Tag: Policy

  • AGB Reports on Governing Boards’ Top Public Policy Issues

    AGB Reports on Governing Boards’ Top Public Policy Issues

    Concerns about the Trump administration’s plans for higher ed loom large in a new report by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, outlining the top public policy issues facing higher ed governing boards.

    The report looked at emerging public policy challenges through six different lenses:  

    • Accountability and regulation
    • Judicial outcomes
    • Political intrusion
    • Federal and state funding
    • Federal tax legislation
    • Intercollegiate athletics

    According to the report, boards could confront a wide range of issues in the 2025–26 academic year, including federal research funding cuts impacting university budgets, uncertainties about the future of federal financial aid, possible changes to the accreditation system, federal interference into institutional governance and shifting immigration policies affecting international student admissions and faculty hiring. The report raises additional concerns about how possible changes to the federal tax code could affect colleges and universities and how boards should respond to federal policies currently facing court challenges.  

    The report also offers lists of questions for boards to consider through each lens, like how students might be affected if income-contingent loan repayment programs undergo significant changes or how to honor donors’ intent for scholarships, endowed positions or research projects that could conflict with state or federal anti-DEI laws.

    “Governing boards have a critical role to play in ensuring that their institutions emerge stronger, more adaptable, and committed to their core educational values and must be prepared to confront policy shifts head-on,” Ross Mugler, AGB board chair and acting president and CEO, said in a press release. “This report provides the essential knowledge trustees need to make informed, strategic decisions that preserve institutional missions, ensure financial sustainability, and promote student success.”

    Source link

  • DHS Formalizes Policy Screening Noncitizens’ Social Media

    DHS Formalizes Policy Screening Noncitizens’ Social Media

    The Department of Homeland Security is formalizing a policy to search the social media accounts of all foreign applicants for U.S. visas or other benefits, according to a memo issued Wednesday morning. 

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will collect applicants’ social media handles and scour their accounts for any “antisemitic activity.” Social media content “endorsing, espousing or promoting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic terrorist activity” is now “grounds for denying immigration benefit requests.”

    “This will immediately affect aliens applying for permanent resident status, foreign students and aliens affiliated with educational institutions linked to antisemitic activity,” the memo continued. 

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed the policy last month, drawing criticism from free speech advocates. Others objected to the broad scope of the proposal, which included not just visa applicants but also current residents and green card holders. The new policy is just as broad.

    The news comes after weeks of escalating attacks on international students, many of whom have had their visas and legal resident status revoked for pro-Palestinian speech under an obscure legal clause that allows the secretary of state to determine if a visa holder is a “foreign policy threat.” An Axios report found that the State Department was already using artificial intelligence to scan student visa holders’ social media accounts looking for the allegedly antisemitic speech referenced in the new memo. 

    Many more students have had their visas revoked over minor criminal infractions; others have no clear understanding why their status was terminated. 

    An Inside Higher Ed analysis found that nearly 450 students have had their visas revoked as of Wednesday afternoon. Follow along with our interactive map and tracker. 

    Source link

  • Mind the policy gaps: regulating quality and ethics in digitalised and privatised crossborder education

    Mind the policy gaps: regulating quality and ethics in digitalised and privatised crossborder education

    by Hans de Wit, Tessa DeLaquil, Ellen Hazelkorn and Hamish Coates

    Hans de Wit, Ellen Hazelkorn and Hamish Coates are editors and Tessa DeLaquil is associate editor of Policy Reviews in Higher Education. This blog is based on their editorial for issue 1, 2025.

    Transnational education (TNE), also referred to as crossborder education, is growing and morphing in all kinds of interesting ways which, while exciting for innovators, surface important policy, regulatory, quality and ethical concerns. It is therefore vital that these developments do not slip around or through policy gaps. This is especially true for on-line TNE which is less visible than traditional campus-based higher education. Thus, it is vital that governments take the necessary actions to regulate and quality assure such education and training expansion and to inform the sector and broader public. Correspondingly, there is a pressing need for more policy research into the massive transformations shaking global higher education.

    TNE and its online variants have been part of international higher education for a few decades. As Coates, Xie, and Hong (2020) foreshadowed, it has seen a rapid increase after the Covid-19 pandemic. In recent years, TNE operations have grown and diversified substantially. Wilkins and Huisman (2025) identify eleven types of TNE providers and propose the following definition to help handle this diversity: ‘Transnational education is a form of education that borrows or transfers elements of one country’s higher education, as well as that country’s culture and values, to another country.’

    International collaboration and networking have never been more important than at this time of geopolitical and geoeconomic disruption and a decline in multilateral mechanisms. But TNE’s expansion is matched by growing risks.

    International student mobility at risk

    International degree student mobility (when students pursue a bachelor, master and/or doctoral degree abroad) continues to be dominant, with over six million students studying abroad, double the number of 10 years ago. It is anticipated that this number will further increase in the coming decade to over 8 million, but its growth is decreasing, and its geographical path from the ‘global south’ to the ‘global north’ is shifting towards a more diverse direction. Geopolitical and nationalist forces as well as concerns about adequate academic services (accommodation in particular) in high-income countries in the global north are recent factors in the slowing down of the growth in student mobility to Australia, North America and Europe, the leading destinations. The increased availability and quality of higher education, primarily at the undergraduate level, in middle-income countries in Asia, Latin America and parts of the Middle East, also shape the decrease in student mobility towards the global north.

    Several ‘sending countries’, for instance, China, South Korea and Turkey, are also becoming receiving countries. Countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine (until the Russian invasion), Egypt and some of the Caribbean countries have also become study destinations for students from neighbouring low-income countries. These countries provide them with higher education and other forms of postsecondary education sometimes in their public sector but mostly in private institutions and by foreign providers.

    An alternative TNE model?

    Given the increased competition for international students and the resulting risks of falling numbers and related financial security for universities, TNE has emerged as an alternative source of revenue. According to Ilieva and Tsiligiris (2023), United Kingdom TNE topped more than 530,000 students in 2021. In the same year, its higher education institutions attracted approximately 680,000 international students. It is likely that TNE will surpass inward student mobility.

     As the United Kingdom case makes clear, TNE originally was primarily a ‘north-south’ phenomenon, in which universities from high-income and mostly Anglophone countries, offered degree programmes through branch campuses, franchise operations and articulation programmes. Asia was the recipient region of most TNE arrangements, followed by the Middle East. As in student mobility, TNE is more diverse globally both in provision and in reception.

    The big trend in TNE is the shift to online education with limited in-person teaching. A (2024) report of Studyportals found over 15,000 English-taught online programmes globally. And although 92 per cent of these programmes are supplied by the four big Anglophone countries – the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia – the number of programmes offered outside those four doubled since 2019 from 623–1212, primarily in Business and Management, Computer Sciences and IT.

    Private higher education institutions

    This global growth in online delivery of education goes hand in hand with the growth in various forms of private higher education. Over 50% of the institutions of higher education and over one-third of global enrolment are in private institutions, many of which are commercial in nature. Private higher education has become the dominant growth area in higher education, as a result of the lack of funding for public higher education as well as traditional HE’s sluggish response to diverse learner needs. Although most private higher education, in particular for-profit, is taking place in the global south, it is also present in high-income countries, and one can see a rise in private higher education recently in Western Europe, for instance, Germany and France.

    TNE is often a commercial activity. It is increasingly a way for public universities to support international and other operations as public funding wanes. Most for-profit private higher education targets particular fields and education services and tends to be more online than in person. There is an array of ownership and institutional structures, involving a range of players.

    Establishing regulations and standards

    TNE, especially online TNE, is likely to become the major form of international delivery of education for local and international students especially where growing demand cannot be met domestically. Growth is also increasingly motivated by an institution’s or country’s financial challenges or strategic priorities – situations that are likely to intensify. This shift could help overcome some of the inequities associated with mobility and address concerns associated with climate change but online TNE is significantly more difficult to regulate.

    A concerning feature of the global TNE market is how learners and countries can easily become victims. Fraud is associated with the exponential rise in the number of fake colleges and accreditors, and document falsification. This is partly due to different conceptions and regulatory approaches to accreditation/QA of TNE and the absence of trustworthy information. Indeed, the deficiency in comprehensive and accessible information is partly responsible for on-going interest in and use of global rankings as a proxy for quality.

    A need for clearer and stronger TNE and online quality assurance

    The trend in growth of private for-profit higher education, TNE and online delivery is clear and given its growing presence requires more policy attention by national, regional and global agencies. As mentioned, public universities are increasingly active in TNE and online education targeting countries and learners underserved in their home countries whilst  looking for other sources of income as a result of decreasing public support and other factors.

    The Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications makes clear the importance of ensuring there are no differences in quality or standards between learners in the home or host country regardless of whether the delivery of education programmes and learning activities is undertaken in a formal, non-formal or informal setting, in face-to-face, virtual or hybrid formats, traditional or non-traditional modes. Accordingly, there are growing concerns about insufficient regulation and the multilateral framework covering international education, and especially online TNE.

    In response, there is a need for clearer and stronger accreditation/quality assurance and standards by national regulators, regional networks and organisations such as UNESCO, INQAAHE, the International Association of Universities (IAU) with regards to public and private involvement in TNE, and online education. This is an emerging frontier for tertiary education, and much more research is required on this growing phenomenon.

    Professor Ellen Hazelkorn is Joint Managing Partner, BH Associates. She is Professor Emeritus, Technological University Dublin.

    Hamish Coates is professor of public policy, director of the Higher Education Futures Lab, and global tertiary education expert.

    Hans de Wit is Professor Emeritus and Distinguished Fellow of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, Senior Fellow of the international Association of Universities.

    Tessa DeLaquil is postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Education at University College Dublin.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Policy and Practice Foundations and Building Blocks

    Policy and Practice Foundations and Building Blocks

    Two weeks ago Chris Buonocore, Alex Humphreys, Martin Kurzweil and Emily Tichenor (all of the nonprofit organization Ithaka, and part of the Articulation of Credit Transfer Project) posted in this blog the happy news that Transfer Explorer (a website, modeled after CUNY T-Rex, that shows everyone how prior learning experiences will count toward a college’s academic requirements) has been launched containing information from three South Carolina colleges. Information from dozens of additional colleges in Connecticut, New York, South Carolina and Washington will be added in the coming months. 

    A cartoon Tyrannosaurus rex wearing a CUNY T-shirt

    Because this information is now public and usable, students and advisers will be able to make better plans for transfer, students will discover and choose transfer destinations that are a good fit for them, and institutions will be better able to align their programs and equivalencies to facilitate transfer. Transfer Explorer will also reduce the burden on students, advisers and admissions staff to locate and make sense of relevant information across disparate sources, allowing them to focus on higher-value tasks. The evidence from CUNY T-Rex suggests these benefits are already being realized in that context. 

    The advent of Transfer Explorer and other similar efforts to make transparent the rules on credit transfer and degree applicability raises an important question: Which policies and practices are desirable for institutions to have in place to make their credit mobility information public?

    Let’s assume that a public website, such as Transfer Explorer, is available for displaying credit mobility information, and that an institution has the appropriate financial and staff resources to put its information on the website. Now what course credit and program requirement policies and practices must be in place, and which additional ones would be useful to have? This post describes some of these policies and practices.

    Necessary Policies and Practices

    Absolutely essential is that transfer credit rules stating how an institution will treat all types of prior learning experiences (e.g., course A at Institution X will count as equivalent to course B at Institution Y), as well as the program and degree requirements (for majors, concentrations, general education, etc.), must be systematically and consistently stored, recorded and updated in the institution’s software system(s), with the credit mobility website reflecting any changes in any of these rules and requirements in a timely manner. These practices are essential for the website to function as a trusted source of information.

    There should be policies regarding who can change the transfer credit rules and degree requirements recorded in this software and under what conditions. This will reduce the likelihood of erratic, capricious or frequent changes, while ensuring that all students are subject to the same rules and requirements, without prejudice.

    Any additional rules, requirements, restrictions or qualifications related to the conditions for granting credit for prior learning (such as a minimum grade in a prior course or a residency requirement at the destination college) should apply equally to all students and be explicitly and publicly stated. This ensures that all students have access to the same information, again promoting equitable treatment.

    There should be administrative oversight of the above policies and practices, and that oversight should ideally be provided by people who would be unaffected by the rules’ consequences (i.e., conflicts of interest should be minimized). Oversight by people not acting in their own interest is necessary to ensure that policies and practices are appropriately instituted and maintained.

    Additional Desirable Policies and Practices

    It will be helpful to have policies regarding how course equivalencies for prior learning are decided in the first place—who decides and based on what information. This will promote efficient and effective decision-making regarding prior learning assessments.

    There should also be specific, agreed-upon criteria for giving credit for prior learning. It has been effectively argued that transfer credit should be based entirely on learning outcomes, and not on, e.g., a course’s prerequisites, textbook or modality (in-person, online or hybrid); the degree the student may or may not have; the student’s major; etc. AACRAO’s recommended criterion for course equivalency is 70 percent “matching of content.” Such a policy ensures that credit for prior learning is based on only that—prior learning.

    Any characteristics of prior learning, in addition to credits, that would satisfy an institution’s requirements, characteristics such as a course being writing intensive or including material on information literacy, should be recorded and considered for transfer. Students and those who support them need this information to be able to plan students’ complete academic trajectories.

    An explicit appeals procedure that allows students to challenge transfer credit decisions can help in identifying errors and inadequacies in what is shown on the website, as well as promoting equitable treatment of all students (an example of the CUNY appeals procedure is here). Students can more effectively use such a procedure if the website keeps a record of when transfer credit rules and program and degree requirements have changed and how.

    All courses from institutions accredited by what were formerly referred to as regional accreditors (along with, upon review, some other forms of prior learning) should be given at least elective credit. In addition to providing transfer students with predictable transfer credit, such a policy within the CUNY system greatly facilitated the establishment of CUNY T-Rex. For the courses of the 20 CUNY undergraduate colleges, developers had only to reflect on the website existing transfer credit rules (all 1.6 million of them); they did not have to determine what to do with courses that would receive no transfer credit.

    Also highly desirable is that a student should be allowed to use any credit transfer rule in place at College B between when the student first matriculated in College A and subsequently transferred to College B (perhaps within a specified number of years since matriculation at College A). Such a policy is particularly useful for students who first matriculate at a community college and later transfer to a bachelor’s college within the same system. This policy would enable students and those who support them to plan a student’s entire academic trajectory.

    Finally, in developing Transfer Explorer as well as CUNY T-Rex, the engineers had to first parse and deconstruct the colleges’ major and other requirements before programming them for the website. Many of the majors’ diagrams look like a tangled ball of yarn or a Super Bowl football play (diagrams that go way beyond just a sequence of major courses). Faculty and others may not realize how complex they are making requirements until they see them diagrammed. Such requirements can be very difficult to program and so should be simplified, if possible, as well as recorded in systematic, consistent ways.

    Each of the preceding items is useful for constructing an excellent website that will show how an institution will treat a student’s prior learning. However, there are many additional benefits from these policies and practices. For example, concerning the last bullet, keeping the requirements of majors simple and straightforward will not only help the website’s programmers, but will make it easier for students and those who support them to understand and conform to a major’s requirements.

    A basic principle of ACT, Transfer Explorer and CUNY T-Rex is that all of us in higher education benefit by obtaining good information and making it public. We hope that this blog post helps institutions do just that.

    We thank the members of AACRAO, ACT, the Beyond Transfer Advisory Group, the Gates Foundation, Ithaka, the LEARN Commission and SOVA for ideas contributing to this blog post.

    Alexandra W. Logue is professor emerita at the Center for Advanced Study in Education, Graduate Center, CUNY. From 2008 to 2014 she served as executive vice chancellor and university provost of the CUNY system, and she is a founder of CUNY T-Rex.

    Chris Buonocore is the product manager of Transfer Explorer at Ithaka, as well as a founder and the former manager of CUNY T-Rex.

    Christopher Vickery is professor emeritus of computer science at Queens College CUNY, as well as a founder and the creator of CUNY T-Rex.

    Source link

  • Government economic policy depends on a healthily diverse higher education ecosystem

    Government economic policy depends on a healthily diverse higher education ecosystem

    At GuildHE, we represent over 60 institutions that do not fit the traditional, large, generalist, research-intensive mould. These institutions are deeply focused on industrial readiness, employability, specialist skills and regional growth.

    They deliver vital skills in geographical areas and sectors where the UK faces acute shortages, and directly support the government’s own missions to grow, increase opportunity, develop a greener future, reduce crime levels and build a better NHS. Whether this is achieved through healthcare, the built environment, teaching, policing, agricultural innovations, law or the creative economy, the future talent pipeline to address these missions depends, in large part, on the success of these providers. However, the current funding landscape does little to protect and support them.

    The image of the large generalist, research-intensive traditional higher education institution is the model on which the funding and regulatory system in the UK is based. This model has become the DNA of our systems, which rely on assumptions about the sector as a whole: its strategic missions, delivery mechanisms and capacity. These assumptions naturally impact the incentives and levers that are built into policy frameworks.

    Policies often fail to recognise those that fall outside that image, so that smaller, specialist, and non-traditional institutions face increasing threats to their viability. Sector consolidation and investment in the historically-established HE model, as seen in other settings across the world such as Australia and the US, could undermine our global reputation, agility and responsiveness to diverse students and industries.

    Challenging these systems, and the methodologies on which they are built, will require the government to embrace innovative models of practice across education, skills and research, even if it comes with some associated risk. Indeed, it will require a brave examination of the effectiveness of the very regulatory and funding systems which are encouraging a level of homogenisation across the sector that could spell its own doom.

    To that end, we propose an approach to spending in the next period that focuses on reforms to encourage investment and rethinking the system to make it work smarter.

    Invest in the talent pipeline and protect student choice

    As part of this government’s vision to expand opportunity, we have seen the beginnings of multiple new strategies and administrative initiatives, including proposals for a new Industrial Strategy, a Get Britain Working strategy, a new ten-year plan for the NHS, reform of higher education and the introduction of Skills England. These new arrivals aim to improve economic growth, encourage efficiency in public services, produce a future skills pipeline and build an investment environment for UK business.

    Higher education drives the transformative forces required to raise levels of productivity and improve economic growth. Institutions do this by stimulating the higher-level skills needed in industry, providing lifelong opportunities to retrain and upskill, and expanding opportunities for all to do so. They also do it by cultivating ideas and new knowledge; a cornerstone of productivity and growth.

    Alongside these contributions, we need to protect student choice by preserving a variety of institutional types and locations across the country. Doing so is vital to ensuring the widest range of students can access the transformative power of higher education; a power that yields both individual improvements in life chances and direct improvements to employability, our public services and our economy. Furthermore, a system that boasts a diverse range of institutions and provision types is a healthy one that can deliver to local economies and communities across the country and thereby demonstrate ways in which higher education institutions are vital to those beyond us.

    Balancing government growth and skills priorities with student choice is not mutually exclusive. Models of higher education that prioritise industry practice, employer needs, innovation impacts and workplace experience can achieve these priorities. The capability to develop high-level specialist skills dynamically in a way which also builds the social resilience required to respond effectively to new, advancing technologies is quickly becoming a standard requirement of our graduates. We need reformed spending to achieve it.

    Do things differently, get different results

    Minister of State for Skills Jacqui Smith has said that the government is ready to review the education system and develop a way forward that “challenges the status quo.” To genuinely fulfil this ambition, we need fundamental change to the foundational regulatory and funding systems so that diversity in terms of institution, student, and pedagogical approach can survive into the future. If this government is serious about its ambitions to grow and future-proof education and skills, the following reforms are needed.

    Reform teaching funding to support priorities

    Government should establish funding streams for specific outreach programmes in priority subject areas like creative arts, teaching, healthcare, construction and agriculture. Doing so would acknowledge failures in the prevailing market ideology that implied industrial need for qualified graduates would shape applications into relevant programmes. Identified subject areas required by both our industrial sectors and broader society could provide a clearer rationale for funding allocations than student numbers across current Office for Students bandings.

    The Strategic Priorities Grant for 2024–25 has been used to support “work on high-cost subjects, student mental health, degree apprenticeships, equality of opportunity, technical qualifications and a range of other priorities.” It is hard to see how smaller and smaller block grant funding allocations have delivered to myriad priorities and we have yet to see an evaluation of the effectiveness of that funding to support them.

    Given the existing financial pressures within the sector, which some suggest should be addressed by increasing tuition fees (presumably within the same funding methodologies), we suggest a more ambitious review of the funding system is needed to drive support to where it is most needed to preserve a healthy, dynamic and diverse sector that can deliver to a wide range of students across a wide range of locations, especially where there are limited routes into and through higher education.

    Revise funding for skills, research and innovation to drive growth

    The Growth and Skills Levy needs reforming. It needs to better support SMEs, which comprise 99 per cent of all UK employers and account for 61 per cent of total employment. SMEs are critical to most sectors, but they make up the majority of some identified as crucial sectors in the government’s Industrial Strategy, including life sciences, advanced manufacturing and the creative industries. Data from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport suggests that the vast majority of businesses in the creative industries are micro-businesses. To meet the government’s own industrial ambitions, it must not only reconsider how funding can be delivered through and to those SMEs, but also how investment in training could be flexed.

    Recent announcements by the government indicating plans to defund all Level 7 apprenticeships feel tone-deaf for those working in construction, healthcare, engineering and data science fields. To our minds, more technical skills training in fields meant to drive economic growth, which includes a wide range of skills at different levels, is not only a good thing, but is a necessary investment if those ambitions are to be realised. This is not to say we should fund L7 at the expense of lower level apprenticeships. Rather, we are advocating for investment in apprenticeships at all levels indicated as necessary by employers in those sectors where critical skills shortages have been identified as key barriers to economic growth and improvements in our public services.

    But it’s not just about skills training via apprenticeships. It’s also about generating new ideas and innovations to help us work more productively and unlock our abilities to deliver more with fewer tangible resources. To deliver that ambition, both research and innovation funding streams need reform. Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) thresholds should be lowered to remove systemic biases that disadvantage smaller and specialist institutions. Research funding should be adjusted to provide reasonable minimum levels of allocation to all institutions where excellent research is being generated. Doing so would dramatically broaden the UK’s research base rather than deepen it by funnelling greater levels of funding to points where research is already established, thereby expanding research and development capabilities by widening the pool of contributors.

    Doing so would support a regional growth strategy. It would spread money to areas where infrastructure still needs development and could provide incentives in geographical areas where ERDF funding has been lost. Local authorities in non-mayoral regions should also have a clear role in shaping research and innovation policies, with greater collaboration and knowledge-sharing between them and MCA regions to create a more balanced and inclusive approach to regional development.

    A call for an inclusive funding model

    Higher education in the UK is built on a long history of tradition, prestige, and excellence. However, in a time of economic uncertainty and shifting international alliances, we must now innovate to maintain our position on the world stage. While large, generalist institutions continue to play a critical role in advancing knowledge and global competitiveness, they are just one part of the type of healthy higher education ecosystem needed to support 21st century democracies to deliver economically and socially for their citizens. Smaller-scale, specialist and non-traditional institutions with expertise in vocational, professional programmes are equally vital.

    The government has already acknowledged the importance of skills development, regional growth, and public sector workforce expansion in words, but these priorities must be reflected in its spending decisions, policy frameworks and implementation plans. The coming fiscal choices will contribute to whether the UK’s higher education system remains diverse, dynamic, and globally competitive—or whether it risks stagnation.

    Policymakers face a critical choice: will they promote a more balanced and inclusive approach to funding that embraces risk to boost excellence in research, innovation, and skills development? The future of our sector, the UK’s ability to meet its domestic goals, and the growing need for clear, strong and sustainable geopolitical values, depend on it.

    Source link

  • Bunker Hill Cancels Study Abroad Amid Federal Policy Shifts

    Bunker Hill Cancels Study Abroad Amid Federal Policy Shifts

    Bunker Hill Community College is canceling its summer study abroad programs in response to Trump administration immigration policies, WBUR reported.

    “Our first priority in any Study Abroad experience is the safety of our students and staff,” read a statement from the community college to WBUR. “With the changes in national immigration policy and enforcement that have emerged over the last several weeks, including the prospect of renewed travel restrictions, the College will redirect this year’s exploration and learning to U.S.-based sites.”

    The community college planned to send about 60 students to Costa Rica, Ghana, Japan, Kenya and Panama for two-week educational programs between May and July. The decision to cancel the trips came after news reports that the Trump administration is considering a travel ban on dozens of countries.

    Biology professor Scott Benjamin, who’s led the Costa Rica trip since 2002, told WBUR that college leaders were concerned for international students who planned to go on these trips. International students make up 7 percent of the college’s student body.

    “The school was just very worried about the probably remote, but still potential possibility that we could go away and come back, and a student couldn’t come back into the country,” Benjamin told the news outlet.

    Source link

  • Feds suspend $175M to University of Pennsylvania over trans athletics policy

    Feds suspend $175M to University of Pennsylvania over trans athletics policy

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The Trump administration has suspended $175 million in federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, citing its athletics participation policies for transgender students, according to a Wednesday post from a White House social media account. 

    The cuts are to discretionary spending from the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, according to Fox Business, the first to report the news. 

    “We are aware of media reports suggesting a suspension of $175 million in federal funding to Penn, but have not yet received any official notification or any details,” a Penn spokesperson said via email Wednesday. 

    The spokesperson added, “We have been in the past, and remain today, in full compliance with the regulations that apply to not only Penn, but all of our NCAA and Ivy League peer institutions.”

    In an executive order last month, President Donald Trump barred colleges and K-12 schools from allowing transgender women to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity and threatened to pull all federal funding from institutions that don’t comply. 

    The day after Trump signed the directive, the U.S. Department of Education opened a Title IX investigation into Penn, San José State University and a K-12 athletics association over policies the agency said were out of step with the executive order. 

    Former Penn swimmer Lia Thomas, a transgender woman, has been at the center of polarizing debates over gender identity and college athletics participation. In 2022, Thomas became the first openly transgender athlete to win a NCAA Division I championship for her victory in the women’s 500-yard freestyle. 

    Last week, more than a dozen college athletes sued the NCAA, alleging that allowing Thomas to compete in the championship violated Title IX, the sweeping statute barring sex-based discrimination in federally funded institutions. 

    The complaint comes only a month after a similar lawsuit was filed against Penn and the NCAA over Thomas’ participation in the Ivy League’s 2022 swimming championship. 

    The NCAA updated its policies after Trump’s executive order to only allow students assigned female at birth to compete in women’s athletics.

    Source link

  • A tech policy bonanza! The FCC, FTC, AI regulations, and more

    A tech policy bonanza! The FCC, FTC, AI regulations, and more

    Does a cat stand on two legs or four?

    The answer to that question may tell you all you need
    to know about the government involving itself in social media
    content moderation.

    On today’s show, we cover the latest tech policy
    developments involving the Federal Communications Commission,
    Federal Trade Commission, AI regulation, and more.

    Guests:

    – Ari
    Cohn    , FIRE’s lead counsel, tech policy.

    –
    Adam Thierer    , a resident technology and innovation senior
    fellow at the R Street Institute

    – Jennifer
    Huddleston    , a technology policy senior fellow at the CATO
    Institute

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    01:30 Section 230

    06:55 FCC and Section 230

    14:32 Brendan Carr and “faith-based programming”

    28:24 Media companies’ settlements with the Trump

    30:24 Brendan Carr at Semafor event

    38:37 FTC and social media companies

    48:09 AI regulations

    01:03:43 Outro

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    sotospeak@thefire.org.

    Show notes:

    Source link

  • Policy Proposals Lack Clarity About How to Evaluate Graduates’ Additional Degrees

    Policy Proposals Lack Clarity About How to Evaluate Graduates’ Additional Degrees

    Title: Accounting for Additional Credentials in Postsecondary Earnings Data

    Authors: Jason Delisle, Jason Cohn, and Bryan Cook

    Source: The Urban Institute

    As policymakers across both parties consider how to evaluate postsecondary outcomes and earnings data, the authors of a new brief from the Urban Institute pose a major question: How should students who earn multiple credentials be included in data collection for the college that awarded their first degree?

    For example, should the earnings of a master’s degree recipient be included in the data for the institution where they earned their bachelor’s degree? Additionally, students who finish an associate degree at a community college are likely to earn higher wages when they complete a bachelor’s degree at another institution. Thus, multiple perspectives need to be considered to help both policymakers and institutions understand, interpret, and treat additional degrees earned.

    Additional key findings include:

    Earnings Data and Accountability Policies

    Many legislative proposals would expand the use of earnings data to provide further accountability and federal aid restrictions. For example, the House Republicans’ College Cost Reduction Act, proposed in 2024, would put institutions at risk of losing funding if they have low student loan repayment rates. The brief’s authors state that the bill does not indicate if students who earn additional credentials should be included in the cohort of students where they completed their first credential.

    The recently implemented gainful employment rule from the Biden administration is explicit in its inclusion of those who earn additional credentials. Under the rule, students who earn an additional degree are included in both calculations for their recent degree and the program that awarded their first credential.

    How Much Do Additional Credential Affect Earnings Data?

    Determining how much additional credentials affect wages and earnings for different programs is difficult. The first earnings measurement—the first year after students leave school—is usually too early to include additional income information from a second credential.

    Although the entire data picture is lacking, a contrast between first- and fifth-year earnings suggests that the number of students earning additional degrees may be very high for some programs. As an example, students who earn associate degrees in liberal arts and general studies often have some of their quickest increases in earnings during these first five years. A potential explanation is because students are then completing a bachelor’s degree program at a four-year institution.

    Policy Implications: How Should Earnings Data Approach Subsequent Credentials?

    In general, it seems that many policymakers have not focused on this complicated question of students who earn additional degrees. However, policy and data professionals may benefit from excluding students who earn additional credentials to more closely measure programs’ return on investment. This can be especially helpful when examining the costs of bachelor’s programs and their subsequent earnings benchmarks, by excluding additional earnings premiums generated from master’s programs.

    Additionally, excluding students who earn additional credentials may be particularly valuable to students in making consumer and financial aid decisions if the payoff from a degree is extremely different depending on whether students pursue an additional credential.

    However, some programs are intended to prepare students for an additional degree, and excluding data for students who earn another degree would mean excluding most graduates and paint a misleading picture.

    To read the full report from the Urban Institute, click here.

    —Austin Freeman

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    “Our universities have a paramount place in an economy driven by knowledge and ideas.”

    These are the opening words of the 2016 white paper Success as a Knowledge Economy, which created the funding and regulatory architecture governing English higher education today. The arrangements are founded on a broad faith in the economic benefits of generating and communicating knowledge.

    This vision assumes that an increasing supply of university graduates and research, coupled with open markets that reward enterprise, leads to endogenous economic growth. That can happen anywhere because ideas are boundless and non-rivalrous, but particularly in England because our universities are among the best in the knowledge business.

    English higher education has grown by integrating the development of specific skills for the workplace alongside universally applicable knowledge. This is clear from the progress of most English universities from institutes established for professional and technical training towards university status, the absorption of training for an increasing range of professions within higher education, and the way in which universities can now articulate the workplace capabilities of all graduates, regardless of their discipline.

    Notwithstanding this, the reforms proposed in 2016 emphasised knowledge more than skills. By that time, most of the cost of teaching in English universities had been transferred to student tuition fees backed by income-contingent loans. So, the reforms mostly focused on providing confidence for the investments made by students and the risks carried by the exchequer. This would be delivered through regulation focused on issues important to students and the government, whilst positioning students as the pivotal influence on provision through competition for their choices.

    Universities would compete to increase and improve the supply of graduates. This would then enhance the capacity of businesses and public services to capitalise on innovation and new technologies, which would yield improved productivity and jobs requiring graduates. That is a crude characterisation, but it provides a starting point for understanding the new imperatives for higher education policy, which are influenced by challenges to this vision of nearly a decade ago.

    From market theory to experience in practice

    Despite an expansion of university graduates, the UK has had slow productivity growth since the recession of 2008–09. Rather than the economy growing alongside and absorbing a more highly educated workforce, there are declining returns for some courses compared with other options and concerns that AI technologies will replace roles previously reliant on graduates. Employers report sustained gaps and mismatches between the attributes they need and those embodied in the domestic workforce. Alongside this, ministers appear to be more concerned about people that do not go to university, who are shaping politics in the USA and Europe as well as the UK.

    These are common challenges for countries experiencing increasing higher education participation. The shift from elite to mass higher education is often associated with a “breakdown of consensus” and “permanent state of tension” because established assumptions are challenged by the scale and range of people encountering universities. This is particularly the case when governments place reliance on market forces, which leads to misalignment between the private choices made by individuals and the public expectations for which ministers are held to account. Universities are expected to embody historically elite modes of higher education reflected in media narratives and rankings, whilst also catering for the more diverse circumstances and practical skills needed by a broader population.

    In England, the government has told universities that it wants them to improve access, quality and efficiency, whilst also becoming more closely aligned with the needs of the economy and civil society in their local areas. These priorities may be associated with tensions that have arisen due to the drivers of university behaviour in a mass market.

    In a system driven by demand from young people, there has been improved but unequal access reflecting attainment gaps in schools. This might not be such a problem if increasing participation had been accompanied by a growing economy that improves opportunities for everyone. But governments have relied on market signals, rather than sustained industrial strategies, to align an increasing supply of graduates with the capabilities necessary to capitalise on them in the workplace. This has yielded anaemic growth since the 2007 banking crash, together with suggestions that higher education expansion diminishes the prospects of people and places without universities.

    In a competitive environment, universities may be perceived to focus on recruiting students, rather than providing them with adequate support, and to invest in non-academic services, rather than the quality of teaching. These conditions may also encourage universities to seek global measures of esteem recognised by league tables, rather than serving local people and communities through the civic mission for which most were established.

    Market forces were expected to increase the diversity of provision as universities compete to serve the needs of an expanding student population. But higher education does not work like other markets, even when the price is not controlled as for undergraduates in England. Competition yields convergence around established courses and modes of learning that are understood by potential students, rather than those that may be more efficient or strategically important for the nation as a whole.

    Navigating the new policy environment

    After more than a decade of reforms encouraging competition and choice, there appears to be less faith in well-regulated market forces positioning knowledgeable graduates to drive growth. Universities are now expected to become embedded within local and national growth plans and industrial strategy sectors, which prioritise skills that can be deployed in specific settings ahead of broadly applicable knowledge. This asks universities to consider the particular needs of industry, public services and communities in their local areas, rather than demand from students alone.

    Despite these different imperatives, English higher education will continue to be financed mostly by students’ tuition fees and governed by regulatory powers designed to provide confidence for their choices. We suggest four ingredients for navigating this, which are concerned with strategy, architecture, regulation and funding.

    The government has promised a single strategy for post-16 education and a new body, Skills England, to oversee it. A more unified approach across the different parts of post-compulsory education should encourage pathways between different types of learning, and a more coherent offer for both learners and employers. But it also needs to align factors that influence the demand for graduates, such as research and innovation, with decisions that influence their supply. That requires a new mindset for education policy, which has tended to prioritise national rules ahead of local responsiveness, or indeed coherence with other sectors and parts of government.

    Delivery of a unified strategy is hampered by the fragmented and complex architecture governing post-16 education. Skills England will provide underpinning evidence, both influencing and drawing on Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs), but it remains uncertain how this will be translated into measures that influence provision, particularly in universities. A unified strategy demands structures for convening universities, colleges, employers and local authorities to deliver it in local areas across the country.

    That could be addressed by extending the remit of LSIPs beyond a shopping list of skills requirements and enhancing the role of universities within them. Universities have the expertise to diagnose needs and broker responses, aligning innovation that shapes products and services with the skills needed to work with them. They will, though, only engage this full capability if local structures are accompanied by national regulatory and funding incentives, so there is a unified local body responsible for skills and innovation within a national framework.

    Regulation remains essential for providing confidence to students and taxpayers, but there could be a re-balancing of regulatory duties, so they have regard to place and promote coherence, rather than competition for individual students alone. This could influence regulatory decisions affecting neighbouring universities and colleges, as well as the ways in which university performance is measured in relation to issues such as quality and access. A clear typology of civic impact, together with indicators for measuring it, could shift the incentives for universities, particularly if there is a joined-up approach across the funding and regulation of teaching, research and knowledge exchange.

    Regulation creates the conditions for activity, but funding shapes it. Higher education tends to be a lower priority than schools within the Department for Education, and research will now be balanced alongside digital technologies within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. A new Lifelong Learning Entitlement and reformed Growth and Skills Levy may provide new opportunities for some universities, but any headroom for higher education spending is likely to be tied to specific goals. This will include place and industry-oriented research and innovation programmes and single-pot allocations for some MSAs, alongside the substantial public and private income universities will continue to generate in sectors such as health and defence. In this context, aligning universities with the post-16 education strategy relies on pooling different sources of finance around common goals.

    Closer alignment of this kind should not undermine the importance of knowledge or indeed create divisions with skills that are inconsistent with the character and development of English higher education to date. The shift in emphasis from knowledge towards skills reframes how the contributions of universities are articulated and valued in policy and public debate, but it need not fundamentally change their responsibility for knowledge creation and intellectual development.

    This appears to have been recognised by ministers, given the statements they have made about the positioning of foundational knowledge within strategies for schools, research and the economy. We have, though, entered a new era, which requires greater consideration of the demand for and take-up of graduates and ideas locally and nationally, and a different approach from universities in response to this.

    Source link