. Now, of course, demand is rising with artificial intelligence; people want to do more. We understand that, but we also think we have a huge responsibility as a data custodian to do that responsibly. People who work with us realize how seriously we take that custodial relationship with the data. That has been one of the hallmarks of our tenure as an organization.

    Q: Speaking of custodial responsibility, people are questioning the clearinghouse’s research credibility after last week’s revelation of the data error in your preliminary enrollment report. Are you worried it will undo the years of trust building you just described? How do you take accountability?

    A: No. 1: The data itself, which we receive from institutions, is reliable, current and accurate. We make best efforts to ensure that it accurately represents what the institutions have within their own systems before any data is merged into the clearinghouse data system.

    When we first formed the Research Center, we had to show how you can get from the IPEDS number to the clearinghouse number and show people our data was something they could count on. We spent 15 years building this reputation. The key to any research-related error like this is, first, you have to take ownership of it and hold yourself accountable. As soon as I found out about this we were already making moves to [make it public]—we’re talking 48 hours. That’s the first step in maintaining trust.

    That being said, there’s an element of risk built into this work. Part of what the clearinghouse brings to the table is the ability to responsibly advance the dialogue of what’s happening in education and student pathways. There are things that are happening out there, such as students stopping out and coming back many years later, that basically defy conventional wisdom. And so the risk in all of this is that you shy away from that work and decide to stick with the knitting. But your obligation is, if you’re going to report those things, to be very transparent. As long as we can thread that needle, I think the clearinghouse will play an important role in helping to advance the dialogue.

    We’re taking this very seriously and understand the importance of the integrity of our reports considering how the field is dependent on the information we provide. Frankly, one of the things we’re going to take a look at is, what is the need for the preliminary report at the end of the day? Or do we need to pair it with more analysis—is it just enough to say that total enrollments are up X or down Y?

    Q: Are you saying you may discontinue the preliminary report entirely?

    A: That’s certainly an option. I think we need to assess the field’s need for an early report—what questions are we trying to answer and why is it important that those questions be answered by a certain time? I’ll be honest; this is the first time something like this has happened, where it’s been that dramatic. That’s where the introspection starts, saying, “Well, this was working before; what the heck happened?”

    When we released the first [preliminary enrollment] report [in 2020], we thought it’d be a one-time thing. Now, we’ve issued other reports that we thought were going to be one-time and ended up being a really big deal, like “Some College, No Credential.” We’re going to continue to look for opportunities to provide those types of insights. But I think any research entity needs to take a look at what you’re producing to make sure there’s still a need or a demand, or maybe what you’re providing needs to pivot slightly. That’s a process that’s going to be undertaken over the next few months as we evaluate this report and other reports we do.

    Q: How did this happen, exactly? Have you found the source of the imputation error?

    A: The research team is looking into it. In order to ensure for this particular report that we don’t extrapolate this to a whole bunch of other things, you just need to make sure that you know you’ve got your bases covered analytically.

    There was an error in how we imputed a particular category of dual-enrolled students versus freshmen. But if you look at the report, the total number of learners wasn’t impacted by that. These preliminary reports were designed to meet a need after COVID, to understand what the impact was going to be. We basically designed a report on an emergency basis, and by default, when you don’t have complete information, there’s imputation. There’s been a lot of pressure on getting the preliminary fall report out. That being said, you learn your lesson—you gotta own it and then you keep going. This was very unfortunate, and you can imagine the amount of soul searching to ensure that this never happens again.

    Q: Do you think demand for more postsecondary data is driving some irresponsible analytic practices?

    A: I can tell you that new types of demands are going to be put out there on student success data, looking at nondegree credentials, looking at microcredentials. And there’s going to be a lot of spitballing. Just look at how ROI is trying to be calculated right now; I could talk for hours about the ins and outs of ROI methodology. For example, if a graduate makes $80,000 after graduating but transferred first from a community college, what kind of attribution does the community college get for that salary outcome versus the four-year school? Hell, it could be due to a third-party boot camp done after earning a degree. Research on these topics is going to be full of outstanding questions.

    Q: What comes next for the clearinghouse’s research after you leave?

    A: I’m excited about where it’s going. I’m very excited about how artificial intelligence can be appropriately leveraged, though I think we’re still trying to figure out how to do that. I can only hope that the clearinghouse will continue its journey of support. Because while we don’t directly impact learner trajectories, we can create the tools that help people who support learners every year impact those trajectories. Looking back on my time here, that’s what I’m most proud of.

    Source link

  • College costs have grown, but so has the return (opinion)

    College costs have grown, but so has the return (opinion)

    FG Trade Latin/E+/Getty Images

    What’s the biggest problem facing college students today? Cost is a big concern, of course, for good reason. But many would point to something equally troubling—misperceptions about the value of college degrees. That’s no surprise when reasonable questions are raised about whether graduates are job-ready—and if too many jobs unnecessarily require diplomas.

    There has long been a paper ceiling that penalizes applicants who lack degrees. And more companies are now taking a closer look at so-called STARs—people Skilled Through Alternative Routes.

    The group Tear the Paper Ceiling says that 61 percent of Black workers, 55 percent of Hispanic workers, 66 percent of rural workers and 62 percent of veterans are considered STARs. They have learned valuable work skills through military service, certificate programs, on-the-job training and boot camps. But too often, they’ve been shut out unfairly.

    I applaud the work of this national group and their partners. The equity barriers to jobs are real. Only half of working-age people have a quality degree or other credential beyond high school, even as millions of jobs go unfilled in part because applicants lack the required background or credentials. It only makes sense to make sure we’re not leaving behind talented but uncredentialed neighbors.

    But to take a deeper look is to understand this isn’t only about expanding opportunity and filling today’s open jobs, but the jobs that an increasingly tech-driven, interconnected world will demand in coming years. Skills-based hiring is a good idea, but it won’t on its own come close to solving the nation’s human talent crisis. Increasing higher educational attainment by making sure many more people get better credentials—credentials of value—is the key.

    Foundation of Growth

    Higher education has always been about producing graduates who are ready to start careers, not just jobs. This matters because a person who is a good applicant for a position now could face challenges moving to better and higher-paying positions because they lack the foundation for career growth fostered in postsecondary programs.

    The American Association of Colleges and Universities has surveyed executives and hiring managers eight times since 2006. The most recent survey, from 2023, found that 80 percent of employers strongly or somewhat agree that college prepares people for success in the workforce. Getting a degree is certainly worth the time and money, respondents suggested, as the survey “found a strong correlation between the outcomes of a liberal education and the knowledge and skills employers view as essential for success in entry-level jobs and for advancement in their companies.”

    There will always be conflicting data points in times of change. For example, the push for skills-based hiring, including at the federal level, is opening doors to a broader array of good jobs that historically required a college degree. However, research by Harvard Business School and the Burning Glass Institute shows that college graduates still have an advantage when it comes to getting jobs with higher salaries and better benefits.

    It turns out that employers aren’t committing to skills-based hiring at the level that recent headlines might suggest. The Harvard–Burning Glass report tracked more than 11,000 jobs where a bachelor’s degree was no longer required in the job description. It found only a 3.5-percentage-point increase in the share of non-degree-holders hired into those roles—a decidedly underwhelming number suggesting the buzz about skills-based hiring may be more hype than trend.

    The Lifelong Payoff

    This and other signs reinforce the enduring value of degrees: A recent report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce found that 72 percent of jobs in the United States will require post–high school education or training by the year 2031. The center also found:

    • People with bachelor’s degrees earn, on average, $1.2 million more over their lifetime than those with only a high school education.
    • Of the 18.5 million annual job openings we expect in the coming years, more than two-thirds will require at least some college education.
    • Earnings for people without degrees have been growing over the past decade, but so has pay for degree holders. Even as people without degrees earn more, they are still not catching up with those with diplomas.

    Durable Skills Matter

    Employers often say they’re looking for “durable” skills, such as critical thinking, communication and problem-solving.

    Someone looking to hire an entry-level software developer might consider a candidate with skills in Python or other programming languages developed through informal learning. Many gifted techies are self-taught or developed skills through coding boot camps or working at start-ups, for example.

    But a college graduate with similar skills might stand out because of their experience working in groups to complete projects, their communication and presentation skills, analytical thinking, and other traits fostered in college classes.

    The catch: Across the board, we need better definitions of what our credentials mean. What defines a credential of value, exactly, and how do we make sure that the people obtaining credentials can do the work of the future?

    Certainly, our fast-moving, tech-driven economy increasingly rewards nimble problem-solvers. According to the World Economic Forum’s 2023 Future of Jobs report, employers estimate that 44 percent of workers’ skills will be disrupted in the next five years.

    “Cognitive skills are reported to be growing in importance most quickly, reflecting the increasing importance of complex problem-solving in the workplace,” the report said. “Surveyed businesses report creative thinking to be growing in importance slightly more rapidly than analytical thinking.”

    There are many implications to this change. Embedded in the education pay premium is a fairness issue when it comes to who goes to college and how we support them. The Georgetown center has long reported on the value of a college degree and the persistent opportunity gaps for women and people of color.

    The Change-Ready Nation

    Whatever the impact of skills-based hiring on the nation’s labor shortage, we shouldn’t stop there. Addressing the long-standing inequities in higher education and the workforce means ensuring that these skills-based pathways include opportunities for all workers, especially when it comes to pursuing further education and training even after they enter the workforce.

    Skills-based hiring and the push for increasing attainment aren’t countervailing forces. They’re aimed at ensuring that the nation grows and applies the talent it needs to be prepared for the human work of the 21st century, and to achieve the civic and economic benefits that people with good-paying jobs bring to their communities.

    In the end, this is about more than the job readiness of our students. We’re talking about the change readiness of our entire nation in a rapidly evolving economy. It makes sense to revamp job requirements to meet workforce demands, but there’s no denying we’ll need the best-educated country we can build if we’re going to deliver opportunity and economic prosperity fairly for everyone.

    Source link