Tag: questions
-
California State Bar Admits to Using AI for Exam Questions
The State Bar of California sparked outrage after it admitted to using artificial intelligence to help craft some of its multiple-choice exam questions, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Monday announcement came after test takers complained of glitches and irregularities while taking the California bar exam in February.
In a news release, the State Bar of California promised to petition the California Supreme Court to adjust test scores for those who took the exam in February. The release detailed that the test’s multiple-choice questions were mostly developed by the test company Kaplan, while some were recycled from the First-Year Law Students’ Exam and others were developed by ACS Ventures, the State Bar’s independent psychometrician, hired to assess questions. ACS Ventures used AI.
But State Bar officials defended the veracity of the exam’s questions.
“We have confidence in the validity of the MCQs to accurately and fairly assess the legal competence of test-takers,” State Bar executive director Leah Wilson said in the release. “Lessons learned are being incorporated into the July exam, and all future tests will include additional levels of independent review and validation.”
Test takers and law school faculty have reacted with shock.
Katie Moran, an associate professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law who specializes in bar exam preparation, told the Los Angeles Times that the announcement was a “staggering admission.”
“The State Bar has admitted they employed a company to have a non-lawyer use AI to draft questions that were given on the actual bar exam,” she said. “They then paid that same company to assess and ultimately approve of the questions on the exam, including the questions the company authored.”
-
FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration
On April 21, 2025, Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the federal government froze $2.2 billion in federal research funding with threats of more cuts to come. The administration claimed Harvard failed to address anti-Semitism on campus, especially in the aftermath of Hamas’ attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and issued a list of demands in exchange for lifting the freeze.
These demands included adopting an ideological litmus test for foreign students, a comprehensive mask ban, an audit of disfavored academic departments, mandated reforms to the university’s internal governance structure, and eliminating diversity programs. Harvard argued that these demands and the funding cuts that followed violated its institutional autonomy and constitutional right free speech and academic freedom. In the lawsuit, the university is asking the court to restore its funding and block the government from imposing such requirements in the future.
FIRE agrees that the Trump administration’s approach is unlawful. Below are answers to some common questions we have received about the situation.
Harvard isn’t entitled to federal funds. Why is FIRE defending it?
You’re right. Harvard isn’t entitled to federal funding. No institution is.
But Harvard — just like you (or FIRE, or any person or organization) — is entitled to a federal government that follows the law. And just as the law gives us certain protections, it also says the government can’t cancel funding on a whim, like the administration did last week.
Let’s take a closer look.
The vast majority of colleges and universities receive federal funds. These funds mostly consist of financial aid, like Pell grants, and grants for scientific and medical research. Of the $9 billion reportedly under review by the Trump administration, the Harvard Crimson estimates over $6 billion comes in the form of funding for five regional hospitals associated with the university, along with $2.7 billion in research funding at the university itself.
To be eligible to receive federal funding, institutions pledge to follow federal anti-discrimination laws. Those laws include Title VI, the federal law that prohibits colleges and universities from discriminating on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Since the George W. Bush administration, the federal government has interpreted Title VI as prohibiting anti-Semitic discrimination, too.
So far, so good. Colleges get government funding for students and research. The federal government in return gets (among other things) a commitment that those colleges won’t engage in or tolerate discrimination. That’s the deal.
And the deal has rules to protect colleges, the government, and the taxpayers who foot the bill from being negatively affected by arbitrary decisions. Before the federal government can pull funds from an institution, it has to take a series of steps.
First, the Department of Education must investigate complaints about discrimination. If it finds problems, ED is required to work with an institution to address those problems “by informal means whenever possible.” This is the most common process, where the department’s Office for Civil Rights enters into a “resolution agreement” with an institution to ensure compliance with Title VI.
If that doesn’t work, for whatever reason, here’s what happens next. In order to strip federal funding, the department must give notice to the institution again and provide an opportunity for an administrative hearing where the institution can challenge the determination. If the determination stands, ED then has to report this to Congress and give 30 days’ notice before it actually terminates funding to the affected programs. ED may also refer the matter to the Department of Justice for litigation.
In short, one way or another, the federal government is going to have to provide evidence and prove its case if it wants to pull out of the deal.
Those are a lot of steps, but they’re important. They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right.
These rules are also important because they provide a safeguard against political bias, risk of error, and governmental overreach.
Even the federal government acknowledges the role of due process and following existing statute. In a federal court filing earlier this month, the government wrote, “But ED’s only power is to withhold funding from institutions receiving federal funding, after a robust process required by statute and aimed at ensuring compliance.” In that same court filing, the government reiterated that point, writing that “by statute and regulation, numerous steps aimed at ensuring compliance must occur before ED may withdraw funding.”
Without these rules, an administration could, for example, decide to dramatically expand the definition of “sexual harassment” to include core protected speech and to remove due process protections from sexual misconduct hearings, using the threat of federal funding to force schools to go along with it. That’s exactly what happened under President Obama — and FIRE fought back.
And without these rules, nothing prevents the federal government from arbitrarily declaring a university in violation of federal law, yanking federal funding, and demanding fealty and censorship.
That’s what President Trump is doing now. And again, FIRE is fighting back.
Is FIRE saying that what happened to Jewish students at Harvard and other colleges is OK?
No. As FIRE has consistently noted, some campus protests veered into violations of both campus rules and the law. Examples include when protesters took over buildings, blocked access and exit to and from areas of campus, disrupted classes, or committed acts of violence against Jewish students.
In responding to these incidents — or failing to respond — Harvard, Columbia, and other colleges may well have been in violation of their obligations under Title VI. If they refused to correct their mistakes as the process played out, revoking their funding might have been justified and legal.
But the process matters.
What FIRE is saying is that the law is important. Following it isn’t optional. It protects all of us — students, faculty, administrators, families, scientists, hospitals, and the entire country. The administration can’t just decide unilaterally to skip steps.
If you support President Trump — or just don’t like Harvard — remember this: Any power the president seizes to ignore the law now won’t magically disappear when he leaves office. It will be wielded by his successors, too. And this time, it might well target schools or other organizations you like.
Didn’t Harvard rank last for free speech on your list?
It sure did — two years in a row, in fact.
But one of the reasons we created our rankings was to give colleges and universities an incentive to do better. Protecting expressive rights on campus is a big part of our mission, and Harvard has a long way to go. Indeed, Harvard (like Columbia) makes a politically popular target precisely because so many people resent its years of engaging in the kind of behavior towards dissenting students and faculty that FIRE was founded to combat.
But lately Harvard has been making an effort, and we won’t succeed by writing schools off. And we definitely won’t succeed by allowing the federal government to take them over, trading one dominant ideology for another.
You can’t censor your way to free speech.
-
Doing right by the teachers who do right by the world
Key points:
- Ethical PD is a call to action for all involved in teacher professional development
- Key questions that unleash powerful PLCs
- GenAI and cultural competency: New priorities in teacher preparation
- For more news on teacher PD, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub
Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers, show up early to tutor struggling students, and spend their weekends planning lessons that inspire young minds. They do this because they believe in their mission–a mission to change lives, ignite passions, and build a better world.
More News from eSchool News
In today’s evolving educational landscape, effective student assessment goes beyond multiple-choice tests and letter grades. According to a recent study, over 60 percent of educators believe traditional assessments fail to fully measure student understanding.
Holden, my 21-month-old, has fallen in love. His early morning snack and “couch time” includes a dose of “Tiger!” This is toddler for, “Mom, turn on Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood.”
The COVID-19 pandemic left an indelible mark on K-12 education, placing immense pressure on teachers as they adapted, literally overnight, to new methods of instruction.
Spring brings not only showers and flowers, but it also brings the opportunity to interview for new education positions. Preparing for an interview involves several key steps that can significantly impact the outcome.
STEM careers are on the rise. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in STEM occupations is expected to grow by 10.4 percent from 2023 to 2033, compared to just 3.6 percent for non-STEM occupations.
The U.S. Department of Education is giving state education agencies 10 days to certify that their schools do not engage in any practices that the administration believes illegally promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
COVID had already killed thousands of people in other countries and was spreading in the United States when a top federal health official said schools should prepare to offer “internet-based teleschooling” in case they had to close for a period of time.
More than half of educators (62 percent) are already making use of AI at school, with more than one-quarter using it daily for work purposes, according to a Twinkl survey of more than 3,500 U.S. teachers.
Many math tasks involve reading, writing, speaking, and listening. These language demands can be particularly challenging for students whose primary language is not English.
Want to share a great resource? Let us know at submissions@eschoolmedia.com.
-
Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals
Key points:
English/language arts and science teachers were almost twice as likely to say they use AI tools compared to math teachers or elementary teachers of all subjects, according to a February 2025 survey from the RAND Corporation that delves into uneven AI adoption in schools.
“As AI tools and products for educational purposes become more prevalent, studies should track their use among educators. Researchers could identify the particular needs AI is addressing in schools and–potentially–guide the development of AI products that better meet those needs. In addition, data on educator use of AI could help policymakers and practitioners consider disparities in that use and implications for equitable, high-quality instruction across the United States,” note authors Julia H. Kaufman, Ashley Woo, Joshua Eagan, Sabrina Lee, and Emma B. Kassan.
One-quarter of ELA, math, and science teachers used AI tools for instructional planning or teaching in the 2023–2024 school year. Nearly 60 percent of surveyed principals also reported using AI tools for their work in 2023-2024.
Among the one-quarter of teachers nationally who reported using AI tools, 64 percent said that they used them for instructional planning only, whether for their ELA, math, or science instruction; only 11 percent said that they introduced them to students but did not do instructional planning with them; and 25 percent said that they did both.
Although one-quarter of teachers overall reported using AI tools, the report’s authors observed differences in AI use by subject taught and some school characteristics. For instance, close to 40 percent of ELA or science teachers said they use AI, compared to 20 percent of general elementary education or math teachers. Teachers and principals in higher-poverty schools were less likely to report using AI tools relative to those in lower-poverty schools.
Eighteen percent of principals reported that their schools or districts provided guidance on the use of AI by staff, teachers, or students. Yet, principals in the highest-poverty schools were about half as likely as principals in the lowest-poverty schools to report that guidance was provided (13 percent and 25 percent, respectively).
Principals cited a lack of professional development for using AI tools or products (72 percent), concerns about data privacy (70 percent) and uncertainty about how AI can be used for their jobs (70 percent) as factors having a major or minor influence on their AI use.
The report also offers recommendations for education stakeholders:
1. All districts and schools should craft intentional strategies to support teachers’ AI use in ways that will most improve the quality of instruction and student learning.
2. AI developers and decision-makers should consider what useful AI applications have the greatest potential to improve teaching and learning and how to make those applications available in high-poverty contexts.
3. Researchers should work hand-in-hand with AI developers to study use cases and develop a body of evidence on effective AI applications for school leadership, teaching, and learning.
Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all) -
Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape
Last time we checked in with Lee Bradshaw, the founding CEO of Rhodes Advisors, he shared insights into how universities might grow online programs without breaking the bank. As a follow-up, I wanted to pick Lee’s brain about what he is hearing from the higher education leaders he works with on the evolving online program landscape.
Q: As the online program ecosystem has grown and a few large universities have invested heavily in scaling their offerings, do you still see room for colleges and universities to enter the online degree market?
A: Yes, the demand is still there, but the landscape has changed. We’re supporting universities launching new programs that achieve substantial first-term numbers—even in saturated markets. Growth is happening, but expecting 1,000 percent five-year ROIs like a decade ago isn’t realistic. Universities must temper expectations and/or focus on innovative, sustainable wins. That said, as we address in your third question later, I’m unaware of many investments an institution can make that carry a 275 percent ROI over five years.
If institutions want to launch online degrees that start strong and stay strong, here are four things they should prioritize.
- Market research that drives big decisions. Legacy OPMs excelled at data-driven market research before launching a program. Universities taking control of their growth need to do the same. Predictive, high-quality market research isn’t cheap or easy, but it’s indispensable. I’m bullish on how AI-facilitated deep research is advancing—within two years, I expect the cost to drop by 90 percent or more. However, the need for sound, evidence-based planning remains the same.
- Regionalization for most institutions. The earliest entrants focused on scaling national brands. But for universities growing in-house, regional strategies pay off, too. Think targeted regional marketing, employer partnerships tied to local workforce needs and even weaving apprenticeships or other learn-and-earn models directly into degree pathways. It’s not about being everywhere—it’s about playing to your strengths in your region.
- Breaking down silos to build relevant programs. One trend I like and am supporting is cross-campus collaborations leading to hybrid or interdisciplinary graduate programs. Northeastern’s combined majors model is well-known in undergraduate circles. We’re seeing more deans replicate that at the graduate level—joint programs, additional tracks and revenue-sharing agreements between schools. They’re savvy partnerships that pull together institutional strengths rather than competing internally.
- Scrutinize your tech stack. When I started the company, I assumed going inside universities would be illuminating. I wasn’t prepared for the delta in capability between OPM and campus technology stacks. Technology should be frictionless to the point that it’s invisible. And you should feel your stack moving from software as a service to results as a service. Before spending hundreds of thousands or millions in digital marketing to grow, I suggest a rigorous evaluation and professionally led tech discovery phase before doing any significant online endeavors. We’ve begun doing assessment and development work on Salesforce, Slate, WordPress, Drupal and more to unlock technological gains for our partners. Candidly, it wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card. But it’s critical work, so we had to add it as a service.
Q: Given the pricing pressures on online degrees, with some well-known universities offering sub-$30,000 online master’s, how might institutions unable to offer lower-cost online degrees compete?
A: Josh, I founded my first business in high school and my second in college—so I always nerd out on the entrepreneurial edges of higher education. And, of course, I’m in favor of lowering the cost of degrees while preserving quality. Some innovative higher education leaders and friends I deeply respect have entered the low-cost arena. They’ve gone to market with the support of MOOC platforms, which point millions of course takers’ eyes to the programs.
And if you’ve spent enough time around John Katzman, you’ve probably heard him say, “Low cost generally means low faculty.” That’s stuck with me. So, if that’s the architecture, we need to ask ourselves where the “low-faculty” model can work before stripping away any components required for quality learning outcomes. For example, I wouldn’t point that strategy at clinical nursing, education or health sciences degrees anytime soon. And frankly, we haven’t seen rigorous, long-term research on these $30,000 degrees yet, outside of self-published enrollment and graduation rates. Before diving in headfirst, I’d argue it’s worth conducting objective studies on the ROI for learners.
To your question about institutions that might not have access to that scale, I’d advise them to call me. My team will sign an NDA and pressure-test their plan as a favor. I won’t tiptoe around this: I predict a MOOC-fed degree correction within a year from now. So, Rhodes Advisors is architecting solutions that leverage a next-gen course platform, AI-guided admissions and fresh tactics to drive lead volume, should that correction happen.
MOOC platforms (and, to an extent, significant B2B relationships) are the only proven route for low-cost degrees to compete at scale in the hand-to-hand combat environment of online degree growth. Why? Fundamentally, platforms reduce your marketing overhead and let you tap into sophisticated conversion practices they’ve been working hard on.
If you’re using a low-cost degree to serve a mission-driven purpose, you don’t need millions of learners from a platform. I’d suggest covering the delta in tuition with a foundation or donor. And I’d focus heavily on messaging and positioning so learners see you’ve struck the right balance between value and price. Rhodes Advisors is often brought in to do that work, too.
Q: Let’s talk numbers. Say a university wants to build a new online master’s degree or certificate program. How much money does developing, launching, recruiting and running that program cost? To set some boundaries, let’s say that the online master’s tuition is about $50,000 and the target enrollment at steady state is 150. Help us understand the economics of the online learning business.
A: I prefer talking numbers and using them to cut through the noise, so I’m glad you went there. We’ve recently run this analysis for several universities evaluating alternative revenue strategies. I’ll extend this answer beyond the basic analysis data and into some significant trends I’m seeing that your readers will find helpful.
But first, any degree analysis requires a few caveats—there are a lot of variables when estimating costs to launch a stand-alone program. But assuming you have a competent tech stack, a skilled team and you’re building something the market favors, you can launch a 30-credit online master’s degree for roughly $900,000 to $1.2 million in the early years before breaking even as enrollment comes in. As your readers know, most of those costs fall into course development, faculty compensation and marketing/enrollment services. Assuming steady demand, the five-year ROI will land around 275 percent, or about $3.7 million. Anyone quoting a smaller up-front investment number is likely at a small private with fully centralized operations—or running programs with a few dozen students, not 150-plus as you asked about. And anyone quoting a significantly larger ROI has been lucky enough to find a niche.
On the certificate side, launching a 12-credit stand-alone certificate typically requires $200,000 to $400,000 up front, with a best-case five-year ROI of around 70 percent or $500,000 total return. But certificates face steeper competition: They’re up against degrees in the digital keyword bids, and the market heavily favors industry certifications (Google, Microsoft, etc.) or programs offered by elite universities in business, tech, or licensure-required fields. So, while master’s degrees demand more up front, long-term economics almost always favor them.
Reducing costs while maintaining growth has never been more critical than it is in 2025. Improving ROI, especially in new ventures, requires scrutinizing every operational lever—especially in learning design, marketing and enrollment management. There are two things I’m seeing play out that have a material impact on efficiency:
- Integrating core online and in-person program operations and functions like admissions, recruitment, student services, alumni affairs and career services has become essential. When universities unify these areas, they eliminate redundancies, lower operational costs and deliver a seamless experience for students moving between all modalities. That said, I typically see skill and knowledge gaps surface quickly when tasking a residentially focused function with online program efforts, so we’ll usually dedicate capacity-building and training efforts during a transitional period.
- Anywhere AI can streamline effort or lower direct costs should be surfaced immediately and prioritized. For instance, we’ve worked closely with the University of Virginia this year, and they have been able to drive down centralized course production directionally by applying AI tools in specific and strategic ways. Another partner is preparing to launch a master’s degree in our co-pilot DIY model, intentionally designing enrollment operations to be AI-first. Applicants interact with an AI chat bot to handle basic program details before reaching a human adviser. Early signs suggest that approach will cut costs by more than 50 percent—though we’ll let the data speak as it matures.
I hope this check-in was helpful. And I’d love to come back and share more as we continue down an exciting and fulfilling path at Rhodes Advisors!
-
Trump Admin Questions Canadian, Australian Researchers
The Trump administration has sent questionnaires to U.S.-funded Canadian and Australian researchers asking whether their research is a “DEI project,” whether it defends against “gender ideology” and whether it reinforces “U.S. sovereignty,” according to organizations in those countries.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers, a federation that says it represents 72,000 employees, provided Inside Higher Ed a copy of one of these surveys. One question asked, “Can you confirm that your organization does not work with entities associated with communist, socialist, or totalitarian parties, or any party that espouses anti-American beliefs?” Another asked, “Does this project reinforce U.S. sovereignty by limiting reliance on international organizations or global governance structures (e.g., UN, WHO)?”
David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian association, said his organization was informed of the questionnaires by U.S. Department of Agriculture–funded researchers who received them. The White House didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Wednesday.
“It’s just unbelievable,” Robinson said. He said the U.S. government is trying to “impose a certain ideological viewpoint on research.”
Robinson also provided a survey that he said Australian researchers received. It contains the same questions and more, including, “What impact does this project have on protecting religious minorities, promoting religious freedom, and combatting Christian prosecution [sic]?”
Both surveys say “OMB”—standing for Office of Management and Budget—at the top. Chennupati Jagadish, president of the Australian Academy of Science, said in a statement Monday that “Australian scientists have been surveyed to disclose their institution’s compatibility with United States (US) foreign and domestic policy.”
“Any reasonable assessment of the survey indicates that US Government funded research in Australia could be terminated because an Australian institution—not the research project—has links with several named countries, or links with the United Nations and its agencies, or impacts the protection and promotion of specific religions,” Jagadish said.
-
Three Questions for Duke’s Quentin Ruiz-Esparza
In my co-authored 2020 book, Learning Innovation and the Future of Higher Education, we wrote about Duke Learning Innovation and Lifetime Education. One of the leaders at LILE is Quentin Ruiz-Esparza, director of digital product strategy and design. I asked Quentin if he’d be willing to answer my questions about his role, organization and career.
Q: Tell us about your role at Duke Learning Innovation and Lifetime Education. What are the big projects, initiatives and services that you collaborate on and lead?
A: My role as a product strategist is a unique and new position within LILE. It reflects LILE’s intention to recenter Duke’s digital education portfolio on a customer-driven strategy. Our approach to developing courses or programs starts by understanding our learners and then designing education that meets their needs.
My team and I develop new digital programs through strategic planning, market research and learning experience design. In strategic planning, I work with Duke’s professional schools and academic units to refine their digital learning strategy. This includes defining their learner audience, crafting a learner-centered value proposition and identifying the right program type. At the same time, I lead market research projects to validate learner and employer demand for program topics and skills. Finally, I oversee a learning experience (LX) design team that collaborates with Duke faculty. Together, the LX design team and faculty create high-quality, inclusive and engaging courses and programs aligned with our goals and market data. I truly couldn’t do this work without them!
I constantly adapt to shifting priorities and opportunities, but I’ll share two major initiatives I am focused on right now. First, I am working with two campus partners—the Office of Climate and Sustainability and the Nicholas School of the Environment—to develop a nondegree portfolio strategy for sustainability education. Our goal is to equip professionals across industries to be leaders in sustainability within their fields and organizations. Second, I am managing a learner demand survey that will help Duke better understand our learners—their educational preferences, motivations and needs. My hope is that this analysis will shape Duke’s future priorities for professional education.
Q: Can you help those of us outside Duke understand the history and mission of LILE? What might someone interested in pushing for an institutional approach to promoting learning innovation learn from its organizational structure and capacities?
A: LILE’s history goes back to two different units: Duke Learning Innovation and Duke Continuing Studies. Both had a rich history of exploring new ways to serve learners. Duke Learning Innovation supported faculty to improve teaching through technology, new pedagogical approaches and data and research. Duke Learning Innovation also played a key role in online learning at Duke, launching the university’s partnership with Coursera. Today, Duke’s Coursera portfolio is arguably Duke’s largest effort to increase access to education, with between 40,000 and 50,000 learners actively participating in Duke Coursera courses each month.
Duke Continuing Studies was founded in 1969. Over time, it created educational experiences for learners beyond traditional university students. These included working professionals, middle and high school students, and retirees. Duke Continuing Studies strengthened the university’s ties to the local community while also reaching learners around the world.
In 2022, these two units were brought together under the leadership of Yakut Gazi, Duke’s first-ever vice provost of learning innovation and digital education. I believe that our merger as LILE created two valuable opportunities for the university. First, where continuing education may have been more on the periphery of the university’s work, LILE now advances a central university strategy to educate learners from precollege to postcareer. Second, learning innovation can serve as a catalyst for increased access to education. Collectively, our teams have the expertise to transform Duke’s learning experience, pedagogies, education technologies and business models to enable greater access to education that enriches people’s lives.
In the world today, I believe this work of innovating towards greater educational access is paramount to colleges and universities demonstrating our value and role in society. Expanding access to education is where universities have the greatest opportunity to support social mobility through education, foster leadership across organizations and civil society, and nurture learning that empowers people to address the challenges of our day—from AI to the global climate challenge.
Q: Reflecting on your career path, what advice might you have for early-career educational professionals interested in working toward a leadership position in digital learning?
A: I will share a few ideas that have driven me in my own career. First, take initiative and volunteer to tackle new challenges in your department. Many growth opportunities in my career began with me identifying ways in which I could help leadership achieve their goals or mission. I pitched ideas for how I could help, which allowed me to turn a departmental need into an opportunity to demonstrate my abilities and build greater trust with managers and colleagues.
Second, even if you are happy in your current job, regularly explore job descriptions in your field. This could be looking at open job postings or exploring staff listings at other organizations. When you find more senior roles that interest you—maybe even your dream job—identify the competencies you will need to develop in order to be qualified for that future position. Then, create performance goals in your current role that allow you to cultivate those skills and experience.
Third, do not get lost in your to-do list. On a periodic basis (e.g., monthly or quarterly), identify a couple bigger goals that you want to accomplish in your work. Consider what work is of the highest value to your department or organization. If the goal is rather ambitious, break it down into shorter monthly goals so that you can make consistent progress. Higher-level goal setting like this will allow you to build a résumé of high-impact, strategic accomplishments (versus a list of generic responsibilities).
-
New research questions DOGE claims about ED cut savings
New research suggests that the Department of Government Efficiency has been making inaccurate claims about the extent of its savings from cuts to the Department of Education.
DOGE previously posted on X that it ended 89 contracts from the Education Department’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences, worth $881 million. But an analysis released Wednesday by the left-wing think tank New America found that these contracts were worth about $676 million—roughly $200 million less than DOGE claimed. DOGE’s “Wall of Receipts” website, where it tracks its cuts, later suggested the savings from 104 Education Department contracts came out to a more modest $500 million.
New America also asserted that DOGE is losing money, given that the government had already spent almost $400 million on the now-terminated Institute of Education Sciences contracts, meaning those funds have gone to waste.
“Research cannot be undone, and statistics cannot be uncollected. Instead, they will likely sit on a computer somewhere untouched,” New America researchers wrote in a blog post about their findings.
In a separate analysis shared last week, the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, also called into question DOGE’s claims about its Education Department cuts.
Nat Malkus, senior fellow and deputy director of education policy studies at AEI, compared DOGE’s contract values with the department’s listed values and found they “seldom matched” and DOGE’s values were “always higher,” among other problems with DOGE’s data.
“DOGE has an unprecedented opportunity to cut waste and bloat,” Malkus said in a post about his research. “However, the sloppy work shown so far should give pause to even its most sympathetic defenders.”
-
Three questions for Joe Diamond, CEO of AllCampus
The reason that I wanted to do this Q&A with Joe Diamond, CEO of AllCampus, is that I don’t know too much about AllCampus. I’m frequently asked to speak about the status of the online program management industry, and my lack of knowledge about AllCampus is a blind spot.
Q: Where does AllCampus fit in the OPM ecosystem? How many universities and online programs do you partner with? How is AllCampus differentiated from 2U, Noodle and other companies in this space?
A: “OPM” has come to mean something negative to many because of the high revenue share and highly public shortcomings of the most prominent players in the space. We never felt the term fit us because we are so different from what people associate with OPM—high revenue shares, a one-size-fits-all model and the high up-front costs associated with fee-for-service (FFS) agencies. Yet, it’s fair to say we help schools with a similar range of services and sometimes compete for deals, but we are just so different, which I’ll explain below.
We’re a mission-driven company that has quietly been making an impact for our university partners for 14 years. Our mission is to make education more affordable and accessible for all. We’ve been growing slowly and steadily all along. We didn’t raise hundreds of millions of capital and then go and spend it all on Google ads. We invested in our technology, our people, and prioritized servicing our clients really well. We’ve been highly disciplined and careful with our expansion.
AllCampus offers a flexible and partnership-driven approach rather than a one-size-fits-all model. We help the partner select the best fit for them—from revenue share, fee-for-service and hybrid/co-investment options—and tailor the services to each institution’s unique needs. Our approach prioritizes affordability and accessibility for students and collaboration with our university partners to meet their mission and goals. Beyond supporting online programs, we also help drive campus enrollment through a wide range of media expertise, brand building, consultation and technology solutions that make us more efficient than if the university were to do this on its own. We know that if we aren’t more efficient than a school can be, we are out of business. So, our mission is also at the heart of our business case for our partners.
We have built top-tier programs with schools like UCLA, Northeastern University, George Washington University, the University of Florida and dozens more. Our regional offerings include Indiana Wesleyan University; Middle Tennessee State University; University of Missouri, St. Louis; West Texas A&M and many others. In all, we have about 50 partners, with 25 universities and 140 programs in the bundle of services people think of as OPM.
We service another 25 universities in our Workplace Network, which has over 1,200 programs. On this network, the aim is for low-cost or even no-cost degrees that their employer pays for. The platform gives employees access to programs that help them develop or expand their skill sets, reach career goals, and, for many, return to school to finish their degree. Employees and their employers gain access to a tool that simplifies the complex process of selecting the right program and navigating tuition reimbursement through hands-on guidance. Fourteen million people have student debt and no degree, so we’re certain our Workplace offering can help address that personal crisis for millions and help reduce the education divide in our country.
In short, we’re content with who and where we are, and we don’t mind that we remained under the radar and even an insider like you doesn’t know much about us. It’s probably because we’re just different and less provocative than others that are classified as OPMs. I’m most proud that we have an impeccable reputation for integrity.
Q: How much of the partnerships with universities for online programs are based on revenue share versus fee for service? One of the criticisms of the OPM industry is that the companies take a high percentage of tuition and require long contract lock-ins. How is AllCampus different?
A: Just like OPMs, not all revenue-share agreements are created equal. AllCampus has the lowest tuition-sharing fees in the industry—typically between 25 and 35 percent compared to our competitors at 40 to 50 percent—which enables us to offer universities a cost-effective way to deliver online education.
We are neutral to our partners’ preference between revenue share, FFS, co-investment, hybrid, etc. In fact, we share very detailed pro formas with our partners to transparently understand the trade-offs. Among those trade-offs are contract length and required up-front investment. Those are all levers that the university controls in setting up the agreement with us so that we arrive at a partnership that fits their needs and has their buy-in. As to which model is most popular, most universities opt for revenue share, and to be candid, it would be better for us if it were more balanced, because it would make managing cash easier.
I believe the reason universities usually opt for revenue share is that fee-for-service models place the up-front financial burden on the university. FFS also carries the criticism that it’s a risk-free structure for the vendor (the OPM)—they get their money no matter what and have historically behaved accordingly. We’ve won many frustrated former FFS clients whose prior agencies overpromised and underdelivered. Revenue share has the benefit of pure alignment with student and program success. I will say that our hybrid and co-investment models have been gaining traction, as they seem to strike the right balance for some new partners.
Counter to the narrative for OPMs, at AllCampus, we always advocate for affordable and accessible education for all students. We routinely provide data to help schools evaluate their pricing against the market, ensuring their programs remain accessible, affordable and attractive to students. We often recommend that our partner institutions lower the cost of tuition and have refused to sign partnerships with universities unless they agree to drop the price of their programs. In the end, it’s the ultimate win-win because the university gains in overall revenue, and more students get access to these fantastic programs at a more affordable price.
Q: Where do you see the online degree market going in the next five years? What do you tell university leaders how they need to position their institutions to be competitive?
A: I anticipate the online degree market growing significantly in the next five years. Pre-pandemic projections estimated the market would reach $74 billion by 2025, doubling from $36 billion in 2019. The pandemic accelerated this trajectory and will cause the market to grow well beyond this estimate.
University leaders need to consider a variety of strategies to remain competitive:
- Embracing flexibility and accessibility: With a plateau of traditional undergraduate students, universities should consider attracting adult learners through flexible, affordable and career-focused online programs. Students are demanding more offerings that accommodate a variety of schedules and learning styles. Offering a blend of synchronous and asynchronous courses can help cater to the needs of diverse learners.
- Expanding nondegree and accelerated degree programs: Accelerated degree programs are on the rise due to their lower cost, increased flexibility and changing employer demands. There is also a growing demand for short-term, more skill-specific courses to help students in fields like AI and cybersecurity. Developing these types of programs can help universities attract professionals seeking targeted skill development.
- Aligning education offerings with workplace needs: By carefully analyzing employee market trends and skill gaps, universities can design programs that directly address employer skill demands. Partnering with employers—either independently or through organizations like ours—ensures their new and existing programs attract a broader student base and their outcomes are relevant for the evolving workplace.
