Harvard officials wrote in financial statements that fiscal year 2025 “tested Harvard in ways few could have anticipated.”
Zhu Ziyu/VCG/Getty Images
Uncertainty has been the single most damaging aspect of the second Trump administration, professors have said, with university finances taking a hit despite the impact of many of the president’s cuts not yet coming to fruition.
Although many of the harshest cuts have been quietly rescinded or blocked by the courts, universities have suffered considerable damage and are likely to face more systematic reforms to research in future, said Marshall Steinbaum, assistant professor of economics at the University of Utah.
“Beyond the high-profile, ideologically ostentatious cuts to some aspects of federally funded research, the whole enterprise is set to be less lucrative for universities going forward,” he told Times Higher Education.
Even though many of the cuts might not come to fruition, the uncertainty caused by having to plan for potential cuts had been the most damaging aspect, said Phillip Levine, professor of economics at Wellesley College.
“There’s still tremendous damage that’s been done, [but] the damage isn’t as extensive as it could have been.”
Levine said he was most worried about undergraduate international student enrollment, which often takes longer to feel the impacts of policy decisions.
Visa concerns were blamed for overseas student numbers falling by a fifth last year, but Harvard University recently announced a record intake, despite Trump’s attempts to ban its international recruitment.
But the institution did report its first operating deficit since 2020 in its financial statements—stating that the 2025 fiscal year “tested Harvard in ways few could have anticipated.”
Many institutions will suffer in the long term from a series of changes to student loan repayment. Trump has rolled back parts of the student loan origination system and introduced less generous income-based repayment plans and limits on federal loans, which will pose financial challenges to universities.
Recent research found that more than 160,000 students may be unable to find alternative sources of financing when the cap for loans kicks in later this year.
“The three-legged stool of higher education finance in the United States is tuition, federal research funding and state appropriations,” said Steinbaum. “All three legs have been cut down in the last year.”
Todd Ely, professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado–Denver, said the traditionally diversified revenue portfolio of higher education had been weakened—which he said was particularly worrying because it coincided with the arrival of the “demographic cliff” and a hostile narrative around the value of a college degree.
Although highly selective and well-endowed private and public institutions will adjust more easily to the new environment, Ely said, “‘Uncertainty’ remains the watchword for U.S. higher education.”
“Research-intensive institutions, historically envied for their diverse revenue streams and lack of dependence on tuition revenue, have had their model of higher education funding thrown into disarray,” Ely added. “The battle for tuition-paying students will only increase, straining the enrollments of less selective and smaller private colleges and regional public universities.”
Robert Kelchen, professor and head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, said cuts within universities are mitigating some of the effects of these pressures.
“The general financial challenges facing higher education prior to the Trump administration have not abated, and the cuts to federal funding have been notable,” said Kelchen.
“Universities need to try to get funding from other sources, such as students and donors,” Kelchen added, “but that is often easier said than done in a highly competitive landscape.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Monday marked the end of the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, and higher education is still reeling from months of nonstop federal whiplash and policy changes.
The Trump administration has used wide-ranging and unprecedented tactics to gain influence over the academic sector and advance its policy goals. In turn, some college leaders have been forced to decide between defending their institution’s independence and policies or yielding to the federal government’s demands due to financial pressure.
Below, we’re breaking down some of the biggest impacts of the second Trump administration’s first year, number by number.
150+
The number of investigations the Trump administration either opened into colleges or cited while warning of a potential loss of federal funding.
In March, the U.S. Department of Education put 60 colleges on notice over ongoing Title VI probes into allegations that they weren’t doing enough to protect Jewish students from discrimination or harassment. Title VI bans federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon warned the colleges, many of whose investigations predated Trump’s second term, that federal funding “is a privilege” that is “contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”
Less than a week later, the Education Department opened 51 additional investigations into colleges over allegations they had programs or scholarships with race-based restrictions for participation or eligibility. The agency again cited potential Title VI violations, along with a February guidanceletter aimed at snuffing out diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.That guidance was ultimately struck down in August by federal courts.
Several well-known colleges were named in both sets of investigations, including Yale, Cornell, Tulane and Arizona State universities.
Since last March, the Trump administration has opened additional college investigations over institutional policies that run antithetical to the president’s higher education agenda, such as allowing transgender students to play on sports teams aligning with their gender identity.
6
The number of colleges that have publicly brokered deals with the Trump administration to settle allegations of civil rights violations.
Most of the institutions — Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University,Northwestern University, and the University of Pennsylvania — each faced hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen or canceled federal funding.By settling with the Trump administration, university leaders sought to restore their funding and remove political targets from their institutions.
The remaining institution, the University of Virginia, still had its funding intact but faced five federal investigations that could have threatened access to such funds. The U.S. Department of Justice paused those probes with the promise of closing them if the university “completes its planned reforms prohibiting DEI” through 2028.
But many higher education experts have decried such agreements as violating academic freedom and emboldening the Trump administration’s assault on the sector.
In one deal, Columbia University agreedto pay the federal government $221 million — the most of any college so far — and implement sweeping policy changes. Those included reporting extensive admissions data to the Trump administration, socializing “all students to campus norms and values” via training, and allowing an independent monitor to oversee the university’s compliance with the agreement.
The settlement will also put up walls between Columbia and international students by requiring the university to reduce its financial dependence on their tuition dollars and making applicants declare why they wish to study in the U.S.
In contrast, Harvard University sued the Trump administration over its attempts to exert influence over the institution. Thus far, the courts have largely sided with Harvard. A federal judge blocked the government’s attempts to revoke the university’s ability to enroll international students and ruled against its decision to withhold $2.2 billion of Harvard’s funding.
15%
The amount the Trump administration sought to unilaterally cap colleges’ reimbursement rates for indirect research costs.
Four federal agencies — the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. departments of Energy and Defense — introduced nearly identical 15% cap policies in quick succession during the first half of 2025.
Research universities, higher education groupsand states sued over the changes, and federal courts have so far blocked all four policies.Earlier this month, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court decision permanently blocking NIH’s policy, the first the Trump administration pursued. NIH declined to comment earlier this month on whether it planned to appeal.
21%
The decrease in federal funding for scientific research the Trump administration sought for the fiscal year 2026 budget. Some agencies would have seen particularly large decreases. Under Trump, NSF requested a budget of $3.9 billion — less than half of what it received in fiscal 2025. Similarly, NIH’s head requested $27.9 billion, nearly 40% less funding than the prior year.
Congressional lawmakers have instead passed their own bipartisan funding proposals that reject these broad-based cuts. Congress has until Jan. 30 to pass a full budget for the fiscal 2026 year before a stopgap funding measure expires.
7
The number of agreements the Education Department publicly struck with other federal agencies to offload some of the responsibilities under its purview.
The move came after Trump signed an executive order in March directing McMahonto “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department.
The full closure of the Education Department would need congressional approval. But the Trump administration has sought to hollow out the department to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law,” according to the executive order.
In November, the Education Department announced interagency agreements with the U.S. departments of State, Interior, and Health and Human Services to do this work. The U.S. Department of Labor is also set to receive additional education programming oversight after it took on key federal workforce developments from the Education Department earlier in the year.
Under the November agreements, the State Department plans to take over administration of the Fulbright-Hays grant, a program that funds educators’ overseas research and training in non-Western foreign languages and area studies. The Education Department canceled the program for the 2025 fiscal year.
Additionally, the Labor Department plans to oversee a majority of federal postsecondary education grant programs. The Trump administration said in December that the agency had finished taking over the federal workforce development programs established under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
And beginning Tuesday, employees in the Higher Education Programs division in the Education Department’s postsecondary education office will be assigned to the Labor Department.
1,300+
The number of Education Department employees the Trump administration fired amid a massive reduction in force in March.Between the layoffs and employee buyouts, the department slashed its employee count from just over 4,100 to about 2,800.
In October, the Trump administration then moved to fire another 466 Education Department employees amid the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.
Both rounds of layoffs spurred court battles, which are still ongoing. However, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the Education Department the green light in July to carry on with the first round of layoffs as the lower courts consider their legality.
At the start of December, the department called some Office for Civil Rights employees back to work after nearly nine months.The staff had been on paid leave during that time, while the Trump administration legally defended the March layoffs.
And earlier this month, the administration stopped defending its October round of layoffs in court, appearing to scrap its efforts to push the terminations through.
8,000+
The rough number of student visas revoked by the State Department under the Trump administration, according to a January social media post from the State Department.At least 200 to 300 of those visas stemmed from terrorism-related claims, an agency representative said in August.
In the first half of 2025, the administration canceled the legal status of hundreds of international students in a federal database, often without formally notifying them or explaining why. Lawsuits over the decisions began to pile up, and the federal government announced in April it would temporarily reverse the cancellations pending the adoption of a formal policy.
It never publicly shared how many students were affected. But shortly afterward, court documents revealed a Trump administration policy proposal that would significantly expand the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s power to terminate students’ legal status.
The Trump administration also made headlines over the high-profile detentions and attempted deportation of international and noncitizen students who had criticized Israel’s war in Gaza and related U.S. foreign policy.
Rumeysa Öztürk, an international student at Tufts University, became one of the faces of this trend when plainclothes immigration authorities detained her in March. The Trump administration had revoked her visa earlier that month, a decision Öztürk has argued was not communicated to her and stemmed from a pro-Palestinian op-ed she co-authored in 2024.
Öztürk spent six weeks detained before a federal judge ordered her release on bail in May. Her case is ongoing.
The Trump administration also detained Mahmoud Khalil,a former graduate student at Columbia,under similar circumstances. However, Khalil is a permanent legal U.S. resident.
In 2024, he served as the lead negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of student organizations that helped organize the pro-Palestinian encampment on the university’s campus.
Like Öztürk, Khalil was detained in March 2025 by plainclothes ICE agents and moved hundreds of miles to a detention facility in Louisiana.
Khalil was detained for three-and-a-half months,missing the birth of his child and his Columbia graduation, before a federal judge ordered him to be released in June. He has sued the government, alleging he was falsely imprisoned and unlawfully targeted over his free speech.
However, a panel of federal appeals judges struck a blow to Khalil’s case Thursday, ruling that the lower court that ordered his release didn’t have the jurisdiction to do so.
Stanford University’s independent student newspaper, with assistance from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, is also suing top Trump administration officials over allegations that their attempts to deport student visa holders based on speech violated their rights to free expression and due process.
A federal judge overseeing a similar case said Thursday that he would restrict the government’s ability to deport members of the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. The professional nonprofits filed a lawsuit last year alleging the Trump administration has been attempting to deport faculty and students over protected speech.
7
The number of states the DOJ has sued over laws or policies allowing certain undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges.
The eligibility requirements vary from state to state, but in each instance, DOJ leaders have argued that the laws illegally offer undocumented students benefits not provided to all U.S. citizens.
The agency filed the first such lawsuit in June against Texas.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton,instead of defending the law, signed a joint motion with the DOJ to have it struck down. Texas was the first state to extend eligibility to undocumented students 25 years ago.
Since then, the DOJ has sued California, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Virginia over their laws or policies granting certain undocumented students eligibility for in-state tuition.
In Democratically controlled states, like Illinois and California, local officials have sworn to fight the federal lawsuits.
But in Virginia, outgoing Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares filed a motion siding with the DOJ and seeking to strike down his state’s law. A federal judge has yet to rule on that motion.
As of Jan. 16, 22 states and Washington, D.C., had policies allowing undocumented students to pay in-state rates at some or all public colleges, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal. That’s down from 24 states before Trump won a second term.
Last year turned out to be a tumultuous one for higher education, with institutions buffeted by the Trump administration’s sweeping federal research cuts, unprecedented intrusion into classrooms and relentless crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and speech rights.
In response, campus leaders engaged with lawmakers behind closed doors, spent heavily on lobbying and co-signed higher education associations’ efforts to fight government policies that threatened academic freedom and their institutional missions. But few objected publicly. For the most part, college presidents watched in silence.
Experts say that’s not surprising; university leaders are caught in a unique moment—squeezed between faculty and students demanding action and boards and lawmakers intent on punishing those who speak up.
“Unique challenges facing presidents included that difficult balance between what campus constituents wanted for presidents to say and the desires of trustees to hold very different positions, either based on pressures from legislatures or their own political beliefs,” said Teresa Valerio Parrot, principal of TVP Communications, a sector-focused public relations firm. “Often presidents found themselves in this very interesting position of trying to please internal audiences and also meet the expectations of their bosses when they weren’t congruent.”
Here’s a look at how college presidents navigated 2025—and what observers expect this year to look like for them.
Caught Unprepared
Experts said most presidents were caught off guard by the onslaught of challenges unleashed by the federal government.
Brian Rosenberg, president emeritus of Macalester College and a visiting professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Inside Higher Ed that last year was “traumatizing” for campus leaders who struggled “to not get snowed under by all of the challenges they faced.”
Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, argued that presidents had a “failure of imagination” over realizing “how damaging” policy changes would be under Trump 2.0 as the federal government shifted from a trusted partner to attack mode.
“Institutions were still trying to figure out how to navigate all the typical challenges that higher education had been facing before 2025. Those didn’t go away, but then you add on to it the federal landscape changing virtually overnight and continually changing,” Harris said. “When you’re trying to make decisions by which judge has frozen which policy or what might be coming out next, or a Dear Colleague letter that doesn’t match what the logical legal interpretation would be, that’s a challenging environment for anybody, much less a college president.”
At the same time, many leaders were also navigating financial woes, an upended athletics landscape and protests against ICE raids and international student visa crackdowns.
Lost Jobs, Stymied Searches
Institutions and individual presidents alike were caught in the political crosshairs in 2025, leading to a litany of federal and state investigations, resignations and the occasional legal showdown.
Multiple presidents targeted by federal or state lawmakers stepped down in 2025, including Michael Schill at Northwestern University and Jim Ryan at the University of Virginia. Both had drawn scrutiny from the federal government: Schill for his handling of pro-Palestinian protests and Ryan for allegedly failing to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs fast enough. Others, like Mark Welsh at Texas A&M University, were pushed out by pressure from state politicians.
Welsh was caught in a flap between Melissa McCoul, an English instructor, and a student in her children’s literature class who objected to the professor’s statement that there are more than two genders, citing an executive order from President Trump that recognizes gender only as male and female. Welsh initially resisted firing McCoul until the student tagged a Republican lawmaker, who published a video of the incident, ratcheting up pressure on both Welsh and McCoul. Ultimately, Welsh fired McCoul as the controversy swirled and other Texas politicians piled on.
Although Welsh gave state lawmakers what they wanted, it was too late to save his job.
He resigned under pressure and was replaced by interim president Tommy Williams, a former Republican lawmaker. In his first few months on the job, Williams sparked controversy after Texas A&M censored a philosophy course; officials told the professor he could not teach Plato in a class on contemporary moral problems because it conflicted with university restrictions on topics of race, gender and sexuality. (Williams has since noted the university is not “banning Plato altogether.”)
Texas A&M did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
Judith Wilde, a research professor at George Mason University who studies presidential searches and contracts, wrote by email that 2025 had “unusually high” turnover both at the presidential level and among other high-ranking academic leaders. She noted that amid the current political volatility, “some institutions seem to be using an interim leader to buy time as they consider their political exposure as well as try to avoid committing to a long-term hire.”
Similarly, Rosenberg pointed to the mid-2024 elevation of Harvard University president Alan Garber from interim to permanent status as an example of a college making a relatively safe choice and sidestepping the internal and external criticism that would inevitably accompany an executive hire. He also noted that Columbia University recently extended its presidential search.
“Nobody wants to do a search right now, particularly at these elite privates, because of the kind of scrutiny it will draw and the difficulty of hiring the right kind of person,” Rosenberg said.
Who Gets to Be a President?
Last year also saw significant presidential hiring drama, such as when the Florida Board of Governors rejected Santa Ono as the next president of the University of Florida, even though the institution’s Board of Trustees voted unanimously to select him as their next leader. The FLBOG largely shot down Ono’s selection over concerns about his past support of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, which he unsuccessfully sought to downplay.
Wilde said that reflects a shift not only in who is being hired but also in the fact that “the search itself is no longer the deciding factor in choosing a president” as boards lean into performative public vetting. Now “whether the president can survive the ideological gauntlet” is what matters most in hiring, she said.
She suspects such factors may prevent traditional academics from applying for presidencies.
At UVA, the Board of Visitors tapped an internal candidate, business dean Scott Beardsley, who reportedly scrubbed multiple references to DEI initiatives from his résumé during the search process. (Critics have also accused Beardsley of inflating his academic profile and research output.)
Experts say such instances reflect both sector hiring challenges and the changing nature of the presidency.
“When you have a rash of poor hires, failed searches, failed presidencies, at some point we have to acknowledge that’s not individual failures, it’s systemic failure,” Harris said. “I think we need to acknowledge we have systemic failures in how we hire, recruit, retain, reward and support presidents. Also, the job is changing, insofar as presidents have to be more politically savvy. It’s always been a part of the job, but I feel like now that is even more so the case.”
Rosenberg agreed that a president’s political affiliation matters more than ever, especially in red states like Florida and Texas, which have hired numerous former lawmakers to lead higher ed institutions.
“It’s never been irrelevant, certainly at public institutions, but in places like Florida and in Texas, we’re basically seeing college presidents being chosen from current or former politicians. So political affiliation is important in public institutions in ways that it has never been before,” Rosenberg said.
The Year Ahead
Experts project another challenging year for college presidents owing to a difficult policy environment. But they also note a few points of optimism that presidents can build on in 2026.
Valerio Parrot said that one win from 2025 was that “presidents were able to find coalitions” and to network with other leaders in similar positions, using one another as sounding boards. Such relationships, she said, helped guide them through moments of political uncertainty. Valerio Parrot also pointed to the role higher ed associations played in pushing back on federal overreach.
Rosenberg noted Harvard’s legal victory against the Trump administration after it tried to strip the university of federal research funding, among other actions.
He wants to see more college presidents take a stand and exhibit moral courage.
“I think what they could learn is that not resisting authoritarian growth doesn’t stop it. It enables it,” he said. “You would have thought that people would have learned that from history, but apparently we have not. If you allow authoritarians to continue to expand their power without pushback, they will expand that even more. You do that long enough, and sooner or later you reach a point where you can’t push back. I think the lesson is that duck and cover isn’t working.”
Valerio Parrot urged presidents to ask themselves three questions when considering whether to issue statements: “Why them? Why now? And what is the takeaway from what they’re sharing?” If presidents choose to speak up, she argued, they need to do so in a way that does more than add noise.
While speaking up is perilous, Harris argued it’s the kind of decision presidents must weigh and strike the right balance in execution.
“This is where I think presidents are in a no-win situation. If they spoke out as forcefully as their faculty wanted, they would be in an untenable position,” he said. “At the same time, if you’re not willing to advocate for the core values of your institution, then what are you doing at the top?”
As lawmakers kick off the 2026 legislative session, a new and consequential phase in the conversation about free speech and artificial intelligence is already taking shape in statehouses across the country. Yet another crop of AI bills is set to dictate how people use machines to speak and communicate, raising fundamental constitutional questions about freedom of expression in this country.
The First Amendment applies to artificial intelligence in much the same way it applies to earlier expressive technologies. Like the printing press, the camera, the internet, and social media, AI is a tool people use to communicate ideas, access information, and generate knowledge. Regardless of the medium involved, our Constitution protects these forms of expression.
As lawmakers revisit AI policy in 2026, it bears repeating that existing law already deals with many of the harms they seek to address — fraud, forgery, defamation, discrimination, and election interference — whether or not AI is used. Fraud is still fraud, whether you use a pen or a keyboard, because liability properly attaches to the person who commits unlawful acts rather than the instrument they used to do it.
Many of the AI bills introduced or expected this year rely on regulatory approaches that raise serious First Amendment concerns. Some would require developers or users to attach disclaimers, labels, or other statements to lawful AI-generated expression, forcing them to serve as government mouthpieces for views they may not hold. FIRE has long opposed compelled speech in school, on campus, and online, and the same concerns apply when it comes to AI systems.
Election-related deepfake legislation remains a central focus in 2026. Over the past year, multiple states have introduced bills aimed at controlling AI-generated political content. But these laws often restrict core political speech, and courts have applied well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence to find them unconstitutional. For example, in Kohls v. Bonta, a federal district court struck down California’s election-related deepfake statute, holding its restrictions on AI-generated political content and accompanying disclosure requirements violated the First Amendment. The court emphasized that constitutional protections for political speech, including satire, parody, and criticism of public officials, apply even when new technologies are used to create that expression.
Another growing category of legislation seeks to restrict “chatbots,” or conversational AI, using frameworks borrowed from social media laws. These include blanket warningrequirements telling users they are interacting with AI, sweeping in many ordinary, low-risk interactions where no warning is needed. Some proposals would categorically prohibit chatbots from being trained to provide “emotional support” to users, effectively imposing a direct and amorphous regulation on the tone and content of AI-generated responses. Other proposals require age or identity verification, either explicitly or as a practical matter, before a user may access the chatbot.
These kinds of constraints place the government between the people and information they have a constitutionally protected right to access. They censor lawful expression and burden the right to speak and listen anonymously.
For that reason, courts have repeatedly blocked similar restrictions when applied to social media users and platforms. The result is likely to be similar for AI.
Broad, overarching AI regulatory bills have also returned this year, with at least one state introducing such a proposal so far this cycle. These bills, which were introduced in several states in 2025, go well beyond narrow use cases, seeking to impose sprawling regulatory frameworks on AI developers, deployers, and users through expansive government oversight and sweeping liability for third-party uses of AI tools. When applied to expressive AI systems, these approaches raise serious First Amendment concerns, particularly when they involve compelled disclosures and interfere with editorial judgment in AI design.
Addressing real harms, including fraud, discrimination, and election interference can be legitimate legislative goals. But through FIRE’s decades of experience defending free expression, we’ve observed how expansive, vague, and preemptive regulation of expressive tools often chills lawful speech without effectively targeting misconduct. That risk is especially acute when laws incentivize AI developers to suppress lawful outputs, restrict model capabilities, or deny access to information to avoid regulatory exposure.
Rather than targeting political speech, imposing age gates on expressive tools, or mandating government-scripted disclosures, government officials should begin with the legal tools already available to them. Existing laws provide remedies for unlawful conduct and allow enforcement against bad actors without burdening protected expression or innovation. Where gaps truly exist, any legislative response should be narrow, precise, and focused on actionable conduct.
The last month of 2025 brought more campus job cuts, capping off a tumultuous year for higher education.
While December yielded roughly 300 reported job cuts across the sector, that total reflects only a fraction of the jobs lost in higher education in 2025. Inside Higher Ed tracked more than 9,000 job cuts and buyouts last year—which is undoubtedly an undercount due to unreported personnel actions.
Rising operating costs and an uncertain federal policy environment drove cuts at even the wealthiest institutions last year as universities with multibillion-dollar endowments shed hundreds of jobs after President Donald Trump restricted federal research funds, sought to limit international student enrollment and clashed with multiple universities over alleged civil rights infractions. While many of December’s job cuts were not attributable to Trump, others seemed directly connected, including the loss of hundreds of international students at DePaul University, which undercut tuition revenues, prompting layoffs.
Here’s a look at layoffs, buyouts and program cuts announced in December.
DePaul University
The private Catholic university in Chicago cut 114 staff jobs last month, officials announced.
“These decisions were extraordinarily difficult and leaders across the university did not make them lightly. Each person affected contributed to the life of this university in meaningful ways,” officials wrote in a Dec. 15 message announcing the layoffs and assistance for employees, which included severance packages based on years of service, career counseling and more.
Staffing reductions at DePaul are part of a broader effort to reduce spending by $27.4 million as the university grapples with a budget deficit and aims to achieve a 2.5 percent operating margin. DePaul has also been hit with a staggering loss of international students amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, which has made it harder for some foreign nationals to obtain visas and deterred others. International enrollment at DePaul plunged by 755 students compared to the previous fall, a decline of nearly 62 percent, officials said in September.
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Regents voted last month to close four programs at the flagship campus following months of consternation over the plan, which will see dozens of faculty positions eliminated.
Programs approved for closure are statistics, earth and atmospheric sciences, educational administration and textiles, merchandising and fashion design. The plan includes cutting 51 jobs, mostly from the faculty ranks, The Nebraska Examiner reported.
Program closures and job cuts are expected to save the university almost $7 million.
The December vote ended a bitter fight over the program cuts that prompted a faculty no-confidence vote in Chancellor Rodney Bennett. Faculty members have questioned the evaluation process and the timeline for the cuts; they also conducted their own financial assessment, which pushed back on the need for instructional cuts amid growing administrative expenses.
Bennett, who championed the program cuts, announced Monday that he plans to resign by Jan. 12. His sudden resignation ends an almost three-year stint as head of the flagship.
Martin University
Indiana’s only predominantly Black institution terminated all employees last month, a sign that points to an almost certain closure, though the Board of Trustees has not yet made it official. The move came shortly after the private university announced it would “pause” operations.
While the number of jobs lost is unclear, Martin—where enrollment has hovered around 200 students in recent years—employed 42 staff and faculty members in fall 2023, according to federal data.
Interim president Felicia Brokaw reportedly told employees the university was laying them off because it could not afford to pay them, according to an audio recording obtained by Mirror Indy. Brokaw also told staff she did not know when they would be paid for work already performed.
Martin officials have encouraged students to transfer elsewhere.
Western Wyoming Community College
Citing a need to balance its budget and avoid dipping into reserves, the community college in Rock Springs axed 33 jobs and reorganized 30 others, The Rocket Miner reported.
Last month’s cuts included eight full-time faculty jobs.
The newspaper reported that more layoffs could be on the horizon depending on what happens in the coming legislative session. State lawmakers are reportedly weighing a plan to cut property taxes by 25 percent (following a similar move last year), which would have a major effect on WWCC, given that its budget heavily relies on state appropriations and local property taxes.
University of Kansas
Nearly three dozen faculty members have opted to take buyouts offered by the public research university.
In all, 34 tenured faculty members applied to participate in an early-retirement incentive program at KU, The Lawrence Journal-World reported. University officials announced the launch of the early-retirement program in October, citing budget challenges. KU is currently seeking $32 million in cost reductions by July 1, when the next fiscal year begins.
Christian Brothers University
The private Catholic university in Memphis, Tenn., is cutting 16 faculty jobs, a move Interim President Chris Englert said was “designed to balance our operating budget and position CBU for transformation as we work to meet the needs of today’s students and today’s workforce.”
The Oklahoma Board of Regents for Higher Education voted to eliminate 41 degree programs and suspend 21 others across the state system due to underenrollment, NPR affiliate KOSU reported.
The flagship was hit the hardest, with 14 programs eliminated. No other state institution had more than three degree programs cut. Of the 14 at OU, eight were at the undergraduate level and six were graduate degrees. Cuts at OU include a mix of language programs—such as Arabic, Chinese, French and German—alongside geography, plant biology and others.
New Jersey City University
As part of a planned merger with nearby Kean University, the public institution is shedding nine degree programs alongside multiple minors and certifications, The Jersey City Times reported.
Undergraduate programs to be discontinued at NJCU are business information systems, chemistry, philosophy, women’s and gender studies, and a music performance degree. Graduate programs on the chopping block are business information systems, criminal justice, educational psychology and a music performance degree. An internal memo obtained by the newspaper noted that many programs have similar offerings at Kean that will continue unabated.
College of Idaho
The liberal arts college in Caldwell is cutting three majors but adding six new programs, a change that will see 10 employees laid off, including five professors, Idaho Ed News reported.
College officials said the eliminated majors—theater, communication arts and philosophy—were all underenrolled. New programs to be added are biochemistry, finance and criminology, at the undergraduate level, plus master’s degrees in data analytics, exercise science and accountancy.
Boston University
Facing a $30 million budget gap driven by low graduate enrollment numbers and other factors, the private university is offering buyouts to eligible faculty members, The Boston Globe reported.
Buyouts mark the latest effort by the research university to constrain costs. In early 2025, officials announced BU was laying off 120 workers and closing 120 vacant positions.
San Francisco State University
The public university is rolling out an early-retirement program to help close a budget deficit, Golden Gate Express reported.
SFSU officials announced the buyout program last month and reportedly expect between 60 and 75 faculty members to sign on. However, professors in some departments are not eligible, an exclusion officials told the news outlet was partly due to the need “to maintain business continuity.”
Higher education is entering a new era defined by proactive, intelligent digital helpers. Tech leaders such as Marc Benioff and Sam Altman have described 2025 as a pivotal year for AI agents, as colleges shift from basic chatbots to more advanced, autonomous AI systems. AI agents are not just tools; they are digital partners designed to support the entire student lifecycle.
AI agents are transforming how colleges recruit, support, and engage learners. Unlike static chatbots, these systems analyze context, adapt over time, and take initiative. Their capabilities include automating application nudges, answering complex questions, and supporting academic success. This marks a major technological leap for institutions aiming to do more with fewer resources.
In this article, we’ll define what AI agents are, explain how they differ from traditional digital assistants, and explore the growing role of agentic AI in higher education. We’ll also highlight practical benefits and examine why 2025 is a turning point for adoption.
Are you prepared for the next evolution of enrollment and student support?
What Is an AI Agent in Higher Education?
In higher education, an AI agent is a software-based digital colleague designed to carry out tasks and make decisions autonomously, much like a human team member. Unlike traditional rule-based chatbots or static analytics dashboards, AI agents are dynamic, context-aware, and capable of proactive engagement. They anticipate needs, analyze data, and take meaningful action without waiting for human prompts.
Key Capabilities of AI Agents in Higher Ed:
Real-Time Data Analysis: AI agents continuously ingest data from various systems, such as student information systems (SIS), learning management systems (LMS), and CRMs, and analyze it instantly. For example, if a student hasn’t logged into their course portal in over a week, the agent can flag this as a concern before a human staff member might even notice.
Complex Reasoning: While a basic chatbot might reply, “You missed your payment deadline,” an AI agent can infer that the student might be facing financial hardship. It reasons through that context and may recommend financial aid outreach or support services.
Proactive Action: Rather than waiting for a student to reach out, an AI agent can send reminders, book appointments, or trigger alerts based on predefined conditions and patterns it observes. This proactive behavior is one of the defining features that separates agents from other digital tools.
Human Collaboration: AI agents are not replacements for staff but digital teammates. They handle repetitive and data-heavy tasks, freeing up staff to focus on complex, high-touch interactions like one-on-one advising or sensitive student concerns.
Imagine a first-year student named Alex who begins missing classes and deadlines. An AI agent, let’s call it “Corey,” detects these signs, reviews Alex’s recent activity, and notices additional indicators such as a missed financial aid deadline and a recent visit to the counseling center. Corey logs this information and acts.
Corey sends Alex a supportive message suggesting tutoring and financial aid options, recommends an advising appointment, and even books a time. It also notifies the academic advisor and shares a detailed context summary, ensuring a more informed, empathetic meeting. Behind the scenes, the agent identifies other at-risk students based on similar patterns and launches personalized interventions.
This example illustrates the power of agentic AI in higher education in managing complex student workflows with speed, precision, and care. From recruitment and enrollment to retention and autonomous student support, AI agents are redefining digital service delivery across higher education.
AI Agents vs. Chatbots: How Are They Different?
As colleges explore digital tools to improve student support and enrollment outcomes, it’s critical to understand the difference between AI agents and traditional chatbots. While the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, their capabilities and strategic value are markedly different.
Reactive vs. Proactive
Chatbots are reactive tools. They wait for a student to initiate a question and respond with a scripted answer, often drawn from an FAQ database. Their usefulness is limited to straightforward interactions like, “What’s the application deadline?” AI agents, by contrast, are proactive.
They can detect when something needs attention, such as a missing transcript or a disengaged student, and initiate outreach or action without being prompted.
Scripted Responses vs. Intelligent Actions
Chatbots operate within a narrow script. If a question falls outside their programmed flow, they may fail to respond meaningfully. AI agents go further. They are autonomous systems capable of analyzing context, making decisions, and completing tasks.
For example, if a student asks about uploading a transcript, a chatbot might share a link. An AI agent would identify the missing document, send a personalized reminder, check for completion, and escalate if necessary, driving the outcome rather than just responding.
Single-Channel vs. Omnichannel Engagement
Chatbots often live on a single webpage and lack memory of past conversations. AI agents work across platforms, web chat, SMS, email, and student portals, and retain context across all interactions. They recognize students, recall prior discussions, and tailor communications accordingly, enabling more seamless and personalized support.
FAQ Support vs. Lifecycle Engagement
Chatbots help with quick answers, but AI agents support multi-step processes and lifecycle touchpoints. In admissions, for instance, a chatbot might handle inquiries, but an AI agent can follow up on incomplete applications, suggest resources, and nurture leads through enrollment. In student services, chatbots may share library hours, while AI agents detect academic disengagement and initiate support outreach.
In short, chatbots answer questions. AI agents drive outcomes. As one expert noted, chatbots are like automated help desks, while AI agents function as full digital assistants embedded in institutional workflows. In an era of rising service expectations and limited staff capacity, this distinction matters more than ever. Institutions that embrace AI agents gain a powerful ally in delivering timely, personalized, and outcome-driven student experiences.
How Do AI Agents Benefit Colleges and Students?
The excitement around AI agents in higher education isn’t just about cool technology. It’s about solving real problems and creating tangible improvements for both institutions and learners. Here are some of the major benefits AI agents offer:
AI agents provide around-the-clock assistance, giving every student a digital personal assistant. Whether it’s midnight before an assignment is due or a weekend deadline looms, students can get timely help. More importantly, the support becomes proactive. For example, Georgia State University’s “Pounce” chatbot texts reminders to new students about critical steps like completing financial aid.
The result? Summer loss dropped from 19% to 9%, meaning hundreds more students showed up in the fall. Multiple surveys indicate that a significant share of students feel AI-powered tools help them learn more effectively, often citing faster access to personalized support.
2. Increased Efficiency and Staff Augmentation
AI agents act as force multipliers for campus teams. They handle thousands of repetitive inquiries, freeing staff for high-value work. Maryville University’s AI assistant “Max” answers thousands of student questions each month, resolving the majority without the need for human intervention.
Some institutions report up to 75% time savings on routine tasks. Agents send deadline reminders, track document submissions, and streamline follow-ups. This eases staff workload and ensures faster responses for students.
3. Improved Outcomes (Enrollment, Retention, and Success)
AI agents improve key metrics. Integrated AI systems have been linked to measurable gains in student engagement and retention, particularly when used to support proactive outreach and early intervention.
At Bethel University, a chatbot named “Riley” helps identify and guide prospective students to relevant resources, reducing the risk of drop-off. Since every 1% yield increase can represent hundreds of thousands in tuition revenue, tools that drive application completion and enrollment are essential.
4. Consistency, Accuracy, and Scalability
AI agents help deliver more consistent and accurate information across student-facing touchpoints. Unlike human staff who may interpret rules differently, agents follow uniform protocols. They scale effortlessly during peak periods.
When the University of Pretoria launched its chatbot, it handled 30,000+ queries in just months, easing pressure on staff and speeding up student responses. In crises or transitions, agents can quickly disseminate accurate updates to thousands.
5. More Engaging and Proactive Student Experience
AI agents make engagement feel more personalized. They nudge students with reminders and timely suggestions, reducing anxiety. For instance, an agent might prompt early tutoring or check in on disengaged students.
Nearly 48% of students report that chatbots improve their academic performance. For routine questions, many prefer AI over navigating office bureaucracy.
6. Addressing Staff Challenges and Burnout
With high student-to-staff ratios, burnout is common. AI agents ease this by managing low-level tasks, allowing staff to focus on complex support. Georgia Tech’s AI teaching assistant “Jill Watson” answered student questions so effectively that many didn’t realize she wasn’t human. The result was higher satisfaction and improved grades. Faculty benefit from fewer repetitive queries and more time for meaningful instruction.
7. Data-Driven Decision Making
AI agents generate actionable insights. For example, if hundreds of students ask how to change majors, administrators might simplify that process. Rising mental health-related queries might justify expanding counseling services. These agents serve students individually and help institutions see patterns and improve policies.
AI agents are not about replacing human support. Instead, they enhance it. They handle scale, speed, and consistency, while humans deliver empathy, strategy, and complex care. In the ideal model, AI handles the routine so people can focus on relationships, creating a stronger, more responsive higher education experience for all.
Why 2025 Is Called “The Year of the AI Agent”
AI in higher education is not new. Predictive analytics, early chatbots, and automated workflows have existed on campuses for years. So Why is 2025 considered the “Year of the AI Agent”?
The answer lies in a rare convergence of technological maturity, institutional urgency, and cultural readiness. Together, these forces have pushed AI agents out of experimentation and into real, scalable deployment across higher education.
From Generative AI Hype to Agentic Execution
The last few years have delivered dramatic advances in generative AI, particularly large language models capable of human-like reasoning and communication. By late 2024, however, many institutions were still grappling with a familiar challenge: impressive technology without clear operational value.
That changed as agentic AI frameworks emerged. Unlike standalone chatbots, AI agents can reason across systems, make decisions, and take action autonomously. By 2025, the standards, tooling, and governance models needed to deploy these agents had largely solidified. Technology leaders across industries began openly describing 2025 as the moment when AI moves from novelty to infrastructure, and higher education followed suit.
A Shift From Reactive to Proactive Campus Systems
Perhaps the most profound change is philosophical. Traditional campus technologies are reactive: staff respond to dashboards, alerts, or student inquiries after problems arise. AI agents invert that model.
In 2025, institutions are deploying systems that continuously monitor behavior, detect risk signals, and intervene before issues escalate. Instead of waiting for a student to ask for help, AI agents can proactively reach out with reminders, resources, or guidance. This shift, from responding to problems to preventing them, marks a fundamental evolution in how universities support students.
A Mature Ecosystem Ready for Scale
Another reason 2025 stands out is ecosystem readiness. Major CRM and LMS platforms now support AI agent integrations, while many universities have already launched institution-wide AI environments that allow teams to build custom tools safely and responsibly.
Equally important, AI literacy has improved dramatically. Faculty, administrators, and students now have a shared baseline understanding of AI, reducing resistance and accelerating adoption. The organizational “soil,” in other words, is finally fertile.
Urgency in a Challenging Higher Ed Landscape
The broader context cannot be ignored. Enrollment pressure, budget constraints, staffing shortages, and growing student support needs have created an acute demand for scalable solutions. AI agents offer a compelling return on investment: automating routine tasks, extending staff capacity, and directly supporting recruitment, retention, and student success.
Early results have reinforced this case, demonstrating that modest investments can yield outsized operational and experiential gains.
Momentum and Institutional Confidence
Finally, momentum matters. As respected associations, peer institutions, and sector leaders publicly endorse AI adoption, hesitation gives way to action. The conversation has shifted decisively, from “Should we use AI?” to “How do we implement it effectively and responsibly?”
Taken together, these forces explain why 2025 feels different. This is the year of AI execution in higher education. Agentic AI has moved from concept to practice, and institutions embracing it now are redefining what responsive, student-centered operations look like in the modern university.
Real-World Examples of AI Agents in Higher Ed
University of Toronto (Canada): U of T is integrating AI agents into autonomous student support and advising. A university-wide task force recommended deploying AI tools in these areas, and a pilot program is underway for a course-specific AI chatbot that lives on course websites. This “virtual tutor” agent can answer students’ questions about class materials and guide them through content.
Unlike public chatbots, U of T’s version runs on a secure platform with course-specific knowledge, protecting instructors’ content and student privacy. If successful, the AI tutor will be rolled out across the institution to enhance how students receive academic help outside of class.
Arizona State University (USA): ASU has implemented AI-powered digital assistants – including a voice-activated campus chatbot through Amazon’s Alexa. In a first-of-its-kind program, ASU provided Echo Dot smart speakers to students in a high-tech dorm and launched an “ASU” Alexa skill that anyone can use to get campus information.
Students can ask the voice assistant about dining hall menus, library hours, campus events, and more. This AI agent offers on-demand answers via natural conversation, extending student engagement and support to a hands-free, 24/7 format.
University of British Columbia (Canada): UBC is leveraging AI agents to enhance advising and student services. For example, the Faculty of Science piloted “AskCali,” an AI academic advising assistant that uses generative AI to answer students’ questions about course requirements and program planning at any time of day.
AskCali draws on UBC’s academic calendar and official documents to provide accurate, personalized guidance, helping students navigate complex requirements. UBC’s Okanagan campus has also deployed chatbots for departments like IT help and student services, reportedly handling the vast majority of routine inquiries and dramatically reducing wait times.
University of Michigan (USA): U–M has rolled out AI-driven assistants to support students in academics and campus life. Notably, the College of Literature, Science, and Arts introduced “LSA Maizey,” a 24/7 AI advising chatbot described as a “smart sidekick for college life.” Maizey answers questions about degree requirements, academic policies, registration, study strategies, and more – anytime, day or night. It provides links to official information and helps students find advising info outside of business hours.
This AI agent augments U–M’s human advisors by handling common queries and pointing students to the right resources instantly. (U–M has also developed a campus-wide assistant called “MiMaizey” for general questions like dining, events, and wayfinding, further personalizing the student experience)
Harvard University (USA): Harvard is experimenting with autonomous AI tutors and assistants to improve learning and advising. In one pilot, Harvard faculty built a custom AI “tutor bot” for an introductory science course that allows students to get immediate help with difficult concepts outside of class.
Students could ask this bot unlimited questions at their own pace, without fear of judgment, and a study found it improved engagement and motivation in the course. Harvard’s IT department has also launched AI chat assistants (nicknamed “HUbot” and “PingPong”) to aid students with tech or academic questions, and Harvard Business School tested an AI teaching assistant in a finance course.
Stanford University (USA): Stanford has been a leader in using AI agents to support students academically. One example is a Stanford-developed AI system that monitors online learning platforms to detect when a student is struggling. Researchers created a machine-learning agent that predicts when a student will start “wheel-spinning” (getting stuck repeatedly on practice problems) and recommends targeted interventions to help the student overcome the obstacle.
Essentially, the AI acts like an autonomous tutor/coach in self-paced digital courses, flagging at-risk students and suggesting that instructors or the system intervene (for example, by reviewing an earlier concept). Beyond this, Stanford has trialed AI chatbots as virtual TAs in large classes (answering common questions on course forums) and used data-driven AI models to alert advisors about students who may need support.
University of Sydney (Australia): The University of Sydney developed “Cogniti,” an AI platform that serves as an “AI stunt double” for instructors, essentially allowing teachers to clone their expertise into custom AI agents for their courses. More than 800 Sydney faculty are already using Cogniti to support their teaching.
These AI agents (designed by the educators themselves) can answer student questions, provide instant feedback on practice exercises, and offer guidance 24/7, in alignment with the instructor’s curriculum and guidelines.
For example, a speech pathology class uses a Cogniti bot that role-plays as a patient’s parent to help students practice clinical conversations. Cogniti won a national award for innovation, and it’s given students at Sydney access to personalized help at all hours – while letting instructors remain in control of the AI’s scope and knowledge.
Deakin University (Australia): Deakin Genie is a pioneering digital assistant that has been serving Deakin students since late 2018. Branded as a “digital concierge,” Genie lives in the Deakin University mobile app and uses AI (natural-language processing with voice and text) to help students navigate university life. It can answer thousands of common questions (“When is my assignment due?”, “Where is the library?”), manage personal schedules and reminders, and even proactively prompt students to study or register for classes.
Genie’s rollout was phased; it started with pilot groups and went university-wide in 2018. Within the first year, its user base more than doubled, reaching over 25,000 student downloads by 2019. At peak times (such as the start of term), Genie handles up to 12,000 conversations per day, a volume equivalent to Deakin’s call center traffic. Top queries center on first-year needs: class timetables, assignment details, finding unit (course) resources, and key dates. The Genie team closely monitors performance and tracks whether Genie’s answers resolve the question or if a human staff follow-up is needed, continually updating Genie’s knowledge base and dialog flow.
This iterative improvement has paid off in high student satisfaction; many students treat Genie like a supportive “friend” always on hand. Genie is also context-aware: it knows who the student is (program, year, campus) and personalizes responses (“Your next class is…”, “Your assignment 2 is due next Monday”).
As AI agents gain traction across higher education, one point deserves emphasis: their value lies not in replacing people, but in working alongside them. The most successful institutions view AI agents as tools that extend human capacity rather than diminish it.
The goal is a blended workforce in which routine, data-heavy tasks are automated, freeing faculty and staff to focus on what humans do best: empathy, judgment, creativity, and mentorship.
In practice, this collaboration is already taking shape across campus operations. Admissions offices are using AI agents to track application completeness and communicate with prospective students, while human counselors retain responsibility for final decisions and nuanced conversations.
Advising teams rely on agents to monitor engagement data and flag potential risks, but the advising itself remains a human-centered interaction and is strengthened by better insight and preparation rather than automated away.
This shift also requires a cultural adjustment. Institutions leading the way are investing in AI literacy and professional development to help staff understand how these tools work and how they can be applied responsibly. When employees are empowered to experiment and contribute ideas, AI adoption becomes collaborative rather than imposed, encouraging innovation from the ground up.
From Experimentation to Organizational Advantage
Human oversight remains essential to responsible AI deployment. AI agents operate most effectively within clear governance frameworks that prioritize data privacy, institutional policy alignment, and human oversight. For high-impact decisions, such as academic standing, financial aid determinations, or student well-being, humans stay firmly in the loop. The agent may analyze data or draft recommendations, but people make the final call.
Importantly, AI agents can actually strengthen the human touch. By helping staff prioritize outreach and monitor large student populations, they reduce the likelihood that students fall through the cracks. The result is a campus environment that is more responsive, more personalized, and ultimately more humane, where technology supports, rather than replaces, meaningful human connection.
Are you prepared for the next evolution of enrollment and student support?
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is an AI agent in higher education?
Answer: In higher education, an AI agent is a software-based digital colleague designed to carry out tasks and make decisions autonomously, much like a human team member. Unlike traditional rule-based chatbots or static analytics dashboards, AI agents are dynamic, context-aware, and capable of proactive engagement. They anticipate needs, analyze data, and take meaningful action without waiting for human prompts.
Question: How do AI agents benefit colleges and students?
Answer: The excitement around AI agents in higher education isn’t just about cool technology. It’s about solving real problems and creating tangible improvements for both institutions and learners. Here are some of the major benefits AI agents offer:
Question: Why is 2025 considered the “Year of the AI Agent”?
Answer:The answer lies in a rare convergence of technological maturity, institutional urgency, and cultural readiness. Together, these forces have pushed AI agents out of experimentation and into real, scalable deployment across higher education.
This is a common confusion, so let me simplify it.
MasterClass doesn’t really encourage monthly learning. Their platform is clearly designed for slow, consistent learning over time, not binge-watching everything in one month.
Even if you:
Watch just 2–3 full classes in a year
Or spend 20–30 minutes a few nights a week
…the annual plan during a sale still turns out cheaper than:
Buying multiple standalone courses elsewhere
Or paying for short-term subscriptions you don’t fully use
From my own experience, MasterClass works best when you treat it like a habit — not a crash course.
That’s why the annual discounted plan makes the most sense for most people.
MaterClass – Student / Group / Holiday Discounts Explained
Let’s clear up some confusion — because many coupon sites don’t.
❌ No official student discount
❌ No special referral coupon codes
✅ Holiday & seasonal sales are the real discounts
If you see websites claiming “extra student coupons” or “secret discount codes,” be cautious. MasterClass promotions are usually automatic site-wide sales, not code-based deals.
However, there is a smart way to save more:
Choose a multi-device plan and split the cost with family or friends
Buy during holiday sales (New Year, Black Friday, etc.)
That’s the most reliable way to get MasterClass at its lowest price.
Is There a MasterClass Coupon Code or Promo Code?
This is one of the most common questions.
Short answer: ❌ No.
MasterClass does not use traditional coupon codes, promo codes, or discount codes.
All official discounts (including this 50% New Year Sale) are:
Applied automatically
Available only through the official sale page
The same for everyone
So if you see websites claiming “exclusive MasterClass coupon codes”, they usually just redirect you to the same sale page.
How to Claim the MasterClass Discount (Step-by-Step)
MasterClass Subscription Plans – Discounts
Claiming the MasterClass offer is very simple:
Visit the official MasterClass sale page (The discount is available only through the official link.)
Choose your subscription plan
Standard (1 device) – best for solo learners
Plus (2 devices) – good for couples or friends
Premium (6 devices) – ideal for families
Create an account or sign in
Confirm the discounted price
You should see 50% off already applied
No promo code box needed
Complete the payment
Credit/debit card or PayPal (availability varies by region)
Once payment is done, your membership activates instantly.
Most Popular MasterClass Courses (What People Actually Watch)
One thing I noticed while using MasterClass is that some courses are clearly more popular than others.
If you’re wondering what you’ll actually watch after buying a subscription, these are some of the most-loved MasterClass courses right now.
1. Chris Voss – The Art of Negotiation
One of the most practical MasterClass courses on communication and persuasion. I found this especially useful for salary negotiations and client conversations.
2. Gordon Ramsay – Cooking at Home
Probably the most famous MasterClass ever. Great if you want to actually cook along, not just watch.
3. James Clear – Building Better Habits
Based on Atomic Habits. Simple, actionable, and perfect if you like mindset and self-improvement content.
4. Neil Gaiman – The Art of Storytelling
Loved by writers and creatives. More inspirational than technical.
5. Bob Iger – Business Strategy & Leadership
Great for understanding leadership decisions from a real CEO perspective.
Note: All these classes are included in a single MasterClass subscription. You don’t pay extra per course.
I’ve been using MasterClass for over a year and renewed my subscription again – so here’s my honest take.
MasterClass is worth it if:
You enjoy learning from real experts and famous personalities
You want to improve mindset, communication, creativity, or leadership
You prefer structured, distraction-free learning over random YouTube videos
It may not be ideal if:
You want job-ready technical certifications
You need assignments, exams, or live mentor interaction
If you want my full, detailed experience, including what I liked, what I didn’t, and the exact courses I completed – I’ve shared everything in my complete MasterClass review.
MasterClass Sale Calendar (Past & Upcoming Deals)
If you’re wondering when MasterClass goes on sale, here’s a quick overview based on past patterns:
New Year Sale: ✅ 50% off (Current – Dec 28 to Jan 8)
Holiday Sale: ❌ Ended (Mid-Dec to Dec 28)
Black Friday Sale: ❌ Ended (Late November)
Cyber Monday Sale: ❌ Ended
Labor Day Sale: ❌ Occasionally offered (not guaranteed)
👉 The New Year and Black Friday sales usually offer the highest discounts — up to 50%.
MasterClass Refund Policy (Risk-Free)
Even if you buy during a sale, MasterClass offers:
30-day money-back guarantee
Full refund if you’re not satisfied
No questions asked
So you can try it without worrying about losing your money.
MasterClass vs Alternatives
MasterClass vs Udemy
Udemy and MasterClass serve very different purposes.
Udemy is great when:
You want to learn a specific technical skill
You need hands-on, job-ready tutorials
You want quick results
MasterClass is better when:
You want to learn from the best in the world
You care about mindset, thinking, creativity, and communication
You want structured, distraction-free learning
I personally use both.
Udemy teaches you how to do a job. MasterClass teaches you how experts think.
MasterClass vs Skillshare
Skillshare is more beginner-focused and project-driven.
It’s good if:
You’re just starting a creative skill
You like short, casual lessons
You want quick inspiration
MasterClass, on the other hand:
Goes deeper
Focuses on long-term thinking
Feels more intentional and polished
In simple words: Skillshare helps you start. MasterClass helps you refine.
Why MasterClass Is Different:
This is something I didn’t fully understand until I actually used it.
MasterClass doesn’t try to teach everything. It focuses on teaching what actually matters.
There are:
No ads
No distractions
No rushed content
No pressure to finish fast
Each class feels like a complete learning journey — not just a collection of videos.
That’s why, even after a year, I didn’t hesitate to renew my membership.
Final Verdict: Should You Buy MasterClass Now?
If you’ve been thinking about trying MasterClass, this is one of the best times to do it.
A 50% discount brings the price down to:
$60/year for individual learners
Even less per person if you choose a family plan
That’s less than most streaming subscriptions — except instead of binge-watching shows, you’re learning from people like James Clear, Chris Voss, Gordon Ramsay, Neil Gaiman, and many more.
I personally found MasterClass enjoyable, inspiring, and genuinely useful — especially when bought during a sale like this.
If you’re curious, I’d recommend giving it a try before the New Year Sale ends on January 8.
Happy learning 🙂
>> You’re covered by a 30-day refund policy if it’s not for you.
FAQs – MasterClass Discount & Subscription
When does MasterClass go on sale?
MasterClass usually runs major sales a few times a year — New Year, Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and Holiday season. The New Year Sale is currently live with 50% off.
How much does a MasterClass subscription cost?
Regular prices range from $120 to $240 per year, depending on the plan. With the current 50% discount, prices start at $60/year.
Does MasterClass offer a monthly plan?
No. MasterClass subscriptions are billed annually only.
Can I cancel MasterClass after purchase?
Yes. You can request a full refund within 30 days if you’re not satisfied.
In a keynote speech at the Michigan Literacy Summit, held Tuesday at the Michigan Science Center, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said that improving literacy rates would remain her top priority in her final year as governor.
“Helping every child read is tough. It’s a worthwhile goal,” she said. “It’s a long term project that will pay off in decades, not days. It’s a team effort that requires buy-in from students, parents, teachers and policy makers.”
She referenced the increased implementation of the “science of reading” law, which she signed in October 2024, as part of this priority. That law standardized literacy teaching methods across the state and implemented regular dyslexia testing for students up to third grade. She also touted the free school breakfast and lunch program, a key piece of the state’s education budget, and funding to reduce class sizes.
Michigan currently ranks 44th in the nation for 4th grade reading skills, Whitmer said, calling it a “crisis.”
“The vast majority of people in our state agree this isn’t the fault of any one person or any one policy or any one political party,” she continued. “I know how hard every one of our educators works every day, but we’re all feeling the impact of our literacy crisis.”
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and State Superintendent Glenn Maleyko pose for a photograph before her speech at the Michigan Literacy Summit. Dec. 16, 2025. | Photo by Katherine Dailey/Michigan Advance.
State Superintendent Dr. Glenn Maleyko, who officially took over the role leading the state’s department of education on Dec. 8, introduced Whitmer to a crowd of educators and advocates, who had gathered in Detroit for the day-long event that included panels with teachers and school leadership.
“What stood out to me the most was the governor’s genuine commitment to partnership,” Maleyko said. “She understands that improving outcomes for students is not about politics, it’s about listening, working together and staying focused on what matters most.”
This was Whitmer’s first public appearance since Michigan House Republicans canceled nearly $650 million in spending for departmental projects, a move heavily criticized by Democrats as “untransparent” and “cruel”. While Whitmer’s press secretary shared similar criticism from the governor’s office, Whitmer herself has yet to make a statement on the cuts, and left the summit before speaking to the press.
Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: [email protected].
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
Senior year is not just another academic milestone. It is the moment when everything you have done so far must come together in a clear, credible way. Colleges are no longer evaluating potential alone—they are evaluating readiness, follow-through, and direction.
At this point, small choices matter more than big promises. Admissions officers want to understand how you think, how you respond to pressure, and how you make decisions under time constraints. That is why senior-year applications are less about adding more and more and more about refining what already exists.
For students in San Diego and across Southern California, this often means balancing demanding school schedules with extracurricular commitments, part-time work, family responsibilities, and competitive peer environments. The students who stand out are not the busiest—they are the most intentional.
The goal now is clarity. A clear story. A clear plan. And a clear sense of who you are becoming as you step into college.
Choosing colleges with strategy, not stress
One of the fastest ways seniors lose confidence is by building a college list that creates pressure instead of momentum. A strong list should help you move forward, not leave you stuck second-guessing every decision.
At this stage, your list should reflect three things:
Schools where your academic profile aligns realistically
Programs that make sense for your interests and strengths
Deadlines and requirements you can manage without rushing
Southern California students often apply to a mix of UC, CSU, and private universities, each with very different expectations. Treating them all the same is a mistake. Each application type requires its own approach, timeline, and level of detail.
Instead of asking, “Is this school impressive?” ask:
Can I clearly explain why this school is a good fit for me?
Do I have sufficient time to complete this application?
Would I be excited to attend if admitted?
When your list is built around fit and feasibility, your writing improves, your stress drops, and your applications feel more confident.
Making your activities work harder for you
Many seniors underestimate the power of the activities section. This is where colleges learn how you spend your time when no one is grading you.
You do not need to hold formal titles or run large organizations. What matters is how you show responsibility, initiative, and growth. Admissions readers are trained to look for substance, not labels.
Strong activity descriptions focus on:
Jobs, family responsibilities, long-term commitments, and community involvement are significant for students in diverse regions like San Diego. Supporting a family business, caring for siblings, or working long hours during the school year can demonstrate maturity and time management when clearly explained.
Senior year involvement still counts. Colleges recognize that leadership may emerge late, especially when students assume larger roles as others graduate. What matters is honesty and impact, not length alone.
Writing essays that sound like a real person
The best essays do not sound impressive—they sound true. Admissions officers read thousands of polished essays every year. What catches their attention is a voice that feels genuine and self-aware.
When deadlines are close, the most effective essays usually:
Focus on a specific moment instead of a broad theme
Show thinking, not just events
Reveal growth without spelling it out
End with forward motion
Avoid trying to cover your entire life story. One meaningful experience, explored thoughtfully, does more work than a long list of accomplishments. If a reader can understand how you think, they can imagine you on their campus.
Supplemental essays become easier when you stop treating each one as brand new. Build strong core responses about your interests, goals, and values, then adjust them to reflect each school’s programs and culture. This keeps your writing consistent and saves time without sounding repetitive.
Staying organized when everything is happening at once
Strong applications are rarely the result of last-minute effort. They are the result of systems that keep things moving even when life gets busy.
Successful seniors usually have:
One master list of deadlines
Clear weekly goals
Draft versions saved and labeled
Recommendation plans set early
Teacher recommendations deserve special care. Choose teachers who know how you think, not just how you perform. Provide context on your goals and remind them of projects or moments that reflect your strengths. This helps them write in greater detail rather than offer general praise.
Build in buffer time. Submitting early protects you from technical issues and gives you space to review your work with fresh eyes. Calm, organized applicants submit stronger applications—it really is that simple.
How expert guidance supports seniors at the most critical stage
The proper support does not replace your voice or take over your work. It sharpens your thinking, improves your clarity, and helps you avoid common mistakes that cost time and confidence.
For seniors, practical guidance focuses on:
Refining college lists with realism and purpose
Structuring essays without flattening personality
Translating activities into meaningful impact
Managing deadlines and expectations
Preparing for interviews and next steps
In competitive regions like Southern California, many students are academically strong. What separates successful applicants is not intelligence alone, but how well their story is communicated.
Senior year is demanding, but it is also an opportunity. With the proper structure and support, it becomes a focused push rather than a stressful scramble—and the applications you submit will reflect that.
This week on the podcast we examine what the rebooted 2029 Research Excellence Framework will mean for universities’ research strategies, research culture, and future funding – including the new “strategy, people and research environment” element and the renewed focus on contribution to knowledge and understanding through research outputs.
Plus we discuss the government’s crackdown on franchised higher education provision and student loan eligibility, and we look back at the defining moments of 2025 in higher education policy – from regulation and finance to admissions, academic freedom and research – and consider what they might signal for universities in 2026 and beyond.
With Steph Harris, Director of Policy at Universities UK, Andy Westwood, Professor of Public Policy, Government and Business at the University of Manchester, Michael Salmon, News Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.
