Tag: rules

  • Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns

    Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns


    The U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday it will eliminate the rigorous review process previously required for colleges and universities seeking to change accreditors, a move critics warn could undermine educational quality standards.

    The announcement, which implements parts of President Trump’s Executive Order on “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” simultaneously lifts a moratorium on reviewing applications for new accrediting bodies.

    In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the policy change as promoting competition.

    “We must foster a competitive marketplace both amongst accreditors and colleges and universities in order to lower college costs and refocus postsecondary education on improving academic and workforce outcomes for students and families.” she said.

    However, higher education policy experts expressed concerns that the streamlined process could enable institutions to evade accountability by shopping for less stringent accreditors.

    The Department’s new Dear Colleague Letter revokes guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 that had established a pre-clearance process for institutional accreditor changes. The new guidance explicitly allows institutions to change accreditors for reasons including finding one that “better aligns with a religious mission,” accommodating shifts in academic programs, complying with state law requirements, or avoiding accreditors that impose “discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices and principles.”

    Education advocates worry the policy shift prioritizes institutional freedom over student protections.

    “When we make it easier for colleges to switch accreditors without thorough vetting, we risk creating a race to the bottom where standards are compromised,” said one higher education researcher. “The students who will suffer most are often those from historically underrepresented groups who depend on accreditation as an assurance of quality.”

    The Department characterized its previous approach as overreaching, stating in the new guidance.

    “It is not the Department’s prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation. This guidance re-establishes a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.”

    The policy change also rescinds the October 2024 pause on reviewing applications for new accrediting agencies. At least one prospective accreditor that had its application temporarily paused has now been notified that its review will proceed.

    Critics contend that enabling more accreditors with potentially varying standards could fragment the higher education quality assurance landscape in ways that confuse students and employers.

    “The fundamental question is whether reducing oversight will actually improve educational outcomes or simply make it easier for underperforming institutions to avoid consequences,” said a public university president, who asked to remain anonymous, for fear of retaliation. “History suggests the latter is more likely.”

    The Department has not announced specific metrics to evaluate whether the policy changes lead to improved outcomes for students or institutions.

    Source link

  • The government's money, the government's rules?

    The government's money, the government's rules?

    Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law
    professors who opposed the Trump administration’s funding threats
    at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds. Since
    then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and…

    Source link

  • Some Rules for Campus Resistance (opinion)

    Some Rules for Campus Resistance (opinion)

    Given what’s happened at Columbia University (and what is happening now at other Ivies, and beyond), every university leader in the United States ought to be planning in advance what they will do when similar pressures are brought to bear on them. Academics ought to as well; all the citizens of our republics of learning should care about their institutions and be willing to defend them.

    Over a decade ago, here at the University of Virginia, we had a nasty little fight with our Board of Visitors when they tried to fire President Teresa Sullivan with little more logic or rationale than we’re currently seeing come out of Washington. (The American Association of University Professors produced a pretty good report about it, if you want to read something unsettling.)

    Our opponents in that little pas de deux had a degree of ignorance that amply matched their arrogance, but we were lucky in discovering allies far beyond Charlottesville in our alumni base and other institutions.

    At the time, I recognized that we had learned some smaller, tactical lessons in the whole shindig that might be relatively portable across different universities. I almost published them, but decided that it was better to let my university go forward without adding my two cents.

    Now, however, in our moment, these seem relevant again. So, in the wake of Columbia’s capitulation to Trump’s assault, I dusted them off and polished them up. They didn’t need much polishing, to be honest. Consider this a small pamphlet for thinking about hosting “a little rebellion now and then” on your campus, when such is needful.

    1. Don’t start the fight. Have a prompting event—even if you invite it merely by doing your job. We were lucky to have a “day of infamy” jump-start our events in 2012. It was dropped, gift wrapped, into our lap. We were, from the beginning, in the position of the victim—the one who was wronged. Being the aggrieved party from the start helps. A lot.
    1. Be a big tent, but have one common aim. Because the misdeed was so expansive in its implications, the scope of our “we” was enormously wide. The “we” who was violated included not just the president, but the administration, faculty and staff—and not just them, but the students, and the alumni, and indeed the community of Charlottesville, and possibly all those interested in the future of academia in America and beyond. And anyway, you’re not seeking consensus: You’re seeking alliance. This is hard for us academics, because we are so excellent at invidious distinctions. But remember: World War II was won by an alliance of the British empire, the anticolonialist liberal United States and the definitionally revolutionary U.S.S.R. If those three states could work together, you can say something nice about professors in the business school, or vice versa. The same goes for deans and administrators: They are not the enemy. By coordinating the most expansive community as the community to whom voice could be given, we ensured not just that numbers were on our side, but that the widest set of complaints and grievances were brought to bear on the most precise targets.
    2. Lean into shared governance. No one ever expected the UVA Faculty Senate to be consequential, least of all the Faculty Senate. It was the place where we sent junior faculty “to learn about the university”; given how much import anyone normally gives to learning about the university, that shows you what we thought of it. But, to borrow from Don Rumsfeld, you go to war with the institutions you have, not the institutions you wish you had, and now everyone knows that the Faculty Senate can matter, and matter decisively. I hope we never forget it. I hope you can learn from our example and not your own.
    3. Tenure counts. You know that thing we say about tenure mattering for free expression and for ensuring that you can speak your mind on academic matters without getting fired by administrators who don’t like what you have to say? I used to find it annoying and silly— “of course that’s not going to happen, not today,” I thought; “no one will be so dictatorial.” Well, lookie here—I was wrong. The first and consistently most vocal group in the whole UVA fracas was the faculty. The staff members were behind us (especially the women on the university’s staff, who had felt represented by Sullivan in a powerful way), but obviously they were in the most vulnerable position. And the deans and administrators were by and large ready to accept the coup as a fait accompli. (While the deans of the various schools eventually came around, it took them some time; only after they realized that almost every last one of the faculty were extraordinarily pissed, and shopping their CVs around, did they realize that they were hurting themselves more by not saying anything than they would by saying something.)
    1. “If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it.” Dwight D. Eisenhower said that, and it’s true here. The prompting event of our crisis was of course the firing of our President Sullivan by our board rector, Helen Dragas, and a few others (let’s be honest about what it was and who did it). But it was clear from the beginning that there were larger issues here—about the disconnect between oversight, management and teachers and researchers, about the creeping “corporatization” of the board (though that does a terrible disservice to wise governance of corporations around the world, which would never be run the way most university boards try to run their institutions), about the failure of faculty to take seriously how the higher levels of the university were operating—matters far larger than simply this act. As the crisis developed, we realized we were reaping the consequences of structural contempt toward the faculty (and the rest of the university, really) by the Board of Visitors and a crisis of apathy about university governance on the part of the faculty. The problem may be larger than you first realize: Get it in focus, first and foremost.
    2. “Do you expect me to talk?” “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.” The idea that disputes of these sorts are amenable most basically to conversation is mistaken. Statements were continually communicated to our Board of Visitors, but we knew almost at once that argument was not our real weapon. Once you decide to dissent, the time for talk is over, at least with opponents such as these; they will not be amenable to conversation—not without a great deal of pressure from other forces and sources. Your aim is not to convince your opponents; your aim is to beat them. To do that, you must persuade potential allies, not actual enemies. That said, it never hurts to be reasonable and produce strong arguments directed at your opponents, so long as you know those arguments are largely valuable because they are overheard by others.
    3. At no point should you demonize or vilify your opponents. It weirdly invests them with power you need not bestow. You’re in a fight with someone who’s like a toddler—do not descend to their level. Speak calmly, as to a toddler having a temper tantrum. You won’t convince them, but you will demonstrate you are not afraid. That will upset them more. If they lose, of course they will say you did demonize and belittle them; they’ll call you “so mean,” “ungracious” and “nasty in tone.” Don’t worry; everyone else knows otherwise. Saying that may be their only consolation prize. Let them have it. You’re walking out with the Benjamins. Or, in our case, the Sullivan.
    1. Time is not your friend, but nonetheless, boil the frog slowly. In a delicious irony, the coup at UVA was reversed “incrementally”—a bad word for Rector Dragas, a good word for President Sullivan. Resistance to the coup began with some immediate disquiet from the faculty and a few students on campus when it was first announced. But the faculty knew from the beginning they wouldn’t be the material cause of any change; they needed more powerful allies. The momentum built slowly, then snowballed at the end. And the momentum built both inside the institution and outside it: inside, mostly by growing outrage at the trickle of information released and the little bit we could discover (or, more properly, the media could discover) over time, and outside, by the gradual but eventually approaching exponential expansion of numbers and kinds of UVA stakeholders who expressed outrage.

    The end of the first week saw the Faculty Senate meeting where 800 faculty and others listened as our provost, John Simon, expressed real and powerful concern, and subtle outrage, over what had happened and how it had happened. By the end of the second week, we had politicians, alumni, other university faculties—and a number of major donors—speaking out in outrage. And then, too, we began to see newspaper editorial boards—and Katie Couric—condemn the firing. Had the Board of Visitors waited a bit longer to reverse its action, no doubt the United Nations, the E.U., the Nature Conservancy, the NBA, al Qaeda and Justin Bieber would have issued statements.

    The lesson here? Don’t try to get everyone on board all at once. Trust the swarm method, but go through your list of stakeholders methodically—moving from the most swayable to the least so. Rank them in their “get-ability,” and then get them, encouraging the ones you already have on your side to increase pressure on the next-most-gettable ones. On day two of a crisis, you probably won’t get The Washington Post and your institution’s major donors to sign on to calling this an outrage; but by day 10, or 14, with a little help, and momentum from other people, you may. And better still, while this is happening, your opponents probably won’t notice the pressure gradually ratcheting up, as they are simply trying to keep responding to different constituencies. By the time they realize that there are a lot of people angry at them, there’s little they can do to quell the anger, except give in.

    1. Have a lousy enemy, and let everyone see that. Maleficence is usually associated with incompetence, and in the case of this episode, that was true. We were extraordinarily fortunate in our foe. The Kremlin-like silence of the Board of Visitors as the shock and anger mounted; the Politburo-like prose when the board decided to speak; the slow uncovering of the incredibly flimsy reasoning behind the decision, revealed in emails over the previous months; the remarkable stubbornness, coupled with utterly no sense of the appearance of absurdity regarding the irrationality of the stubbornness—it’s as if we couldn’t have had a better opponent for this fight.

    But it is important that what gets publicized is your opponents’ badness, not your contempt for them. Academics are really, really skilled at expressing contempt. Few of us realize it doesn’t make us look good, either in faculty meetings or on social media. You never win an argument by judging your opponents. Instead, let your opponents be seen for who they are.

    This is mostly out of your control, but it might be possible to imagine different ways of framing your opponent, so that different profiles of them emerge. In our case it was clear early on that it would be very important not to make this about the entire Board of Visitors but to focus on a small clique inside it so that pressure could be put upon the whole in such a way that some fractures would result; we hoped that such fractures, once they appeared, would quickly cause the whole to shatter. And they did: In the end Sullivan’s reinstatement was a unanimous board decision, the unanimity induced by the fact that the Dragas faction knew they had lost and quickly crumbled.

    Anyway, these are some things I think we learned. Best of luck if you get in a position to need them. You’ll need all the luck you can get. We certainly did. But, you know, luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. That was on a motivational poster I saw once. Occasionally such things are useful. If you don’t know what I mean, I fear you will soon.

    Charles Mathewes is a professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia.

    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Joins Amicus Brief in Case Regarding NCAA Eligibility Rules

    CUPA-HR Joins Amicus Brief in Case Regarding NCAA Eligibility Rules

    by CUPA-HR | April 8, 2025

    On March 28, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations in filing an amicus brief in Pavia v. NCAA, which challenges the association’s eligibility rules with respect to the five-year time limits for student-athletes. The brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

    Background

    Pavia filed the lawsuit against the NCAA in November 2024, claiming that the NCAA’s ability to limit eligibility for previous junior college transfers by counting their competition years in junior college towards the number of years they are eligible to compete in NCAA sports restrains labor market forces and thus violates antitrust laws. A federal district court judge agreed on the merits of Pavia’s arguments and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules and allowing Pavia only to play an additional season. The judge argued that the ability for student-athletes to earn money through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals thus makes the NCAA’s eligibility rules “commercial,” meaning the rules themselves would not survive antitrust scrutiny. The NCAA appealed this ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case awaits further litigation.

    Amicus Brief

    The brief, filed by ACE, CUPA-HR, and five other higher education associations, argues that all eligibility rules set by the NCAA, including the five-year time limitations challenged in this case, aim to ensure “the primacy of the educational context for the student-athlete experience.” The brief argues that the preliminary injunction placed by the district court threatens to “shift the formulation and enforcement of the NCAA’s eligibility rules from educators and athletics administrators to federal courts” as any student-athlete disqualified by an eligibility rule could request a court to file an injunction and argue that the eligibility rule restricts their ability to pursue NIL deals. This would ultimately result in a patchwork of waivers granted by judges nationwide, undermining the national system of enforcement already in place through athletic associations like the NCAA and cementing federal judges as the unofficial court of appeals for the NCAA.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this court case.



    Source link

  • Education Department Plans to Review Rules for PSLF, IDR

    Education Department Plans to Review Rules for PSLF, IDR

    The Education Department will kick off the lengthy rule-making process later this month with a pair of hearings. 

    The department is planning to consider regulatory changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, income-driven repayment plans and “other topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance programs,” according to a Federal Register notice.

    Hearings are just the first step in negotiated rule making, which also includes convening an advisory committee to weigh in on regulatory changes over a series of meetings, proposing draft regulations and then a public comment period. Historically, the whole process takes at least a year.

    The Federal Register notice doesn’t say what specific changes the department is seeking to make aside from “redefining definitions of a qualifying employer.” The department also is planning to revise the regulations for Pay as You Earn and income-contingent repayment plans.

    In early March, President Donald Trump directed the Education Department to change which employers or companies are eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Under the executive order, activities that would disqualify a nonprofit could include aiding or abetting violations of federal immigration laws or what the government considers illegal discrimination. Advocates and Democrats decried the order as “un-American” and argued that it would disrupt borrowers’ lives.

    The department will hold an in-person hearing April 29 and a virtual hearing May 1. More information is available here.

    “This process will focus on how the Department can rightsize Title IV regulations that have driven up the cost of college and hindered innovation,” said Acting Under Secretary James Bergeron in a news release. Bergeron is also leading the Office of Federal Student Aid. (Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes federal financial aid programs.)

    He added that “not only will this rulemaking serve as an opportunity to identify and cut unnecessary red tape, but it will allow key stakeholders to offer suggestions to streamline and improve federal student aid programs.”

    Source link

  • Judge Rules Drake Didn’t Defame Des Moines Community College

    Judge Rules Drake Didn’t Defame Des Moines Community College

    A federal judge recently dismissed claims that Drake University defamed Des Moines Area Community College, the latest development in a fraught trademark battle between the two institutions, the Des Moines Register reported.

    Their ongoing legal dispute, which began last summer, is over the letter “D.”

    Drake University sued the community college after it changed its logo to a simple, block-style “D.” The university has used a “D” as its logo for decades and argued the similar branding creates confusion.

    U.S. Chief District Judge Stephanie Rose concluded in November that Drake was likely to prevail, given the logos’ similar color schemes and other details, and issued a preliminary injunction that the community college stop using the new logo. The order led to two pending appeals, one from the community college to reverse the preliminary injunction and one from Drake asserting the ruling didn’t include some older logos. The community college achieved some wins in February when Rose determined DMACC tried in “good faith” to change the logo and Drake should put more money toward helping the college switch the logo if Drake ultimately wins the case.

    Meanwhile, counterclaims from DMACC accused Drake of defamation. The college dropped those claims after Drake asked the court to dismiss them but then brought defamation claims against the university again on behalf of the Des Moines Area Community College Foundation after Drake sent out an email about the case to its alumni in July.

    Rose wrote on Friday that the foundation took “giant interpretive leaps from the content of the email” such that the defamation claims were “untenable.”

    “While zealous advocacy is expected, counsel must ground their pleadings in reasonable factual and legal interpretations,” she chided.

    Drake President Marty Martin said in an email statement to The Des Moines Register that he was pleased by the outcome. But DMACC shows little sign of giving up.

    “DMACC and the DMACC Foundation continue to believe that Drake does not own the letter ‘D’ and the scope of Drake’s rights are now the subject of appeal,” spokesperson Dan Ryan said in a statement.

    Source link

  • Body cams, staff to carry ID, change of culture: TEQSA draft rules for protests, student complaints

    Body cams, staff to carry ID, change of culture: TEQSA draft rules for protests, student complaints

    Security stand in front of a pro-Israel protest at the University of Sydney on May 3, 2024. Picture: David Swift



    By: Erin Morley

    in Industry & Research, Top Stories


    March 19, 2025

    Universities will be expected to publish de-identified complaints data publicly, make student complaints processes clearer, and analyse the data twice a year if the university regulator’s interim guidelines for student complaints mechanisms are adopted.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    SAN FRANCISCO, March 10, 2025 — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Lars Jensen, a math professor unconstitutionally punished for criticizing what he believed was his college’s decision to water down its math standards.

    Reversing a federal district court, the Ninth Circuit held Jensen suffered wrongful dismissal of his claims against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, and that he should have his day in court to prove college administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held Jensen’s right to speak out about the math standards was so clearly established that the administrators were not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

    “This decision is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel in November 2024. “This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment.”

    The dispute began in 2020, when Jensen planned to comment at a TMCC conference about what he perceived to be diminishing academic standards at the college. After administrators prohibited Jensen from sharing his views at a Q&A session, he printed out his planned comments critiquing the college for allowing for “a student graduating from college” while only being “ready for middle school math,” and handed them out to his colleagues during the break. TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break, but he continued to do so without interrupting the session.

    Ellsworth then accused Jensen of “disobeying” her and warned him he had “made an error” defying her. Following through on her veiled threats, Ellsworth sent Jensen an official reprimand. Over the next two performance reviews, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth retaliated by giving him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” As a result, Jensen automatically had to undergo review for possible termination.

    “The college’s actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech,” said Jensen. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision vindicates my First Amendment rights and allows me to have my day in court.” 

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PROFESSOR JENSEN AND HIS ATTORNEYS

    TMCC might have fired Jensen if not for the speedy intervention of FIRE, which wrote a letter objecting that the administrators were violating the First Amendment, which protects faculty at public colleges in commenting as citizens on matters of public concern. TMCC announced that Jensen would not be fired, but the damage to his First Amendment rights was already done, especially with the negative performance evaluations remaining on his file.

    Jensen sued Ellsworth and other TMCC administrators in 2022, arguing the college’s retaliatory actions violated his First Amendment rights as well as his right to due process and equal protection. A district court dismissed the case in 2023. 

    The Ninth Circuit ruled today that the district court erred in dismissing Jensen’s First Amendment claim, because his speech about the college’s academic standards involved a matter of public concern related to scholarship or teaching, and thus receives First Amendment protection. 

    The Court also held the university’s retaliatory actions were likely to chill Jensen’s speech, and that a university’s “interest in punishing a disobedient employee for speaking in violation of their supervisor’s orders cannot automatically trump the employee’s interest in speaking.” The Court warned, in fact, that if an employer could fire an employee solely for refusing to obey an order to stop speaking, a university could unconstitutionally enjoy “carte blanche to stifle legitimate speech.”

    The Court further held the district court erred when it held that claims against the college administrators were barred by qualified immunity, a doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show a government official violated their “clearly established right” before they can hold those officials accountable for damages. The Ninth Circuit held that at the time Jensen spoke out, “it was clearly established that a professor has a right to speak about a school’s curriculum without being reprimanded, given negative performance reviews, and put through an investigation and termination hearing.”

    The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit. 

     

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

    Liberty University must face former trans worker’s discrimination claim, judge rules

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

    A worker who was fired by Liberty University for disclosing her transgender status and announcing her intention to transition may proceed with her employment discrimination case against the institution, a Virginia district court judge ruled Feb. 21 (Zinski v. Liberty University). 

    The case involved a worker who was hired in February 2023 as an IT apprentice at the university’s IT help desk. She received positive performance reviews until July of that year, when she emailed Liberty’s HR department, explaining that she was a transgender woman, had been undergoing hormone replacement therapy and would be legally changing her name, according to court documents. An HR representative promised to follow up with her.

    Shortly thereafter, after hearing nothing, the worker reached out again and was scheduled for a meeting later the same day. She was presented with a letter terminating her employment and explaining that her decision to transition violated Liberty’s religious beliefs and its Doctrinal Statement. 

    In response to the worker’s lawsuit, Liberty University argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (among other laws) allow religious employers to discriminate on the basis of religion, contending that the worker’s firing was religion-based rather than sex-based in discriminatory nature. 

    While Judge Norman Moon appreciated that the case presents a “novel question of law in the Fourth Circuit,” he ultimately found current case law didn’t fully or clearly support the university’s argument. 

    “If discharge based upon transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII generally, it follows that the same should be true for religious employers, who, it has been shown, were not granted an exception from the prohibition against sex discrimination,” Judge Moon said in his order denying the university’s motion to dismiss the case. “They have been entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion but on no other grounds.”

    Judge Moon pointed out that “no source of law … answers the question before us,” but “we find that a decision to the contrary would portend far-reaching and detrimental consequences for our system of civil law and the separation between church and state.”

    “This case — and the law it implicates — points to the delicate balance between two competing and laudable objectives: eradicating discrimination in employment, on the one hand, and affording religious institutions the freedom to cultivate a workforce that conforms to its doctrinal principles, on the other,” Moon wrote. “We find that our holding today — that religious institutions cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, even if motivated by religion — most appropriately maintains this balance.”

    Source link

  • Modern Learners, Modern Strategies: The New Rules of Engagement

    Modern Learners, Modern Strategies: The New Rules of Engagement

    Brett is a working professional with a packed schedule, balancing career growth with personal responsibilities. He knows that advancing in his field requires new skills and credentials, but he needs a program that fits his life, one that is flexible, aligned with his career and worth the investment. Brett is just one example of Modern Learner, a growing population of students who prioritize efficiency, affordability and real-world outcomes in their education.  

    Higher education has undergone a decade of transformation, from evolving enrollment patterns to advancements in technology and changing student expectations. As the landscape continues evolves, so do the behaviors and preferences of students like Brett—giving rise to the Modern Learner.  

    EducationDynamics’ latest report, “Engaging the Modern Learner: The 2025 Report on the Preferences and Behaviors Shaping Higher Ed,” examines these emerging trends. For over a decade, we have tracked student behavior and preferences, adapting our research to reflect the evolving higher education environment. Previously known as the Online College Students Report, this study has expanded in scope to provide a more comprehensive understanding of Modern Learners and their needs.  

    Explore the most significant changes over the past ten years, key findings from our research and actionable strategies to help higher education leaders challenge the status quo and drive innovative outcomes.  

    How Have Student Behaviors and Preferences Changed in the Last Decade?

    Student search, decision-making, and engagement behaviors have shifted significantly over the past decade. Strategies that once drove enrollment may no longer be as effective, requiring institutions to adapt. By examining these changes, we can identify emerging patterns that will shape the future of higher education.  

    Modern Learners Expect Immediate Admit Decisions 

    With greater access to information through technology, prospective students are making decisions faster than ever before. As a result, Modern Learners expect rapid responses from institutions. In 2015, 43% of fully online learners said that they would enroll at the first school that contacted them. By 2025, the urgency has increased significantly, with nearly 75% of online learners indicating that they would enroll in the first school that admits them. This shift underscores the growing need for institutions to streamline their admissions processes, ensuring quick response times and efficient decision-making to remain competitive in enrolling Modern Learners.

    Search Initializes at the Brand Level

    Student search behavior is another trend that has faced a significant shift in recent years, with more students starting their search by focusing on schools rather than specific programs.

    Recent data reveals that 58% of respondents begin their search by considering schools first. This trend is even more pronounced among online learners, where approximately 60% prioritize finding a school before narrowing down their program options. Following school, the next most common search is subject area, with students increasingly exploring broader categories before selecting a specific program.

    Given this shift, higher education marketing strategies need to reflect an approach that encompasses both promotion of programs and the institution itself. As prospective students often initiate their search with a school-focused mindset, schools must position their brand clearly to effectively engage and capture early interest, which will guide students towards relevant programs as they progress through the enrollment funnel.

    AI Impacts Consideration Sets 

    The adoption of AI tools, such as website chatbots and on-demand engagement platforms, has grown steadily over the past decade. Recent data highlights notable increases in the use of chatbots. In 2015, only about 15% of online learners engaged with website chatbots or live chat agents. Now, in 2025, that number has more than doubled, reaching 30% of fully online students.  

    Moreover, students increasingly turn to AI tools like Search Generative Experience (SGE) for answers to critical questions about schools and their offerings, with 37% of Modern Learners using AI for information gathering. As students refine their consideration sets, AI-driven engagement tools provide timely and relevant information, making them a key touchpoint in the decision-making process. The growing reliance on these platforms calls for institutions to employ the use of informative and accessible AI tools to offer students seamless support throughout their research and decision-making processes.  

    Preference and Acceptance of Online Modality has Increased

    It’s no secret that in the past decade, online education has not only gained traction but has become the preferred education modality for a growing population of students. In 2015, only 32% of fully online students believed their online education was better than their previous classroom study. However, that number has more than doubled for today’s respondents. 71% of online learners express a preference for online higher education experiences when compared to classroom education, indicating a fundamental change in student expectations and satisfaction with digital learning environments.  

    Engaging the Modern Learner

    At EducationDynamics, our research continually seeks to understand the evolving needs of students. Through years of research and emerging insights from our 2025 survey, a clear picture of the Modern Learner has emerged—one defined by a focus on flexibility, career, and a desire for personalized education experiences. Modern Learners are not only looking to complete a degree, they also aim to shape their own learning journeys in ways that align with their personal and professional goals. 

    Shared Demands and Preferences 

    Despite their diverse backgrounds, Modern Learners share several key expectations. They prioritize affordability, flexible learning formats and responsive support. If their needs aren’t met, they will quickly seek alternative options. This shift in expectations means that institutions need to rethink how they attract, engage and support students. Meeting the Modern Learner where they are is no longer optional; it is essential for long-term success. 

    The Power of Brand & Reputation

    A strong institutional brand plays a crucial role in the student decision-making process. As students begin their search with a school-focused mindset, a well-established reputation can be the deciding factor in where they apply. In fact, reputation ranked as the third most influential factor in application decisions, cited by 31% of students overall and 51% of traditional undergraduates, in our 2025 survey. To remain competitive, institutions must build a credible and respected brand that not only attracts prospective students but also reinforces trust and long-term value throughout their educational journey. 

    Value and Affordability

    While cost is a significant consideration for Modern Learners, affordability alone doesn’t drive enrollment decisions. A well-rounded value proposition plays an equally important role. Our research shows that 46% of students cite tuition cost as a critical factor, but other factors like program relevance to careers, flexibility, and reputation also weigh heavily in their decision-making process. 

    Supporting students with financial literacy is crucial, as 38% of students identify it as a helpful resource during the enrollment process. By clearly communicating both affordability and long-term value such as career outcomes, program flexibility and personalized support, schools can resonate with the priorities of cost-conscious, value-driven Modern Learners.  

    The Importance of Career Focus

    For Modern Learners, education is a direct pathway to career advancement. Regardless of age or background, they share a strong motivation to upskill quickly and gain credentials that lead to tangible career outcomes. This focus on career alignment is evident, with 20% of Modern Learners citing a program’s relevance to their career as a determining factor in their enrollment decision.

    The Modern Learner Survey reveals that 76% of students feel their institution clearly outlines potential career paths related to their program. While this is positive, gaps remain. Traditional undergraduates are the most informed, with 84% receiving clear career guidance, compared to 73% of non-traditional students and 77% of graduate students. These gaps highlight the need for institutions to consistently communicate career values across all Modern Learner segments, ensuring they understand how their education supports their professional goals.

    The Demand for Flexible Learning Models

    Flexibility is no longer an educational preference; it is a necessity for Modern Learners. As today’s students move away from traditional classroom modalities and increasingly seek flexible environments, institutions must invest in program models that accommodate careers and family commitments.  

    When deciding where to apply, 31% of Modern Learners cited flexible course schedules as a key factor. This need is particularly evident among graduate students, who are more likely to be balancing family and work responsibilities. While 53% of respondents do not have children under 18 at home, a notable portion are managing family commitments in addition to their studies. Among fully online students, the number of children at home has increased by 15%, reinforcing the growing demand for learning models that complement busy schedules. 

    The Role of AI and Social Media

    AI and social media play an increasingly important role in shaping student decisions. Social media is no longer merely an avenue for entertainment; it has evolved into a tool for student engagement and research throughout the entire decision-making process. With students interacting across multiple platforms daily, schools must harness these channels to stay visible and relevant as students progress through the consideration phase. To successfully leverage social media, marketing teams should prioritize creating dynamic, visually engaging experiences, particularly through video content, which resonates strongly with Modern Learners.  

    At the same time, AI enhances this by personalizing interactions and providing real-time insights into student preferences, helping institutions refine their marketing strategies. With the rise of generative AI tools, nearly 70% of Modern Learners now use AI in some capacity, including AI chatbots like ChatGPT, to assist their search for school information. Approximately 37% use these tools specifically to gather information about schools, with tuition fees (57%), course offerings (51%), and admission requirements (43%) being the most sought-after details. This highlights the opportunity for schools to integrate AI into their marketing strategies to provide comprehensive, accessible information that supports prospective students with their enrollment decision.  

    Modern Strategies to Engage the Modern Learner 

    As the needs and expectations of students continue to evolve, it’s important for institutions to adapt in ways that truly serve and support Modern Learners. Here are actionable steps to create a personalized, student-centered experience that fosters trust and drives success.  

    1. Embrace Data-Driven Decision Making: Modern Learners expect personalized experiences, and data is the key to delivering them. Through leveraging market research and insights, like those from the 2025 Modern Learner Report, institutions can better understand student preferences and behaviors. To turn those insights into action, invest in tools for data collection and analysis that allow for continuous improvement and refinement.  
    2. Build a Strong and Authentic Brand: A cohesive and authentic brand is integral to connecting with students. Focus on building a positive online experience that bolsters brand visibility, while garnering trust that your institution can provide timely and reliable information that students seek.  
    3. Prioritize Career Outcomes: Career outcomes are top of mind for students as they consider their educational investment. Make career pathways clear by showcasing programs, internship opportunities, alumni success stories and career counseling services to help students see the tangible benefits of their degree.  
    4. Create Flexible and Personalized Learning Pathways: Flexibility is essential for meeting the diverse needs of Modern Learners. Offer programs with adaptable schedules and learning formats, allowing students to choose a pathway that best aligns their lifestyle and goals.  
    5. Optimize the Digital Experience (Especially Websites and Al): An engaging digital experience is critical to attracting and retaining students. Through regular website updates and the integration of AI-powered tools to offer support, institutions can streamline the user experience to ensure a smooth journey from inquiry to enrollment. 
    6. Enhance Communication Speed: Modern Learners expect timely and informative responses and are quicker to make decisions than in years past. Adopt tools that provide real-time communication capabilities, such as chatbots or automated updates, to keep students engaged and informed throughout the enrollment process.   
    7. Develop a Dynamic Social Media Strategy: Social media is a powerful tool for building connections and increasing brand awareness among Modern Learners. With platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube playing a major role in their online engagement, video content is especially effective in capturing their attention.  By understanding your audience’s media habits and aligning your content with platforms they use the most, you can deliver the right message at the right time, keeping your institution top of mind.  
    8. Don’t Forget About the Human Touch: While technology undoubtedly plays a significant role in modern times, students still seek personal connections. Ensure that students can engage with advisors, staff, or faculty to guide them through the enrollment process, while providing the support they need.

    Aligning with Modern Learners: A New Era in Enrollment

    In this evolving landscape, Modern Learners are placing greater emphasis on career relevance, affordability, and flexibility, demanding more from their education than ever before. The findings from the Modern Learner Survey underscore the importance of aligning educational programs with career paths, improving financial transparency, and providing tailored support to meet diverse needs. The time is now for higher education leaders to challenge outdated enrollment strategies that no longer resonate with today’s highly discerning, cost-conscious, and value-focused students.  

    To navigate these changes effectively, institutions must adopt innovative, data-driven strategies that speak directly to the Modern Learner’s priorities. For a deeper dive into these insights and actionable recommendations, explore the full “Engaging the Modern Learner” report today.  

    Source link