Tag: questions

  • 3 Questions for Online Learning Pioneer Robert Ubell

    3 Questions for Online Learning Pioneer Robert Ubell

    Whenever I write something halfway decent (sometimes) or astoundingly dumb (often), I can count on a thoughtful response from Bob Ubell. Our conversation took place during the period when Bob published two books, Going Online (2017) and Staying Online (2021), as well as numerous articles in EdSurge, IHE, The Evollution and other publications.

    Bob’s online education career goes at least back to 1999, where he was the dean of online learning at Stevens Institute of Technology. Subsequent leadership roles include vice dean of online learning at New York University Tandon School of Engineering and vice dean emeritus, online learning, at NYU Tandon.

    Bob is a 2011 Fellow of the Online Learning Consortium and a member of the Advisory Board of Online Learning. In 2012, the Online Learning Consortium (then called the Sloan Consortium) awarded Bob with the A. Frank Mayadas Leadership Award, the organization’s “highest individual recognition for leadership in online education.” Most recently, Bob took up a role serving on the CHLOE Advisory Panel for the Quality Matters Changing Landscape of Online Education Project.

    In a profession where many of us are making things up as we go, Bob stands out for his long-term experience thinking about and leading online learning initiatives. I asked Bob if he would answer my questions about his career and the future of online learning, and he graciously agreed.

    Q: According to your Wikipedia page, you have been working at the intersection of higher education, technology and publishing since you graduated from Brooklyn College in 1961. What does the next decade hold for you as you think about your contributions to our online learning community?

    A: I’m not optimistic about what’s ahead, not only for digital education, but also for the nation’s wider academic enterprise. It’s impossible to answer your question in isolation without reckoning with the ugly scene now taking place in higher ed. Challenged by the federal government’s attacks, early this spring, 600 higher ed leaders warned about “unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” Since then, the present administration has continued to follow a treacherous path, destabilizing campuses across the country, targeting faculty and student academic freedom, and, in a new Supreme Court decision, ultimately dismantling the U.S. Department of Education.

    In an opinion column in this publication earlier this year, I predicted that American colleges and universities faced a terrifying cascade of autocratic moves “set by leaders in Hungary, Turkey and elsewhere … selecting college presidents, controlling faculty hiring and advancement, punishing academic dissent and imposing travel restrictions.” Many of these despotic actions have already been implemented and continue to be imposed on schools in this country.

    Last month, to restore about $400 million in federal research funding, Columbia University bowed to tyrannical demands by officials. In an unprecedented agreement, Columbia will pay more than $200 million in fines for dubious accusations of antisemitic student theatrics. It also opened the gates for government intrusion in the school’s academic prerogatives in hiring, admissions and curriculum. Keeping Columbia in academic handcuffs, the deal will be overseen by an outside monitor, reporting to officials every six months.

    The midcentury philosopher and cultural critic Hannah Arendt, in her masterful account of totalitarian regimes, revealed that they rely on systematic suppression of individual thought and freedom to maintain control, undermining the very purpose of universities—institutions that encourage critical thinking, open debate and intellectual autonomy, essential in a democracy. Recent power plays against Columbia, Harvard, Brown, Duke—and, just this week, UCLA—show how brutal our government can be in imposing its will.

    The noted Columbia genocide scholar Marianne Hirsch, the daughter of Holocaust survivors, who teaches a class on genocide with a book by Arendt, is considering leaving Columbia following its adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, which casts criticism of Israel as hate speech, a provision in the new pact with the federal government. Hirsch fears it may force her to face official sanction for even mentioning Arendt, who criticized Israel’s founding.

    “A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,” Hirsch told the Associated Press. “I just don’t see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.” Reactionary governments always find an innocent mark to target. In the 1950s, it was American Communists. Today, it’s pro-Palestinian faculty and students.

    The downstream effects on remote learning are already being felt, with the perception overseas—following arrests of foreign students and other threats against students and scholars from abroad—that the U.S. is turning its back on international recruitment, undermining our reputation as a leading destination for higher education and potentially impacting foreign student tuition revenue, face-to-face and online. In the U.S., the demand to shut down DEI programs will surely affect the greatest number of online students—80 percent of whom work and a third [of whom] are first in their families to attend college.

    On a personal note, I worry that closing the [Education Department] will cripple and may even end higher ed data collection and reporting, giving us less reliable information on the status of American college students. Over my career in higher ed, I’ve depended on federal government data, especially in supporting findings I’ve disclosed in my writing. “We’ll soon be in the dark,” I warned in a recent IHE column.

    Turning to your question, asking what sort of contribution I might make to the remote learning community. Like so many others, I don’t feel my voice possesses much force against what’s happening. Nor do I feel competent to articulate what might make a difference. Academic opposition to what we face has been scattershot and largely ineffective, except for various successful legal maneuvers. More broadly, on a national scale, resistance has been disappointing, with few voices, in and out of electoral politics, with enough momentum to capture our yearning for democratic fresh air. To get us out of this nightmare, I dream that someone will rise in this desperate time to gather all of us together in an inspiring and powerful national movement against tyranny.

    Q: There is a growing concern across higher education about the job market for new college graduates, as employers are increasingly utilizing AI to accomplish the work previously done by entry-level workers. What role should online learning leaders be playing at our institutions in evolving and adapting our institutions to the AI revolution?

    A: Since the pandemic, it hasn’t been that easy for recent college graduates to find a job in our digital economy–even before the invasion of AI. In March, recent college grad unemployment was at 5.8 percent, the highest in the last decades, excluding the pandemic, and nearly double the rate of all workers with a college degree, now at 2.7 percent, nearly a historic low.

    “For the first time in modern history, a bachelor’s degree is failing to deliver on its fundamental promise: access to professional employment,” observes a troubling report from Burning Glass, the big labor market analysis firm. “Young graduates face unemployment rates that are rising faster than any other education or age cohort, while over half of them land into jobs they didn’t need college to get. The traditional pathway from college to career is becoming less reliable.” In addition to other causes, the report singles out AI.

    As with all radical technological innovations, the reception of AI is fraught with contradictory predictions on its impact. Touted by champions as an economic miracle, others fear it as a devilish intrusion, disrupting our material well-being, especially for college grads who have historically outpaced the economic success of others. In the postwar years, most American workers found middle-class manufacturing or clerical jobs, but in the last 40 years, new jobs are either in highly paid professional fields or low-wage service industries, a disastrous national calamity that has largely generated our present political trouble.

    Sorry, but I don’t have exciting new ways to recommend to recent college grads to extricate themselves from the present dilemma, other than—not a very original idea—encourage them to enhance their knowledge gained in college classrooms with online or in-person nondegree courses in AI and other technical disciplines, giving them a leg up with attractive additional credentials.

    Not being knowledgeable about AI, I reached out to Alfred Essa, an insightful colleague and author of the forthcoming Artificial Intelligence: Shaping the Future of Innovation, who advised, “Students must think of themselves as designers, creating AI-powered applications to solve problems, not just in the short-term, but over their careers, positioning themselves in industry, capable of building and changing things with AI.” Essa emphasized that his advice is not only for technically savvy students, but for others who are creative in aesthetics, humanities and other disciplines.

    Essa worries that the present higher ed leadership is obsolete. “For colleges to succeed,” he urged, “they must be led by a new generation who will adopt the new AI environment.” In the meantime, for my part, higher ed needs to welcome AI as a technical innovation, in the long tradition of typewriters, calculators, computers and digital education. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can’t stick it back in. Restrictive, retrograde rules are foolish or punishing—or both.

    Q: What advice do you have for folks like me who are thinking about ways to stay active and engaged in online learning and higher education once we retire from our university administrative roles?

    A: Cicero found that the way we lived in our youth prepares us for retirement. The choices we made when we were young naturally lead to the life we will live as we age. He argued that preparation for our later years is not a separate phase, but a continuation of the life we led all along. “The harvest of old age is the recollection and abundance of blessings previously secured,” he wrote (Cicero De Senectute, translated with an introduction and notes by Andrew P. Peabody [Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1887]).

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

    3 Questions for Higher Ed Market Researcher Scott Jeffe

    We have a long history of working with Scott Jeffe during his time as the VP of research at RNL. Recently, Scott moved on from RNL to begin working as an independent higher ed market research consultant and adviser to universities. To learn more about the work that Scott does and to hopefully gain some insight into where things may be going with online and graduate programs, we asked Scott the following questions.

    Q: Tell us about what it means to be an independent higher ed market researcher. What sort of projects do you work on? How does what you do for universities differ from the services available from traditional consulting firms?

    A: In higher education, the best market research means more than just gathering data—it means showing up as a consultant. That’s something I’ve really learned throughout my career. Too often, I see research reports that are, frankly, hard to interpret or apply. The data might be sound, but it’s overly complex, the visualizations are unclear or the recommendations are disconnected from the realities of how colleges and universities actually operate.

    I’ve had those moments—looking at a data visualization and spending several minutes just trying to figure out what it’s supposed to say. And I know that no dean, provost or president has the time to do that. I’ve also read plenty of conclusions that are technically accurate but completely impractical in the real-world context of higher ed. That’s the kind of disconnect that leads campus leaders to quietly shelve the report, walk away and think, “Well, that was a waste of money.”

    That is exactly what my work today seeks to avoid. My research and consulting prioritize being more direct, actionable and grounded in higher ed’s current challenges. My work now spans both institutional consulting and national research, and I think that balance is part of what makes my approach effective. For example, I’ve recently completed national studies on graduate student expectations and mentorship, which give me insight into broader trends that I can then bring into highly tailored campus-level work.

    Over the past six months, I’ve developed four core services designed specifically for this moment in higher ed—politically, economically and culturally. They’re affordable, practical and fast to implement. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions, but I do believe institutions deserve work that respects their time, their context and their need to move quickly on what matters.

    That’s ultimately the difference between what I offer and what many vendors often provide. I’m not just delivering a report—I’m helping institutions make real decisions, grounded in both the data and the dynamics of higher ed today.

    Q: What are the most significant challenges and opportunities for universities wanting to grow graduate and/or online enrollment today?

    A: At the graduate level, one of the biggest looming challenges is the likely decline in international enrollment, which has quietly propped up graduate enrollment growth for the past several years. Under the Biden administration, we saw international graduate enrollment rise by more than 117,000 students—reaching over 500,000 total. Just last year, international students made up a full one-third of new graduate enrollments in the U.S., and over 200 institutions reported that international students represented more than 30 percent of their total graduate population.

    But we have to be clear-eyed: Not only is that level of growth not sustainable, but decline is coming. Whether due to shifting geopolitics, visa policy changes or growing global competition, institutions will need to refocus their efforts on the domestic graduate market—and fast.

    That said, there’s opportunity in the challenge. In fact, the current job market will likely nudge more adults to consider graduate study as a buffer or springboard during economic uncertainty. The catch? Institutions are now facing unprecedented competition. By some counts, we’re adding 800 new master’s programs each year. To grow—or even maintain—enrollment, institutions must have an acute understanding of what today’s graduate students expect. That means building a blueprint rooted in student preferences and behaviors and then aligning everything—program design, marketing, recruitment and support—around those insights.

    That’s where much of my work comes in. Over the last two decades, I’ve helped institutions do exactly this through tools like my Scorecard and Playbook and the Audience Alignment Study, which zero in on how to position programs for today’s increasingly selective learners.

    Now, on the online education side, the landscape is a bit more favorable at the moment—particularly due to the regulatory environment calming down. The Biden administration’s push to more heavily regulate online programs—particularly around OPMs and state reciprocity—has largely been shelved. That’s good news for smaller institutions, where online offerings often represent the best path to enrollment stability or growth. Interestingly, one of the unintended effects of that regulatory scrutiny is that OPM contract terms are now much more favorable than they were a few years ago. Institutions have more leverage.

    In terms of opportunity, there are two major areas I’m watching closely. First, the long-discussed but rarely well-executed effort to serve the 30 to 40 million U.S. adults with some college and no credential is almost entirely an online opportunity. However, most institutions struggle to fully serve this group. The barriers tend to fall into three key areas: restrictive credit transfer policies, pricing models that remain out of reach and a misplaced assumption that these students will return to campus for their courses. Institutions that succeed here build fully online programs with wraparound support—advising, tech help, financial aid guidance—specifically designed for students who haven’t set foot on a campus in years. And when they do that, it doesn’t just help this population—it improves online education quality for everyone.

    The second opportunity is more subtle but just as important: the increased demand from traditional undergraduates for access to online courses. While this isn’t online program growth in the classic sense, it presents a major advantage. A robust online course infrastructure doesn’t just support distance learners—it makes the entire campus experience more flexible, more attractive and more resilient. For institutions, that’s a strategic win across multiple audiences.

    Q: How can universities better choose which programs to start and invest in and then grow enrollments to financially sustainable numbers?

    A: At all levels, I think most institutions are doing a much better job now of integrating market data into their program decision-making. There’s a pretty direct line between the era when those insights were missing and the wave of program cuts we’re seeing now. For instance, Inside Higher Ed recently reported that Indiana’s public institutions have combined or eliminated over 400 programs that weren’t meeting fairly modest graduation thresholds. That’s a clear example of the consequences of earlier decisions made without solid market alignment.

    When I work with institutions on program strategy, my role is really to facilitate a conversation that balances market data and institutional strengths. I bring the external perspective—labor market demand, competitor analysis, growth trends—and they bring the internal knowledge of what they’re truly good at. The goal isn’t just to chase hot programs, but to find areas where there’s strong or emerging market demand and where the institution already has expertise, capacity and visibility. That combination is where real opportunity lives.

    Why take that approach? Because institutions need quick wins. We’re often working with limited time and resources and pressure to show results. If you can build momentum by improving or reconfiguring an existing program—something that already has a foundation—you get to impact faster and more cost-effectively. In fact, across dozens of program prioritization studies I’ve been involved in, I’ve rarely seen a proposed new program with more short- or midterm market potential than several underperforming existing ones. That’s why I usually recommend a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 investment ratio favoring existing programs over net-new launches.

    Once we identify the right programs to focus on, differentiation becomes key—especially in the online space, where commodification is a real concern. Institutions need detailed competitor intelligence, not just high-level benchmarking. We’re looking at how programs are positioned, how they’re structured and what messages they’re putting in front of students. That kind of granularity allows us to develop a true blueprint for differentiation—one that goes beyond clichés like “small class sizes” or “personalized attention” and speaks to what really sets a program apart.

    And finally, with federal regulations increasingly focused on graduate outcomes and return on investment, it’s more important than ever to bake those metrics—job openings, wage growth, projected earnings—into the program planning process from the beginning. We’re entering a new phase where programs will be judged not just on academic merit or enrollment numbers, but on how they impact students’ long-term economic success.

    So to me, the smartest institutions are those that align their strengths with market needs, invest in what they already do well and differentiate with purpose—grounded in real data.

    Source link

  • 3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    3 Questions for Karina Kogan of Education Dynamics

    In the small world of higher education, Karina Kogan and I know many of the same people. An introduction from one of these colleagues got Karina and me talking, and out of those conversations came this Q&A. I asked if Karina would be willing to share some thoughts about her company, EducationDynamics; her role (VP of partnership development); and her career advice for other aspiring leaders in her industry.

    Q: How does EducationDynamics work with colleges and universities for online and other academic programs? Where does EducationDynamics fit into the ecosystem of companies that partner with universities?

    A: That’s a great question and one I love answering, because this space is full of players, but not all of them are moving higher education forward. At EducationDynamics, we focus on the institutions that are ready to take bold steps forward. Not just in marketing or enrollment, but in how they grow strategically, strengthen their brand and generate revenue in a way that’s built to last.

    We want to help institutions stop doing what they’ve always done. We need to serve modern learners, which takes a fundamentally different approach. These students are focused on cost, convenience and career outcomes. They’re not influenced by tradition alone and they don’t respond to disconnected efforts that don’t reflect who they are or where they’re headed.

    That’s why we start with research. We don’t push a standard playbook or a prebuilt product. We look at the market, the student behavior, the school’s position, and we use those insights to build strategy that aligns with their enrollment priorities while also reinforcing the institution’s brand and reputation. Because those things are not separate anymore. A school’s ability to grow its revenue is directly connected to how it is perceived in the market. If your brand lacks clarity or credibility, students move on.

    Over the past few years, we’ve seen how much student expectations have changed. They’re more in control of their academic path than ever and they defy outdated categories like traditional or nontraditional. At the same time, reputation has become a major factor in their decision-making. That’s why, in 2024, we brought the RW Jones Agency into the EDDY family. They’ve built a national reputation for helping institutions shape perception, elevate their voice and lead through complexity. Bringing that expertise into our ecosystem has allowed us to connect performance with purpose in a way that’s truly differentiated.

    And we don’t just build the plan. We execute. We run the campaigns, manage enrollment outreach and support student engagement. It’s a full life cycle approach from awareness to enrollment to retention with everything working together and accountable to outcomes. That’s what it takes to grow in today’s market. It’s not about lead volume alone. It’s about attracting the right students, setting the right expectations and making sure the institution delivers on its promise.

    As for where we fit in the ecosystem? Well … honestly, we don’t fit the mold and we’re not trying to and that’s intentional. Most institutions are still working with a handful of disconnected partners, each focused on one piece of the puzzle. That model no longer works. We bring brand, communications, marketing and enrollment strategy together, because when those areas are aligned, the institution grows in a way that’s both measurable and meaningful.

    I’ve been in higher ed for more than 20 years, and this moment feels different. There’s real urgency, but also real openness to change. Our new CEO, Brent Ramdin, has brought a clear and future-facing vision that’s aligned our team and elevated our work. He understands where this sector is headed and what it will take to succeed there.

    Q: Tell us about your role at EducationDynamics. What are your primary responsibilities and accountabilities? What career path brought you to your current leadership position within the company?

    A: I serve as vice president of partnerships at EducationDynamics, and in many ways, it’s the role I’ve spent my entire career building toward. My focus is on developing strong, strategic relationships with colleges and universities across the country where I work closely with institutional leaders and our internal teams to craft unique solutions that help schools not only meet but exceed their enrollment goals.

    It’s a highly collaborative role and one that demands both strategic insight and real operational follow-through. Every institution is different, so the work is never one-size-fits-all. I spend my time listening deeply, understanding the nuances of each partner’s challenges and helping shape the path forward, always with the modern learner in mind.

    My career in higher ed started more than 20 years ago at the University of Phoenix, where I held several leadership roles over the course of more than a decade while simultaneously expanding my leadership development through structured curriculum. That experience gave me a strong foundation in enrollment strategy, team leadership and cross-functional execution. From there, I served as chief partnerships officer at a division of Excelsior University, where I helped institutions launch and scale their first online programs.

    That’s what ultimately led me to EducationDynamics, and the transition from the institutional side to the partner side has been both natural and energizing. I understand what it feels like to be inside an institution navigating change, and that perspective helps me show up as a true partner to the schools we work with today.

    Q: What advice do you have for early and midcareer professionals interested in eventually moving into a leadership role in a for-profit company in the higher education and digital marketing spaces?

    A: I always tell people to be deliberately curious. So, one of the biggest pieces of advice I can offer is this: Develop a deep understanding of both the mission of higher ed and the mechanics of the business side of institutions. The sweet spot in this space, especially in leadership, is being able to translate institutional goals into scalable, market-responsive strategies. That takes more than just technical skill. It takes empathy, agility and a strong sense of purpose.

    If you’re coming from the university side, spend time learning how businesses that serve higher ed operate—how they measure success, how they use data, how decisions get made. And if you’re coming from the corporate side, take the time to understand the culture, values and pace of higher education. The people who lead effectively in this space are the ones who can bridge those two worlds with credibility and clarity.

    Also, be proactive about expanding your perspective. Step outside your job function. Learn the language of marketing, enrollment, analytics, finance, because in a leadership role, you’ll need to connect all those dots. What’s key for me is I don’t focus on being the expert in the room; I focus on being useful.

    I’ve also found that relationships are everything. Build your network early, nurture it often and don’t be afraid to show up for others before you need anything in return. Platforms like LinkedIn have made that easier than ever, but the real value is in the follow-up, the conversations and the genuine connections.

    And finally: Get close to the work. The best leaders I know are the ones who stay connected to the impact their work has on students, on institutions and on outcomes that actually matter. That connection is what makes the hard work worth it, and it’s what keeps your leadership grounded in purpose.

    So, if I had to sum it up: Keep learning, look for ways to be of service and stay connected. That mindset opens doors, builds trust and prepares you for leadership in any space, especially in one as dynamic as this one.

    Source link

  • Higher Education: 10 Questions from a Year 10

    Higher Education: 10 Questions from a Year 10

    1. How much harder are university courses than school? Do you have to be naturally gifted to excel at university? For example, can you do well in scientific or mathematical degrees through just hard work, or is there more to it? Do some courses require complex skills that you may not have from school, such as high levels of intricate practical skills for medicine or engineering, which you may not have needed for your GCSE or A-Level exams?
    2. How are lectures or seminars different to typical school lessons? How are you taught at university? How much of the learning process is taking notes, doing activities, researching, and so on? What is the environment like? For example, what are the class sizes like?
    3. How are you assessed at university? Most assessments at school nowadays are done in an exam at the end of the course. How different is the process at a university? For example, how much of it is exams, and how much is marked work throughout the course? Does this vary with the course?
    4. How do I pick the right course? Some people know exactly which career path they want to take, and this can be quite an easy decision for them, but many have no idea. What factors are the most important when picking a university and subject to study? Does a university’s prestige always correspond to its value to a student? 
    5. How do different courses vary from each other? Many seem to believe that some courses are easier or require less work than others, or some are much more enjoyable. Is this the case? How do contact hours with your professors differ from course to course?
    6. What are the advantages of different types of degrees? How do hands-on qualifications such as apprenticeships compare to standard degrees? What are the benefits of part-time degrees or ‘sandwich’ courses?
    7. What is life at a university like? What are the pros and cons of living in student accommodation? How much space and freedom do you have? Is it easy to get distracted from your studies when living amongst all your friends? What are the most important factors when choosing accommodation?
    8. What is the work-life balance at university like? I would assume that university courses require a lot more effort than GCSEs or A-Levels. Is that always true? How much more (or less) time do you spend studying than at school? Do you have to sacrifice a social life to get good grades? Can you easily get burnt out at university? Does this vary with the course? 
    9. Are campus or non-campus universities better? What are the advantages of each? Are they better for different types of people, or the different courses that they take? Are there noticeably different atmospheres between them? For example, do you get a better sense of community at a campus university, or do you grow more independent at a non-campus university?
    10. Is studying abroad a good idea? Most people stay in their home country to study. Is looking at universities in other countries a good idea, especially when doing a course such as languages? What are the advantages of studying abroad? Are single years abroad or exchanges a better alternative to this?

    * To declare an interest, Ben Hillman is the son of Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director.

    Source link

  • Three Questions for Tulane’s Ashley Francis

    Three Questions for Tulane’s Ashley Francis

    Tulane University’s Freeman School of Business recently launched its first fully online M.B.A. program, marking a significant step in expanding its offerings for working professionals. As assistant dean at the Stewart Center for Professional and Executive Education, Ashley Francis plays a pivotal role in shaping and overseeing these programs. With a background in online learning and program development, she brings deep expertise in designing market-competitive programs that maintain Tulane’s unique academic experience.

    I wanted to sit down with Ashley to learn more about the strategy behind launching an online M.B.A. at Tulane’s Freeman School of Business, how the program distinguishes itself in a competitive landscape and what universities should consider when developing online offerings.

    Q: Why did Tulane’s Freeman School of Business decide to launch an online M.B.A. and how did you approach designing a program that stands out in an increasingly competitive market?

    A: Tulane University’s Freeman School of Business launched its online M.B.A. program as part of a comprehensive strategy complementing the school’s portfolio of programs directed towards working professionals and meeting students where they are. It was conceptualized in response to both an evolving institutional culture and a clear demand for accessible, high-quality business education.

    The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated this momentum. With support from Dean Paulo Goes and our partnership with AllCampus, Tulane’s Freeman School of Business was able to build a rigorous and forward-thinking program.

    What sets Freeman’s online M.B.A. apart is its commitment to academic excellence, flexibility and support. The curriculum is designed specifically for working professionals, offering the same tenured faculty who teach on campus—a rarity among online programs, which often rely on adjunct instructors. The program underwent a rigorous four-month development process to ensure that our curricula offered engaging, culturally rich courses. We specifically structured a program with reduced credits to help lower cost and time to completion.

    The Freeman School’s online M.B.A. program is not only competitive but it’s also deeply student-centric. We offer unique, customized career support and access to tutoring services that not many other programs offer. While being competitive in the market was a top priority, ultimately the onus was on us to create a program that truly benefited students.

    Q: When selecting an online program management partner, what key factors did Tulane’s Freeman School of Business consider? Why was working with an OPM important to you?

    A: We went into the OPM selection process knowing the values and capabilities of working with an OPM and that this partnership style would set our online M.B.A. up for the most success. At their best, OPMs are sophisticated, passionate and willing to invest in the success of the program. At the same time, my previous experiences with OPMs had left me feeling wary and cautious when choosing our partner.

    For the new online M.B.A. program, we ended up going with AllCampus, and they’ve absolutely met my high expectations. Tulane’s Freeman School of Business was seeking a true partner—one that would collaborate deeply, offer full transparency and share in the school’s mission for success and AllCampus has embraced those values fully.

    My advice to other higher education leaders considering working with an OPM would be to build a relationship framed around mutual commitment and trust, with a shared goal of creating a standout program. Having a hands-on partnership allowed us to move quickly and tactfully when launching a high-quality program.

    Q: Tulane University is deeply connected to the culture and identity of New Orleans. How does the online M.B.A. program incorporate that sense of place and community for students logging in from around the country?

    A: Tulane’s Freeman online M.B.A. is infused with the spirit of New Orleans, bringing the city’s vibrancy and community-driven ethos into the virtual classroom. One of the core pillars of the program is “bringing the joy of New Orleans” to students—wherever they are. Rather than creating a hypercompetitive environment, the Freeman School fosters a sense of belonging and cultural richness, helping students feel the NOLA experience even if they never set foot on campus.

    This is accomplished through course design, community engagement strategies and faculty involvement that reflect our university’s values and strengths. Our courses embed the city’s ethos and leverage our expertise in energy, supply chain, brand management and entrepreneurial resilience. Tulane’s brand affinity, loyal alumni network and supportive student services—such as a dedicated career management center and a financial aid adviser—all contribute to building a connected environment. The result is a program that not only educates but also inspires a lifelong connection to the Tulane community and the unique culture of New Orleans.

    Source link

  • Increased ID Verification for Financial Aid Raises Questions

    Increased ID Verification for Financial Aid Raises Questions

    Students will soon have to show a government-approved ID either in person or online in order to receive federal aid.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | michaeljung and robas/iStock/Getty Images

    College financial aid offices and students’ advocates say that a Trump administration plan to crack down on fraud in the federal aid system could burden university staff and hinder access to college programs.

    Although they support fighting fraud as a concept, they particularly worry that real, eligible Pell Grant recipients will get caught up in the detection system and won’t be able to jump through the extra hoops to verify their identity.

    “In general, verification is a little bit of threading the needle between making sure that the right dollars are going to the right students, but also not putting up an inordinate number of barriers, particularly to low-income students, that are insurmountable,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “You have to walk a fine line between those two things.”

    Department of Education officials, however, say their plan, announced June 9, is necessary to protect American taxpayers from theft and won’t become a burden for colleges. They aren’t worried about students losing access, either.

    Ultimately, the Trump administration plans to verify the identity of each financial aid applicant with the help of a new system that should be up and running “this fall,” according to the department’s announcement. Before then, the department is planning to screen more first-time applicants for verification—a process that could affect 125,000 students this summer and will be handled by financial aid offices. (About 40,000 students were checked last year, according to a department spokesperson.)

    McCarthy, however, is concerned that if the new system isn’t ready by the fall, “institutions will be assuming this larger burden for a longer, indeterminate amount of time.” The department’s botched launch of the 2024–25 Free Application for Federal Student Aid showed the challenges of standing up new systems quickly, she noted.

    A senior official at the Department of Education told Inside Higher Ed that the Office of Federal Student Aid and the department procurement team are in the process of purchasing an identity-validation product similar to the ones used by financial services companies like banks. The product would be incorporated into the online FAFSA portal.

    If an individual is flagged for potential fraud at any point while filling out the form, a pop-up box would appear with a live staff member on the other side, the official explained. The applicant would then be asked to display a government-issued ID. If that ID is deemed valid, the person could then continue.

    “Once that’s done, the process is over,” the official said. “That’s really as simple as that effort is. I believe rental car companies are using it, too.”

    The official was optimistic that the department could have the system up and running by early September, though that won’t be soon enough to get aid disbursed in time for the fall semester. The official also acknowledged that the timeline means that colleges may have to do some verification in person even in the fall, but that process should not be too much of a burden for the college or the student. Similar to the online process, a student would just need to show a valid ID to a college financial aid administrator, either in person or over a video call. Previously, when identity verifications were conducted, students had to present a Statement of Educational Purpose and submit a notarized copy of their identification document.

    But advocacy groups that work with low-income students worry that even requiring a government-issued ID could give some students a leg up over others when it comes to accessing financial aid and affording to enroll in college.

    “We want to see fraud eliminated as much as anyone else … We just need to make sure that gets balanced with a reasonable process for students,” said MorraLee Keller, a senior consultant for the National College Attainment Network. “A lot of low-economic kids may not have secured, for example, a driver’s license. If they don’t drive, they may not have a driver’s license, and that is probably the primary form of a government-issued valid ID that most people would be able to present.”

    Keller noted that some states may have alternate IDs available for those who do not drive, but even that may take time to obtain if a student doesn’t already possess it.

    “We want to make sure that timing doesn’t interrupt the aid getting credited to their account to pay their bills on time so that they could start classes, get refunds to go get their books and all those kinds of things,” she said. “So one of the questions that we still need answered is, what else would be considered a valid ID?”

    The California Community College system, which has grappled with increasing financial aid fraud, recently considered an application fee to help screen legitimate students from fraudsters. A spokesperson for the system said they are waiting on additional guidance from the department before they can know how big a deal this shift will be.

    “We wouldn’t be able to speculate on the level of concern among students and institutions until the federal guidance is known,” she wrote. But “financial aid fraud is a nationwide trend and additional identification verification processes will help in the fight against it.”

    Source link

  • Existential Questions for Higher Education and the Nation

    Existential Questions for Higher Education and the Nation

    “Who are we? Where are we going? Where do we come from?” These existential questions are not luxuries in times of crisis—they are necessities. And as the storms of political, social, and environmental upheaval grow darker, they demand our full attention.

    For many in the United States, especially younger generations, the future feels bleak. Student loan debt weighs down tens of millions. Meaningless, low-wage, precarious employment—what anthropologist David Graeber called “bullsh*t jobs”—dominates the landscape, even for the college educated. Higher education, once touted as the great equalizer, has increasingly functioned as a sorting mechanism that reinforces class division rather than dismantling it.

    This is not accidental. It is the consequence of more than a half century of growing inequality, fueled by tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, union busting, and the privatization of public goods. Since the 1970s, wages for working people have stagnated, while the top one percent has consolidated unimaginable wealth and power. Higher education has both suffered from and contributed to this shift: as public funding declined, universities increasingly turned to corporate partnerships, tuition hikes, student loans, and contingent labor to survive. In doing so, they have often replicated the very inequalities they claim to challenge.

    Instead of building an informed and empowered citizenry, the modern university too often churns out debt-saddled consumers, precarious workers, and disillusioned graduates. The idea of education as a public good has been replaced by the logic of the market—branding, metrics, debt financing, and labor flexibility.

    Meanwhile, U.S. politics offers little solace. We are caught between the reactionary authoritarianism of Trumpism and the managerial neoliberalism of the Democratic establishment. Both forces have proven inadequate in confronting systemic inequality, environmental collapse, and imperial overreach. Instead, they compete to maintain the illusion of normalcy while conditions deteriorate.

    Internationally, the collapse of moral leadership is most evident in the ongoing genocide in Palestine. Backed by billions in U.S. aid and political cover, the Israeli military has killed tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and displaced countless more. Hospitals, schools, and entire neighborhoods have been leveled. On college campuses across the U.S., students and faculty who dare to speak out against this atrocity have faced surveillance, censorship, arrests, and administrative repression. At a moment when moral clarity should be the minimum, too many institutions of higher learning have chosen complicity.

    This convergence of global injustice and domestic repression raises urgent questions for academia. What is the role of the university in a world marked by war, inequality, and ecological collapse? What values will guide us through the storm?

    The answer begins with honesty. We must recognize that higher education is not separate from society’s failures—it is entangled in them. But that also means it can be part of the solution. Colleges and universities can serve as spaces of resistance, reflection, and regeneration—but only if they reject their alignment with empire, capital, and white supremacy.

    Where do we come from? From resistance: from student uprisings, civil rights sit-ins, anti-apartheid divestment, labor organizing, and community building. From people who believed—and still believe—that education should serve justice, not profit.

    Where are we going? That depends on whether we are willing to confront power, abandon illusions, and build institutions that are democratic, transparent, and rooted in the needs of the many rather than the few.

    The future is uncertain. The storm is here. But history is not finished. A more humane and equitable society remains possible—if we have the courage to demand it.

    Source link

  • Why agentic AI matters now more than ever

    Why agentic AI matters now more than ever

    Key points:

    For years now, the promise of AI in education has centered around efficiency–grading faster, recommending better content, or predicting where a student might struggle.

    But at a moment when learners face disconnection, systems are strained, and expectations for personalization are growing, task automation feels…insufficient.

    What if we started thinking less about what AI can do and more about how it can relate?

    That’s where agentic AI comes in. These systems don’t just answer questions. They recognize emotion, learn from context, and respond in ways that feel more thoughtful than transactional. Less machine, more mentor.

    So, what’s the problem with what we have now?

    It’s not that existing AI tools are bad. They’re just incomplete.

    Here’s where traditional AI systems tend to fall short:

    • NLP fine-tuning
       Improves the form of communication but doesn’t understand intent or depth.
    • Feedback loops
       Built to correct errors, not guide growth.
    • Static knowledge bases
       Easy to search but often outdated or contextually off.
    • Ethics and accessibility policies
       Written down but rarely embedded in daily workflows.
    • Multilingual expansion
       Translates words, not nuance or meaning across cultures.

    These systems might help learners stay afloat. They don’t help them go deeper.

    What would a more intelligent system look like?

    It wouldn’t just deliver facts or correct mistakes. A truly intelligent learning system would:

    • Understand when a student is confused or disengaged
    • Ask guiding questions instead of giving quick answers
    • Retrieve current, relevant knowledge instead of relying on a static script
    • Honor a learner’s pace, background, and context
    • Operate with ethical boundaries and accessibility in mind–not as an add-on, but as a foundation

    In short, it would feel less like a tool and more like a companion. That may sound idealistic, but maybe idealism is what we need.

    The tools that might get us there

    There’s no shortage of frameworks being built right now–some for developers, others for educators and designers. They’re not perfect. But they’re good places to start.

    Framework Type Use
    LangChain Code Modular agent workflows, RAG pipelines
    Auto-GPT Code Task execution with memory and recursion
    CrewAI Code Multi-agent orchestration
    Spade Code Agent messaging and task scheduling
    Zapier + OpenAI No-code Automated workflows with language models
    Flowise AI No-code Visual builder for agent chains
    Power Automate AI Low-code AI in business process automation
    Bubble + OpenAI No-code Build custom web apps with LLMs

    These tools are modular, experimental, and still evolving. But they open a door to building systems that learn and adjust–without needing a PhD in AI to use them.

    A better system starts with a better architecture

    Here’s one way to think about an intelligent system’s structure:

    Learning experience layer

    • Where students interact, ask questions, get feedback
    • Ideally supports multilingual input, emotional cues, and accessible design

    Agentic AI core

    • The “thinking” layer that plans, remembers, retrieves, and reasons
    • Coordinates multiple agents (e.g., retrieval, planning, feedback, sentiment)

    Enterprise systems layer

    • Connects with existing infrastructure: SIS, LMS, content repositories, analytics systems

    This isn’t futuristic. It’s already possible to prototype parts of this model with today’s tools, especially in contained or pilot environments.

    So, what would it actually do for people?

    For students:

    • Offer guidance in moments of uncertainty
    • Help pace learning, not just accelerate it
    • Present relevant content, not just more content

    For teachers:

    • Offer insight into where learners are emotionally and cognitively
    • Surface patterns or blind spots without extra grading load

    For administrators:

    • Enable guardrails around AI behavior
    • Support personalization at scale without losing oversight

    None of this replaces people. It just gives them better support systems.

    Final thoughts: Less control panel, more compass

    There’s something timely about rethinking what we mean by intelligence in our learning systems.

    It’s not just about logic or retrieval speed. It’s about how systems make learners feel–and whether those systems help learners grow, question, and persist.

    Agentic AI is one way to design with those goals in mind. It’s not the only way. But it’s a start.

    And right now, a thoughtful start might be exactly what we need.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Three Questions for Coursera’s New CEO, Greg Hart

    Three Questions for Coursera’s New CEO, Greg Hart

    For many institutions of higher education (including the one I work for), Coursera is an important online learning partner. Therefore, it was a big deal when Coursera announced earlier this year that Greg Hart was taking over as CEO from Jeff Maggioncalda. This space seemed like a good place to begin to get to know Greg, and he graciously agreed to answer my questions.

    Q: You’ve spent the majority of your career at Amazon, so education is a new space for you. What do you want universities to know about how you’ll approach partnerships, and how will your background influence how you lead Coursera? 

    A: My background is rooted in building and scaling technology-driven businesses that serve millions of customers. At Amazon, I led the creation and launch of Alexa and later served as the global head of Prime Video. Those roles shaped how I think about innovation, long-term customer value and meaningful experiences at scale. While higher education is a new sector for me, there are clear parallels: At Amazon, we solved enduring customer problems through technology. That same principle applies at Coursera—learners are seeking flexible, high-quality and job-relevant education, often in moments that define the trajectory of their lives. Both our university and industry partners are working with us to meet these evolving needs with world-class learning content, enabled by our platform’s ability to deliver personalized learning experiences at scale.

    What makes this work especially meaningful is the higher stakes involved. We’re not just helping people shop or stream content—we’re helping them transform their lives through access to learning. That sense of purpose is what drew me to Coursera. I approach our university partnerships with deep respect for the role higher education plays in society, and I see my responsibility as ensuring Coursera is a trusted, effective and mission-aligned partner for institutions around the world.

    Q: Can you update us on Coursera’s business, focusing on the biggest growth drivers and challenges? How confident can universities be in Coursera’s long-term financial resilience as a strategic partner?

    A: Coursera is where the world comes to gain new skills and learn from the most trusted institutions. Content is the engine of our business and the foundation of our ecosystem. Today, we partner with more than 350 leading universities and companies, offering job-relevant content across a wide range of domains, including technology, business, AI and data science.

    This catalog has attracted more than 175 million learners globally, including more than seven million new registered learners in the first quarter of this year alone. Many learners come to Coursera directly through our platform, while a growing number access content through institutional settings via our enterprise offerings. This entire ecosystem is powered by a unified platform that enables our partners to reach a global audience at scale, leverage data to inform content strategy and skills recommendations and harness advanced AI tools to drive personalized learning and discovery.

    Since going public in 2021, we’ve operated as responsible stewards of our capital, balancing disciplined cost management with long-term investments in growing our business and advancing our mission. Coursera is in an extremely stable position financially: We are growing, we generate positive free cash flow, we have a very healthy balance sheet and we have no debt.

    In Q1 2025, we delivered $179 million in revenue, up 6 percent year over year on growth in our consumer and enterprise segments and generated over $25 million in free cash flow, marking our strongest quarter of cash performance to date. Based on this strong start, we now expect full-year 2025 revenue to be between $720–730 million, with annual adjusted EBITDA margin improvement of 100 basis points to 7 percent—an outlook that reflects both durable demand and growing operating leverage. As of March 31, 2025, we have approximately $748 million in unrestricted cash and no debt, giving us both the stability and flexibility to invest in platform innovation, expand our content ecosystem and continue supporting our partners and learners around the world.

    Q: Given your background in industry, do you see more value in partnerships and content from businesses, like industry microcredentials? How do colleges and degrees factor into your long-term vision?

    A: Coursera was founded in 2012 by two Stanford professors, Andrew Ng and Daphne Koller. Universities are, and will continue to be, central to Coursera’s mission and strategy—especially in an era shaped by generative AI, where enduring human skills and trusted credentials are more important than ever. University content is vital not only to degree programs, but also to our offerings for individuals, businesses and governments. Some of our most popular courses are from top university instructors—Jules White of Vanderbilt, Vic Strecher of Michigan, Laurie Santos of Yale and Sydney Finkelstein of Dartmouth.

    We do not view degrees and nondegree programs as competing priorities. Rather, we believe in building an interconnected ecosystem that gives learners the flexibility to start with entry-level microcredentials, build towards academic credit and ultimately stack into full degrees. Today, 90-plus entry-level professional certificates are offered by our industry partners, and a third of them carry credit recommendations, making them a natural on-ramp to higher education. Our degree portfolio has expanded to over 50 programs and remains a strategic component of our consumer offering.

    Source link

  • Department of Veterans Affairs Delays Answering Questions on GI Bill Complaints

    Department of Veterans Affairs Delays Answering Questions on GI Bill Complaints







    Higher Education Inquirer : Department of Veterans Affairs Delays Answering Questions on GI Bill Complaints




    Source link