ReportWire

Tag: Colleges and universities

  • Is college worth the cost? Universities work to show the return on investment of a degree

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — For a generation of young Americans, choosing where to go to college — or whether to go at all — has become a complex calculation of costs and benefits that often revolves around a single question: Is the degree worth its price?

    Public confidence in higher education has plummeted in recent years amid high tuition prices, skyrocketing student loans and a dismal job market — plus ideological concerns from conservatives. Now, colleges are scrambling to prove their value to students.

    Borrowed from the business world, the term “return on investment” has been plastered on college advertisements across the U.S. A battery of new rankings grade campuses on the financial benefits they deliver. States such as Colorado have started publishing yearly reports on the monetary payoff of college, and Texas now factors it into calculations for how much taxpayer money goes to community colleges.

    “Students are becoming more aware of the times when college doesn’t pay off,” said Preston Cooper, who has studied college ROI at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “It’s front of mind for universities today in a way that it was not necessarily 15, 20 years ago.”

    A wide body of research indicates a bachelor’s degree still pays off, at least on average and in the long run. Yet there’s growing recognition that not all degrees lead to a good salary, and even some that seem like a good bet are becoming riskier as graduates face one of the toughest job markets in years.

    A new analysis released Thursday by the Strada Education Foundation finds 70% of recent public university graduates can expect a positive return within 10 years — meaning their earnings over a decade will exceed that of a typical high school graduate by an amount greater than the cost of their degree. Yet it varies by state, from 53% in North Dakota to 82% in Washington, D.C. States where college is more affordable have fared better, the report says.

    It’s a critical issue for families who wonder how college tuition prices could ever pay off, said Emilia Mattucci, a high school counselor at East Allegheny schools, near Pittsburgh. More than two-thirds of her school’s students come from low-income families, and many aren’t willing to take on the level of debt that past generations accepted.

    Instead, more are heading to technical schools or the trades and passing on four-year universities, she said.

    “A lot of families are just saying they can’t afford it, or they don’t want to go into debt for years and years and years,” she said.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon has been among those questioning the need for a four-year degree. Speaking at the Reagan Institute think tank in September, McMahon praised programs that prepare students for careers right out of high school.

    “I’m not saying kids shouldn’t go to college,” she said. “I’m just saying all kids don’t have to go in order to be successful.”

    American higher education has been grappling with both sides of the ROI equation — tuition costs and graduate earnings. It’s becoming even more important as colleges compete for decreasing numbers of college-age students as a result of falling birth rates.

    Tuition rates have stayed flat on many campuses in recent years to address affordability concerns, and many private colleges have lowered their sticker prices in an effort to better reflect the cost most students actually pay after factoring in financial aid.

    The other part of the equation — making sure graduates land good jobs — is more complicated.

    A group of college presidents recently met at Gallup’s Washington headquarters to study public polling on higher education. One of the chief reasons for flagging confidence is a perception that colleges aren’t giving graduates the skills employers need, said Kevin Guskiewicz, president of Michigan State University, one of the leaders at the meeting.

    “We’re trying to get out in front of that,” he said.

    The issue has been a priority for Guskiewicz since he arrived on campus last year. He gathered a council of Michigan business leaders to identify skills that graduates will need for jobs, from agriculture to banking. The goal is to mold degree programs to the job market’s needs and to get students internships and work experience that can lead to a job.

    Bridging the gap to the job market has been a persistent struggle for U.S. colleges, said Matt Sigelman, president of the Burning Glass Institute, a think tank that studies the workforce. Last year the institute, partnering with Strada researchers, found 52% of recent college graduates were in jobs that didn’t require a degree. Even higher-demand fields, such as education and nursing, had large numbers of graduates in that situation.

    “No programs are immune, and no schools are immune,” Sigelman said.

    The federal government has been trying to fix the problem for decades, going back to President Barack Obama’s administration. A federal rule first established in 2011 aimed to cut federal money to college programs that leave graduates with low earnings, though it primarily targeted for-profit colleges.

    A Republican reconciliation bill passed this year takes a wider view, requiring most colleges to hit earnings standards to be eligible for federal funding. The goal is to make sure college graduates end up earning more than those without a degree.

    Others see transparency as a key solution.

    For decades, students had little way to know whether graduates of specific degree programs were landing good jobs after college. That started to change with the College Scorecard in 2015, a federal website that shares broad earnings outcomes for college programs. More recently, bipartisan legislation in Congress has sought to give the public even more detailed data.

    Lawmakers in North Carolina ordered a 2023 study on the financial return for degrees across the state’s public universities. It found that 93% produced a positive return, meaning graduates were expected to earn more over their lives than someone without a similar degree.

    The data is available to the public, showing, for example, that undergraduate degrees in applied math and business tend to have high returns at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while graduate degrees in psychology and foreign languages often don’t.

    Colleges are belatedly realizing how important that kind of data is to students and their families, said Lee Roberts, chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill, in an interview.

    “In uncertain times, students are even more focused — I would say rightly so — on what their job prospects are going to be,” he added. “So I think colleges and universities really owe students and their families this data.”

    ___

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brown University rejects Trump’s offer for priority funding, citing concerns over academic freedom

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — Brown University is rejecting a Trump administration proposal that would provide favorable access to funding in exchange for a wide range of commitments, saying the deal would curtail academic freedom and undermine the university’s independence.

    Brown is the latest university to turn down the proposal, which White House officials said would bring “multiple positive benefits” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.” The Massachusetts Institute of Technology backed away from the proposal last week after its president said it would restrict free speech and campus autonomy.

    Brown President Christina Paxson turned down the proposal on Wednesday in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House officials. The Ivy League university in Providence, Rhode Island is aligned with some of the provisions in the offer, she said — including commitments to affordability and equal opportunity in admissions — but can’t agree to others.

    “I am concerned that the Compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission,” Paxson wrote.

    Brown and MIT were among nine universities invited this month to become “initial signatories” to the proposal. Officials at the University of Texas system said they were honored to be invited, while most others have remained quiet. The Trump administration invited feedback from universities by Oct. 20 and requested decisions no later than Nov. 21.

    Brown previously struck a deal with the Trump administration to restore lost research funding and end federal investigations into discrimination.

    In that agreement, finalized in July, Brown agreed to a $50 million payout to workforce organizations in Rhode Island. It also agreed to adopt the federal government’s definition of “male” and “female,” to eliminate diversity targets in admissions and to renew partnerships with Israeli academics, among other terms.

    Unlike that deal — which includes a clause affirming Brown’s academic freedom — Paxson said the new proposal lacks any guarantee that the university would retain control over its curriculum or academic speech. Her rejection is in line with the views of the “vast majority of Brown stakeholders,” Paxson wrote.

    In a post on his Truth Social platform on Sunday, President Donald Trump suggested other campuses can step forward to participate in the compact. Those that want to return to “the pursuit of Truth and Achievement,” he said, “are invited to enter into a forward looking Agreement with the Federal Government to help bring about the Golden Age of Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

    In its letter to universities, the administration said the compact would strengthen and renew the “mutually beneficial relationship” between universities and the government. The compact is a proactive attempt at reform even as the government continues enforcement through other means, the letter said.

    The proposal includes several commitments around admissions, women’s sports and free speech. Much of it centers on promoting conservative viewpoints, including by abolishing “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

    ___

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The AI ‘upskilling tsunami’ is coming—and these professors think an AI-generated professor is a big part of the answer | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    As AI sweeps through higher education, a growing number of professors have been drawing a line in the sand—banning AI tools from the classroom and returning to classic “blue book” exams to ensure authentic, human-driven learning. David Joyner of Georgia Tech told Fortune that he’s heard blue-book sales are up something like 50% nationwide. In fact, The Wall Street Journal reported in May that they they’ve risen even higher at some colleges, such as the University of California, Berkeley, whose bookstore reported an 80% surge over the last two years.

    But Joyner, who among other things is Georgia Tech’s executive director of online education, where he’s long been a leader in the online education space with an ultra-cheap $7,000 computer science Masters degree, has other ideas. He and Anant Agarwal, an award-winning professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have cloned Joyner in cyberspace and created an artificial intelligence (AI) professor.

    Joyner’s latest project on the online education platform edX, an experimental pilot titled “Foundations of Generative AI,” is something new, Fortune can exclusively reveal. It uses a virtual avatar named DAI-vid, modeled after Joyner’s own appearance and voice. The avatar delivers lectures while wearing a signature binary-coded bracelet. Joyner explained that if you see him onscreen wearing a bracelet, that’s actually DAI-vid talking.

    The rise of the ‘super teacher’

    Agarwal became CEO of edX in 2012 for exactly this outcome, when Harvard and MIT co-founded the nonprofit based off Agarwal’s MITx initiative. Ever since, he has been using the platform to teach far-reaching “open courses” (also known as MOOCs, or massive online open courses) for years, with the first edX course being an MIT lecture on circuits and electronics that drew 155,000 students from 162 countries within one year, according to edX, and has now surpassed 1 million. The open courses offered by edX have since grown to over 2,000 online courses reaching over 17 million people.

    The organization has grown from a nonprofit, jointly founded by Harvard and MIT with $30 million investments from each, into a for-profit entity following its acquisition by 2U for $800 million in 2021, when Agarwal became edX’s chief academic officer. With edX now firmly in the for-profit area of open courses, competing against players such as Coursera, profit is a consideration but edX reiterated to Fortune that this AI pilot is not part of monetization efforts, although it is not housed within edX’s nonprofit wing, either.

    In the years since, Agarwal told Fortune, edX has grown to reach millions of people, in line with its mission. For instance, he noted that Harvard’s David Malan has taught an online course on edX that has drawn over 7 million users, while Agarwal’s own circuits course has been taken by at least a million students worldwide. Agarwal said he strongly believes that AI technology will help more professors reach similar millions of people, and that’s why he approached Joyner about the idea of an AI-generated open course.

    Agarwal said Joyner is his “go-to person for things like this” and mentioned how much Joyner has done to democratize online learning, including his computer science degree recognized by, among others, Fast Company for its low-cost accessibility. Stressing that the duo co-developed the course as an experimental pilot, and they want to harvest feedback and learnings.

    At the time, Joyner was developing a new generative AI module for the aforementioned online computer science program, specifically the Master of Science degree. He had two bad options: a text-based format that could be easily updated but boring, and a filmed course that would be outdated within months, at the rate of technological progress. Using AI tools offered a way for him to do both, he realized. The result is Foundations of Generative AI: a three-week course on edX that feels like a timely video course but can be edited and updated by Joyner with the help of AI tools at any point.

    The course introduces Joyner’s avatar—DAI-vid—upfront, so students know they’re watching AI-generated instruction. The avatar is clearly identified with a visible indicator: a bracelet created by Joyner’s daughter (which spells AI in binary digits) ensures students always know when the presenter is the AI. Joyner used HeyGen, a generative AI video platform, to create his avatar, training it with a five-minute studio recording that captured his appearance and speech patterns.

    Agarwal said he was excited by the results: “AI is augmenting the teacher and turns teachers into super teachers.” Far from eliminating teachers, it is multiplying their reach and impact, he said. “It democratizes teaching.” Everybody can be a great teacher with these AI tools, he insisted, but there’s a catch: these AI tools still don’t substitute for human skills and knowhow.

    “If you’re a bad teacher, this isn’t going to make you a good teacher,” Agarwal said. “But if you’re a good teacher, this is going to make it so you can teach a lot more people and teach a lot more subjects and teach in a lot more contexts. But you still have to have that expertise.”

    Joyner agreed, clarifying that AI gets added to the relationship after all the intellectual heavy lifting by (the human version of) him is done: “This is an AI assisting an instructor, but the instructor ultimately [is] the author and responsible party for everything.” He said it’s definitely not the case that he’s telling a robot to design his course, it’s more like he’s working with robots to amplify the course delivery once he’s done designing it himself.

    Agarwal said he knows many professors “who can write quite well, but are tongue-tied in front of a camera,” lacking the kind of hand gestures, enthusiasm, and even voice inflection that makes for a successful instructor. He explained that he sees AI as part of a natural progression in teaching, noting the huge advances in course instruction from even 10, 20 years ago. The richest colleges and universities were able to improve education, taking one professor’s wonky scribblings and turning them into slick presentations with the help of “graphic designers, video editors, text writers, amazing teaching assistants, all kinds of people—a professor could have a huge team,” Agarwal said. A lot of those functions can now be done by AI, he added, “and every teacher at every college, poor or rich, can have an amazing team and a supporting cast.” He said that instead of harming education, AI will “democratize” it.

    For Joyner, working with AI has made course creation a more personal process: “The analogy I have is when I do a traditional course production, it feels like a Marvel big-budget movie production… This [AI process] feels more like an auteur indie film.” He said he feels like this course “captures” him much more—even though it’s DAI-vid talking, not David.

    AI-assisted grading

    Fortune has previously reported on the thorny question of education in the age of AI. Jure Leskovec, a computer science professor at Stanford and himself a startup founder, told Fortune that he shifted two years ago to completely hand-written and hand-graded essays. Students, especially his teaching assistants, were asking for it because they wanted to be sure they were really learning about the subject and that required a manual process given AI’s capabilities. He said that instead of saving him time, AI has made it so exams take “much longer” to grade, creating “additional work” and “fewer trees in the world” from all the paper he’s printing out.

    To be sure, an intensive, semester-long course at Stanford like this one is very different from a three-week open course like Joyner’s. Still, Joyner is taking nearly the opposite tack, prioritizing scale and efficiencies through AI-assisted grading, with safeguards built into the process. Essays are evaluated through a tool called “GradyAI,” and the key thing, according to Agarwal, “is that students learn better from rapid feedback cycles.” He explained that traditionally, students submit an essay, wait a week, and get feedback, but GradyAI makes feedback nearly instant. “And anything a TA would need to escalate, a human can still take over. We see this as a crucible to experiment with the best of both AI and human teaching.”

    When asked about potential mistakes or even hallucinations in the grading of papers through AI technology, Agarwal explained that the grading tool provides very detailed feedback, and students can ask for a regrade if they disagree. “Within a minute, GradyAI will have regraded them based on the feedback. And the students can escalate to a faculty member for a live look, if they want to.”

    Regarding the subject of cheating and whether students might use AI to write essays, edX told Fortune that GradyAI has cheating detection built into its algorithms that can be turned on or off depending on the application. This works by extracting a student’s skills from their submitted assignments and flagging inconsistencies with the skills that are subsequently displayed. It uses the same skills extraction algorithms to report a student’s skill development over a course as a demonstration of learning progress. 

    Agarwal said the system was also designed to accommodate privacy laws and newly emerging regulations in areas like Europe, and this is a bit difficult as it’s such a nascent space. “The laws are changing so fast.”

    One of the most transformative aspects is accessibility. The tools allow courses to be instantly translated and altered to fit many different learning styles and needs—including learners with disabilities, or those needing support in different languages. “With one course, I can explode it exponentially a million-fold and truly customize learning to each student,” Agarwal said. He said he envisioned a future where every learner can “zap” a course into their preferred level, language, or pace—radically personalizing education at scale.

    The coming tsunami

    In a separate interview, Agarwal made clear that he’s a big believer in AI, having spent decades exploring its potential, from building energy-efficient “organic computing” models in the early 2000s to pioneering online learning with edX’s nearly 100 million global learners today. He is incredibly bullish on AI, telling Fortune that this will be “the decade to beat all decades” in terms of technological advancement.

    He acknowledged the recent finding from colleagues at MIT that 95% of corporate AI pilots are failing to generate a return on investment, but added that that’s just part of how science works: “I’m not surprised. I mean, I’ve been a technologist long enough [to wonder] why is that even news? Remember, I was becoming an MIT professor in the mid-’80s when the first mobile phone just came out, and it was as big as a coffee machine.” The real breakthrough came decades later. Agarwal said he was able to access the internet in 1987 through his research and “it was crappy, crummy, text-based.” AI, he added, is going to be “bigger than microwave ovens. It’s bigger than the automobile. It’s bigger than, probably the thing that comes closest would be the computer.”

    Agarwal also acknowledged the chaos unleashed in job markets and among students, pointing to coding as a specific example. “The boot-camp business completely imploded and … does not exist anymore, pretty much. And it’s because all those entry-level coding jobs went away because coding moved to a higher level.”

    Agarwal predicted a “tsunami of people that are coming who are hell-bent on upskilling with AI,” and said he’s working with major corporate clients who “want to upskill tens of thousands of people within their own company … It is much, much easier to upskill an existing employee than try to lay off and hire somebody else. So my sense is that this upskilling tsunami is coming.” (Agarwal declined to name the client, citing confidentiality.)

    In other words, millions of people will need new skills, and they might be getting them from a professor’s avatar, wearing a bracelet, with a name like DAI-vid.

    [ad_2]

    Nick Lichtenberg

    Source link

  • Gavin Newsom vetoes “unnecessary” California reparations bill 

    [ad_1]

    California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill aimed at allowing universities to give the descendants of slaves special consideration in admissions, saying it was unnecessary as colleges already have the authority to do that.

    Why It Matters

    The veto will be seen as a setback on the issue of reparations, or efforts to atone for a legacy of slavery and discrimination, and it comes as the administration of President Donald Trump has taken steps to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts in both the public and private sectors.

    The Trump administration has also launched an unprecedented campaign to extract financial commitments and policy concessions from some of America’s top universities, freezing billions in federal research funding over allegations of antisemitism, DEI violations and civil rights infractions.

    What To Know

    The Postsecondary Education: Admissions Preference: Descendants of Slavery Bill was put forward by Democratic assemblymember Isaac Bryan and would have allowed but not required institutions to give preference to descendants of slavery.

    Newsom said in a statement that the bill sought to clarify that California’s educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admission to an applicant who was a descendant of a slave, which was not needed.

    “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary,” he said.

    Newsom said he encouraged educational institutions to “review and determine how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

    The bill was among several aimed at advancing the cause of reparations that Newsom vetoed on Monday. Others included one focused on access to housing, one on restitution for property wrongfully taken, and another on business licenses.

    Newsom said the vetoed bills were either unworkable or legally questionable or would strain state resources.

    The author of the college admissions bill, Bryan, said in a statement the veto was “more than disappointing,” and students descended from slavery needed help.

    But critics said the bill would have violated Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996 and prohibits the state’s public universities from considering ethnicity in admissions, and a 2023 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court against race-based affirmative action.

    What People Are Saying

    Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan said in a statement: “While the Trump administration threatens our institutions of higher learning and attacks the foundations of diversity and inclusivity, now is not the time to shy away from the fight to protect students who have descended from legacies of harm and exclusion.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China and the US have long collaborated in ‘open research.’ Some say that must change

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — For many years, American and Chinese scholars worked shoulder to shoulder on cutting-edge technologies through open research, where findings are freely shared and accessible to all. But that openness, a long-standing practice celebrated for advancing knowledge, is raising alarms among some U.S. lawmakers.

    They are worried that China — now considered the most formidable challenger to American military dominance — is taking advantage of open research to catch up with the U.S. on military technology and even gain an edge. And they are calling for action.

    “For far too long, our adversaries have exploited American colleges and universities to advance their interests, while risking our national security and innovation,” said Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican and chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He has introduced legislation to put new restrictions on federally funded research collaboration with academics at several Chinese institutions that work with the Chinese military, as well as institutions in other countries deemed adversarial to U.S. interests.

    The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party makes it a priority to protect American research, having accused Beijing of weaponizing open research by converting it into a “pipeline of foreign talent and military modernization.”

    The rising concerns on Capitol Hill threaten to unravel deep, two-generations-old academic ties between the countries even as the world’s two largest economies are moving away from each other through tariffs and trade barriers. The relationship has shifted from engagement to competition, if not outright enmity.

    “Foreign adversaries are increasingly exploiting the open and collaborative environment of U.S. academic institutions for their own gain,” said James Cangialosi, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, which in August issued a bulletin urging universities to do more to protect research from foreign meddling.

    The House committee released three reports in September alone. They targeted, respectively, Pentagon-funded research involving military-linked Chinese scholars; joint U.S.-China institutes that train STEM talent for China; and visa policies that have brought military-linked Chinese students to Ph.D. programs at American universities. The reports recommend more legislation to protect U.S. research, tighter visa policies to vet Chinese students and scholars and an end to academic partnerships that could be exploited to boost China’s military powers.

    More than 500 U.S. universities and institutes have collaborated with Chinese military researchers in recent years, helping Beijing develop advanced technologies with military applications, such as anti-jamming communications and hypersonic vehicles, according to a report by the private U.S. intelligence group Strider Technologies.

    Despite efforts in recent years by the U.S. government to set up guardrails to prevent such collaboration from boosting China’s military capabilities, the practice is still prevalent, according to Strider, based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

    The report identified nearly 2,500 publications produced in collaboration between U.S. entities and Chinese military-affiliated research institutes in 2024 on STEM research, which includes physics, engineering, material science, computer science, biology, medicine and geology. While the number peaked at more than 3,500 in 2019, before some new restrictive measures came into effect, the level of collaboration remains high, the report said.

    This collaboration not only facilitates “potential illicit knowledge transfer,” but supports China’s “state-directed efforts to recruit top international talent, often to the detriment of U.S. national interests,” the report said.

    Foreign countries can exploit American research by stealing secrets for use in military and commercial settings, by poaching talented researchers for foreign companies and universities and by recruiting students and researchers as potential spies, authorities say.

    Fostering a climate of robust academic research takes funding and long-term support. Stealing the fruits of that labor, however, can be as easy as hacking into a university network, hiring away researchers or coopting the research itself. That’s why, authorities say, it’s so tempting for American adversaries looking to take advantage of U.S. institutions and research.

    The most recent threat assessment report from the Department of Homeland Security highlights concerns that American adversaries — and China specifically — seek to illicitly acquire U.S. technology. Authorities say China aims to steal military and computing technology that might give the U.S. an advantage, as well as the latest commercial innovations.

    Abigail Coplin, assistant professor of sociology and science, technology and society at Vassar College, said there are already guardrails for federally funded research to protect classified information and anything deemed sensitive.

    She also said open research goes both ways, benefiting the U.S. as well, and restrictions could be counterproductive by driving away talents.

    “American national security interests and economic competitiveness would be better served by continuing — if not increasing — research funding than they are by implementing costly research restrictions,” Coplin said.

    Arnie Bellini, a tech entrepreneur and investor, also said efforts to protect U.S. research risk stifling progress if they go too far and prevent U.S. colleges or startups from sharing information about new and emerging technology. Keeping up with China will also require big investments in efforts to protect innovation, said Bellini, who recently donated $40 million to establish a new cybersecurity and AI research college at the University of South Florida.

    Bellini said it’s imperative to encourage research and development without giving secrets away to America’s enemies. “In the U.S., it is a reality now that our digital borders are under siege — and businesses of every size are right to be concerned,” Bellini said.

    According to Department of Justice figures, about 80% of all economic espionage cases prosecuted in the U.S. involve alleged acts that would benefit China.

    Some members of Congress have pushed to reinstate a Department of Justice program created during the first Trump administration that sought to investigate Chinese intellectual espionage. The so-called “ ChinaInitiative ” ended in 2022 after critics said it failed to address the problem even as it perpetrated racist stereotypes about Asian American academics.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colleges teach learning, but they’re not learning how to survive | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    American higher education is in the business of knowledge.  But in a fast-moving economy, it is losing touch with the marketplace it is meant to serve.

    Rising tuition, declining enrollment, and disappointing employment outcomes have led many to question whether college still delivers on its promise. Dozens of smaller institutions are shuttering or consolidating, caught between rising costs and weakening demand. These are not isolated failures. They are signals of a system in need of reinvention.

    The real challenge, however, is not external. It is structural. If higher education is to remain viable in a competitive, post-industrial economy, it must shift from viewing itself as a self-contained enterprise to recognizing its role in the broader talent supply chain.

    That shift requires more than programmatic tweaks. It requires a rethinking of priorities.

    For much of the past century, colleges and universities have kept industry at arm’s length, operating on the premise that their purpose is to cultivate knowledge for its own sake. Theory was king. Practical application was often treated as peripheral, or worse, vocational. But the world has changed. And so have student expectations.

    Today’s graduates face a job market that demands both agility and applied experience. Many are entering the workforce burdened with debt and without the tools to contribute from day one. Students and families are beginning to ask harder questions. Employers, too, are losing patience. We should not be surprised. Higher education is overdue for a course correction.

    At many institutions, the idea of aligning more closely with industry is viewed with caution. Some see it as a dilution of academic purpose or a threat to faculty independence. Others simply fear change. But these objections miss the point.

    Professional preparation does not have to come at the expense of intellectual rigor. In fact, the most effective workforce-ready graduates are those who can think critically, communicate effectively, and adapt to complexity. These are not soft skills. They are the very traits that rigorous academic study is designed to develop. What is missing is experience.

    At Kettering University, where I am president, we have built a model that integrates traditional learning with deep, structured engagement in the workforce. Our cooperative program is not an add-on. It is the foundation of our model, and has been for more than a century. We do not view students as customers. We view them as emerging professionals. And we do not treat employers as donors. We treat them as partners.

    Founded in 1919 as The School of Automobile Trades, Kettering became the Flint Institute of Technology before being acquired by General Motors in 1926 and renamed the General Motors Institute. For the next five decades, it served as GM’s primary talent engine, producing generations of engineering and management leaders through a deeply embedded co-op model. In 1945, we added a fifth-year universal thesis requirement, completing our evolution into a full degree-granting university. GM divested in 1982, and in 1998 we became Kettering University, named for Charles F. Kettering, head of GM Research and one of the earliest advocates for professional cooperative education. That legacy still defines us.

    Today, every Kettering student alternates over a 4.5-year course of study between intensive 11-week academic terms and 11-week paid professional work placements. They graduate with two-and-a-half years of discipline-specific experience and often over $100,000 in earnings. We partner with more than 600 employers nationwide—including leading firms in mobility, aerospace, and autonomous systems—to deliver this model at scale. Each year, close to 100% of our graduates secure employment within a few months, often with their co-op employers and frequently in leadership-track roles. More than 1,500 alumni currently serve in executive positions across industries, including in the C-suites of Fortune 500 companies.

    Kettering’s commitment to cooperative education is not just semantics. It is a shift in orientation. In our model, industry is the client. The student is the product. And our job is to develop that product with both intellectual depth and practical capability.

    The most effective way to do that is through cooperative education: formal, mentored, compensated work placements embedded in the academic calendar. The concept is not new. It originated at the University of Cincinnati over a century ago and has been championed by institutions like Northeastern, Drexel, and Antioch. More recently, schools across the country have begun experimenting with summer internships and short-term placements to meet growing demand.

    But not all co-op models are created equal. To be more than résumé lines, these programs must rest on a few core principles.

    First, they must be integrated with academic content and tied to the student’s chosen field. Second, the work must be substantive and supervised, not clerical. Third, it must be paid, and the employer must be actively involved in shaping the experience. And fourth, there must be sufficient repetition to build mastery, not just exposure.

    This edge isn’t gained at the expense of the liberal arts. Courses in philosophy, communication, ethics, economics, and history ground their professional preparation.

    And as companies adopt AI broadly to automate more entry-level tasks, expectations for human contributors are rising. Employers now look for graduates who can step into complex, judgment-based roles immediately. The pressure on colleges to produce graduates who are truly ready will only intensify.

    The stakes are real for the private sector. As industries face growing talent shortages, the disconnect between academic output and economic need is no longer just an educational issue. It is a national competitiveness issue. Recent federal initiatives, such as the CHIPS and Science Act and expanded NSF investments in STEM education, underscore how urgently national policymakers view the need to strengthen the talent pipeline.

    Business leaders have a role to play here. By forming deeper partnerships with academic institutions, shaping co-op programs, investing in student mentorship, and supporting policies that incentivize applied learning, employers can help close the readiness gap. This is not charity. It is strategy.

    The future of higher education will be defined by institutions that understand this shift and act on it. Those that remain tethered to legacy assumptions will continue to lose ground. Those that adapt will not only survive, they will produce graduates who are ready to lead.

    We are educators. But we must also be learners. And right now, the lesson is clear: relevance is not inherited. It is earned.

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    [ad_2]

    Robert K. McMahan

    Source link

  • ‘I don’t know why I need to go to college’: Ford CEO says his Gen Z son worked as a mechanic and wondered if the 4-year degree was still worth it | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Ford CEO Jim Farley gathered a host of experts this week to discuss what he calls “the essential economy,” the blue-collar backbone that he sees mired in crisis. AT&T CEO John Stankey and FedEx CEO Raj Subramaniam talked about how AI is impacting manufacturing and how they’re hustling to stay ahead of the curve; Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer issued a sober warning about how China could “dominate” if we’re not careful with our auto industry; and even JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon appeared via video to urge America not to become a “nation of compliance and box-checking.”

    But during the keynote discussion with Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Mike Rowe of the Mike Rowe Works Foundation, Farley revealed how his own family is being impacted. “My son worked as a mechanic this summer,” Farley said while moderating.

    Then, Farley added, his son said something that stunned both of his parents: “Dad, I really like this work. I don’t know why I need to go to college.” Farley said he and his wife looked at each other and wondered, “Should we be debating this?” It’s something that’s happening in a lot of American households, he noted. “It should be a debate.”

    Math isn’t mathing

    Rowe, a longtime vocational advocate, seized on data showing that while two skilled tradespeople enter the workforce, five retire each year. The imbalance, he explained, is “the math that’s catching up to us” as the baby boomer generation ages and birth rates fall.

    Rowe cited data from his own life. His own degree cost $12,200 in 1984, he said, whereas today it would cost something like $97,000.

    “Nothing in the history of Western civilization has gotten more expensive, more quickly,” Rowe said. “Not energy, not food, not real estate, not even health care, [nothing has been inflated more] than the cost of a four-year degree.”

    The Associated Press reported that, yes, many colleges were charging roughly $95,000 per year as of April 2024, but the financial aid system lowers that in practice. Still, it’s by and large true that inflation for college tuition, health care, and housing costs has far outpaced that for, say, televisions, toys, and software, showing Rowe is making a solid point. With costs this high, the value proposition of college is under serious scrutiny.

    Fortune has reported on several Gen Z entrepreneurs who dove straight into the trades instead of going to college. One, at 23, was already his own boss and making more than $100,000 per year, and the other, 19, was working his way up to it. Both of them had side hustles as social-media influencers, adding another revenue stream. Marlo Loria, director of career and technical education and innovative partnerships at Mesa Public Schools in Arizona, said she often gives options to students that are different from a traditional four-year degree.

    “Our youth want to know why. Why do I need to go to college? Why do I want to get in debt? Why do I want to do these things?” She said that “because I told you so” doesn’t cut it anymore.

    A path back to the American Dream?

    Labor Secretary Chavez-DeRemer echoed this sentiment, saying government, educators, and industry must partner to make the skilled trades attractive to young Americans.

    “For far too long, we haven’t brought the right people to the table,” she said, emphasizing the need for collaboration so that “businesses are heard, and the American workforce is valued.”

    Chavez-DeRemer argued that if the average American wants to have a good-paying job and a mortgage, they should strongly consider the trades.

    She questioned: “Do you know that most of our 35- and 40-year-olds are not going to be able to buy a home anywhere near the future?”

    This is the time in people’s lives when they’re trying to grow their families, and the current U.S. economy does not set them up to do that, she said. She noted that trade school graduates often emerge earning more than $100,000 per year. The average tradesman will come out making about $11,000 more than a college graduate will, she said.

    The essential obstacle, said Rowe, is not just economics but stigma.

    “Stigmas and stereotypes and myths and misperceptions have conspired to keep a whole generation of kids from giving trades an honest look,” he said. Until the culture changes and people recognize the dignity and opportunity of these jobs, attempts to fill workforce gaps will be “quixotic or Sisyphean.”

    The AI question

    Asked about the fear AI and robotics might replace human workers, both panelists were optimistic. Chavez-DeRemer compared the transition to prior industrial and tech revolutions, stating: “We adapt. We are an adaptable people.” She emphasized AI should be seen as a tool that empowers, not replaces, the essential workforce.

    “Businesses are retraining their employees,” she said. “The R&D is showing us that [they’re] going to create new types of jobs.”

    Rowe added, “AI is coming for the coders, not yet for the welders,” reflecting the resiliency and growing demand in the trades. He argued every “frontline” vocation, from welding to pipe-fitting, is now seeing a boom, and AI won’t touch that. Rowe also cited remarks covered by Fortune from Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang about the need for blue-collar workers to power the data-center infrastructure underlying the AI boom. He also mentioned BlackRock CEO Larry Fink’s comments that his $12 trillion–plus portfolio was dependent on having enough electricians, a sector short of hundreds of thousands of workers.

    “The biggest CEOs in our country [are ringing] the metaphorical alarm bell,” Rowe said, calling it a “macro problem” the essential economy can solve.

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Nick Lichtenberg

    Source link

  • Lawsuit against Brown University sparks debate on campus police secrecy at colleges

    [ad_1]

    PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A new lawsuit against Brown University has renewed questions surrounding the secrecy afforded many law enforcement officers employed by private colleges and universities across the U.S.

    Unlike public campuses, private higher education institutions are largely exempt from disclosing arrest records, incident reports and other documents even as they employ officers who have the authority to detain students, as well as, in some cases, use force. This lack of transparency has long raised objections from watchdog groups and open government advocates who say such records are critical to holding law enforcement accountable.

    In a recently filed legal challenge, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island is hoping to make a dent in that practice by arguing that Brown’s police department should comply with the state’s public records law.

    “These private university police officers have the same arrest powers, detention powers, and other powers that any other police officer has in the state working for a city or town,” said Steven Brown, Rhode Island’s ACLU executive director. “We think that in light of that fact, they should be treated the same as public police officers.”

    So far Brown has declined to comment on the lawsuit, but their attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

    Connecticut, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia are just the handful of states where private institution’s police departments are subject to public records laws, according to the Student Press Law Center. The rest are largely exempt. In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court explicitly ruled Harvard University’s campus police were not subject to the state’s open records laws because they were a private university.

    At Brown, the ACLU is representing two journalists who were both denied their public records requests seeking arrest reports made by Brown’s officers. ACLU claims Brown’s campus police operate under state-authorized police powers, which in turn makes them subject to Rhode Island public records law.

    Both reporters, one a former Brown student who wrote for the independent university newspaper and the other a reporter with Motif Magazine, filed complaints with the state hoping to appeal their denial. However, the state attorney general’s office issued an opinion siding with Brown police.

    “Whenever people are being arrested and criminally charged, state law gives the public — and therefore the press acting on behalf of the public — the right and the duty to find out what the police are doing in their name,” said Michael Bilow, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and a reporter with Motif Magazine.

    “If the public and the press can’t find out what the police are doing using the power of the law then what you end up with is a secret police,” he added.

    Yet even as access to public records on private campuses may be challenging, these schools are subject to some federal disclosure requirements when it comes to crime data.

    Under the Clery Act, colleges and universities that receive federal funding are required to collect data on campus crime and notify students of threats — something that the majority of both private and public schools accept. Schools must disseminate an annual security report that includes crime reports and information on efforts to improve campus safety.

    These reports provide public safety information on their campus, but they’re not always comprehensive. Last year, Liberty University agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Education an unprecedented $14 million fine in part for its failure to disclose information about crimes on its campus.

    One former Brown police officer, who served at the department for 18 years, says he became increasingly alarmed at the culture he observed. Michael Greco says he witnessed a police force that prioritized limiting negative attention about the school, noting that fellow officers would often refer to the police department as the “Queen’s army” dedicated to keeping information inside the “Brown bubble.”

    “It all revolved around this loophole in the law that Brown’s a private institution with police powers,” he said. “They can then take what should be a public record and make it into a private record. And it seems that that was our primary purpose.”

    Greco remembered one incident in 2021 where he and fellow colleagues were instructed not to use radios when responding to a possible bomb threat on campus where someone was threatening to “shoot cops.” Greco said the department didn’t want to alert Providence police, which monitors the radio and would respond to that type of incident.

    While the bomb and shooter ended up being a false alarm, Greco says leadership was unhappy how he later described the incident in his report summarizing the events. Greco has since left the department, and filed a workers’ compensation claim against Brown after developing post-traumatic stress disorder that he says he began experiencing after the 2021 incident. The case is being settled, according to court documents.

    Greco has since publicly called for more changes inside Brown University, including testifying in front of lawmakers in support of changing state law to explicitly make universities like Brown subject to open records law.

    “I think there should be public pressure to get some of this changed,” he said. “They should be held at least to the same standards as a public police department.”

    Similar concerns are shared by some of the students also watching college campuses handle high-profile protests and working under President Donald Trump’s administration.

    “I think there needs to be greater transparency about what’s going on with these arrests on campus, especially at a time when a lot of the public doesn’t know what’s happening in higher ed and there’s disagreements nationally about the direction of higher ed and what it stands for,” said Audrey Gmerek, a Brown University student.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gen Z job crisis: Maybe there are just too many college graduates now | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    Amid the debate over AI’s role in limiting job opportunities for Gen Z, there is also the fact that for decades many parents have been encouraging their kids to go to college.

    That means the share of the workforce with a bachelor’s degree is larger than it was in prior generations, creating a new dynamic for Gen Zers who have just finished college and are looking to launch their careers.

    In a note on Thursday, Ed Yardeni, president and chief investment strategist at Yardeni Research, examined unemployment among recent college grads and the potential factors contributing to it.

    He pointed out that graduates from the age of 22 to 27 have historically enjoyed a lower jobless rate than the overall workforce. But that started to change around 2015—well before the advent of OpenAI’s chatbot in late 2022 and the rush into generative AI that followed.

    In fact, data compiled by the New York Fed shows that the unemployment rate for recent grads edged above the total rate in December 2014, when it was 5.6% versus 5.5%. The years that followed saw the two rates go back and forth, trading places.

    But during the pandemic, joblessness among recent college grads began consistently exceeding the overall rate. And in early 2022, the separation between the two trend lines started widening.

    By contrast, the jobless rate for all college graduates across every age group has stayed well below the total rate for at least 35 years.

    New York Fed

    According to the latest data, the unemployment rate for recent grads was 4.8% in June, while it was 4.0% for all workers.

    “Why this change? It may be due to the increase of college educated people in the workforce generally these days, so the new entrants are competing for jobs with more experienced college graduates,” Yardeni wrote.

    Citing the Education Data Initiative, he added that the percentage of Americans with a bachelor’s degree or higher is now 37.5%, up from 25.6% in 2000. And between 1993 and 2023, the number college graduates soared 74.9% while those with only a high school diploma increased 14%.

    Meanwhile, a separate New York Fed analysis that breaks down unemployment rates by college major shows that graduates with degrees in computer engineering, computer science, physics, and information systems and management have higher jobless rates than workers overall.

    “This suggests that too many kids opted to go into computer-related fields and faced a tougher time than expected landing a good job,” Yardeni said.

    To be sure, evidence is mounting that AI is shrinking opportunities, especially at the entry level. And Yardeni highlighted a recent survey by Cengage Group that showed AI is among the top reasons that more employers plan to hire the same or fewer entry-level workers than last year.

    But he also cited a 2023 paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research that found that AI actually resulted in corporations having more lower-level employees who are able to use the technology, which allowed them to make decisions without management, creating a flatter organization.

    And don’t forget President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which have stoked some inflation and boosted uncertainty about the economy, making it difficult for companies to plan ahead and grow their headcount, Yardeni added.

    Others on Wall Street are also skeptical about AI’s role in the Gen Z job crisis. UBS chief economist Paul Donovan described the U.S. labor market as peculiar, pointing out that young workers in the euro zone have record low unemployment, their rate in the U.K. has fallen steadily, and their labor participation in Japan is near all-time highs.

    “It seems highly implausible that AI uniquely hurts the employment prospects of younger US workers,” he wrote in a note on Friday.

    But after years of being told that college was a necessity to get a good job, the pendulum may be swinging the other way. Trade jobs have become more popular, especially among Gen Zers who relish the idea of not being stuck in front of a computer and see a future that’s not so vulnerable to AI.

    At the same time, the Gen Z job crisis is colliding with the student debt crisis, making young people more reluctant to borrow massive amounts of money to obtain a degree with questionable value.

    Not surprisingly, Americans have a much dimmer view on college now. According to a Gallup Poll earlier this month, only 35% say going to college is “very important” — a record low — down from 51% in 2019 and 75% in 2010.

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Jason Ma

    Source link

  • University where Charlie Kirk was shot confronts unwanted infamy

    [ad_1]

    OREM, Utah — It took two decades for Utah Valley University to evolve from a small community college into the state’s largest school, boasting of having one of the safest campuses in the nation.

    It took only seconds for that image to be shattered by the assassination of right wing activist Charlie Kirk.

    The sprawling campus of nearly 50,000 students beneath the Wasatch Mountains will be forever tethered to the events of Sept. 10, when a bullet took down the founder of Turning Point USA as he spoke to a large crowd at an outdoor amphitheater in the middle of campus.

    The university — largely unknown outside Utah until now — was fixed in an unwanted national spotlight during the search for Kirk’s killer. Students and faculty returned to classes this week still reeling with grief, fear and anxiety, and confronting a thorny question: How do they deal with UVU’s sudden infamy?

    “This has put the university on the map and given it more attention than it’s ever received,” said branding expert Timothy Calkins, a professor at Northwestern University. “They certainly didn’t want this situation. But they have to find some way to come back.”

    University leaders say they’re focused right now on the safety of students and their community, but they’re already starting to think about how to reshape the school’s shattered identity.

    Kyle Reyes, one of Utah Valley University’s vice presidents, said he hopes the school can be a model of healing and embracing difficult dialogue.

    “We know that the eyes are on us and we’re not going to shy away from demonstrating our resilience collectively on this,” Reyes said.

    The school has had only minimal violence for years, according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Education. UVU’s most recent report for its main campus in Orem, covering 2021-2023, showed police investigated or received reports on four aggravated assault allegations, 13 rape allegations, one apparent arson and no cases of murder or manslaughter. Kirk’s killing was the first murder on campus that administrators are aware of, University spokeswoman Ellen Treanor said.

    University officials cite this data to support the claim that it is “one of the safest colleges in the country.”

    UVU also touts its strong connections to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as home to the world’s largest education institute for young Mormons. Its mascot is the wolverine. “Just like wolverines, UVU students are determined, ambitious, and fearless,” the university’s website says.

    Student Marjorie Holt, 18, who is studying elementary education at UVU, was late to the Kirk rally and arrived minutes before he was shot. She ran with others to shelter inside a nearby building in the immediate aftermath.

    In the days since, Holt took time off from work and went home to spend a night with her family in Salt Lake City. She said she feels like the university failed Kirk and his family by not providing better security. She worries about going to classes in a building near the crime scene.

    Yet as Kirk’s shooting deepens the nation’s political divides, Holt believes the shared trauma has brought UVU closer together.

    “We’re all people who, you know, loved him or hated him,” she said of Kirk. “We’re all still coming together no matter how we believed, and I feel like this has made our school closer than ever.”

    When students returned Wednesday, they reported classes were quieter than usual. Matthew Caldwell, 24, said that in history class, “it felt as if the professor was more understanding of all beliefs and that ultimately it’s about sharing those beliefs.”

    Student body President Kyle Cullimore urged his classmates during a Friday vigil to stop putting labels on one another and see each other as human so that UVU can be a “place where disagreement doesn’t erase our dignity.”

    Other schools that became synonymous with shootings offer different templates for addressing the fallout.

    The Columbine High School massacre of 1999 ushered in heightened security and training for shooters at schools across the U.S. On the same day Kirk was killed, those protocols were put to test in a shooting at Colorado’s Evergreen High School when two students were injured and the shooter took his own life. It’s the same school district as Columbine, and officials credited years of preparation and training for avoiding more casualties.

    Following shootings at Virginia Tech University in 2007, Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 and Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2019, student victims and family members funneled their grief into activism for gun control.

    In Uvalde, Texas, officials voted to demolish Robb Elementary School after a mass shooting that killed 19 students and two teachers.

    At Kent State University, where National Guard soldiers killed four students and wounded eight others at a Vietnam War protest in 1970, Professor Johanna Solomon said the school has since leaned into its role as a place to freely express ideas.

    There were struggles along the way. Starting in 1986, the Ohio school began changing athletics uniforms, letterhead and signage to highlight “Kent” and put “State University” in small letters underneath, trying to distance itself from the shooting. The change was dropped in 2000, said Karen Cunningham, a professor in Kent State’s School of Peace and Conflict Studies that was established in response to the 1970 shootings.

    “I’m very proud of their decision to realize as a university that it wasn’t escaping or forgetting what happened,” said Solomon. “Leaders have a really stark choice after things like this happen, and one is to lean into division and the other side is to humanize people, to bring people together.”

    As UVU students ventured back last week, Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox met with a small group on campus. “It has been rough, right, for all of us,” he acknowledged. The world only knows one thing about UVU now, he said — and he wants everyone to know the rest of the story.

    “This place is incredible and it’s incredible because of the students that are here, amazing faculty,” Cox said. “The world desperately needs change, but they’re not going to find it from politicians. It’s got to come from you.”

    __

    Brown reported from Billings, Mont.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Great Student Swap

    [ad_1]

    Out-of-state flagships became even more attractive after the Great Recession of 2008, as families with financial means started to question the value of paying full freight at more obscure private colleges. In contrast to a private school like Scripps, Skidmore, Chapman, or Clark, a flagship—even if it meant moving states—seemed like a relative bargain. Sure, these families had to pay out-of-state tuition. But a price tag of, say, thirty thousand dollars a year at the University of Minnesota looked pretty reasonable compared with the fifty thousand or so that a private school such as the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts expected them to pay annually.

    In some cases, high-school seniors were actively pushed to apply to out-of-state universities. Although most public universities expanded to take in more students from elsewhere, while still being able to cater to a sizable in-state student population, not all did. According to a study from 2017, a third of the nation’s flagships—all highly ranked and thus popular with out-of-staters—turned away some of their own state’s residents to make room for higher-paying students from elsewhere. For every two non-resident students who enrolled, the study found, one in-state student was shut out. That vicious cycle spins in states such as California, Illinois, and Texas. Residents apply to their local flagship. They get crowded out, and so they go to big public universities in other states which have space for them. Then students in those states get pushed aside, so they apply to public universities in other states, too.

    In other cases, strong applicants were pulled across state lines by a hefty discount or a boutique academic experience, such as an honors college. One prospective student I met from Pennsylvania had initially set her sights on the University of Chicago. Despite her near-perfect stats (a 35 on the ACT, a 1510 on the SAT, thirteen Advanced Placement courses, and a 3.95 grade-point average), she was rejected after applying early decision. At the time, she didn’t have a single public university on her shortlist. Her mother did some digging and landed on the University of Mississippi as a possibility. It has an honors college and generous scholarships, including some that come with stipends for study-abroad programs and undergraduate research. “I applied to appease my mom and get an acceptance under my belt,” she told me.

    It wasn’t until after she was accepted and had started the interview process for the university’s top scholarships that she seriously considered going there. She realized, “There were all these opportunities I could qualify for, and I was hearing about them before I heard I was even accepted to other schools.” Mississippi knew it was competing with much higher-ranked colleges, so it had to come in strong and early.

    By April, the student had acceptance letters and financial-aid packages from Rice and Vanderbilt. Neither included the full ride and other perks that Mississippi offered her. Before making her decision, she flew to Houston with her dad to visit Rice again. It was a weekday, but the campus felt dead. They walked to a nearby park, where she made a pros-and-cons list for Rice and Mississippi. Then she broke down in tears.“The only pro I could come up with for Rice,” she recalled when we spoke recently, “is that people will know I’m smart because I go to Rice.”

    With more tuition dollars coming in from out-of-state students, public universities such as Ole Miss could afford to offer discounts or even full rides to a select number of academic superstars. The University of Alabama, for example, spent $185.4 million on merit aid in 2023-24, more than twice what it allocated for need-based aid. These high-achieving students act as magnets, attracting others in their home towns who don’t mind paying an out-of-state sticker price that, to them, still seems like a steal.

    When Alabama started going after out-of-staters, it focussed on two types of places, according to a team of social scientists who studied how colleges recruit. It targeted high schools in prosperous suburbs around Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami, and Los Angeles, where the university knew that getting accepted to in-state flagships was very difficult for all but the top students. It also courted applicants from bedroom communities around New York; Washington, D.C.; Seattle; Boston; and eventually Chicago, where Alabama’s sticker price looked downright reasonable compared with the tuition at pricey private colleges and more expensive public options. Over time, these efforts paid off. By 2022, Georgia, Illinois, Florida, Texas, and California ranked among Alabama’s top sources of out-of-staters.

    When the big public universities first went on their out-of-state recruiting spree more than twenty years ago, they had an abundance of prospective students to choose from among millennials. Then, over the past ten years, they also saw a steady increase in interest from overseas, as the number of international students enrolling in U.S. institutions grew by twenty-seven per cent, amounting to more than a million international students attending school in the U.S.

    And yet those pipelines may be drying up. The class of freshmen arriving on college campuses this fall may be the last big one for years, owing in part to declining birth rates and fewer high-school graduates deciding to attend college. What’s more, the decline is not evenly distributed across the country. Only the South will see a net increase in high-school graduates, and that’s the region where out-of-state enrollment has swelled the most among public flagships. For those universities, the supply of students from elsewhere may begin to dwindle.

    [ad_2]

    Jeffrey Selingo

    Source link

  • Elon and Queens universities announce merger

    [ad_1]

    Elon University and Queens University Charlotte will be merging, according to an announcement made by the universities Tuesday morning.

    “Elon University, with Queens University of Charlotte, is embarking on a strategic merger – combining complementary strengths, shared values and a deep commitment to Charlotte,” a statement on Elon University Charlotte’s website read. “Together, we’re honoring the past, strengthening the present and redefining what a great educational experience can – and should – be.”

    The Boards of Trustees for both institutions gave the merger unanimous support, officials said, and was backed by trusted civic and education leaders across the Queen City.

    Once the merger is complete, officials say Elon University will operate Queens University.

    “Queens has long been a leader in education, deeply connected to Charlotte’s civic and business community. This merger with Elon accelerates that vision, ensuring continuity while creating bold opportunities to expand our impact,” Jesse Cureton, acting president and CEO of Queens University, said in a statement.

    For more information on the merger, click here.

    [ad_2]

    Justin Pryor

    Source link

  • Trump’s Ivy League deals are set to funnel cash to trade schools | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump’s campaign to squeeze billions of dollars out of Harvard University and other elite colleges looks set to create a windfall for US trade schools. 

    Trump wants Harvard to build one of its own, as part of a deal to restore frozen federal funding, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. “The Harvard Vocational School,” Lutnick said Thursday. “That’s what America needs.” 

    It was the latest outing for an idea that’s gained steam in the past month or so. Multiple US colleges are trying to hammer out financial agreements with the White House to settle charges of political bias and regain access to vital research grants. Many are reluctant to pay outright fines. But investment in career and technical training — a stated priority for Trump, who wants to revive US manufacturing — looks like a compromise both sides can abide.

    How it will work in practice remains unclear, even at the college that’s gone furthest down this road.

    Brown University agreed to spend $50 million over ten years on workforce training in its home state of Rhode Island as part of a settlement. Brown is still figuring out a process for allocating grants, which will go to existing programs and organizations. The college will decide on recipients “in the coming weeks,” said Brian Clark, a spokesperson for Brown. 

    As yet, there’s no indication the state’s Democrat-led government will play a role. Rhode Island’s Department of Labor and Training said there’s been no coordination with the college. “Brown will facilitate these grants independent of the Department,” said Edwine Paul, its chief public affairs officer.

    ‘Everybody in Rhode Island’

    When that process gets underway, it’s likely to trigger a stampede of applicants.

    Amy Grzybowski calls the Brown settlement “an amazing opportunity” for institutions like hers. She’s vice president of workforce development and community relations at the New England Institute of Technology, a nonprofit private college in East Greenwich, Rhode Island, which develops its curriculum with local employers. Programs for welding and shipfitting, for instance, were set up in partnership with General Dynamics Electric Boat, which makes Navy-class submarines in the state. 

    “We have reached out to express interest” in the Brown grants, Grzybowski said. “Along with, I’m sure, everybody in Rhode Island.”

    Harvard hasn’t gotten to this stage, and talks on a settlement have dragged in recent weeks. The college has signaled that it’s open to investing $500 million in workforce programs as part of a possible deal to restore more than $2 billion in research grants.

    Lutnick’s suggestion for a new vocational school with Harvard’s name attached evokes the prospect of Ivy League-credentialed plumbers and electricians – which may not be as farfetched as it sounds.

    Princeton University runs an apprenticeship program, partially funded by the Department of Energy, which offers training in more than a dozen fields including welding and cybersecurity. Harvard itself earlier this year announced a Careers in Construction program of training and apprenticeships in the Boston area. 

    Alisha Hyslop, chief policy officer at the Association for Career and Technical Education, said she could envision Harvard’s graduate schools partnering with apprenticeship programs or offering short-term, skills-based credentials.

    “There has been a rise in four-year universities embedding industry certifications in their programs, especially in technology, AI, and coding,” she said. “Harvard could easily get involved.” 

    Workforce investments didn’t feature in the administration’s settlement with Columbia University, showing these aren’t the only pathways to an agreement. Still, with plenty more schools lined up to seek deals, the idea evidently has appeal for Trump.

    The president in April signed an executive order to “refocus young Americans on career preparation.” He’s talked up vocational programs as a cultural and economic foil to elite universities. But he doesn’t seem keen to fund them out of federal coffers.

    Trump has proposed eliminating the Labor Department’s $200 million annual budget for supporting adult education at community colleges, much of which funds vocational and skills-based programs. The department has also halted its Job Corps program, effectively shutting down 99 career training centers nationwide.

    Instead, the president hasn’t been shy about wanting elite colleges to foot the bill. He wrote on Truth Social in May that he was considering slashing $3 billion in funding from Harvard and giving it to trade schools.

    It’s “the Robin Hood approach,” according to Kathleen deLaski, founder of the vocationally focused Education Design Lab and a senior adviser at Harvard’s Project on Workforce. 

    DeLaski said she and her team proposed a similar initiative over a decade ago, called “Share the Wealth,” which didn’t get much traction with Harvard and its peers. She doesn’t support the Trump administration’s broadside against Harvard. But “if they are going to extract a pound of flesh from wealthy colleges, I’d rather have it earmarked for less-resourced parts of higher ed than be a tax going back to the national coffers,” she said.

    ‘Extorting Money’

    Trump isn’t the first president who’s sought to bolster technical education and fill gaps in the labor force. It was a priority for Joe Biden too. Supply chain disruptions in the pandemic, and trade tensions with China, have persuaded Washington that key industries should be brought back home – and they’ll need skilled workers.

    Given the economic importance, some analysts say it’s the government that should be providing cash and making key decisions.

    “I don’t think extorting money from Ivy League institutions is any way to finance workforce development,” said Braden Goetz, senior policy adviser at the New America think tank. “If it’s publicly funded, taxpayers and policymakers have a say in how it’s used. If we’re relying on Harvard or Brown to decide how to spend it, it may not be in the best interest of the people.”

    Wherever the money ultimately comes from, a shift toward vocational funding and away from the traditional college model is what the US economy needs, according to Nick Moore — effectively the country’s top policymaker in the field, as deputy assistant secretary at the Education Department’s Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education.

    Moore, who attended Harvard as an undergraduate, said he doesn’t view a potential redistribution of wealth from his alma mater to vocational programs as a punishment so much as a corrective. He hopes to see similar shifts across the sector.

    “Our current workforce system is not sufficient to meet our economic trajectory,” he said. “And there is probably no industry that is more removed from market dynamics than higher education.”

    [ad_2]

    Liam Knox, Bloomberg

    Source link

  • Historically Black colleges issue lockdown orders, cancel classes after receiving threats

    [ad_1]

    BATON ROUGE, La. — A series of reported threats toward historically Black colleges and universities across the U.S. on Thursday led to lockdown orders, canceled classes and heightened security.

    Authorities did not elaborate on the type of threats that were made and no injuries have been reported. The FBI told The Associated Press that they are taking the “hoax threat calls“ seriously and that there is “no information to indicate a credible threat.”

    Although lockdowns have since been lifted, schools that received the threats continue to act with an abundance of caution. In an era of mass shootings — and following a wave of violence Wednesday and a spate of hoax calls about active shooters at the start of the school year — some universities opted to call off classes for the rest of the week and send students home.

    U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Louisiana Democrat, called the threats “reprehensible attacks” and said that any threat made against HBCUs is “a threat against us all.”

    “These attacks cannot be tolerated, minimized, or ignored,” he said. “They must be met with swift and decisive action.”

    Southern University in Louisiana, which reported a “potential threat to campus safety” on the 8,200-student campus and put students under lockdown for about an hour. At Alabama State University, which sits near downtown Montgomery and has an enrollment of about 3,500, students were ordered to shelter-in-place as police searched each building on campus.

    About two hours later, the university said that it had received the “all-clear” from police. However, the school said that while the “immediate threat has been resolved” students were asked to shelter in place in their dorms and classes were cancelled for the remainder of the day.

    Clark Atlanta University in Georgia, Virginia State University, Hampton University in Virginia and Bethune-Cookman University in Florida also reported threats.

    Precautionary measures came at a time of heightened worry on school campuses over violence following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a Utah Valley University and a shooting at a Colorado high school.

    Swatting incidents typically increase after violent events, putting schools on edge, said Don Beeler, chief executive officer of TDR Technology Solutions, which tracks swatting calls and offers technology to prevent them. The safety measures that schools may implement following potential threats could be heightened, such as cancelling class for a few days, instead of just one day.

    “Anything that happens in the next week is going to get an overreaction than what you normally see,” Beeler said.

    Other HBCUs that did not receive threats announced that they, too, were tightening security.

    South Carolina State University required anyone coming on campus, in Orangeburg, to show a photo ID after the threats started surfacing. Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia — which neighbors a university that did receive a threat — issued a lockdown Thursday and said it was amping up security measures.

    At the start of the school year, at least a dozen college campuses received hoax calls about active shooters. The realistic-sounding calls, some of which had gunshots that could be heard in the background, prompted universities to issue lockdowns with directions to “run, hide, fight.”

    ——

    Cline reported from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Associated Press Writers Kimberly Chandler in Montgomery, Alabama; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; and Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, South Carolina

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump administration takes first steps to restore Harvard’s funding, but money isn’t flowing yet

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Harvard University says it has started receiving notices that many federal grants halted by the Trump administration will be reinstated after a federal judge ruled that the cuts were illegal.

    It’s an early signal that federal research funding could begin flowing to Harvard after months of deadlock with the White House, but it’s yet to be seen if money will arrive. The government has said it will appeal the judge’s decision.

    Reinstatement notices have started arriving from several federal agencies, but so far no payments have been received, Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton said late Wednesday. “Harvard is monitoring funding receipts closely,” Newton said.

    A federal judge in Boston last week ordered the government to reverse more than $2.6 billion in cuts, saying they were unconstitutional and “used antisemitism as a smokescreen” for an ideological attack.

    The Trump administration started cutting federal research grants from Harvard in April after the Ivy League school rebuffed a list of wide-ranging demands from the government in a federal investigation into campus antisemitism. Harvard challenged the cuts in court, calling them illegal government retaliation.

    Harvard has been President Donald Trump’s top target in his campaign to reshape higher education, which has resulted in settlements with Columbia and Brown universities to end federal investigations and restore federal money cut by the Trump administration.

    Trump has said he wants Harvard to pay no less than $500 million as part any deal to restore funding. He reiterated the demand at an August Cabinet meeting. “They’ve been very bad,” Trump told Education Secretary Linda McMahon. “Don’t negotiate.”

    Even as Harvard’s lawsuit played out, both sides had been negotiating the framework of an agreement that could end the prolonged conflict. So far, such a deal has been elusive.

    The government has opened numerous investigations against Harvard and attempted an array of sanctions, including moves to block the school from enrolling international students. A federal judge blocked the move in June after Harvard sued.

    ___

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harvard’s Mixed Victory

    [ad_1]

    Last time U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs sided with Harvard in a case about the university’s alleged discrimination, it ended with the Supreme Court declaring race-conscious admissions unlawful at schools across the country. Harvard won its battle in the lower court on the way to losing the broader war. As it turns out, the same federal law at issue in the affirmative-action case, Title VI, is a basis of Harvard’s challenge to the Trump Administration’s freezing and terminating of nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants to the university this past spring. On Wednesday, Judge Burroughs gave Harvard a win that vindicated broad principles at stake for universities and the rule of law. But the victory will not end Harvard’s pain, and it remains to be seen whether higher education can triumph in the end.

    Since January, the Trump Administration has threatened the federal funding of hundreds of universities, in a campaign that is ostensibly about enforcing civil-rights laws, particularly regarding antisemitism on campus, race in admissions decisions, D.E.I., and transgender athletes. Columbia, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania have made deals with the Administration to restore their funding, and other universities have conformed to what the Administration seems to want in order to avoid becoming targets themselves. But Harvard—with its outsized brand, its unrivalled endowment of fifty-three billion dollars, and its researchers’ large share of federal grant awards—is the big game in the Trump Administration’s pursuit of submission. And, perhaps for that reason, it has been the only university to sue the Administration. But Harvard’s fight has come to represent much more than saving its own skin: the university is attempting to assert the value of higher education to our democratic society. That value is ironically and necessarily bound up with independence from government control, even as its realization depends on receiving enormous sums of government money.

    The legal matter began in March, when the Administration announced that it was reviewing Harvard’s federal funding because of its alleged failure to address antisemitism on campus, particularly in the wake of the October 7th attack on Israel, when Israel began its war on Gaza, and pro-Palestine and anti-Israel activists launched a new protest movement. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, enacted in 1964, prohibits discrimination on the ground of “race, color, or national origin” in institutions that receive federal funding; for the past two decades, the executive branch has interpreted those words to protect against antisemitism. In April, the Administration presented Harvard with conditions that the university needed to satisfy in order to continue receiving federal funds, such as putting a lien “on all Harvard assets” and either changing the leadership of “problematic” departments or placing them in “receivership.”

    While Harvard was negotiating with the Administration to preserve its funding, the Administration sent an unexpected letter, on April 11th, demanding additional reforms, the majority of which were not about antisemitism—including an “audit” for “viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse”; hiring and admitting “a critical mass” of new faculty and students to achieve “viewpoint diversity”; and restructuring the university’s governance. Harvard publicly rebuffed the demands; the university’s president, Alan Garber, stated that no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” Within hours, the Administration announced a freeze on Harvard’s existing federal grants. It soon followed up with stop-work orders, grant terminations, and a notice that Harvard would no longer receive federal funds.

    The decision to stop the flow of money led Harvard to file suit in federal court in Boston, alleging constitutional and statutory violations. That lawsuit was combined with a similar one filed by the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors, and resulted in the district court’s clear rebuke to the Administration. Judge Burroughs found that the government had unconstitutionally retaliated against Harvard for exercising First Amendment rights. That is, Harvard had refused the government’s attempts to “control viewpoints at Harvard” and decided to litigate, and the government had unlawfully punished Harvard by taking away federal funding. The court was unpersuaded by the Administration’s claim that the funding shutoff was not retaliatory but, rather, motivated by “opposing antisemitism”—the demands that Harvard had rejected related not to antisemitism but instead to reforming its ideology, hiring, admissions, and teaching. Moreover, there was no evidence that, in the two weeks between announcing an antisemitism review and freezing funding, the government had actually examined antisemitism at Harvard; it had only learned that “Harvard would not capitulate to government demands that it audit, censor, or dictate viewpoints of staff and students.”

    The government’s failure to investigate antisemitism also led the court to find that it violated Title VI—which explicitly does not allow the government to simply cut off federal funding whenever it claims a Title VI violation. The statute instead requires that the government first follow specific procedures, including determining that compliance cannot be achieved voluntarily, holding an on-the-record hearing, and sending a written report to Congress. The Administration had done none of these things. (It argued that the procedural requirements of Title VI don’t apply because a separate federal regulation allows the termination of awards that no longer fulfill “program goals or agency priorities.”)

    Harvard also won on the ground that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to act in a way that isn’t “arbitrary and capricious.” The court observed that the government had not provided “a reasoned explanation as to how the agency determined that freezing funding would advance that goal” of countering antisemitism. Judge Burroughs seemed to take it as a given that, if the government were not being arbitrary and capricious, it would have engaged in a cost-benefit analysis, weighing “the value of the research funded by a particular grant against the goal of combating antisemitism at Harvard.” An interesting, if controversial, implication of this reasoning is that, if the value of the funded research at Harvard is greater than the value of mitigating antisemitism at Harvard, it might effectively be unlawful for the government to choose to act on the latter.

    In her decision, Judge Burroughs was obviously persuaded by Harvard’s narrative of the case and recited much of it. The court described Harvard’s efforts, since early 2024, to insure “that its campus is safe and welcoming for Jewish and Israeli students” by, for instance, disciplining students and faculty, promoting “ideological diversity and civil discourse,” limiting protest, and “expressly prohibiting unauthorized encampments, exhibits, and displays.” The court seemed to want to establish off the bat that Harvard was acting in good faith to address antisemitism, and that it was the government’s bad-faith shortcoming not to have recognized that fact. The court’s conclusion was that the Administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”

    [ad_2]

    Jeannie Suk Gersen

    Source link

  • University of South Carolina all clear after unconfirmed reports of active shooter

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBIA, S.C. — The University of South Carolina has given the all-clear after issuing an alert Sunday about a possible active shooter near a library on the main Columbia campus, just days after false reports of active shooters at Villanova University and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga led to panic and temporary lockdowns as they kicked off their fall semesters.

    USC students were told to shelter in place Sunday while police investigated an unconfirmed report of an active shooter near a library. Officials later said there was no evidence of a shooter, and there were no reports of any shots being fired.

    University spokesman Jeff Stensland said in a statement that the original alert “was sent out of an abundance of caution” and that law enforcement was clearing the library building, going floor by floor — “again out of an abundance of caution, we’re going through the library to make sure.”

    Stensland said there were two minor injuries related to the evacuation of the library building.

    The school sent an alert of a possible shooter shortly after 6:45 p.m. ordering students to evacuate the area near the Thomas Cooper Library, seek shelter and barricade themselves if necessary. It was followed by another alert saying there was no evidence of an active shooter “at this time. Police are searching affected buildings. Please continue to shelter in place until there is an all clear.”

    Approximately 38,000 students attend the school in the heart of the city that’s home to nearly 145,000 people.

    The alerts and uncertainty about a shooter search came after the false reports of active shooters at Villanova University and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

    In Pennsylvania, someone called 911 reporting a shooter in a Villanova law school building with at least one wounded victim. Students received texts from the school’s alert system, but the school’s president later said it was a hoax.

    In Tennessee, the university locked down its campus, telling students: “Possible active shooter in the University Center or Library. Run. Hide. Fight. More info forthcoming.” The lockdown was lifted after multiple law enforcement agencies responded. School officials said there was no evidence of any threat.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge strikes down Minnesota law banning religious tests for college credit program

    [ad_1]

    MINNEAPOLIS — Religious colleges that require students to sign a statement of faith cannot be excluded from a popular Minnesota program that lets high school students take college courses for credit, a federal judge has ruled, tossing a state law that she called an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom.

    The ruling late Friday from U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel was a victory for two conservative Christian colleges in the state: Crown College in St. Bonifacius and the University of Northwestern in Roseville. Those two institutions require their students to pledge to follow the school’s values and conduct rules, effectively barring students who aren’t Christian or who are LGBTQ+ from campus activities.

    The 2023 law was sought by the state Department of Education and advocates for LGBTQ+ rights. In defending the change at a hearing in December, the state argued that it rightly protected high school students who are not Christian, straight, and cisgender — those whose gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth.

    Minnesota’s 40-year-old Postsecondary Enrollment Options program lets high schoolers earn free credits at state expense at public or private colleges of their choice, although the courses must be nonsectarian. Around 60,000 students have participated.

    The Department of Education had tried to ban the faith statement requirement since 2019. It succeeded in 2023 when Democrats gained control of both houses of the Legislature and used their power to enact broad new protections for LGBTQ+ rights. The change was part of a broader education funding bill.

    A group of parents and high schoolers who were earning college credits at the two schools, or wanted to, then sued to overturn the law, saying it violated their religious freedom under the First Amendment to benefit from the program at schools with campus atmospheres that reflect their values.

    They were represented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which welcomed the ruling.

    “Minnesota tried to cut off educational opportunities to thousands of high schoolers simply for their faith. That’s not just unlawful — it’s shameful,” Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket, said in a statement Saturday. “This ruling is a win for families who won’t be strong-armed into abandoning their beliefs, and a sharp warning to politicians who target them.”

    The state attorney general’s office referred a request for comment Saturday to the Department of Education, which did not immediately reply.

    The judge said the dispute required the court “to venture into the delicate constitutional interplay of religion and publicly‐funded education.” She said she was obligated to follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations,” and that while states need not subsidize private education, once they do, they can’t disqualify private schools “solely because they’re religious.

    Besides declaring the faith statement ban unconstitutional, Brasel also threw out a related nondiscrimination requirement that prohibited participating schools from basing admission to the program on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

    Both sides agreed earlier that the ban would not be enforced while the court case and any appeals played out.

    In 2021, Northwestern was Minnesota’s largest provider of classes through the Postsecondary Enrollment Options program. The state paid it over $33 million in the academic years from 2017–18 through 2022–23. Crown got nearly $6 million in that period.

    This was the second time in a week that a judge had declared unconstitutional a hot-button law enacted in 2023 and 2024 when Democrats held the “trifecta” of controlling both legislative chambers and the governor’s office.

    On Monday, a state court judge threw out a 2024 ban on “binary triggers,” devices that let a gun fire both when its trigger is pulled and when it’s released, giving the weapon a much faster rate of fire. The judge said tucking the ban into a massive 1,400-page tax bill violated a requirement under the state constitution that bills should be limited to a single subject.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Troubling Lines That Columbia Is Drawing

    [ad_1]

    In 2005, a “working definition” of antisemitism was posted on the website of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, a research institute founded by the European Union. It described antisemitism, somewhat vaguely, as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” Even less precise were the eleven examples of antisemitism that followed, many of which focussed on Israel. Among them was “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” and “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

    In the two decades since it was introduced, this definition has not been endorsed by most leading scholars of antisemitism, in part because critics believe that it blurs the line between hostility toward Jews and criticism of Israel. It has been a different story in the political arena, where the reception of the definition has been nothing short of astonishing. In 2016, a slightly altered version of the definition was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (I.H.R.A.), an intergovernmental organization. To date, more than forty governments have adopted it as well, notwithstanding the definition’s lack of precision. In his forthcoming book, “On Antisemitism,” the historian Mark Mazower argues that, to some of the definition’s promoters, its vagueness has been a virtue rather than a drawback. The definition emerged at a time when campaigning against antisemitism was becoming a growing priority—and a highly effective fund-raising tool—for organizations such as the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. What increasingly concerned these groups was not classical antisemitism, which, by the end of the Cold War, appeared to be declining, but the “new antisemitism,” which manifested in what they saw as the demonization of Israel.

    This development would have shocked Israel’s founders, many of whom assumed that the creation of a Jewish state would eliminate antisemitism. (“You still at it, saving Jews from the antisemites?” David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, asked one of the A.D.L.’s leaders in 1970, implying that the problem could be solved if Jews simply made aliyah.) It also would have startled the organizers of an A.D.L. conference on antisemitism that took place in 1962 in New York, where the participants discussed right-wing extremism but made no mention of Israel. By the early two-thousands, the politics had changed, as major American Jewish groups joined forces with advocates such as Natan Sharansky, an Israeli minister who was appointed chairman of an Israeli body called the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism, to mobilize around the issue—and to redraw the ideological battle lines. As Mazower observes in his book, antisemitism was severed from the broader struggle against other forms of discrimination and shifted from being associated with the political right to being linked to the left, where many of Israel’s most vocal critics could be found. For those looking to silence such critics, Mazower suggests, an expansive definition of antisemitism which could be applied to a broad range of expression was particularly useful.

    No politician has made greater use of the I.H.R.A. definition of antisemitism than President Donald Trump. In 2019, Trump signed an executive order specifying that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars “forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism” and advising federal agencies to consider the I.H.R.A. definition when investigating complaints. More recently, the Trump Administration has threatened sixty universities with “potential enforcement actions” if they fail to protect Jewish students from discrimination. On July 23rd, Columbia reached a settlement with the Administration which required it to pay the government two hundred million dollars over the next three years and to broaden its “commitment to combating antisemitism,” in exchange for having hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants reinstated. Ten days earlier, Columbia had incorporated the I.H.R.A. definition of antisemitism into both its anti-discrimination policies and the work of its Office of Institutional Equity.

    Mazower has taught at Columbia since 2004. Like most faculty members, he was not consulted about the decision to adopt the I.H.R.A. definition. Neither was Kenneth Stern—its lead author. In recent years, Stern, a lawyer who worked from 1989 to 2014 as an expert on antisemitism at the American Jewish Committee, has expressed dismay that pro-Israel groups have invoked the definition to threaten universities with lawsuits for offering courses and programs on subjects such as Israel’s occupation, which he regards as a violation of academic freedom and a gross distortion of the definition’s purpose. In “The Conflict Over the Conflict,” a book about how the debate around Israel-Palestine is playing out in higher education, he maintains that the definition was originally created to help data collectors gather statistics on antisemitism, and that its use to suppress political speech “poses one of the most significant threats to the campus today.”

    When demonstrations against the war in Gaza began to roil college campuses two years ago, numerous universities invited Stern to advise them on how to navigate the turmoil. One of these schools was Columbia, where he gave a presentation on the subject in Butler Library. At the talk, Stern told me recently, he emphasized the importance of safeguarding academic freedom. “I said, If you are going to make a decision, ask yourself this one question,” he recalled. “Will it help academic freedom, will it harm academic freedom, or will it be neutral? If it helps, it will get buy-in from faculty. If it harms academic freedom, it will backfire.” When Stern learned about Columbia’s settlement with the Trump Administration, he concluded that his advice had gone unheeded. “I see nothing good coming out of this,” he said of the agreement, which he believes will make it impossible “for faculty to do their jobs.”

    Columbia has insisted that the settlement was crafted “to protect the values that define us.” In a recent article in the Columbia Spectator, Gil Eyal and Peter Bearman, two sociologists at the university, disagree, noting that scholars doing comparative research on genocide could find themselves accused of antisemitism for including the case of Israel’s current campaign in Gaza. Under the I.H.R.A. definition, “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is considered antisemitic. Without drawing such comparisons, it will be difficult even to discuss whether the war in Gaza constitutes genocide, they noted. A few days before their article’s publication, Rashid Khalidi, the author of “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” and a professor emeritus of modern Arab studies, published an open letter in The Guardian addressed to Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, in which he announced that he would not be teaching a lecture course on the Middle East this fall because of the school’s adoption of the I.H.R.A. definition. “A simple description of the discriminatory nature of Israel’s 2018 Nation State Law – which states that only the Jewish people have the right of self-determination in Israel, half of whose subjects are Palestinian – or of the apartheid nature of its control over millions of Palestinians who have been under military occupation for 58 years would be impossible in a Middle East history course under the I.H.R.A. definition,” Khalidi wrote. Marianne Hirsch, a genocide scholar and the daughter of Holocaust survivors, has indicated that she is considering no longer teaching because she is unsure if she will be able to continue to assign texts such as “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” a book by Hannah Arendt—a critic of Zionism and arguably the most influential Jewish thinker of the twentieth century.

    [ad_2]

    Eyal Press

    Source link

  • FAFSA application is open for early testing. Here’s what to know.

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — The Free Application for Federal Student Aid for the 2026-27 school year has opened for a limited number of students as part of a beta test, the Department of Education says.

    The department is rolling out two beta testing phases before the application is fully available to everyone in October. At first, the FAFSA form will be available for a small number of students and families, chosen via existing partnerships with community organizations and schools.

    “We’re using this time to monitor a limited number of FAFSA submissions to ensure our systems are performing as expected,” the department said on Monday.

    In September, students will be able to request participation in the second phase of beta testing. Participation will be limited, so not everyone will be accepted, said the Education Department.

    Here’s what you need to know.

    How does the FAFSA work?

    The FAFSA is a free government application that uses students’ and their families’ financial information to determine whether they can get financial aid from the federal government to pay for college.

    The application will send a student’s financial information to the schools they are interested in attending. The amount of financial aid a student receives depends on each institution.

    The application is also used to determine eligibility for other federal student aid programs, like work-study and loans, as well as state and school aid. Sometimes, private, merit-based scholarships also require FAFSA information to determine if a student qualifies.

    When will the 2026-2027 FAFSA be available?

    The 2026–27 FAFSA form will be available to everyone by Oct. 1. The deadline to submit the FAFSA form is June 30, 2026.

    How can I prepare to fill out the FAFSA form?

    Students can start preparing to fill out the FAFSA now so they can complete it as soon as it’s available. The first step in the process is to create a studentaid.gov account and gather the following documents.

    —Social Security number

    —Driver’s license number

    —Alien registration number, if you are not a U.S. citizen

    —Federal income tax returns, W-2s and other records of money earned

    —Bank statements and records of investments

    —Records of untaxed income

    Who should fill out the FAFSA?

    Anyone planning to attend college next year should fill out the form. Both first-time college students and returning students can apply for the FAFSA.

    Students and parents can use the federal student aid estimator to get an early approximation of their financial package.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.

    [ad_2]

    Source link