Tag: Report

EAB Report Finds Confluence of Pressures on Higher Ed

The headwinds facing higher ed have turned into a powerful gale.

Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

The higher education sector is increasingly squeezed by economic and political pressures affecting even the nation’s wealthiest institutions, according to a new report from consulting giant EAB.

The report, out today, argues that higher education is in “a new era of scrutiny and conditional legitimacy.” EAB finds the sector battered by social, political and market headwinds as it simultaneously navigates a more adversarial relationship with the federal government, a bifurcated enrollment picture, public doubts about return on investment, a rapidly changing athletics landscape and the effects of artificial intelligence on job prospects for recent graduates.

Here’s a look at some takeaways from EAB’s Higher Ed State of the Sector report.

A Changing Social Contract

The report notes that scrutiny on the sector is sharpening, which is driven by both the Trump administration and state lawmakers who have ratcheted up pressure on institutional autonomy by pressing universities to restrict certain speech and halt diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

The authors argue that autonomy is no longer assumed and colleges must justify to the public their need for independence.

“In the past, it was largely assumed we were given autonomy. It was assumed that we were going to deliver value, do good for the public,” Brooke Thayer, EAB’s senior director of research, told Inside Higher Ed. “Now it’s increasingly conditional and tied to—can you actually prove it? Can you show me the ROI? Can you show me the impact and economic value and alignment with the priorities of federal policymakers, state policymakers and the broader public as well?”

Thayer and her co-authors note that in President Donald Trump’s second term, many historical assumptions about higher education no longer ring true. They point to restrictions on speech and DEI, loan caps, an increased focus on ROI, an expansion of the endowment tax, and cuts to research as evidence that higher education’s social contract has been rewritten in just the first year of Trump 2.0.

“There’s one word that stuck out over this last year and it’s ‘Trump,’” said Colin Koproske, managing director in EAB’s research division. But, he added, the federal government’s shifting priorities are compounded by demographic pressures and the AI effect on job placement. Altogether, those headwinds amount to a powerful gale.

‘Synchronized Compression’

While the report notes that the business model of higher education has been under strain for decades, authors argue, “Today’s challenges are substantively different.” They find “every major revenue stream and expense category is under pressure at the same time” across the sector.

Institutions are facing what EAB calls “synchronized compression,” which means leaders have “fewer cushions to absorb shocks” due to simultaneous pressure on revenues and expenses.

The report notes a high and largely fixed cost structure, heavy on labor costs, weighed down by deferred maintenance needs and subject to political headwinds, particularly for public institutions, where lawmakers may be keen to cut education to balance state budgets.

“I think most schools are gonna have to make bigger changes than we have in the past and move a lot faster,” Thayer said. “A lot of that comes down to the reality that we have to manage our cost base, which is highly fixed and labor intensive. It’s tough to make a real change in the model and is going to require some of those bigger discussions and restructuring conversations around—do we have the right people, processes, investments in place and are there ways we actually can more sustainably build a model for the future with more cost flexibility in it?”

But the report notes that even deep-pocketed institutions are subject to budget constraints, pointing out that wealthy universities also cut jobs and programs amid recent fiscal pressures.

Need to Rethink Curricula

The EAB report argues that higher education must confront concerns about market relevance as artificial intelligence reshapes the student body, the labor market and society at a broad level.

The first factor is generational. The report argues that students arrive on campus less prepared “academically, socially and professionally.” But new graduates are also facing a contracting labor market, with entry-level jobs harder to obtain. Finally, EAB argues that artificial intelligence is “rewriting the foundations of work itself” as corporations make major bets on the technology.

Thayer and Koproske argue that the effect of AI on early career outcomes—where many companies are tapping the technology to do the work of junior employees—means universities will have to rethink what they teach and how they teach it, with more of an emphasis on experiential learning. They also call on colleges to build more partnerships with employers to help students land internships and co-op placements in order to get a leg up on their careers.

“There’s a bridge from a traditional four-year undergraduate education to the workforce that has to be built up to a much greater degree,” Koproske said.

A ‘Winning Platform’

Despite the concerns raised in the report, it isn’t all doom and gloom. EAB does offer a “winning platform” for institutions despite the many challenges confronting the higher education sector.

The report highlights three areas where colleges should focus to improve public support.

First up is “power jobs,” or the notion, as described in the report, that colleges provide “the fastest, most reliable route to jobs that sustain families and keep America competitive.” Second, the report highlights the importance of fostering civic pluralism, or making campuses a national model for debate and civic literacy in a time of polarization. Finally, colleges should focus on advancing national resilience, by taking center stage in areas such as defense, health and infrastructure by focusing research on areas of public interest and minting partnerships, according to the report.

“Underlying all of those is this theme of transparency and making sure we’re measuring, we’re proving the outcomes, we’re being clear about the impact that we’re having. But those are three activities that cut across the party lines and are valuable in the eyes of the public,” Thayer said.

A webinar discussing the findings in the report is scheduled for Wednesday at 3 p.m. Eastern.

Source link

February 11, 2026
Report Tracks Not Just Degrees—But Payoff

As debates over workforce needs and economic mobility heat up, the Lumina Foundation is tracking which Americans are earning credentials that actually pay off.

This week, the foundation, dedicated to increasing the share of U.S. adults with high-quality degrees, released its annual A Stronger Nation report, which uses its public data tool to measure the value of credentials. For 2024, the report shows that 43.6 percent of U.S. adults ages 25 to 64 in the labor force have a college degree or other credential—such as a certificate or industry-recognized certification—and are earning more than someone with only a high school diploma.

Courtney Brown, vice president of strategic impact and planning at the Lumina Foundation, said the conversation around higher education has shifted from access alone to economic value.

“People began asking not just if I can get a credential but is it actually going to lead to a better job with higher pay,” Brown said. “That shift is what really brings us to where we are today.”

When the public data tool was first released in 2009, only about 39 percent of U.S. adults held a degree or workforce credential beyond high school. By 2024, that figure had climbed to nearly 55 percent, reflecting growth in credential attainment overall—even if not all credentials meet the foundation’s benchmark for higher earnings.

“I would say for all intents and purposes it worked,” Brown said regarding the foundation’s goal to increase degree attainment nationwide. “That represents millions more people with post–high school education and training than we actually saw a generation ago.”

This year’s release establishes the national baseline for the foundation’s 2040 goal: 75 percent of adults in the U.S. labor force should have a college degree or credential beyond high school that leads to economic prosperity, which the foundation defines as earning at least 15 percent more than someone with only a high school diploma.

“That [15 percent] benchmark gives us this clear, consistent way to move the conversation away from just opinions … to outcomes and real data,” Brown said, adding that the updated data tool allows the foundation to see “not just who earned a credential but whether that credential is actually delivering on the promise of economic payoff.”

Labor force landscape: Brown said bachelor’s and graduate or professional degrees remain the most reliable pathway to higher earnings. About 70 percent of U.S. adults with a bachelor’s degree earn at least 15 percent more than those with only a high school diploma, and the share rises to roughly 80 percent for those with graduate or professional degrees.

Outcomes for associate degrees and shorter-term credentials vary more widely. About 55 percent of those with a certification and about 54 percent of those with an associate degree earn above the 15 percent benchmark, the report found.

“Those point to real opportunities to strengthen quality and alignment with labor market demand,” Brown said. “We see that many credentials are delivering this value, and we see that others can do better.”

Several states—plus the District of Columbia—exceed the national average share of U.S. adults in the labor force with high-quality degrees, with some already surpassing 50 percent. This includes Colorado with 51.7 percent, Massachusetts with 52.5 percent and the District of Columbia with 67.7 percent.

At the other end of the spectrum, those with the lowest shares include West Virginia with 34.6 percent, Nevada with 33.6 percent and Puerto Rico with 25.7 percent.

“One example that I would say is more striking is Puerto Rico,” Brown said. Despite having the lowest share of adults earning at least 1 percent more than those with only a high school diploma, the territory has a relatively high degree-attainment rate, at 60.1 percent. She noted that Puerto Rico’s lower share is likely due to lower overall income levels.

Signs of progress: Brown said a misconception she often hears is that degrees don’t pay off for students.

“We see, especially for bachelor’s degrees, that they do for the majority of people provide at least that 15 percent,” Brown said. “What it does show me is that some credentials need to do a better job of making sure they align with the economy.”

Ultimately, Brown said the data should push institutions and policymakers to strengthen the connection between education and the labor market.

“I don’t see this as a story about education failing. I see it as a story about progress,” Brown said. “It’s a story about transparency and evolving expectations about what people are looking for and what they want to make sure they get.”

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

Source link

February 6, 2026
NCAN Report Shows Dramatic Increase in Pell Eligibility Rates

A 27 percent increase in the number of students qualifying for the maximum Pell Grant shows the FAFSA simplification process paid off, NCAN says.

Richard Stephen/iStock/Getty Images Plus

More than 1.5 million additional students were eligible to receive the maximum Pell Grant this academic year compared to the award cycle before the Free Application for Federal Student Aid simplification process was completed, a recent report from the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) shows. That’s a 27 percent jump over the course of two years.

NCAN contends that the data, which it collected from the Office for Federal Student Aid, proves that despite a difficult launch, FAFSA simplification is paying off. Combined with this year’s increased FAFSA application and college enrollment numbers, it counters the narrative that students and families no longer trust in the value of a college degree, the organization says.

“Students are showing they value college by their choices. When we reduce barriers to college access and affordability, more students will apply, enroll, and succeed,” Eddy Conroy, NCAN’s senior communications director, told Inside Higher Ed. “We are seeing the promise of FAFSA Simplification made real with increased enrollment, increasing FAFSA completion rates, and more students than ever eligible for Pell Grants.”

The report also shows that the number of students eligible for the minimum Pell Grant jumped from 18,453 students in 2023–24 to 326,441 in 2025–26. Overall, the number of Pell eligible students went up by about 418,000, or roughly 4 percent.

Based on strong numbers so far in the 2026–27 college application cycle, NCAN says the nation is on pace for a record application rate among high school seniors. But worries about the future remain.

Many have voiced concerns that funding for the Pell Grant program—which is likely to remain level for fiscal year 2026—could run out. Even if it doesn’t this year, NCAN warns that overall college prices are rising and, for many students, the current award isn’t enough.

“A third year of level funding at $7,395 effectively erodes the grant’s value for students,” Louisa Woodhouse NCAN’s senior associate for policy and advocacy said in the report.

Source link

February 2, 2026
What SUs can learn from the QAA’s report on assessment practice at Glasgow

The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) has published a report setting out their findings of a Targeted Peer Review (TPR) of the University of Glasgow.

This explainer mentions death by suicide. If you are affected in any way by reading this, please call Samaritans for free on 116 123 (UK and Republic of Ireland).

The review follows a student death by suicide after a grade error found systemic failures in academic standards at the university.

A Targeted Peer Review is an outcome of the Scottish Quality Concern Scheme (SQCS) where there is evidence of issues relating to academic standards or the quality of the student experience. It exists to support a timely resolution of concerns, safeguard risks and explore potential weaknesses and systemic risks to academic standards the student experience.

After the relevant notifications were made a site visit took place in October 2025 which included eight meetings with staff, students and a presentation delivered by the university,

The SFC submitted a concern to the SQCS in July 2025 on the basis of academic standards. It followed an internal investigation at Glasgow in response to the death of a student. The internal review was focused on the school where the student had been studying but the issues identified extended beyond that school.

A Targeted Peer Review then took place and identified areas for development and weaknesses in the areas reviewed which indicated systemic risks at the university.

Jim has more commentary on the main site but here’s the takeaways for SUs.

Complex and misunderstood regulations

The first problem area the team found was long, dense and complex assessment regulations and guidance, with some calculation mechanisms maintained locally in schools and often using locally derived spreadsheets. The team also identified that the assessment regulations were not effective in securing consistent interpretation and decision-making across the university and therefore was a risk to academic standards. Because calculations took place locally, there was a greater possibility of variation and error.

The TPR team met with assessment officers and external examiners who reported little to no formal training on the assessment code and instead a reliance on local briefs and practice. They also heard that familiarity with the code was “on-the-job” rather than mandatory training.

The team found controls for consistent understanding and application but no assurance of its reach or usage. This inconsistency in application, interpretation and understanding of regulations was identified as a key risk to academic standards.

When considering how the university awards outcomes that are calculated and recorded consistently they found the university is moving away from diverse, local spreadsheets and towards central calculator routes and records. The calculation and recording of grades is getting better but is still in transition, the TPR recommended a rigorous review of the exam board spreadsheet before assessments in the 2025-26 academic year.

Worryingly the team found that when a point credit is awarded, there is no formal mechanism to demonstrate all intended learning outcomes have been met. The report references the 75 per cent rule which is where on a course level, the minimum requirement for the award of credit is the submission of at least 75 per cent of the course’s summative assessment. The gap between learning outcomes and awarding credit was heightened when the 75 per cent rule was enforced, although senior staff confirmed that there is unplanned removal of this rule.

One of the recommendations included strengthening scrutiny and oversight of exam boards, making minutes templates compulsory, short pre-board readiness checklists, explicit alignment statements for local or PSRB requirements and regularly auditing minutes.

Extension requests

To unpack this section we need to understand a few local definitions. Glasgow had a previous good cause policy (GC) which was a process for students to report extenuating circumstances that may have affected their ability to take or perform in exams or submission of assessments. The university also had a wider extension request process.

Both the GC and extension request processes had been under active review since 2021 and had been a key manifesto promise for several student officers.

The problems with the GC policy were about inconsistency of application, leading to confusion for students. The team also identified problems with students struggling to access support pathways, fragmented digital infrastructure, inconsistent operation of processes, potential for single points of failure and complex evidence requirements, all presenting barriers for students seeking support.

The university was in the process of creating a new extenuating circumstances policy but were trying to integrate it into a wellbeing policy and wider strategic priorities which was being completed in consultation with the Student Representative Council.

The new EC policy was implemented in the 25-26 academic year and includes short-term extensions and any extenuating circumstances with a single digital portal for all claims. The team met with staff who were concerned about resourcing of the new policy due to an increase of student referrals to the wellbeing and safeguarding teams. They recommended the university ensure resourcing to meet the operational demands by the end of semester two of the 25-26 academic year.

The team found no evidence the previous GC policy was applied consistently, again suggesting a risk to academic standards and quality of the student experience. The previous model was decentralised and opted on a case-by-case basis which increased the likelihood of inconsistent decision making.

Student communications

The university acknowledged shortcomings in award outcome communications in the internal investigation. Currently each school uses a series of local templates to communicate award or progression outcomes to students but the team was made aware that a project co-created with students will create new format and content of outcome and progression letters. The letters are to include next steps are communicated consistently and include appropriate signposting to wellbeing and support services.

The university also now has an institutional commitment to “compassionate communication,” following the Academic Registrar’s Council framework. The TPR team found no evidence of the extent of the coverage of the framework and staff who met with the team had limited awareness of the training.

There was an emphasis on the importance of considering the tone, timing, content and speed of communications. The team recommended a coordinated approach to embedding these principles across all relevant academic and professional service areas to ensure consistency of practice. This is a classic example of a policy, no matter how good it might be, not being effective if monitoring, evaluation and enforcement isn’t built in.

Student engagement

In terms of the proposed changes within the scope of the concern, the team asked to what extent they’ve engaged with students. The university informed student representatives at the Student Representative Council (SRC) of the tragic circumstances that led to the internal investigations and any movement on policy was done with student reps or on committees where they were present.

For the code of assessment and guide, despite being a staff-facing document there are aspects which are meant to be accessible to students. Some students highlighted that elements of it were unclear and raised a lack of clarity on how their grade point average was calculated. Staff from the advice centre at the SRC also highlighted the most common area of student confusion was understanding how grades are calculated. How students’ grades and overall classification is calculated is often a topic of the hidden curriculum and requires work to make it more accessible – those who know how the system works can better play it.

Assessment regulations therefore need to be made accessible to students, using a handbook, for example. The TPR team recommended that the institution co-designs guidance with students to ensure critical elements of assessment regulations are communicated to students in an accessible, digestible and valuable way.

When it comes to the new EC policy the university should consider a variety of approaches to make students aware of the support and consider how other student-facing policies can be implemented using similar initiatives.

The team recognised the university’s commitment to student representation and recommended they continue to evolve their approach to student voice that ranges from consultative to collaborative across all levels of the institution.

What next?

The university will complete an action plan based on the report’s recommendations which will be monitored by the QAA. The university will be required to notify the QAA when actions are complete with evidence.

There’s lots of recommendations across the report that will likely reflect asks of SUs and their officers. What this report does is position these as minimum standards to prevent risks to academic standards and the quality of the student experience which in turn sets new standards for the sector to follow.

SUs want to look at how the university is responding to the findings and to what extent they are compliant with existing assessment regulations. Things like inconsistent processes, poor record-keeping and maladministered exam boards should be ringing alarm bells. And as the report emphasises, these changes need making immediately, not on a two or three year time scale.

For frameworks like the compassionate comms work, the materials existed at Glasgow but without the necessary steps in place to ensure anyone actually used them. How many common misconceptions are there when it comes to assessment regulations, how do they vary across schools or faculties and to what extent is this leading to variable practice.

And for SUs lobbying on extenuating circumstance policies, how can it be more joined up, accessible and integrated with wellbeing strategies to ensure students can access and be signposted to timely support.

Read more

Scottish Quality Concerns Scheme: Targeted Peer Review University of Glasgow

Scotland orders sector-wide assessment review after Glasgow QAA findings

Who has the time to care – or feel cared for?

We’ve read every university’s policy on extensions and late submission. Here’s what we found

Students taking resits need specific support

From playground to lecture hall – working with schools to support wellbeing throughout education

Source link

January 30, 2026
$The Bigger Picture Beyond the UCSD Math Report (opinion)$

The Bigger Picture Beyond the UCSD Math Report (opinion)
The recent news about plummeting math preparation among University of California, San Diego, students was startling: Over five years, the number of incoming students deemed to need remedial math courses before taking calculus had risen from 32 in 2020 to more than 900 last fall. Math achievement declines across the country are real, but data from a single campus is not representative, even if it makes national news. In fact, UCSD offers a poor reference point for policy discussions in California and most other states, given how unique its approach to math proficiency has been.

First, since the campus requires calculus for the vast majority—up to 80 percent—of its graduates, students whose educational goals don’t even require knowledge of calculus can nevertheless be waylaid by a battery of calculus-prep courses. Nationwide, 54 percent of students at R-1 universities graduate in majors that require calculus, according to Transforming Postsecondary Education in Math. Even taking into account UCSD’s relatively high proportion of STEM majors, TPSE estimates that only 59 percent of students there actually need calculus.

Why the discrepancy? One reason is that one of the campus’s residential colleges requires every student—even those majoring in art—to take calculus. Plus the departments of psychology (for a B.S.) and biology require two calculus courses. The role of calculus in these two majors is narrow, yet a report from a UCSD Academic Senate working group notes that they account for the majority of the students UCSD requires to take its lowest-level remedial math course.

Second, UCSD focuses on a lengthy prerequisite sequence rather than just-in-time strategies to support students with preparation gaps. Not only is UCSD alone among UC campuses in offering a course covering middle school math, as the campus’s report notes, it also appears to be anomalous within California public higher education over all.

The California State University and community college systems—both far less selective than UC campuses—have eschewed placement tests, which have been found to have limited validity. Both have also largely eliminated remedial math courses, based on a body of research showing that such courses were deterring students with the potential to succeed from proceeding toward a degree. In fact, research suggests that shorter math sequences support student success.

Driven by its assessment of declining student preparation, UCSD has implemented a three-course calculus preparatory sequence: Besides precalculus, it offers two lower-level courses that explicitly cover high school and middle school math content and collectively enrolled more than 900 students last fall. Another 362 students enrolled in precalculus. By contrast, at the University of California, Los Angeles—another highly selective, research-intensive campus—the lowest math course is precalculus. Enrollments in that course have dropped to fewer than 200 students from 769 in 2012.

There is no question that declining math preparation is a real concern nationally, but UCSD’s situation provides a myopic perspective at best. Viewing it solely through the lens of admissions testing, as many recent opinion pieces have done, also misses the big picture. It penalizes students with a testing gate for lacking preparation that the system inequitably provides. The experiences of other California institutions point to a range of directions, including additional research, for strengthening success in college:
- Redesigning math placement and prerequisite sequences using evidence-based approaches. Institutions around the state are addressing weak math preparation through approaches such as just-in-time corequisite support, stretching one semester of material over two semesters, summer bridge courses and proactive advising. At least two campuses that serve students far less prepared than those at the UC—Cuyamaca College in San Diego County and Sonoma State University—have reported success with placing STEM majors directly into calculus, providing additional support instead of prerequisite courses. Proposals to expand these kinds of approaches have prompted intense pushback from skeptical math faculty. That is precisely why more research and cross-system conversations are necessary to better understand the most effective paths to calculus success for aspiring STEM majors.
- Revisiting calculus as a college graduation requirement. Calculus is an important foundation for certain STEM majors, such as engineering or physics. It is also a notorious weed-out course. Requiring it for students in majors that don’t truly rely on calculus constitutes an arbitrary barrier. It also interferes with students taking math courses such as statistics that are more applicable to their majors and discourages them from continuing in their studies.
- Reimagining calculus for those who do require it. UCLA has shown that biology students can thrive in subsequent courses without a standard calculus class: In the redesigned Mathematics for Life Sciences sequence, UCLA biology majors develop quantitative and computational skills by learning how to model biological systems. In subsequent science courses, students who took the redesigned curriculum outperformed those who took traditional calculus. The redesign also helped narrow the achievement gap and increased students’ interest in quantitative analyses. UC Riverside’s Principles of Calculus course, another promising redesign, uses spatial learning strategies, adaptive technology and culturally relevant content.
- Clarifying the math content and level expected for higher education success. A recent joint statement from math faculty across California’s three higher education systems is an important start. The statement has specific guidance about high school math sequences—including the importance of competencies such as conceptual understanding and mathematical modeling. It outlines critical content within high school algebra and geometry, creating an opportunity for reimagining those courses. Lastly, it highlights the most helpful math preparation across six discipline areas ranging from arts and humanities to STEM.
Realizing the potential of these steps necessitates deeper collaboration between K–12 schools and higher education, efforts California’s newly established interagency council is well positioned to lead. It also entails continued investment. Lastly, ensuring that math policies are aligned and transparent across systems is in the interest of students, but success depends on a willingness to reconsider long-standing practices and learn from efforts around the state and across the country—beyond the UC system and certainly beyond a single campus.

Pamela Burdman is executive director of Just Equations, a policy institute focused on the role of math in education equity. Marcelo Almora Rios is a Ph.D. candidate at the UCLA School of Education and Information Studies and a Just Equations research fellow.
Source link
January 28, 2026
Report Delves Into How Indirect Rate Cost Policies Differ

The Trump administration tried last year to cap indirect rate costs at 15 percent.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | gorodenkoff and Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock/Getty Images | FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

Compared to private industry contractors and federal laboratories, universities receive less from the federal government to cover costs indirectly related to research, according to a study commissioned by research university associations.

Indirect costs can include building maintenance, utilities and compliance with patient safety regulations. Currently, individual colleges and universities negotiate reimbursement rates with federal agencies, but the Trump administration has sought unsuccessfully to cap funding for indirect costs at 15 percent of the research grant. Federal courts have blocked those efforts, and a coalition of higher ed associations have since proposed their own model to change how the government funds research.

The Association of American Universities (AAU) and the COGR commissioned Attain Partners, a consulting firm, to conduct the study in part to dispel confusion about the current approach to funding indirect costs.

“It is important to note that the government’s approach to indirect cost accounting and reimbursement for universities and nonprofit research organizations is different than its approach for other entities conducting federally sponsored research,” the report states. “This fact has contributed to the resulting confusion—and that confusion, in turn, is now imperiling the funding needed for America’s research institutions to continue performing groundbreaking research that improves health, saves lives, and nourishes America’s innovation ecosystem.”

One key goal of the study was to ascertain how indirect cost rates and reimbursement policies at universities compare to other research entities. Ultimately, the indirect cost rates weren’t comparable with private industry because policies differed. However, because private companies aren’t subject to the same rate caps as universities, “the effective reimbursement rate for universities’ actual indirect costs is likely lower than that of private industry,” according to the report.

Universities also pay upfront to cover operational costs related to research and only receive some of the money back via reimbursement. Such losses totaled $7.06 billion in fiscal year 2024, according to AAU.

Another key question for the report was whether private and public universities have different reimbursement policies. Private universities tend to have higher reimbursement rates than public ones, leading some to suggest “private universities are gaming the indirect cost system to obtain more funding than other institutions or that are reasonable and necessary costs to conduct research,” according to the report.

But the authors were quick to counter that idea, saying in the report that that belief “misrepresents the actual reasons for differences in rates between various universities.” Instead, the rate differences stem from location and the type of research being conducted, among other factors. Biomedical research and engineering tend to result in higher reimbursement rates.

Source link

January 27, 2026
DOJ Report Compounds MSI Advocates’ Worries

Minority-serving institutions sustained another blow after the U.S. Department of Justice released a December legal report declaring funding to many of these institutions as unconstitutional. That memo could reach further than the Education Department’s move to defund some of these programs, ramping up uncertainty for the institutions.

Much like the Education Department in September, the DOJ argued these programs are unconstitutional because they require colleges to enroll a certain percentage of students from a particular racial or ethnic background to qualify, among other criteria. ED ultimately redirected hundreds of millions of dollars intended for Hispanic-serving institutions and other MSIs for fiscal year 2025; it remains unclear whether the DOJ memo will result in more of the same.

But the 48-page document offers new insight into the dangers a wide range of MSI grant programs could be facing and how the administration is legally justifying its stance against the institutions.

The Trump administration seems to be “doubling down” on its attacks on MSIs, offering some “legal justification for what they’ve already done, and in light of that justification, extending it to some additional programs that they did not pursue in the first go-around,” said John Moder, interim CEO of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.

Mandatory Funds at Risk

Similar to ED, the report by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel uses an expansive interpretation of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that barred considering race in admissions.

But the DOJ went further and called into question not just discretionary dollars but also congressionally mandated funds to MSIs, said Amanda Fuchs Miller, former deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs in the Biden administration and now president of the higher ed consultancy Seventh Street Strategies. The Education Department left mandatory funds alone in September, acknowledging in a news release that those funds “cannot be reprogrammed on a statutory basis,” but it would continue “to consider the underlying legal issues associated with the mandatory funding mechanism in these programs.”

The DOJ implied that “they don’t have to give out the mandatory money as required anymore—in their opinion,” Miller said. But as far as she’s concerned, “the executive branch has to enforce statutes,” including discretionary and mandatory funding authorized by Congress.

“They don’t have the authority to declare a statute unconstitutional,” she added.

In contrast, the legal memo argued that the president may be able to reject statutes altogether “even if only parts of them are noxious.” And it concluded that “the race-based portions” of various programs—including funds for Hispanic-serving institutions, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian–serving institutions and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–serving institutions—are “inseverable,” meaning the unconstitutional parts, according to the DOJ, can’t be removed.

The DOJ did, however, make some exceptions, including competitive grants to predominantly Black institutions (but not mandatory funds) and the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program; the department claimed these programs could be stripped of “race-based provisions.” The memo also scrutinized two TRIO programs, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program and Student Support Services, but ultimately considered them constitutional, provided the grants aren’t used “to further racially discriminatory ends.”

This approach raises questions, Miller said. For example, the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program was specifically designed to bolster engineering and science programs at MSIs, so what would it mean to continue the program without MSI status as a factor? She also stressed that Native Americans aren’t a racial category, according to federal law, which the administration has acknowledged in the past. But the DOJ memo seems to muddy the administration’s take on the issue, she said, by arguing that Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian–serving institutions and Native American–Serving nontribal institutions rely on “racial and ethnic classifications rather than political classifications.”

Ultimately, “Congress needs to stand up and fight back for these schools that play key roles in their districts” and make sure its statutory authority is respected, Miller said.

Some members of Congress have called out the DOJ and ED for stepping out of bounds. Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the House education committee, called the DOJ memo “deeply at odds with the fundamental goal of the [Higher Education Act] to ensure all students, regardless of their background, can access an affordable, quality degree.” Sen. Alex Padilla, chair of the Senate Congressional Hispanic-Serving Institutions Caucus, said the DOJ opinion “ignores federal law.” But lawmakers have yet to share a game plan on if or how they plan to push back.

Next Steps

What happens next is unclear.

Moder said the administration might withhold new funding for the flagged programs, rescind funds already given, or both.

In that case, institutions could sue, he said, but that’s an expensive ordeal for colleges and universities that, by definition, are underresourced. To qualify for most of the programs targeted by the DOJ, institutions are required to have low per-student expenditures compared to similar institutions, meaning they have relatively few resources to spend on students. They also need to serve at least half low-income students, in addition to a certain percentage of students from a particular racial or ethnic background.

“It’s an expensive proposition and a time-consuming proposition,” Moder said. Although MSIs could have already sued over their lost discretionary funds, “it’s not surprising that there hasn’t been a flurry of legal challenges presented to date.”

HACU has been defending HSIs against a legal challenge from the state of Tennessee and the advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions, after ED declined to stand up for the institutions. The lawsuit argued that Tennessee institutions don’t meet the requirement for HSIs—enrolling 25 percent Hispanic students—and miss out on federal funds; therefore, the federal criteria are discriminatory based on race. HACU has since asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing it’s a moot issue now that ED took away the discretionary funds Tennessee protests.

The hope is “it will leave the possibility of … Congress voting for renewed funding,” and eventually “a new administration to continue to administer it,” Moder said.

Deborah Santiago, co-founder and CEO of Excelencia in Education, an organization focused on Latino student outcomes, believes the DOJ report could have a positive twist: It offers more insight into how the administration is thinking about MSIs—and more fodder to fight back, she said.

The DOJ memo “went a little bit deeper on examples, and in doing so, created opportunities to understand where they’re coming from,” and to “challenge some of the basic framing and concepts that are in dispute,” said Santiago, who previously worked as deputy director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics.

Notably, she said, the report didn’t take issue with the idea that “there is a clear federal policy goal in providing capacity-building for underresourced institutions.” Instead, it took aim at “racial quotas” and quibbled with whether “individual discrimination” against particular students or types of students occurred. But Santiago said it’s easy to argue back that MSI grants support underserved institutions, not individual students, and there’s a difference between racial quotas and enrollment thresholds.

“MSIs are about institutional capacity-building and not about redressing individual student discrimination. I think that was a false framing that they put out there,” she said. “At the core, this is about persistent structural disadvantages of institutions and how the federal government can fund them.” And when the federal government has limited funds to invest, “you can make the case” that increasing academic quality at institutions with a persistent lack of resources and a disproportionate number of historically underrepresented students “is a clear federal role and responsibility.”

She also pushed back on the idea that institutions that don’t get the money are discriminated against. By the same logic, “students who are not enrolled in military academies are being discriminated against because they’re not getting access” to investments in military academies, she said.

She believes that the DOJ memo will help hone how MSIs and their supporters advocate for the institutions to members of Congress and others.

“I think we need to reframe and make the case to our colleagues on the Hill,” she said.

Source link

January 15, 2026
Texas just made it easier for students to report DEI, faculty senate violations
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Texas officials are encouraging college students, employees and the public to report violations of the state’s ban on faculty senates and diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education.
- The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s newly created Office of the Ombudsman launched the Students First portal — separate from its existing student complaint portal — to give “the public easy access to file complaints and provide feedback” over colleges’ alleged legal violations.
- Through Students First, college students and employees can submit formal complaints and are not required to have previously filed a complaint with the college. Members of the public can submit informal feedback.
Dive Insight:

The Students First portal focuses on violations of two significant Texas laws — 2023’s SB 17 and 2025′ SB 37.

SB 17 prohibited colleges from having diversity offices or hiring employees to do DEI-focused work. It also banned mandatory DEI training for employees and students.

While SB 17 functionally outlawed DEI at public colleges — making Texas one of the first to enact legislation growing increasingly popular in conservative states — SB 37 focused primarily on academic governance.

The law stripped faculty senates of much of their authority and autonomy and shifted that power to political appointees. SB 37 also established the THECB’s ombudsman office. Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott appointed Brandon Simmons, the chair of the Texas Southern University Board of Regents, to lead the office.

Republican state Sen. Brandon Creighton, author of SB 37, said in April that the bill is meant to affirm authority over public colleges lies with regents, not faculty. In Texas, regents are appointed by the governor.

Prior to its passage, higher education advocates and faculty groups — including the Texas Conference of the American Association of University Professors and the Texas American Federation of Teachers — strongly opposed SB 37 and raised concerns over the erosion of academic freedom and increased political influence on college campuses.

Creighton, who also wrote SB 17, resigned from the Legislature in October after being named the chancellor of the Texas Tech University System.

In September, Abbott said Texas is “targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation.” The following month, Texas policymakers launched new select committees in the state House and Senate and tasked them with reporting on “bias, discourse, and freedom of speech” on college campuses.

If the ombudsman office decides to investigate a formal complaint, the affected college will be notified within five days. From there, the college has 175 days to respond to the complaint — barring an office-granted extension — and 30 days to respond to any written requests for additional information.

If the college is found to be out of compliance, it has 180 days to resolve the issues to the ombudsman office’s satisfaction.

The ombudsman office will “submit to the Ombudsman and State Auditor a report on the noncompliance that includes the recommendations” if it determines the college “has not resolved issues and recommendations identified in the report,” according to the Students First portal.

Simmons said Friday that he aims to foster a “collaborative, productive partnership with our institutional leaders and students” through the new “user-friendly website and engagement on campuses across Texas.”
Source link
January 14, 2026
Higher Education Inquirer : HELU’s Wall-to-Wall & Coast-to-Coast Report: December 2025

To win the higher education system we want will require national, coordinated, multi-union organizing campaigns that build collective power across the sector. As one important step towards this broader goal, HELU is organizing a Northeast Regional Bargaining Summit in Amherst, MA on Jan 9-10, 2026.

Source link

December 23, 2025
DOJ Report Declares MSIs Unconstitutional

A DOJ report is the latest in the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle minority-serving programs.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | d1sk and nullplus/iStock/Getty Images

The Department of Justice has declared a slew of Department of Education programs and grants unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

According to a report by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), minority-serving institution (MSI) programs are unlawful because they award money to colleges and universities based on the percentage of students of a certain race. The report said such programs “effectively [employ] a racial quota by limiting institutional eligibility to schools with a certain racial composition” and should no longer be funded.

The report also deemed it unconstitutional that two scholarship providers, the United Negro College Fund and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, both of which award scholarships to students of a specific race, are given access to Free Application for Federal Student Aid data.

In a statement from the education department, Secretary Linda McMahon said that the report is “another concrete step from the Trump Administration to put a stop to DEI in government and ensure taxpayer dollars support programs that advance merit and fairness in all aspects of Americans lives. The Department of Education looks forward to working with Congress to reform these programs.”

The statement noted that the department is “currently evaluating the full impact of the OLC opinion on affected programs.”

The OLC also evaluated the constitutionality of two TRIO programs, the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program, a scholarship that helps students from underrepresented backgrounds work towards Ph.D.s, and Student Support Services, which provides grants for institutions to develop academic support infrastructure. It ultimately concludes that those programs are constitutional and may continue to be funded.

Nevertheless, in ED’s announcement of the DOJ decision, those TRIO programs were included in a list of “affected programs.”

The Trump administration’s attack on MSI programs began in July, when the U.S. Solicitor General declined to defend against a lawsuit challenging the definition of a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) as one that enrolls a student body with at least 25 percent Hispanic students. In September, ED officially announced its plans to end these programs, terminating the majority of MSI grants for FY2025.

Supporters of MSI programs strongly criticized the OLC’s report.

“Today’s baseless opinion from the Justice Department is wrong, plain and simple. Donald Trump and his Administration are once again attacking the institutions that expand opportunity for millions of aspiring students of all backgrounds. The opinion ignores federal law, including Congress’ bipartisan support for our nation’s Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Minority-Serving Institutions, including more than 100 MSIs in California alone,” Senator Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate HSI Caucus, wrote in a statement. “Every student deserves access to the American Dream. This unconscionable move by this Administration will harm millions of students who deserve better.”

Presidents of institutions that could be impacted by the legal decision are also speaking out. Wendy F. Hensel, president of the University of Hawai’i, called the news “disappointing” in a statement to the campus community. UH is an Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institution, an Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution, and a Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education grantee; Hensel said these programs are “vital” to UH and the state of Hawai’i.

She wrote that the university’s general counsel is examining the full report and that campus leadership is currently “evaluating the full scope of the impact on our campuses and programs and implementing contingency plans for the loss of funding.”

“We recognize that this news creates uncertainty and anxiety for the students, faculty and staff whose work and educational pathways are supported by these funds. We are actively assessing how best to support the people and programs affected as we navigate this evolving legal landscape,” she wrote.

Trump’s allies, however, applauded the report and ED’s efforts to end MSI programs.

“Today’s announcement is a strong step by the Trump administration to end racial discrimination in our higher education system. These programs determine funding eligibility through arbitrary, race-based quotas which unfairly assume a student’s background determines his or her educational destiny,” Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, a Republican representative from Michigan, wrote in a statement. “America was founded on the principles of freedom and equality, and that every citizen can chase the American Dream. In Congress, we are working with the Trump administration to create a fairer higher education system so every student has a strong chance at success.”

Source link

December 22, 2025