Tag: students

  • 4 Ways to Support Military Students

    4 Ways to Support Military Students

    An estimated 820,000 students in higher education are military-affiliated, including current and former active-duty service members and their families. These students are more likely to be first-generation or parenting students and often hold competing priorities while pursuing a degree, which can put them at risk of stopping out.

    A Nov. 4 webinar by the American Council on Education solicited insights from former and current service members on their experiences navigating higher education and how campuses can improve supports.

    “Veterans are not a monolith; they don’t want pity or lower bars,” said Roman Ortega, chief executive officer and founder of Global Integrity Consulting and a member of the Army Reserve. “They want colleges to treat them like they’re mission-driven adults and to remove the friction that keeps them from showing what they already know how to do.”

    Veterans shared four key themes that could enhance military-affiliated students’ college experience.

    1. College Navigation

    About two-thirds of student veterans are first-generation college students, according to data from Student Veterans of America. First-generation students, in general, often lack cultural capital and insight into the bureaucracy of higher education; for former service members, college can be even more mystifying. Effective advising can make a difference, veterans said during the webinar.

    “I was enrolled at Northern Illinois University. I didn’t know what to do or where to go,” Ortega said. “I saw a sign for Army ROTC; I walked right into the office and I said, ‘Hey, I really don’t know what I’m doing here, I don’t know where any of my classes are, I don’t know how to be advised on any of this. They said, ‘Hey, we’ll help you out.’”

    Bringing in other military-affiliated students can be one way to boost engagement; several veterans mentioned they enrolled in higher education because of positive peer pressure from other service members.

    “I didn’t even know what questions to ask. I just knew my peers were going and I wanted to be a part of that,” said Lola Howard, an Air Force veteran and doctoral student at Columbia Southern University.

    Not every branch of the military looks at continuing education in the same way, which can have an impact on participation, veterans noted. “The Air Force, the Navy very much culturally encourage continued education in the service,” noted Lukas Simianer, an Army veteran and chief executive officer and founder of VetClaims.ai. “If you would have told the commander of Fort Bragg that you were going to go to college, they would have laughed.”

    The University of Texas, San Antonio, has a dedicated first-year seminar for student veterans, which helps them establish a sense of belonging early in their college career and provides them with personalized assistance in obtaining credit for military service.

    1. Credit for Prior Learning

    Military-affiliated students often enroll in higher education with a wealth of experiences that can translate directly into course learning outcomes. ACE and other organizations have worked to streamline credit for prior learning offerings through the joint service transcript, which can help make college more accessible and affordable for veterans.

    “It was very clear what the equivalent courses were that were off of my degree plan,” said Jonny Coreson, a Navy veteran and director of workforce strategy at the Learning Economy Foundation. “It was an opportunity to see that I had few courses [left] to attain an associate’s degree, but I literally had to see it.”

    However, not every student veteran is eligible for or benefits from CPL in the same way, Simianer said.

    “Be prepared that some of your veterans who have arguably had some of the hardest deployments, hardest service life, most wear and tear on their bodies, they may have the most courses to fulfill,” Simianer said. “Being really good at handling a machine gun does not really translate [to degree programs].”

    1. Flexibility

    Active-duty service members can experience frequent change as part of their service, including deployment or relocation. Student veterans are also often more likely to be parenting students or working, and these competing priorities can make pursuing a degree more challenging.

    Creating a safe space for students to share their obstacles to success can mitigate disruptions to learning.

    “As a student, it was important for me to communicate up front what was going on with my life, with my counselor, with my faculty, staff,” Howard said. “There were times that my house is being packed up and I’m trying to finish an eight-page paper and I just had to let my professor know, ‘I’m going from this time zone to that time zone—I’m just asking for a little flexibility.’”

    1. Resource Hubs

    Some colleges have created dedicated spaces on campus to centralize resources and connect military students with one another. Simianer, an older student who had won a Purple Heart and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, remembers looking at his peers and feeling like he couldn’t relate to traditional students. But getting connected to his college’s student veteran hub changed that.

    “Having a place where I could be, where the humor we had would fly or the conversations you needed to have could happen, is the most powerful thing that I am grateful for,” Simianer said. “I would not have continued an education, probably, if I would not have had that at the beginning.”

    Javier Marin, a Marine Corps veteran and consultant at Vantage Point Consulting, said his college’s student veteran hub was particularly impactful because it connected him to staff.

    “I found that the hardest part wasn’t the academics; it was having a good support system,” Marin said. “You’re working, you’re going to school, you’re being a parent, you have a mortgage—everything that goes along with transitioning and navigating that space without your old support system, which was the military.”

    How does your campus seek to improve the college experience for military affiliated students? Tell us more.

    Source link

  • Students taking resits need specific support

    Students taking resits need specific support

    In an era where higher education emphasises retention, progression, and student success, there remains a striking omission in policy and practice: how best to support students who are struggling to meet their course requirements.

    We talk confidently about inclusion, engagement and student voice but for students required to resit exams, the reality is often isolation, confusion, and a lack of meaningful academic contact. This is not just a pastoral concern, it’s strategic failure.

    The hidden cost of resits

    Every summer, thousands of students across the UK undertake resit assessments. Failing to pass second time around can delay progression or, in some cases, threaten continuation. To provide a sense of scale, it has been estimated that somewhere between five and 25 per cent of students need to resit at least one assessment during their degree – this could be around 90,000 or more.

    In many institutions, including my own at the University of Manchester, the resit period overlaps with a time when many academic staff are away or busy with other things. It is at a time (for us, in late August) when there are no structured teaching activities, and likely minimal tailored guidance. These students are often left navigating complex academic demands while juggling paid work, accommodation issues, and other commitments with little support beyond generic study tips. It’s a recipe for disengagement.

    Resits are rarely discussed in pedagogic terms, and almost never in policy conversations. This topic remains under-explored, under-theorised, and under-supported. Yet, resits are pivotal moments in students’ lives, with a clear link to continuation and completion. So why do we treat them as an afterthought?

    What students told us

    To better understand the support gaps, we ran a student-partnered inquiry at the University of Manchester, focusing on students’ experiences of resits. We set out to work with students to understand how they experience resits and what support might help them succeed the second time around.

    Using thematic analysis, we drew out three main themes from our discussions. Our findings weren’t surprising, but they were striking. Students reported a lack of academic contact during the summer period with, students feeling “out of touch and isolated” during the summer. Students struggled with concerns about how to improve their knowledge and they felt unclear on what doing better looked like. And critically, they lacked confidence in their own ability to succeed.

    Importantly, students weren’t necessarily asking for more support, but they were asking for the right support. Generic toolkits and peer mentoring were rated as the least useful support strategies. Instead, what they valued was targeted feedback, clarity about expectations, and a sense of continued connection to their course and teaching team.

    What needs to change

    If institutions are serious about retention and inclusive education, they need to take resits seriously and students undertaking resits need specific pedagogic support. This means embedding revision and review into regular teaching, providing personalised feedback that explicitly supports second attempts, and recognising the resit period as a time where academic confidence is likely to be low and meaningful academic contact can make or break motivation and self-efficacy.

    Our findings suggest that students facing resits are not a homogenous group. They are individuals each navigating their own set of academic, emotional, and logistical challenges. Critically, the strategies they value most are those that give them insight into their own performance and actionable ways to improve.

    More broadly, we need to challenge the idea that resits are just a student problem. Whether a resit is seen as a hurdle, a second chance, or a psychological burden has implications for how we structure and support our students. Resits are an organisational issue where institutional priorities, academic calendars, and staffing models collide to create patchy and inconsistent support.

    Resits should not be a footnote in our academic policies. They are a critical part of the learning journey for many students, and we need to consider examining both University led and individual led strategies of support. We need to also talk to students who don’t pass their resits. What support was missing? Were the barriers academic, personal, or structural? And crucially what interventions might have made a difference.

    We need sector-wide conversations about what effective resit support looks like, how it is resourced, and who is responsible. Research on this is scarce, but growing (you can read more about our student-partnered inquiry in our recently published Advance HE case study).

    Taking resits seriously is not about lowering standards. It’s about recognising that failure when properly supported may even serve as a pedagogical “leg up” for learning. However, when left unsupported, it risks becoming the moment students fall through the cracks.

    Source link

  • Institutional neutrality can’t be used to turn students into puppets

    Institutional neutrality can’t be used to turn students into puppets

    At a moment of political turmoil in American history, rife with violence, mass protest, and division, one university chose neutrality.

    In 1967, when the president of the University of Chicago convened a faculty committee to deliberate on how the university should approach social and political issues, American higher education faced a pivotal moment. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement had changed the face of campus activism just three years prior. American society was rocked by protests against the Vietnam War and racial segregation.

    That the committee emerged from deliberations with the Kalven Report, which recommended that colleges and universities stay neutral on major social and political issues, was a testament to the committee’s understanding of the purpose of the university to advance knowledge and truth-seeking.

    The Kalven Report, named for the chair of the committee Harry Kalven Jr., articulated the role of faculty and students as instruments of “dissent and criticism,” and the university’s role as the “home and sponsor of critics.” Importantly, the report noted that the university “is not itself the critic,” and added that the spirit of independence and neutrality mean the university “must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community.”

    FAQ: Institutional Neutrality and the Kalven Report

    What is institutional neutrality? The idea that colleges and universities should not, as institutions, take positions on social and political issues.


    Read More

    FIRE has previously argued for colleges and universities to adopt institutional neutrality, both as a boon for the campus climate and as an insurance policy for the university. By declaring itself neutral on major political and social issues, a university ensures that it does not chill potential dissenters on campus by constantly taking official positions on unresolved topics. And it is worth noting that the Kalven Report makes a significant exception for threats to the “very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” There, a university may feel obligated to speak out on issues related to university governance.

    But recently, two public universities demonstrated that they misunderstand what institutional neutrality entails. They used the principle to restrict student speech under the guise of protecting university neutrality. 

    At the University of Texas at Austin, a Graduate Student Assembly representative introduced two resolutions opposing implementation of a Texas law eliminating university DEI programs and initiatives. The GSA prepared to bring the resolutions to the floor for consideration.

    But an administrator intervened on the grounds that the resolution constituted “political speech that is not permitted to be issued by a sponsored student organization in their official capacity.” This move directly contravened the GSA’s stated purpose to “serve as a voice for graduate students on matters of academics, student welfare, and campus policy.”

    FIRE and the ACLU of Texas wrote to UT Austin to explain why the university’s restrictions on the GSA are not required by the university’s adoption of institutional neutrality.

    When a student government merely expresses an opinion about a policy that has significant impact on campus, it is engaging in expressive activity protected by the same First Amendment principles that safeguard the speech of individual students. 

    Institutional neutrality restrains an institution from adopting official positions on major issues. While there are open questions about how far within a university institutional neutrality must extend, neutrality certainly does not require — and indeed, is at odds with — a university restricting the speech of student bodies. This is an especially important distinction to make, given the fact that student associations and governments are supposed to serve, in part, as voices for the student body.

    There are certain circumstances where student governments do exercise powers delegated by their universities, and so must abide by the same constitutional and legal obligations that bind the university itself. Student group funding, for example, is one area where student governments are required to be viewpoint-neutral, and FIRE has urged universities to intervene when student governments violate that obligation.

    But when a student government merely expresses an opinion about a policy that has significant impact on campus, it is engaging in expressive activity protected by the same First Amendment principles that safeguard the speech of individual students. Unduly restricting it violates students’ rights and the spirit of institutional neutrality, which is intended to allow the university to house exactly this kind of discourse and debate.

    UT Austin is not alone. This past summer, Purdue, just one year after adopting institutional neutrality, ordered an independent student publication to stop using “Purdue” in the publication’s URL and said it would end facilitating the publication’s free circulation on campus.

    The university did so because the publication is a private entity, and the university feared, in light of its stance on institutional neutrality, that the publication’s speech would be associated with the university. But this order made clear that Purdue misunderstood institutional neutrality. The university was incorrect that allowing a clearly independent student publication to use Purdue’s name in its URL was somehow a violation of institutional neutrality. 

    This was simply an attempt to censor student speech by removing long-standing informal arrangements the paper had with the university — an entirely unnecessary decision that could chill expression on campus. A reasonable person would not assume that an independent student publication or student organization is speaking on behalf of a university. This is especially so when one considers how many disparate university organizations use a university’s name or receive university funding.  

    Punishing student or faculty speech in the name of maintaining institutional neutrality turns the entire concept on its head. 

    Indeed, the wisdom of institutional neutrality is that it allows universities to foster the widest possible ranges of voices and perspectives on campus. It is not about protecting universities from being associated with views they dislike. Rather, universities can create environments where their community members feel free to take unpopular positions and debate difficult ideas without feeling that their university is putting its thumb on the scale in one direction or another. 

    Institutional neutrality does not mean penalizing student publications for their viewpoints, just as it does not justify muzzling student governments. Punishing student or faculty speech in the name of maintaining institutional neutrality turns the entire concept on its head. 

    Nearly 40 institutions, including university systems, have adopted institutional neutrality, and FIRE will continue to urge other universities to follow suit. But institutional neutrality must not be misunderstood as obligating a university to restrict the speech of student governments or publications. We urge UT Austin, Purdue, and other neutral institutions to refrain from using neutrality as an excuse to censor student speech.

    Source link

  • Creating a classroom built for success

    Creating a classroom built for success

    Key points:

    For decades, curriculum, pedagogy, and technology have evolved to meet the changing needs of students. But in many schools, the classroom environment itself hasn’t kept pace. Classic layouts that typically feature rows of desks, limited flexibility, and a single focal point can often make it harder for educators to support the dynamic ways students learn today.

    Classrooms are more than places to sit–when curated intentionally, they can become powerful tools for learning. These spaces can either constrain or amplify great teaching. By reimagining how classrooms are designed and used, schools can create environments that foster engagement, reduce stress, and help both teachers and students thrive.

    Designing a classroom for student learning outcomes and well-being

    Many educators naturally draw on their own school experiences when shaping classroom environments, often carrying forward familiar setups that reflect how they once learned. Over time, these classic arrangements have become the norm, even as today’s students benefit from more flexible, adaptable spaces that align with modern teaching and learning needs.

    The challenge is that classic classroom setups don’t always align with the ways students learn and interact today. With technology woven into nearly every aspect of their lives, students are used to engaging in environments that are more dynamic, collaborative, and responsive. Classrooms designed with flexibility in mind can better mirror these experiences, supporting teaching and learning in meaningful ways, even without using technology.

    To truly engage students, the classroom must become an active participant in the learning process. Educational psychologist Loris Malaguzzi famously described the classroom as the “third teacher,” claiming it has just as much influence in a child’s development as parents or educators. With that in mind, teachers should be able to lean on this “teacher” to help keep students engaged and attentive, rather than doing all the heavy lifting themselves.

    For example, rows of desks often limit interaction and activity, forcing a singular, passive learning style. Flexible seating, on the other hand, encourages active participation and peer-to-peer learning, allowing students to easily move and reconfigure their learning spaces for group work or individual work time.

    I saw this firsthand when I was a teacher. When I moved into one of my third-grade classrooms, I was met with tables that quickly proved insufficient for the needs of my students. I requested a change, integrating alternative seating options and giving students the freedom to choose where they felt most comfortable learning. The results exceeded my expectations. My students were noticeably more engaged, collaborative, and invested in class discussions and activities. That experience showed me that even the simplest changes to the physical learning environment can have a profound impact on student motivation and learning outcomes.

    Allowing students to select their preferred spot for a given activity or day gives them agency over their learning experience. Students with this choice are more likely to engage in discussions, share ideas, and develop a sense of community. A comfortable and deliberately designed environment can also reduce anxiety and improve focus. This means teachers experience fewer disruptions and less need for intervention, directly alleviating a major source of stress by decreasing the disciplinary actions educators must make to resolve classroom misbehavior. With less disruption, teachers can focus on instruction.

    Supporting teachers’ well-being

    Just as classroom design can directly benefit student outcomes, it can also contribute to teacher well-being. Creating spaces that support collaboration among staff, provide opportunities to reset, and reduce the demands of the job is a tangible first step towards developing a more sustainable environment for educators and can be one factor in reducing turnover.

    Intentional classroom design should balance consistency with teacher voice. Schools don’t need a one-size-fits-all model for every room, but they can establish adaptable design standards for each type of space, such as science labs, elementary classrooms, or collaboration areas. Within those frameworks, teachers should be active partners in shaping how the space works best for their instruction. This approach honors teacher expertise while ensuring that learning environments across the school are both flexible and cohesive.

    Supporting teacher voice and expertise also encourages “early adopters” to try new things. While some teachers may jump at the opportunity to redesign their space, others might be more hesitant. For those teachers, school leaders can help ease these concerns by reinforcing that meaningful change doesn’t require a full-scale overhaul. Even small steps, like rearranging existing furniture or introducing one or two new pieces, can make a space feel refreshed and more responsive to both teaching and learning needs. To support this process, schools can also collaborate with learning environment specialists to help educators identify practical starting points and design solutions tailored to their goals.

    Designing a brighter future for education

    Investing in thoughtfully designed school environments that prioritize teacher well-being isn’t just about creating a more pleasant workplace; it’s a strategic move to build a stronger, more sustainable educational system. By providing teachers with flexible, adaptable, and future-ready classrooms, schools can address issues like stress, burnout, and student disengagement. When educators feel valued and empowered in their spaces, they create a better work environment for themselves and a better learning experience for their students. Ultimately, a supportive, well-designed classroom is an environment that sets both educators and students up for success.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • UC Can Hire Undocumented Students

    UC Can Hire Undocumented Students

    The California Supreme Court chose not to review a lower court’s decision that concluded the University of California system is discriminating against undocumented students by not allowing them to work in on-campus jobs. As a result, the lower court decision stands, the Los Angeles Times reported.

    The California Supreme Court’s move not to take up the case is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by a University of California, Los Angeles, alumnus and lecturer last year. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Altshuler Berzon LLP, UCLA’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

    Undocumented students, backed by a legal theory developed by scholars at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy, have argued that state entities, such as the public university system, are permitted to hire undocumented individuals. But the UC Board of Regents rejected the idea last year.

    A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeal for the First District ruled in August that the UC system’s employment policy “facially discriminates based on immigration status and, in light of applicable state law, the discriminatory policy cannot be justified.” The ruling asked the system to reconsider its hiring policy. But the UC Board of Regents appealed that decision two months ago.

    UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz said in a statement that the California Supreme Court’s decision “creates serious legal risks for the University and all other state employers in California.”

    But undocumented students and their advocates are celebrating. Iliana G. Perez, a plaintiff and former UCLA lecturer, said as a formerly undocumented immigrant, she’s seen how employment restrictions can hold immigrant students back.

    “The California Supreme Court’s decision not only reaffirms that discriminating against undocumented immigrants from accessing on-campus employment cannot continue to be tolerated, but it also gives the UC the clarity to finally unlock life-changing opportunities for the thousands of immigrant students who contribute to its campuses, and to the state’s economy and workforce,” Perez said in a news release from the Center for Immigration Law and Policy.

    Source link

  • College students hedge their bets in a chaotic labor market by double-majoring

    College students hedge their bets in a chaotic labor market by double-majoring

    by Jon Marcus, The Hechinger Report
    November 5, 2025

    After he graduates from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Drew Wesson hopes to begin a career in strategic communication, a field with higher-than-average job growth and earnings.

    One year into his time at the university, Wesson became more strategic about this goal. Like nearly 1 in 3 of his classmates, he declared a second major to better stand out in an unpredictable labor market.

    It’s part of a trend that’s spreading nationwide, according to a Hechinger Report analysis of federal data, as students fret about getting jobs in an economy that some fear is shifting faster than a traditional college education can keep up.

    “There’s kind of a fear of graduating and going out into the job market,” said Wesson, a sophomore from Minneapolis who is double-majoring in international security and journalism. “And having more skills and more knowledge and more majors gives you a competitive edge.”

    The number of students at UW-Madison who double-major has grown by 25 percent over the last decade, the data show. But double-majoring is also on the rise at private, nonprofit colleges across the country, and at other public institutions, including the University of California, San Diego, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

    Nearly 5.4 million credentials — degrees or certificates — were earned by the 4.8 million college and university graduates in 2023-24, the most recent year for which the figure is available. That means about 12 percent left school with more than one, compared to 6 percent ten years earlier. Academic minors don’t count as a credential and aren’t tracked..

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    “Students are feeling a sort of spiraling lack of control in a very dynamic labor market,” said Rachel Slama, associate director of Cornell University’s Future of Learning Lab, which studies how technology and other innovations are changing education. “They’re probably clinging to the one thing that’s in their control, which is the majors they choose. And they think that more is more.”

    They may be right, according to one of the few studies of this topic, by scholars at St. Lawrence University and Vanderbilt Law School. Students who have one major in business and a second in science, technology, engineering or math, it found, earn more than if they majored in only one of those disciplines, the 2016 study found. 

    Graduates who double-major are also 56 percent less likely to be laid off, have their pay cut or suffer other negative effects in economic downturns, according to another study, released last year by researchers at Ohio State and four other universities. These outcomes show “the importance of diverse skill sets,” the researchers concluded. If there’s a drop in demand for the skills associated with one major, “a double major can pursue a job related to the unaffected major.” 

    At Wisconsin, nearly 6 in 10 students in computer science who pick a second major choose the lucrative discipline of data science; the number of jobs in data science is projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to increase 34 percent over about the next 10 years, at salaries that are nearly twice the national average.

    The unemployment rate among new bachelor’s degree recipients is now higher than for workers overall, and at its highest level since 2014, not including the pandemic years, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. That’s partly because artificial intelligence and other factors are transforming what employers need. 

    Nearly half of recent graduates feel underqualified to apply for even entry-level jobs, a survey by the education technology company Cengage Group finds. Only 30 percent say they have full-time jobs related to the fields that they studied.

    Meanwhile, colleges and universities — traditionally slow to transform what and how they teach — are encouraging students to combine majors as a faster way to keep up with changes in the labor market, said Taylor Odle, an assistant professor at UW-Madison who studies the economics of education and the value of credentials in the workforce.

    “Institutions are thinking strategically about how to align their degree programs with industry, and it might be by pairing two things they already have,” Odle said.

    There are other reasons for the rising popularity of double majors. At UW-Madison, for example, one factor propelling the growth is that there are no minors, noted Taylor Odle, an assistant professor there who studies the economics of education and the value of credentials in the workforce.. 

    Double-majoring isn’t easy. It typically means earning more than the usual minimum number of credits required to graduate, on top of extracurricular and other obligations. Wesson, at UW-Madison, for instance, is an officer of student government, a reporter and photographer for the campus newspaper and an honors student.

    Some separate majors have overlapping requirements. Even if they don’t, most universities and colleges charge the same tuition per semester no matter how many courses undergraduates take. So unless a second major extends the number of semesters a student needs to complete required courses, or forces him or her to take additional classes in the summers, double-majoring doesn’t typically cost more or take longer.

    Meanwhile, more students are arriving at college having already knocked off credits by taking dual-enrollment and Advanced Placement classes in high school. 

    About 2.5 million high school students participate in dual enrollment, according to an analysis of federal data by the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. (The Hechinger Report, which produced this story, is an independent unit of Teachers College.)

    This means they have room in their schedules in college for second majors, said Kelle Parsons, who focuses on higher education as a principal researcher at the American Institutes for Research.

    Related: After years of quietly falling, college tuition is on the rise again

    For some students, double-majoring makes more sense than changing majors altogether. About 30 percent of students change their majors at least once, and 10 percent two or more times, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Adding a second major is less drastic than dropping a first one and starting again from scratch, said Patrick Denice, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Western Ontario.

    “If you add a [second] major, you hedge your bets against a changing labor market without losing those credits and that coursework you’ve already earned” toward the first one, said Denice, who has studied why students at U.S. universities pick and change their majors.

    There’s yet another reason students are increasingly double-majoring. Even as they crowd into specialties associated with career opportunities, such as business and health-related disciplines — which together now account for nearly 1 in 3 undergraduate fields of study — some are adding second majors for which they simply have a passion.

    Related: Students can’t get into basic college courses, dragging out their time in school

    “They’re trying to satisfy their parents, who want them to be employed,” said J. Wesley Null, vice provost for undergraduate education and academic affairs at Baylor University, where there were more than twice as many double majors last year than there were in 2014. “But they’re also interested in a lot of interdisciplinary kinds of things. They’ll combine biology with Sanskrit or Chinese. These really bright students have a lot of diverse interests.”

    At the University of Chicago, where the number of double majors has also more than doubled, “I see students committing to one career but wanting to have more breadth,” said Melina Hale, dean of the college. “They’re going and exploring all of these other majors and finding one they love.”

    Double-majoring is also “a great way for students to demonstrate that they know how to think in different ways,” said Hale, herself a biologist who has collaborated with engineers. “If you’re going into a job in finance and have a deep background in history, you’re bringing different ways of approaching problems.”

    Related: To fill seats, more colleges offer credit for life experience

    This way of thinking is pushing still another trend: More students nationwide are earning certificates, which they can get in a matter of months and alongside their degrees, in subjects such as business management. Seventeen percent of bachelor’s degree recipients also finished college with at least one certificate in 2023-24, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reports.

    Known as “stackable credentials,” these kinds of certificates “have been talked about for a long time,” said Ryan Lufkin, vice president of global academic strategy at the educational technology company Instructure. “And now there’s really demand for them.” 

    That’s because — like double-majoring and minoring — they make applicants stand out to employers, said Odle, at UW-Madison. 

    Students, he said, “are trying to emphasize their attractiveness in the labor market. They’re trying to cover their bases.”

    Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556, [email protected] or jpm.82 on Signal.

    This story about double majors was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education.

    Data analysis by Marina Villeneuve.

    Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/students-worried-about-getting-jobs-extra-majors/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113148&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/students-worried-about-getting-jobs-extra-majors/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Universities in England can’t ignore the curriculum (and students) that are coming

    Universities in England can’t ignore the curriculum (and students) that are coming

    What has schools policy got to do with higher education?

    The Westminster government has published Becky Francis’s Curriculum and Assessment Review, unveiling what Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson calls “landmark reforms” to the national curriculum.

    Interestingly, the revitalised curriculum is to be a “core part” of how the government will deliver the Prime Minister’s target of two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning by age 25.

    The review treats higher education as an explicit destination, not a distant afterthought.

    When it invents a new “third pathway” at level 3, it insists those V Levels must carry higher education credibility and be built so that young people can progress to degree-level study as well as work – hence Ofqual regulation and sector-standard-linked content. In other words, this isn’t a dead-end vocational cul-de-sac – it is designed to be read and trusted by admissions tutors.

    On T Levels, the panel recognises reality on the ground – many universities do already accept T Level learners – but says the acceptance landscape is messy, confusing and poorly signposted. Its answer is that government should keep working with providers and HEIs to promote understanding across the HE sector so applicants know which courses take T Levels and on what terms. The implication for universities is making recognition statements clearer, and aligning them with national guidance as it emerges.

    Why the anxiety about clarity? Because the authors kept bumping into learners who don’t grasp how subject and qualification choices at 16–19 play out later for university admission. That includes confusion introduced by new badge-sets like AAQs and TOQs. It turns out that if you design a landscape that looks like alphabet soup, you shouldn’t be surprised when applicants misread the signposts.

    Bacc to the future

    The EBacc gets a particular dressing-down. It’s true that taking an academic portfolio at GCSE correlates with applying to – and attending – university. But the review finds that EBacc combinations do not boost the chance of getting into the Russell Group, (although the only source for this is a paper from 2018, which doesn’t really come down conclusively against it), and that EBacc’s accountability pull has constrained subject choice in ways that squeeze arts and applied options. For HE, that means any lingering myth that EBacc equals elite-entry advantage gets killed off.

    There’s a financial edge to all this that the review politely doesn’t mention. When the previous government tried to defund BTECs, analysis showed the policy could strip £700 million in tuition fee income from the sector, with catastrophic effects for subjects like nursing, sport science, and computing – some facing 20 per cent recruitment losses. Those shortfalls would land heaviest on lower-tariff universities already wrestling with flat domestic recruitment and collapsing international numbers.

    The stakes for getting pathway reform right are existential for parts of the sector. If V Levels don’t recruit at scale, if T Level recognition remains patchy, and if the “simplification” just creates new barriers for disadvantaged students rather than removing old ones, some universities and programmes will struggle to recruit. The review’s optimism about legibility needs to meet reality – student choice is sticky, established qualifications have brand recognition, and centrally-planned qualification reform has a patchy track record. T Levels attracted just 6,750 students after £482 million of investment.

    As well as all of that, the panel seems super keen to stress the continuing strength of A levels as a pipeline, noting that in 2022/23 some eighty-two per cent of A level learners progressed to higher education by age 19. Whatever else changes, the academic route remains a robust feeder – and universities should expect the report’s other reforms to orbit around, not replace, that core.

    Crucially, the review refuses the tired binary that “vocational” equals “non-HE.” It records evidence that large applied or technical programmes can carry real weight with HE providers – precisely because they demonstrate breadth and depth in a way that can be benchmarked consistently across learners. If you run foundation years or applied degree routes, you are being invited to read these programmes seriously.

    It also acknowledges the contested evidence on outcomes for legacy qualifications like unreformed BTECs while still affirming their role in widening participation. The nuance matters – some qualifications have varied quality and mixed university performance data, yet for those who succeed in HE, BTECs and other AGQs have often been the bridge in. A credible vocational pathway that keeps that bridge open – while simplifying the current maze – is the intended fix.

    Are universities actually ready to make good on these promises? The sector has spent years documenting how BTEC students – despite “equivalent” tariff points – have systematically worse outcomes than A-level students. Arguably, the problem in some providers isn’t the qualification – it’s that first-year curricula and pedagogy remain stubbornly designed around A-level assumptions. Group projects, applied assessment, practical skills – the things BTEC students excel at – routinely get squeezed out in favour of essays and exams that privilege academic writing developed through A-levels.

    So when the review insists V Levels must “carry higher education credibility” and enable progression to degrees, the translation work required isn’t just clearer admissions statements – it’s a more fundamental rethink of how universities teach first-year students, assess them, and support their transition.

    Put together, the narrative runs something like this. Design V Levels to be legible to universities, clean up T Level recognition so applicants aren’t left guessing, stop pretending EBacc is a golden ticket to elite admission, and keep A levels stable, but value applied depth where it’s rigorous.

    And above all, help students understand how choices at 16–19 map to HE doors that open, or close, later.

    What (or who) is coming?

    There are some wider bits of note. The review has things to say about AI:

    …generative artificial intelligence has further heightened concerns around the authenticity of some forms of non-exam assessment… It is right, therefore, that exams remain the principal form of assessment.

    As such, it urges no expansion of written coursework and a subject-by-subject approach to non-exam assessment where it is the only valid way to assess what matters. It also tasks DfE and Ofqual to explore potential for innovation in on-screen assessment – particularly where this could further support accessibility for students with SEND – but cautions that evidence for wider rollout is thin and equity risks from the digital divide are real.

    Digital capability stops being taken-for-granted. Computing becomes the spine for digital literacy across all key stages, explicitly incorporating AI – what it is, what it can and can’t do – and broadening the GCSE so it reflects the full curriculum rather than a narrow slice of computer science. Other subjects are expected to reference digital application coherently, but the foundations live in Computing. Online safety and the social-emotional ethics of tech use sit in RSHE, while the “is this real?” critical discernment is anchored in Citizenship.

    The ambition is a cohort that can use technology safely and effectively, understands AI well enough to question it, and can interrogate digital content rather than drown in it.

    More broadly, English is recast so students study “the nature and expression of language” – including spoken language – and analyse multi-modal and so-called “ephemeral” texts. That builds media-literate readers and writers who can spot persuasion, evaluate sources, and switch register across platforms, backed by a Year 8 diagnostic to catch gaps early. Drama regains status as a vehicle for performance, confidence and talk.

    In parallel, an “oracy framework” is proposed to make speaking and listening progression explicit across primary and secondary – something schools say is currently fuzzy and inconsistently taught. The sector should expect clearer outcomes on expressing ideas, listening, turn-taking and audience awareness, with specific hooks in English and Citizenship.

    Citizenship is made statutory at primary with a defined core – financial literacy, democracy and government, law and rights, media literacy, climate and sustainability – and tightened at secondary for purpose, progression and specificity. The point is to guarantee exposure, not leave it to chance. If implemented properly, you’d expect clearer outcomes on budgeting and borrowing, evaluating claims and campaigns, understanding institutions and rights, and participating respectfully in debate.

    And climate education also steps out of the margins. Expect refreshed content in Geography and Science and an explicit sustainability lens in Design and Technology, with an eye on green skills and the realities of local, affordable fieldwork. The intent isn’t a new silo called “climate” – it’s to make the concepts visible, current and assessed where they logically belong.

    What’s next?

    If this all lands as intended – and that’s a big “if” given implementation timelines and school capacity – universities should expect a cohort that’s been taught to interrogate sources, question AI outputs, and articulate arguments aloud, not just on the page.

    Whether all of this survives contact with reality should be the sector’s real concern. The review’s timeline assumes schools can execute sweeping curriculum reform, embed new pathways, and deliver enhanced oracy and media literacy by 2028 – all while navigating funding pressures, teacher shortages, and the usual chaos of system change. That’s ambitious even in favourable conditions.

    And universities know from painful experience that when school reform stumbles, they inherit the mess. BTECs were supposed to be the accessible applied route, until differential outcomes data revealed the sector hadn’t actually adapted to teach those students effectively. The EBacc was positioned as the passport to elite universities, until evidence showed it just constrained subject choice without improving Russell Group entry. The Francis Review has laudable intentions – genuine pathways, informed choice, rigorous applied options – but intentions aren’t infrastructure.

    If the 2028 cohort arrives at university having been promised that V Levels are “trusted by admissions tutors” but finds patchy recognition, or discovers their oracy training doesn’t translate because seminars still privilege A-level-style discourse, the sector will be cleaning up another policy gap between aspiration and delivery. The review knows this risk exists – hence the repeated insistence on clarity, signposting, and sector cooperation.

    But cooperation requires capacity, and capacity requires resources neither schools nor universities currently have a box full of. Nevertheless, the intent is to send universities young people who can think critically, speak confidently, and navigate complexity.

    Source link

  • The triple Rs of scholastic esports

    The triple Rs of scholastic esports

    Key points:

    I know what it feels like to stand in front of a classroom that does not have enough. Not enough computers. Not enough up-to-date software and technical tools. Not enough resources to give every student the experience they deserve. When students notice these gaps, they notice more than the missing tools. They begin to question whether their education and, by extension, their potential really matters. That doubt can quietly drain their confidence.

    This is why dependable resources are not simply a bonus in education. They are a lifeline. In my role leading the Scholastic Esports Academy in the Five Carat Choice Program at Palm Beach Lakes High School, I have watched how access to quality equipment and meaningful project-based learning transforms students from the inside out. It is not only about what they learn but about how they begin to see themselves.

    I have been fortunate to develop partnerships with organizations like Cleverlike Studios, changing the game for my students by bringing advanced technology and creativity directly into the classroom. For example, they learned how to create new characters for Minecraft and designed custom esports jerseys for their Minecraft characters. Students were engaged while learning in games they know and love. These experiences allow them to express their creativity and see their ideas come to life while building complex skills such as coding, digital media, and game design.  

    When students make the leap from simple play to design, careers in technology and digital media suddenly seem accessible, even if they have never seen themselves in these fields before. Scholastic esports is an avenue within the educational landscape that merges the captivating realm of the video game industry with project based learning and educational objectives. It capitalizes on students’ existing interests for STEM subjects, including gamification, digital media, robotics, and financial literacy, directing them towards a structured and educational setting.

    In just five years, the Palm Beach Lakes Scholastic Esports Academy has grown from a small club of ten students to more than five hundred, becoming a full CTE academy that operates both during the school day and after school. Through this experience, students are earning four to five industry certifications along their four year pathway. Their success demonstrates what happens when resources are reliable, relatable, and creativity is encouraged. Students are now able to see themselves in real time through 3D models and their own digital designs, creating new characters for Minecraft and customizing their own esports jerseys.

    Recognizing this success, the Pew Foundation invested nearly $500,000 to expand our infrastructure and transform the program from an after school club into a full daytime classroom experience, creating even greater opportunities for growth and student success. Now, when our students walk into the Esports classroom, they enter a space built around their passions. They see powerful gaming computers, professional streaming equipment, and projects that speak their language. Suddenly, the skills they once thought were only for others become reachable. They begin to realize that their love for video games, robotics, and digital media can open doors to real world careers and college opportunities.

    The results speak for themselves:

    • In FY23 Palm Beach Lakes High School used a Pew Grant to launch the esports course and compared outcomes with a matched group of students.
    • Students who participated in esports had significantly lower rates of in-school or out-of-school suspension, with about half as many incidents as their non-esports peers.
    • Absenteeism among esports students was also slightly lower.
    • While GPA and certification pass rates were similar, the behavioral improvements were clear and meaningful.

    These numbers match what I see every day. Students who once struggled to stay engaged now show up early to practice. They stay late to collaborate. They treat each other with a level of respect and teamwork that carries over into their other classes.

    None of this would be possible without reliable and relatable resources that connect directly to students’ interests and experiences. In a Title I school, these tools make learning meaningful by turning abstract ideas into hands-on projects that students can see, touch, and create. Expanding their minds through hands-on learning and project based materials from companies like Cleverlike Studios, our students gain access to educational tools that connect classroom lessons to real world applications. Coding challenges, game design projects, and digital media activities inspire creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration. Most importantly, this work helps students see that their ideas and talents have value and that their creativity can open doors to future opportunities. 

    For many of my students’ resources have always been scarce. But in the Scholastic Esports Academy they find more than equipment. They find opportunity. They discover that their skills have value beyond the game and that their voices and ideas matter. They begin to picture themselves as leaders in technology, media, and STEM fields.

    Student Alyssa Chavez said, “Last year, we completed an assignment to design a jersey for our esports teams to wear on Minecraft. The Esports Jersey assignment was very helpful and even inspiring to me because it helped me learn to adapt and appeal to the suggestions and requirements that a client or partner would want me to apply to a project.   The use of the Blockbench program helped me to understand the importance of knowing how to navigate and use a program to do my best work for certain projects. When making the jersey, I took the elements and colors of our ‘Retro Rams’ branding and applied them to the jersey to create a design that represents unity and teamwork, showcasing the unity of our esports team.”

    This is why I believe scholastic esports is not just about gaming. It is about creating a bridge between curiosity and opportunity. It is about giving students in under-resourced communities the confidence to dream bigger and the tools to make those dreams real.

    The ongoing success of our academy is proof that when education is supported with vision, dedication, and the right resources, students will rise. We have created a space where learning feels real, where creativity thrives, and where confidence is built through experience. Partners like Cleverlike Studios have played a part in this progress by providing educational tools that enhance what we do every day. Together, we are demonstrating that reliable and relatable learning environments not only inspire achievement but also prepare students to succeed beyond the classroom.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Students, Unions to Protest Trump’s Higher Ed Agenda Friday

    Students, Unions to Protest Trump’s Higher Ed Agenda Friday

    Members of the American Association of University Professors, the affiliated American Federation of Teachers and student groups are planning protests in more than 50 cities Friday against “the Trump administration’s broad assault” on higher ed, the AAUP announced in a news release.

    The AAUP said demonstrators will urge institutions to continue rejecting Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” and instead “commit to the freedom to teach, learn, research, and speak out without government coercion or censorship.”

    “From attacks on academic freedom in the classroom to the defunding of life-saving scientific research to surveilling and arresting peaceful student protesters, Trump’s higher education policies have been catastrophic for our communities and our democracy,” AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in the release. “We’re excited to help build a coalition of students and workers united in fighting back for a higher education system that is accessible and affordable for all and serves the common good.”

    The protests are part of a progressive movement called Students Rise Up, or Project Rise Up. The Action Network website says there will be “walkouts and protests at hundreds of schools” Friday—the start of a buildup “to a mass student strike on May 1st, 2026, when we’ll join workers in the streets to disrupt business as usual.”

    “We’re demanding free college, a fair wage for workers, and schools where everyone is safe to learn and protest—regardless of their gender or race or immigration status,” the website says.

    Other groups listed as organizing or supporting the protests include the Campus Climate Network, College Democrats of America, Florida Youth Action Fund, Frontline for Freedom, Higher Ed Labor United, Ohio Student Association, Sunrise Movement, Dissenters, Feminist Generation, Gen-Z for Change, Generation Vote (GenVote), March for Our Lives, Oil and Gas Action Network, Socialist Alternative, Together Across America, Voters of Tomorrow, Blue Future, Get Free, and NOW Young Feminists.

    Asked for a comment from the Education Department, Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications, repeated statements the department previously made, saying, “The Trump Administration is achieving reforms on higher education campuses that conservatives have dreamed about for 50 years.”

    “Institutions are once again committed to enforcing federal civil rights laws consistently, they are rooting out DEI and unconstitutional race preferences, and they are acknowledging sex as a biological reality in sports and intimate spaces,” she wrote.

    Source link

  • Colleges Pay Students to Participate in Events on Campus

    Colleges Pay Students to Participate in Events on Campus

    Since 2020, faculty, staff and administrators have noticed a trend among incoming college students: They don’t know how to make friends. Data affirms this—fewer students said they studied with classmates, volunteered or participated in clubs or organizations in 2023 than in 2019, according to a 2025 report from the Student Experience in the Research University Consortium.

    At the same time, student engagement and belonging correlate with academic success. Past surveys show that students who engage in extracurricular activities are more likely to feel that they belong on campus and that it’s easier to make friends. Extracurriculars can advance students’ career skills such as leadership and communication, as well as develop their professional interests.

    The challenge for institutions, therefore, is how to reverse the trend toward disengagement and emphasize on-campus connections.

    Some colleges are moving beyond offering free T-shirts and raffle prizes to encourage event attendance and moving straight to giving out cash, recognizing that finances are often the biggest barrier to student participation.

    State of play: An August 2025 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 36 percent of students have not participated in an extracurricular or co-curricular activity on campus. About one-third of students said they were involved in a few activities, and 17 percent said they were very involved in one activity.

    Adult learners (65 percent) and two-year students were least likely to say they’ve participated in campus activities (64 percent), as were students who had dropped out for a semester (63 percent), students working at least 30 hours per week (55 percent), first-generation students (49 percent) and Hispanic students (48 percent).

    The biggest hang-up for students: finances. As the costs of attending college continue to rise, a greater share of students work while enrolled. Seventy percent of Student Voice respondents said they hold a job in a typical semester, and 30 percent of those students work full-time.

    When asked their top source of stress while in college, students pointed to balancing academics with other financial and personal obligations (50 percent) or paying for college (38 percent). An additional 22 percent indicated that paying for personal expenses was a top stressor.

    Rather than ask students to choose between work or campus activities, administrators are creating avenues to pay students for certain university-led activities, such as attending workshops, engaging with support resources or investing in their health.

    Points for participation: Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., is launching a points-based incentive program next spring, called Blueprint Rewards, that translates on-campus participation into scholarship dollars and discounts at the campus store. The initiative builds on previous investments in co-curriculars including a student-facing app, Blueprint, and digital badging, which were implemented in 2018 and 2021, respectively.

    Under Blueprint Rewards, some campus events are designated as points-bearing in Blueprint, denoted by the abbreviation SET, for Student Engagement Transcript.

    Each SET event is worth between one and 10 points. After reaching 20 points connected to a given theme, students unlock a badge. The six badges are loosely modeled on the National Association for Colleges and Employers’ career competencies: leadership, accountability, problem-solving, growth mindset, collaboration and adaptability.

    For example, activities that count toward the growth mindset badge include participating in a mindfulness event (worth one point), attending a fitness center training (five points) or becoming a wellness educator on campus (10 points).

    After completing one badge, students also earn $500 in scholarship dollars, which is applied to the following year’s tuition, making the program a retention strategy as well.

    Students unlock scholarships and other rewards as they complete various badges in the Blueprint Rewards program.

    Students can redeem up to $1,000 in badge dollars toward tuition each academic year. Administrators elected to cap badge scholarships at two per academic year to ensure students are juggling their academic and other responsibilities with campus participation, according to a FAQ page.

    If they finish all six badges, students can opt to enroll in a no-tuition graduate-level course after their senior year, a value of $2,250.

    If they complete three badges by the end of their junior year, students can gain an additional $1,500 toward participation in a faculty-led experience in the U.S. or abroad. The goal is to encourage study-away experiences, and the badges (adaptability, problem-solving and accountability) help make sure the student is adequately prepared for travel.

    The program was announced Oct. 29, and full-time undergraduate students can start earning rewards in January. Since launching the digital badges in 2021, the university has seen the number of student engagements in co-curricular activities grow 65 percent, President Kevin Ross said.

    “Blueprint Rewards builds on that momentum—helping students lower tuition costs while earning résumé-boosting credentials and scholarships that recognize their engagement and career readiness,” Ross said.

    Another model: Administrators at Lynn aren’t the only campus officials using financial incentives to get students out of their dorm rooms and gaining life skills.

    The University of Kentucky’s UK Invests both rewards students for engaging in health and wellness activities and provides financial literacy and investment education. The university dedicated $1 million for the first year and has received philanthropic support to continue awarding students money.

    UK students who open a Fidelity savings account and deposit $25 are given $50 by the investment firm; each event they attend could be worth as much as an additional $50 in their accounts.

    Student behaviors are tracked on three platforms—Handshake, SUMO and BBNvolved—and participation data is used to establish how much money the student earned, which is then deposited into the student’s Fidelity account. The university processes payments to student accounts every other Friday.

    There is no cap on how much money a student can earn in a given year under UK Invests, but there is a limit to which events have financial incentives attached. For example, a student who uses the gym is paid $5 for visiting the gym three times in one week, but the student isn’t eligible to earn money after six weeks.

    The goal for the university, in addition to encouraging students to take advantage of the various offerings on campus, is to ensure graduates leave with a return on investment for their degree and some cash in savings.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link