Michael Burry, the legendary investor who predicted the 2008 crash, just made his biggest bearish bet ever – a staggering $1.6 billion against the U.S. stock market. He’s not just talking about a crash anymore; he’s putting his money where his mouth is. Even more shocking? He’s completely exited his U.S. positions and is betting big on China.
January 27, 2025
It has been two years since I last wrote a blog post for the Edu Alliance Journal. During that time, I took on the role of President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA) and dedicated myself fully to the organization. I set ambitious goals, including:
While I initially anticipated achieving these milestones within three years, the board and I managed to accomplish them in just 18 months.
Reaching these goals was a significant achievement, and it signaled to me that it was time to focus on other priorities. As such, I submitted my resignation, effective January 1st, and “retired” from my leadership role at AAUA. However, I’ve always felt that retirement, in the traditional sense, isn’t for me. At 74, I still have ideas to share and contributions to make in the field of higher education.
I aim to address several projects and issues moving forward, such as returning to my work as an international higher education consultant and re-launching two podcast series. However, one other area is especially close to my heart: the plight of small colleges.
The Plight of Small Colleges
If you’ve followed my journey, you know that I earned my undergraduate degree from Urbana University, a small private college in Urbana, Ohio—a city with a current population of 11,161. In 1975, I designed my own major in College Administration, combining courses in business, history/political science, and psychology. During my senior year, I also completed a year-long internship in admissions.
As a nontraditional student (having started at the University of Dayton in 1968), it took me 6 ½ years and over 30 part-time jobs to complete my degree. Urbana gave me the opportunity to figure out what I wanted to do and how I could contribute to the world. It taught me adaptability and the goodness in people, which led me to the field I love—higher education.
Unfortunately, Urbana University didn’t survive. After being acquired by Franklin College in 2014, it closed its doors in May 2020 due to challenges brought on by the coronavirus pandemic and years of low enrollment.
Urbana had been an integral part of the community since 1850, serving as a significant economic engine. A 2017 study by the Southwestern Ohio Council for Higher Education estimated that Urbana contributed over $60 million annually to the economies of Champaign and Logan counties and employed 111 full-time staff during the 2015-2016 academic year. Its closure was devastating—not only for the university but also for the local businesses that depended on the foot traffic of students, visitors, and sports spectators.
Rural colleges like Urbana serve as vital economic and social hubs for their communities. However, the increasing trend of college closures poses significant risks, including economic downturns, reduced social engagement, and the loss of cultural identity.
Moving Forward
To address this issue, I’m developing a funding proposal to analyze the multifaceted impacts of struggling colleges in rural areas. My goal is to propose actionable solutions and share findings that empower policymakers and community leaders. By combining innovative research, advocacy, and problem-solving, this initiative seeks to provide practical tools for fostering resilient rural communities.
The research will focus on rural communities in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. I’ve already received encouragement from regional leaders and am optimistic about finding partners to support this initiative. I’m seeking foundations, corporations, and government agencies to help fund this project, which aims to mitigate the ripple effects of college closures in rural America.
If you have thoughts or suggestions on this topic—or know of potential funders—please feel free to contact me at [email protected].
Stay tuned for updates on this and other projects I’m passionate about.
Dean Hoke is Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Edu Alliance, an international higher education consultancy and podcast co-host of Higher Ed Without Borders and Small College America. He recently served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators.
Dean began his professional career in 1975 with Bellarmine University, working in a variety of roles, including Admissions and External Relations. In 1983, he entered the broadcasting field, serving as a senior executive for Public Broadcasting System stations and a cable network. In 1998, he co-founded The Connected Learning Network, a full-service online learning company. In 2009, he accepted an invitation to move to the United Arab Emirates, serving in senior positions at Higher Colleges of Technology and Khalifa University before co-founding Edu Alliance in Abu Dhabi in 2014.
Hoke is passionate about advancing academic excellence and innovation worldwide. He participates in numerous advisory and consulting projects on international branch campuses, marketing/branding, and business intelligence. Dean has consulted, presented, and written on leadership, higher education, and distance learning in the United States, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Oman, Nigeria, Spain, and the United Arab Emirates.
Hoke has a B.A. from Urbana University, an M.S. from the University of Louisville, and a Certificate in Executive Management from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. Dean currently resides in Bloomington, Indiana.
Imagine you’re a student in high school or college. Class is about to start. You are faced with a notable dilemma: Should you whip out a notebook or a laptop to take notes?
The answer is not so simple. A year ago, paper and pen seemed to be the winner when the journal Frontiers in Psychology published a Norwegian study that documented how different areas of the brain were communicating more frequently when students were writing by hand. When students were typing, the brain was not nearly so active. This extra brain activity, the neuroscientists wrote, is “beneficial for learning.”
The study ricocheted around the world. Almost 200 news stories promoted the idea that we remember things better when we write them down by hand instead of typing. It confirmed what many of us instinctively feel. That’s why I still take notes in a notebook even though I can hardly read my chicken scratch.
Yet earlier this month, the same academic journal published a scathing rebuttal to the handwriting study. A pair of scientists in Spain and France pointed out that none of the Norwegian college students was asked to learn anything in the laboratory experiment. “Drawing conclusions on learning processes in children in a classroom from a lab study carried out on a group of university students that did not include any type of learning seems slippery at best,” the critics wrote.
The Norwegian study asked 36 college students in their early 20s to write words from the game Pictionary using either a digital pen on a touchscreen or typing on a keyboard. The participants wore stretchy hair nets studded with electrodes to capture their brain activity. The scientists documented the differences between the two modes of writing.
Neither mode approximated real life conditions. The students were instructed to write in cursive without lifting the stylus from the screen. And they were only allowed to type with their right index finger.
The critics also questioned whether elevated brain activity is proof of better learning. Increased brain activity could equally be interpreted as a sign that handwriting is slower and more taxing than typing. We don’t know.
I contacted Audrey van der Meer, one of the co-authors of the Norwegian study who runs a neuroscience lab at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. She pointed out that her critics promote the use of keyboards in education, and so they may not be unbiased. But she admitted that her study didn’t test whether students learned anything.
Van der Meer is conducting a fresh experiment that involves actual learning with 140 teenagers. She had the high school students watch a recorded lecture. Half of them were randomly assigned to take notes by hand, using a digital pen and touchscreen, and the other half typed their notes. Afterward, they all took the same exam graded by teachers at the school.
So far, she’s noticed clear differences in note-taking styles. Those who typed their notes wrote significantly more words, often transcribing parts of the lecture verbatim. They didn’t make any drawings. Those who used a digital pen mainly wrote key words and short sentences and produced two drawings, on average.
According to van der Meer, students who use the keyboard are writing down everything the teacher says “because they can.” But, she said in an email, “the information appears to be coming in through the ears and, without any form of processing, going out through the fingertips.” She added that when taking notes by hand, “it is impossible to write down everything, so students have to process the incoming information, summarize it, and link it to knowledge they already have.” That helps the “new information to stick better, resulting in better retention.”
Van der Meer said she could not yet share the exam results with me as she is still analyzing them. She explained that there are “many confounding variables” that make it difficult to tell if those who used handwritten notes performed better on the exam.
Even the pro-typing scientists admit that handwriting is important. Previous research has shown that writing letters by hand, compared to typing them, helps young children learn their letters much better. A 2015 study found that adults were better able to recall words in a memory game when they wrote them down by hand first instead of typing them. And a 2010 book chapter documented positive associations between writing words and being able to read them.
While there’s fairly compelling evidence that handwriting can help children learn their letters and new words, there’s less proof that handwriting helps us absorb new information and ideas. That’s not to say the Norwegian neuroscientists are wrong. But we still need the proof.
I’d also add that not all learning is the same. Learning to write is different from learning Spanish vocabulary. There may be times when typing is the ideal way to learn something and other times when handwriting is. Also, learning something involves far more than either typing or handwriting, and the method we use to take notes might ultimately be of small importance compared to how we study our notes afterwards.
In the meantime, where did I put my notebook?
Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595 or [email protected].
This story about handwriting versus typing was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up forProof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.
