Tag: University

  • Rosemont College in Pennsylvania to combine with Villanova University

    Rosemont College in Pennsylvania to combine with Villanova University

    Dive Brief:

    • Villanova University plans to absorb Rosemont College, which will take on the former’s name after a multiyear transition period set to begin in 2027, the two Catholic institutions in Pennsylvania said Monday.
    • After the merger is complete, Rosemont — less than a mile away from Villanova — will become “Villanova University, Rosemont Campus,” according to a press release. The deal requires approval from their accreditor — they have the same one — and from state and federal regulators.
    • Following the transition period, Villanova will take on Rosemont’s assets and liabilities and bring on three members of Rosemont’s governing board, according to Rosemont. Tenured and tenure-track faculty will be offered contracts at Villanova and can apply for tenured status via the university’s guidelines.

    Dive Insight:

    Villanova University President Peter Donohue described the merger with Rosemont as a “unique and powerful opportunity for our two institutions given our shared commitment to advancing Catholic higher education, our close physical proximity and deep alumni connections.”

    In a community message, Donohue also noted that Villanova and Rosemont students for years have taken classes and participated in programs at each others’ campuses.

    With 777 students in fall 2023, Rosemont is dwarfed by Villanova, which enrolled 10,111 students for that period. 

    Student bodies have shrunk at both colleges, though Rosemont’s has done so at a faster clip. Between 2018 to 2023, fall enrollment plunged 17.8% at Rosemont compared to a 8.3% drop at Villanova.  

    Rosemont, founded in 1921 by the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, is also the weaker of the two financially. It racked up a total operating deficit of $914,220 in fiscal 2023, more than triple the previous year’s budget gap, according to its latest financials. Villanova, meanwhile, has posted surpluses in recent years.

    Rosemont’s fiscal 2023 audit also contained a going-concern warning, indicating there was “substantial doubt” about its ability to keep operating. The audit cited the college’s failure to meet the U.S. Department of Education’s benchmarks to be considered financially responsible.

    However, in response to the financial issues flagged by auditors, Rosemont made several moves, including cutting executive-level positions, nixing a handful of vacant positions to reduce overall staffing and consolidating its student housing, moving to sell one of its residence halls. 

    The college also borrowed $7 million from its endowment to support operations and pay down a credit line. 

    College leaders said they believed those efforts, as well as marketing initiatives and enrollment partnerships — such as one with the Fraternal Order of Police — alleviated the going-concern doubt, auditors noted. 

    But merging with Villonova is meant to add to both institutions’ strengths. 

    “We are committed to securing the best possible options for our students, faculty and staff and believe this merger with Villanova offers the best opportunity to ensure that the Rosemont College history and legacy endures,” Rosemont President Jim Cawley said Monday in a statement.

    Rosemont will continue operating as a separate entity through the transition period and maintain its academic programming during that time. According to the institutions, Rosemont students who haven’t completed their degrees by 2028 will have multiple options to do so, including transferring to Villanova’s professional studies college.

    Student athletes on Rosemont’s NCAA Division III teams can move to club sports after the spring 2026 semester — given that Villanova is a Division I university. The college is looking for other D-III institutions that could provide quick and easy transfer pathways for student athletes from Rosemont, according to the institution. 

    The merger agreement also calls for the preservation of Rosemont’s chapel as “a place of gathering and inspiration.” To maintain Rosemont’s legacy, the institutions said an endowed scholarship will be created after the transition “supporting the mission” of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus.

    This isn’t Villanova’s only recent expansion. In 2024, the university bought the 112-acre Pennsylvania campus of Cabrini University following the Catholic institution’s decision to close. Per the agreement, they renamed the site Villanova University Cabrini Campus. 

    Several Catholic liberal arts colleges have struggled in recent years along with their secular peers. Facing enrollment and financial challenges, some have sought mergers. 

    This year, Gannon University and Ursuline College, for example, announced a formal merger agreement. And Iowa’s St. Ambrose University is working to acquire Mount Mercy University as part of a plan announced last year.

    Source link

  • 800 ANU staff vote no confidence in chancellor, vice-chancellor at “scandal-plagued” university – Campus Review

    800 ANU staff vote no confidence in chancellor, vice-chancellor at “scandal-plagued” university – Campus Review

    Nearly all Australian National University (ANU) union members on Thursday supported a vote of no confidence in vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell and chancellor Julie Bishop.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • University of Wollongong job cuts climb from 95 to 270 – Campus Review

    University of Wollongong job cuts climb from 95 to 270 – Campus Review

    Planned job cuts at the University of Wollongong (UOW) could hit 270 after the university announced it will extend its cost-cutting measures to non-academic staff.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Florida Virtual School Partners with University of Florida and Concord Consortium to Launch ‘Artificial Intelligence in Math’ Online Certification for Middle, High School Students 

    Florida Virtual School Partners with University of Florida and Concord Consortium to Launch ‘Artificial Intelligence in Math’ Online Certification for Middle, High School Students 

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Florida Virtual School (FLVS) is partnering with the University of Florida (UF) and the Concord Consortium to introduce a groundbreaking year-long “Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Math” supplemental certification for FLVS middle and high school students enrolled in the school’s Flex option. FLVS instructors who teach Algebra 1 will lead this innovative program, teaching the online courses while also supplementing students’ learning with activities that build students’ understanding of math and AI concepts. FLVS students enrolled in Algebra 1 who elect to earn the certification will begin April 7. 

    The certification will introduce students to the foundational principles of AI that intersect with core math topics while offering insights into real-world applications, ethical considerations, and career opportunities in AI-related fields. By merging 21st-century technology with education, the program aims to boost students’ math skills, cultivate positive attitudes toward mathematics, and expose them to the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

    “As a leader in online education for more than 27 years, Florida Virtual School is committed to being at the forefront of educational innovation,” said Dr. Louis Algaze, president and CEO of Florida Virtual School. “By partnering with the University of Florida and the Concord Consortium, we are equipping our students with essential math skills and the knowledge to navigate and succeed in an AI-enhanced world.”

    The certification also includes a collaborative feedback loop between FLVS teachers and UF and Concord Consortium researchers. Teachers will provide critical insights into the online course structure and student outcomes, helping to refine and improve the certification’s effectiveness for future online learners.

    “AI is revolutionizing industries worldwide, creating new opportunities,” said Jie Chao, project director at the Concord Consortium. “Our partnership with FLVS allows us to offer robust AI learning opportunities to students with limited access to such resources, bridging the educational gaps and preparing young people for an AI-powered future.”

    FLVS teachers will also complete 40 hours of online professional development as part of the program. The training will include learning about specialized learning technologies designed to help visualize abstract math concepts and create interactive AI model explorations to ensure students engage with the AI development process in meaningful and dynamic ways.

    FLVS Flex students who are either currently enrolled or are interested in taking Algebra 1 can now sign up for the “AI in Math” certification by filling out this survey. Students who complete the program as part of their FLVS math class will receive enrichment credit and the AI Literacy certificate issued by UF and the Concord Consortium.  

    About Florida Virtual School (FLVS) 

    At Florida Virtual School (FLVS), the student is at the center of every decision we make. For 27 years, our certified online teachers have worked one-on-one with students to understand their needs and ensure their success – with FLVS students completing 8.1 million semester courses since the school’s inception. As a fully accredited statewide public school district, Florida students in grades Kindergarten through 12 can enroll tuition-free in full-time and part-time online education options. With more than 200 effective and comprehensive courses, and over 80 fun and exciting clubs, FLVS provides families with a safe, reliable, and flexible education in a supportive environment. As a leading online education provider, FLVS also offers comprehensive digital learning solutions to school districts, from online courses that result in high student performance outcomes, to easy-to-use online platforms, staff training, and support. To learn more, visit  our website.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Five regulatory process points you may have missed from the University of Sussex decision

    Five regulatory process points you may have missed from the University of Sussex decision

    We’ve covered elsewhere the implications for policy related to academic freedom and freedom of speech stemming from the Office for Students’ decision to fine the University of Sussex for breaches of ongoing registration conditions E1 and E2.

    The publication of a detailed regulatory report also allows us insight into the way in which OfS is likely to respond to future breaches of registration conditions. It is, effectively, case law on the way OfS deals with concerns about higher education providers in England – and while parts of your university will be digesting what the findings mean for academic freedom policies, others will be thinking more widely about the implications for regulation.

    The University of Sussex, perhaps unsurprisingly, wishes to challenge the findings. It is able to challenge both the regulatory decisions and the amount of the fines at a first tier tribunal.

    As always, appeals are supposed to be process based rather than just a general complaint, so the university would have to demonstrate that the application of the registration conditions was incorrect, or the calculation of the fine was incorrect, or both. As above, there is no meaningful defence of the way the fines were calculated or discounted within the judgement so that would feel like the most immediately fertile ground for argument.

    Here’s some of the points that stood out:

    How and why was the decision to investigate made?

    We are told that, on 7 October 2021, the OfS identified reports about an incident at the University of Sussex. This followed the launch of a student campaign at the University of Sussex the previous day – which involved a poster campaign, a masked demonstrator holding a sign, and a hashtag on social media – calling for Kathleen Stock (a professor in the philosophy department) to lose her job.

    This was widely covered in the media at the time, and sparked commentary from interest groups including the Safe Schools Alliance UK and the Free Speech Union. The OfS subsequently contacted the university seeking further information, before starting a full investigation on 22 October 2021. However, despite significant public interest, the decision to start an investigation was not made public until a statement by an education minister in the House of Lords on 16 November (when we were told that the Department for Education was notified on 11 November).

    Kathleen Stock resigned from her role at the university on 28 October – six days after the start of the investigation, and substantially before the public announcement. She noted that “the leadership’s approach more recently had been admirable and decent”, while the university claimed to have “vigorously and unequivocally defended Prof Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech, free from bullying and harassment of any kind”.

    What’s not clear from this timeline is the nature of the notification on which the Office for Students was acting: the regulatory framework in place at the time suggested OfS would take action on the basis of lead indicators, reportable events, and other intelligence and sources of information. There are no metrics involved in this decision, and we are told the provider did not notify the OfS so there was no reportable event notification.

    We are left with the understanding that “other sources of information” were used – these could be “volunteered by providers and others, including whistleblowers”. Perhaps it was the same “source of information” that caused then Minister Michelle Donelan to shift from backing the university response on 8 October to calling for action on 10 October?

    We also know that – despite OfS’ insistence that it “does not currently have a role to act on behalf of any individual” – it appears that the only person to submit a “witness statement” to OfS was Stock. If OfS was concerned generally about the potential for a chilling effect on academic speech, would it not want to speak to multiple academics to confirm these suspicions? Doesn’t speaking to just one affected individual feel a little like acting “on behalf” of that individual?

    Finally – sorry to bang on – we don’t know who at OfS made the decision to conduct an investigation or on what basis. Can, say, the director of regulation just decide (based on a story in the press, or general vibes) to investigate a university – or is there a process involving sign-off by other senior staff, ideally involving some kind of assessment of the likelihood of a problem being identified within a reasonable period of time? If I were an internal auditor I would also want to be very clear that the decision was made using due process and free from political or ideological influence (for instance I’d be alarmed that someone was content for then-chair James Wharton to posit an absolutist definition of free speech in the Telegraph) shortly after the investigation started.

    Why did it take so long to investigate and make a decision?

    The only clue we are given in the regulatory report is that this is a “complex area”. OfS requested a substantial amount of documentation from Sussex – it even used a “compliance order” to make sure that no evidence was destroyed. However, it does not appear that OfS ever visited the provider to speak to staff and students – in other regulatory investigation reports, OfS has been assiduous in logging each visit and contact. There is none of that here – we don’t know how many interactions OfS had with Sussex, or on how many occasions information was requested. Indeed, OfS appears not to have visited Sussex at all. Arif Ahmed told us:

    “There may have been occasions where the university wanted to meet in person and communication was done in writing instead

    Various points of law are referred to in the regulatory report : it is notable that none of this is new law requiring additional interpretation or investigation (the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act had not even left the House of Commons committee stage at this point). It shouldn’t really take a competent lawyer that knows the sector more than a few weeks to summarise the law as it then stood and present options for action.

    The investigation into the University of Sussex was mentioned in the Chief Executive’s report from the 2 December 2021 Board meeting, and it turned up (often just as an indication that the investigation was ongoing)

    If OfS was able to fine a university for a breach of an ongoing registration relating to academic freedom, why do we need the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act?

    Well, quite. On our reckoning, the Act would have made no difference to the entire affair, save potentially for a slight chilling effect on students being empowered to exercise their own freedom of speech, and a requirement for both providers and OfS to promote free speech. The ability of the OfS to reach the conclusion it reached, and to instigate regulatory consequences, suggests that further powers were not necessary to uphold freedom of speech on campus – despite the arguments made by many at the time. There is nothing OfS could have done better, or quicker, or more effectively had the Act been in force. Sussex, in fact, had a freedom of speech policy at the time, something that the regulatory report fails to mention or take account of.

    It is curious that the announcement of the investigation came at the start of a long pause in parliamentary activity on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act – at that time we were keenly anticipating a report from the House of Commons committee stage, but we got no action at all on the bill until it was carried forward into the next session of parliament.

    How was the amount of the fine arrived at?

    There is a detailed account of the process by which it was decided to fine Sussex £360,000 for a breach of registration condition E1, and £225,000 for a breach of registration condition E2. It appears thorough and convincing, right until the point that you read it.

    OfS appears to be using a sliding scale (0.9 per cent of qualifying income for “failing to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom governance principle”, 0.5 per cent of qualifying income for “a failure to have adequate and effective management and governance arrangements in place”, an additional 0.2 per cent for not reporting the breach, a 0.2 per cent reduction for taking mitigating action…) and although Regulatory Notice 19 takes us through the process in broad terms we don’t get any rationale for why those proportions apply to those things.

    It’s all a bit “vibes based regulation” in truth.

    It is to be welcomed that OfS reduced its initial calculation of a £3.7m (1.6 per cent of qualifying income) fine to a more manageable £585,000 – but why reduce to that amount (by a hair under 85 per cent) purely because it is the first fine ever issued for this particular offence? What reduction will be applied to the next fines issued under registration conditions E1 and E2? If none, why not – surely “sufficient deterrence” is possible at that amount so why go higher?

    The documentation covers none of this – it is very hard to shake the impression that OfS is pulling numbers out of the air. When you compare the £57,000 (0.1 per cent) fine issued to the University of Buckingham for not providing audited accounts for two years (something which would have yielded something altogether nastier from Companies House you do have to ask whether the Sussex infractions were 1.5 percentage points more severe at the initial reckoning?

    Are the wider implications as the regulator intends?

    There are so many questions raised that will now be hurriedly posed at universities and higher education all over England – and my colleague Jim Dickinson has raised many of them elsewhere on the site. He’s had enough material for four pieces and I’m sure there will be many more questions that could be explored. Why – for example – should the regulator have a problem with “prohibiting the harmful use of stereotypes”? Is there a plausible situation where we would want to encourage the harmful use of stereotypes?

    It would also be worth noting the many changes to the policy that appears to have caused the initial concern (the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement) between 2018 and 2024. Perhaps these changes demonstrated the university dealing with a rapidly shifting public debate (conducted, in part, by people with the political power to influence culture more generally) as seemed appropriate at each point? So why is OfS not able to sign off on the current iteration of this policy? Why is it hanging a hefty fine on a single iteration on what is clearly a living document?

    There’s also a burden issue.Is it the position of the regulator that every policy of each university needs to be signed off by the academic council or governing bodies? Or are there any examples of policies where decisions can be delegated to a competent body or individual? A list would be helpful, if only to avoid a burdensome “gold plating” of provider-level decision making.

    Beyond the freedom of speech arguments

    There are 24 ongoing conditions of registration currently in force at the Office for Students – a regulatory report and a fine (or other sanctions) could come about through an inadvertent breach of any one of them. Many of these conditions don’t just apply to students studying on your campus – they have an applicability for students involved in franchised (and in some cases validated) provision around the world.

    We should be in a position where the sector can be competently and reliably regulated, where providers can understand the basis, process, and outcomes of any investigation, and that these are communicated promptly and clearly to the wider public. On the evidence of this report, we are a long way off.



    Source link

  • University of New Orleans should rejoin LSU system, state board says

    University of New Orleans should rejoin LSU system, state board says

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The struggling University of New Orleans should return to the Louisiana State University system, the state’s higher education board has recommended. 
    • UNO, founded in 1956 as part of the LSU system, transferred to the University of Louisiana system in 2011 amid enrollment declines stemming from Hurricane Katrina damage.
    • Transferring the institution back to the LSU system would require state legislation, which Louisiana’s board of regents voted unanimously to recommend at a meeting on Wednesday. 

    Dive Insight:

    UNO’s enrollment has never fully recovered from the disaster of Katrina nearly two decades ago. The university even grew its student body slightly after the hurricane but has since lost those gains. For the 2023-24 academic year, full-time equivalent enrollment stood at 5,114 students — just over a third of what it was in 2004-05. 

    Accompanying those declines has been financial instability. Between fiscal years 2015 and 2024, UNO’s tuition and fee revenue fell about 20% to $65 million.

    State fiscal support has also collapsed. Louisiana has gone through “one of the largest higher education disinvestments in the nation,” according to a March feasibility study from the regents on returning UNO to the university system. For UNO, state funding has fallen by just under 45% from two decades ago. 

    In addition to cost increases felt throughout higher education, UNO also faces contractual debt obligations such as for bookstore and dining services and a deferred maintenance backlog exceeding $2 billion. 

    The report also laid blame with the university, stating that “UNO’s lack of aggressive action to address these issues immediately as they arose has resulted in a deep budget deficit that must be strategically repaired.”

    Amid all its many revenue and expense challenges — and despite job cuts and other budget efforts — UNO’s budget gap has reached $30 million, according to the study. 

    All of those problems indicate failed thinking behind the university’s transfer into the UL system, according to the regents’ report. Moving UNO into UL’s fold came with an “expectation that new governance would assist in reversing declining enrollment and graduation rates to yield a stronger and more vibrant UNO,” it noted. 

    But things did not turn out as planned. “Instead, the institution’s fiscal condition has deteriorated to its current dire state, challenging UNO’s ability to meet its academic, research and community service missions,” the report said

    Yet the university “plays a significant role in advancing the intellectual and economic development of the City of New Orleans,” the study argued, pointing to well-regarded programs in jazz studies, naval architecture and marine engineering, hospitality and cybersecurity

    While the regents voted to recommend the university’s transfer to the LSU system, some board members expressed concern that doing so would just make UNO’s financial troubles a systemwide problem. 

    I just worry that, when you look at the shortfall, you’re taking the shortfall from one area and transferring it to the other,” Regent Dallas Hixson said at Wednesday’s meeting. 

    The point of transferring the university to the LSU system would be to “unlock the full potential of UNO, fostering regional prosperity while ensuring a smooth and efficient transfer of governance and leadership,” the feasibility study stated. It offered few details, however, for how that would occur. 

    To ensure a smooth transfer, the regents recommended setting up a transition team that would engage the system and UNO leadership. It also called for an in-depth third-party forensic financial audit, as well as program and facilities assessments, to help enumerate and address UNO’s challenges.

    Source link

  • University of Michigan scraps multimillion dollar DEI investment

    University of Michigan scraps multimillion dollar DEI investment

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

       Dive Brief:

    • The University of Michigan has scrapped its multimillion dollar university-wide strategic plan to promote diversity, equity and inclusion amid increasing pressure from the Trump administration on the sector. 
    • With the move, the public flagship shuttered two equity-focused offices — its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and Office for Health Equity and Inclusion — and ended all DEI programming and spending, according to the Thursday announcement. 
    • The student services provided by the DEI office will be housed under different unnamed departments. And employees who led DEI efforts will “refocus their full effort on their core responsibilities,” university leadership said. They did not say if the restructuring would result in layoffs.

    Dive Insight:

    In Thursday’s announcement, President Santa Ono and other university leaders cited President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive orders attacking DEI efforts and the U.S. Department of Education’s resulting Dear Colleague letter.

    Many universities across the country have already caved under the Trump administration’s pressure. But the University of Michigan’s compliance represents a significant victory for the White House.

    In fall 2023, the public flagship launched its DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan, a five-year blueprint even longer in the making.

    “The university’s DEI efforts are a perpetual work in progress, and we are committed to this ongoing journey and one where we never reach our destination,” the plan’s webpage said. It describes the plan as a “campuswide effort engaging all levels of the university”

    In total, the university spent some $250 million dollars on diversity efforts, according to Regent Jordan Acker.

    But Acker and other critics have argued that the investment did not result in the desired outcome. 

    “The population of minority students at UM has grown little — and much of the resources we’ve devoted to these efforts has gone into administrative overhead, not outreach to students,” he said in a Thursday statement on social media.

    Before the launch of the university’s first DEI strategic plan, it faced a years-long struggle boosting Black enrollment, to the dissatisfaction of students and administration alike.

    In 2023, 14.1% of Michigan residents were Black, according to federal data. That fall, just 4.6% of the university’s students were Black.

    Acker described the elimination of the university’s DEI efforts as a means of focusing resources on programs of “real impact,” such as the university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free and reduced tuition to qualifying Michigan residents.

    In its announcement this week, the university spotlighted Go Blue and its Wolverine Pathways program — which works with K-12 students in under-resourced communities — when touting its student successes.

    Among undergraduates, first-generation students have increased 46% and Pell Grant recipients by about 32% since 2016, university leaders said Thursday, attributing the growth to those two programs.

    The University of Michigan also said Thursday it will expand another student success program designed for undergraduates who are former foster care youths or are “navigating their educational journey without the support of their parents or guardians.”

    Because those initiatives do not explicitly mention diversity or race, they are set to survive the university’s purge of programs.

    Not all will be so lucky.

    Among its many DEI programs, the University of Michigan oversees the National Center for Institutional Diversity, the Diversity Scholars Network, and a public safety task force dedicated to addressing structural racism in policing.

    The university’s general counsel will be conducting an “expedited review” of all institutional policies, programs and practices to ensure compliance with the Trump administrations’ orders, according to Thursday’s announcement.

    Additionally, all departments are expected to ensure their webpages are in compliance and “reflect the status of current programmatic directions” at the university.

    “These decisions have not been made lightly,” Ono said Thursday. “We recognize the changes are significant and will be challenging for many of us, especially those whose lives and careers have been enriched by and dedicated to programs that are now pivoting.”

    Additionally, the university’s Alumni Association this month ended LEAD Scholars, a 16-year-old merit scholarship for admitted students who exemplify “leadership, excellence, achievement, and diversity.” The group cited the same federal pressures as university leaders.

    In an email Thursday, the head of the university’s faculty senate called the move to dismantle DEI infrastructure an “assault on the democratic values of public education and attacks on marginalized students, staff, and faculty.”

    Senate Chair Rebekah Modrak lambasted the Trump Administration as using “the power of the government to engineer a sweeping culture change towards white supremacy.”

    “Unfortunately, University of Michigan leaders seem determined to comply and to collaborate in our own destruction,” she said. “There are legal recourses that the university and university associations can and must take.”

    The faculty senate held a closed emergency meeting Friday for university employees and students to discuss next steps.

    This isn’t the first move against DEI the university has taken.

    In December, the University of Michigan eliminated the use of diversity statements from the hiring, promotion or tenure processes. A faculty working group recommended the change, but it also advised the university to ask instructors to incorporate information about their DEI efforts into their teaching, research and service statements.

    Michigan’s administration did not enact the second recommendation at the time, and such actions are now banned following Thursday’s announcement.

    Sarah Hubbard, a regent on the University of Michigan’s board and a consistent opponent of DEI efforts, praised the cancellations.

    “Ending DEI programs will also allow us to better expand diversity of thought and free speech on our campus. The end of litmus test hiring and curtailment of speech stops now,” Hubbard said in a Thursday social media post.   

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer continues to follow IPO/sale of University of Phoenix

    Higher Education Inquirer continues to follow IPO/sale of University of Phoenix

    On March 6, 2025, Apollo and Vistria publicly announced a possible IPO or sale of the University of Phoenix.  These companies have been trying to sell the University of Phoenix since 2021, but there have been no takers. The owners claim the school is worth $1.5M to $1.7M, but we (and experts we know) are skeptical, given the financials we have seen so far. The University of Phoenix was previously on sale for about $500M-$700M but the University of Arkansas System, the State of Idaho, and apparently other colleges declined the offers. 

    The University of Phoenix offers subprime education to folks,
    historically targeting servicemembers, veterans, and people of color. While some students may profit from these robocollege credentials, one wonders what
    these workers actually learn. The current student-teacher ratio at the
    University of Phoenix, according to the US Department of Education, is
    132 to 1.   

    In 2023 we made a Freedom of Action (FOIA) request to the US Department of Education (ED) to get Phoenix’s most recent audited financials. In March 2025, more than 20 months later, we were provided with a 35-page report, audited by Deloitte, with numbers from 2021 and 2022. 

    This month the Higher Education Inquirer followed up with a Freedom of Information request with the ED to obtain more up-to-date financial numbers for the University of Phoenix. We hope they will be responsive and timely enough to get the word out to the public.   

    Source link

  • University of Michigan Axes DEI

    University of Michigan Axes DEI

    The University of Michigan announced Thursday that it will essentially eliminate all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts on its campus. That includes shuttering two diversity offices, the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion, and ending its DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan.

    The changes come in response to federal anti-DEI actions, including executive orders and the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter, which declared all race-based programs in higher education illegal. Michigan’s decision was made in consultation with “various stakeholders regarding our DEI programs,” according to the announcement.

    The university said it plans to increase investments in student-facing programs, including financial aid, a scholarship program for former foster children and student success resources.

    The university has long been a champion of DEI efforts, funneling nearly $240 million into such programs over the past nine years, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, though some have critiqued the efforts for appearing to have little impact despite the big price tag.

    Source link

  • Brown University targets student journalist for sending DOGE-like emails

    Brown University targets student journalist for sending DOGE-like emails

    “Describe what tasks you performed in the past week.” 

    That’s what student journalist Alex Shieh asked 3,805 administrators at Brown University in a March 18 email. The backlash was swift. 

    Just two days later, Brown told Shieh it was reviewing his DOGE-inspired email — based on allegations that he had “emotionally harmed” several employees and “misrepresented” himself by saying he was a reporter for the conservative student newspaper The Brown Spectator, which he was. 

    Elon Musk, de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), wields a chainsaw at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference.

    In Brown’s letter, officials also claimed he violated operational procedures and demanded he “return any confidential information,” warning that his access to university data systems could be restricted.

    Days later, Associate Dean and Associate Director of Student Conduct & Community Standards Kirsten Wolfe threatened to charge Shieh with “failure to comply” unless he provided evidence that he had deleted unspecified confidential information that Brown alleged he may have accessed. Wolfe also demanded Shieh keep even the existence of this investigation private. Nor has Brown revealed what confidential information they believe he published, and Shieh denies having taken any confidential information.

    He pointed out that even if he did have any confidential information — an allegation the university has not begun to substantiate — providing evidence that he deleted it would also provide Brown incriminating evidence that he had the information in the first place — violating Brown’s promise that students have a right against self-incrimination

    Brown’s response here flies in the face of its due process and free expression guarantees, and threatens to chill student reporting on campus. Due process is essential not just to guarantee defendants a fair shake, but to uphold the legitimacy of campus disciplinary proceedings. It also acts as a bulwark protecting students’ individual liberties. As FIRE has said before, universities that guarantee their students free expression cannot base investigations on the very speech they promise to protect — and for good reason. 

    Telling someone they are the target of an investigation can have a chilling effect on speech, especially in cases like this one, where universities also can’t use chilling investigations as fishing expeditions. Brown’s effort to get Shieh himself to substantiate its assertions against him by providing evidence he thinks could relate to the allegations against him flips the disciplinary process on its head. ​​

    Fundamental fairness requires that the university bear the burden of proving the allegations, not the student to prove his innocence.

    Moreover, Brown’s threats also burden newsgathering practices protected by the university’s guarantee of press freedom. Certainly, administrators are within their rights to investigate actual breaches of confidentiality policies. But investigating journalism, offbeat though it may be, is a far cry from that.

    University President Christina Paxson declared in a recent letter that Brown will defend free expression against encroachments from the federal government. Shieh’s case suggests that her promise does not extend to Brown’s own encroachments on free expression.


    FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

    Source link