Tag: Events

ANDOVER, Mass.—The stagnation and disinclination to experiment that many critics believe is rife in higher education may loom over some gatherings of campus leaders. The College-in-3 event here this week wasn’t among them.

Several dozen college administrators, faculty leaders, accreditors and others gathered at Merrimack College to share progress reports on, and commiserate about, common roadblocks in their efforts to create three-year bachelor’s degrees.

The gathering was organized by the College-in-3 Exchange, which has been working for several years to encourage institutions to design and build academic programs that deliver faster, less expensive, and—ideally—better degree programs for learners. Most of the institutions in the fledgling consortium, striving to redesign their way to a more secure future, would do so by reducing the number of academic credits they require from the typical 120 to as low as 90.

Progress has been slow, despite the missionary zeal of its chief advocates, Bob Zemsky, one of America’s best-known scholars and analysts of higher education, and Lori J. Carrell, chancellor of the University of Minnesota Rochester. By the time of last spring’s gathering at Georgetown University, not a single one of the then-12 pilot programs had been approved by their accreditors and states to begin operating.

Last fall, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities approved three-year bachelor’s degree programs developed by Brigham Young University–Idaho and its affiliate Ensign College. But the accreditor’s officials say they won’t approve any other programs until they see outcomes, which they have yet to specify, from the two experiments in Idaho.

No other regulators have followed suit, and some institutions, like Merrimack, have been through the wringer, having submitted multiple proposals to no avail, its leaders say.

“Every time we come in, they change the rules again,” Chris Hopey, Merrimack’s president, said of the New England Commission on Higher Education. (Despite its apparent caution, the New England accreditor has taken incremental steps. It released guidelines last month that, among other things, would require institutions seeking to offer bachelor’s degrees with fewer than 120 credits to add a prefix to the name—think “applied” or “accelerated”—that would make clear to prospective applicants that it isn’t a traditional bachelor’s degree.)

Signs of momentum have appeared in recent weeks. Indiana’s legislature approved a measure last month that would require all four-year public colleges in the state to develop three-year degree options by July 2025. U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat, successfully tucked into a 2024 spending bill a provision that would let colleges use federal financial aid funds to try three-year degrees, through the Education Department’s “experimental sites” program.

And the College-in-3 group unveiled an ambitious new strategy at this week’s meeting that would identify a handful of regional “host” institutions that would each build and help sustain “clusters” of 50–75 colleges and universities that pilot three-year-degree experiments.

Perhaps the most promising development was unveiled at the tail end of this week’s meeting—and may have been spurred by it. Zemsky and Carrell had invited officials from the Northwest accreditor and of the nation’s largest accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission, to the event, to help them learn more about the efforts, and, almost certainly, to gently apply pressure on them.

The accreditors took their lumps, as one session that was purportedly designed for institutions to share their stories largely morphed into a gripe-fest about the barriers state laws and accreditation processes had placed in their way.

Soon after, Tom Bordenkircher, vice president of accreditation relations at the Higher Learning Commission, delivered welcome news: that after significant “study,” beginning in September, the agency will consider granting approval to any institution seeking to offer a “reduced-credit bachelor’s degree” in any program. There will be no pilot projects, he said, and no asterisks attached to the offerings.

“As of this morning, the gate has swung wide open at HLC,” Bordenkircher said.

The response was enthusiastic.

“I think this will force the hands of other [accreditors],” said Hopey of Merrimack. “This is going to be cascading. Everybody’s waiting for who does it first.”

How Change Happens in Higher Education

Like many potential innovations in higher education, this one has been gestating for a long while. Zemsky floated the idea 15 years ago in a series of articles and books, but “we got done in by the accreditors when we last tried this,” he said this week.

In the intervening decade, questions have only grown about higher education affordability, the value of college credentials and the sustainability of many institutions as the number of college-goers declines—and demographic declines loom.

That has resulted in shifts in the credentials learners are seeking (see this week’s data on dips in degrees awarded and increases in certificates granted by American colleges and universities this year) and a good bit of creative thinking by institutions about what academic credentials to offer and how to offer them.

But as is often true, given the fragmented nature of higher education and the lack of cross-institutional collaboration, innovation like this often happens in nooks and crannies—in one professor’s course, or one department’s major, or maybe in a partnership between two local colleges.

Multi-institution networks like the College-in-3 Exchange (and better-established ones such as Achieving the Dream and the University Innovation Alliance) can help ideas spread.

Zemsky’s and Carrell’s vision to create a community of practice to encourage experimentation with three-year degrees as a partial response to the concerns about affordability and value, driven particularly, they say, by a single statistic: “Currently half of all four-year American colleges and universities across the United States lose a quarter or more of their first-year students before their second year,” with low-income, minority and first-generation students faring particularly poorly. “This outcome is unacceptable and we who serve students pursuing higher education must lead the change. We need not just new, but dramatically different designs—to achieve dramatically different results.”

The work of that community of practice was on display in the conference room at Merrimack, where officials from institutions as diverse as Georgetown (private research university), Utah Tech University (a regional public institution that offers a range of credentials) and American Public University (a for-profit institution that serves many military service members) brainstormed about how they might commonly measure the outcomes of the three-year degree programs they’re developing. They broadly agreed they would need to identify metrics around credential completion, student debt, employment, the student experience and student learning,

Participants discussed the importance of advising, and how to bring faculty members along, though most said their professors were energized by the possibility of rethinking their work on behalf of students.

And they talked about money: the need to build support from foundations for this work, and the extent to which that influenced the decision to adopt a strategy in which “host” institutions can play the intermediary role that many foundations today favor when they’re working in higher education.

Merrimack is the first such host to sign on, and Hopey said matter-of-factly that he would recruit 75 New England colleges to participate, plus 50 corporate CEOs to advocate and build momentum for the three-year degree.

Zemsky and Carrell set themselves an audacious goal of hundreds of three-year degree pilots within a few years. Given the low rate of accreditor approval so far, that target may have seemed almost laughable before this week’s statements from the Higher Learning Commission.

By the end of the meeting, though, optimism was high. “A year ago, our conversation had a ‘Debbie downer’ tone to it,” Hopey said. “This conversation has taken a 180.”

Are you recruiting for a job opportunity in digital/online learning?

Are you looking to fill an awesome alternative academic (alt-ac) role?

If so, please get in touch—as I want to help spread the word about the job posting.

To kick off this series of featured gigs, the job posting I want to share is Managing Director of Online Education at the University of Virginia.

To learn more about this role, I asked Kemi Jona, vice provost for online education and digital innovation at UVA, to answer some questions about the position.

Q1: What is the university mandate behind this role? How does it help align with and advance the university’s strategic priorities?

A: Our 2030 Strategic Plan calls on the university to expand the reach of its educational programs. Specifically, the plan states, “As the world evolves, people across the Commonwealth of Virginia and the nation will have increased needs for developing skills to help them prepare for new jobs or career advancement. As a state-supported university, we feel a particular responsibility to serve the Commonwealth by expanding educational opportunities, both in person and online, for working adults in the Commonwealth and beyond—especially the 1.1 million Virginians who have some college credits but have not yet received a degree.”

In my view, this provides a very clear mandate for the work the person filling this role will be responsible for leading. The very fact that this language is included in our strategic plan means that there is a shared sense of purpose for this work at the very highest levels of the university.

Q2: Where does the role sit within the university structure? How will the person in this role engage with other units and leaders across campus?

A: This new role will report directly to me as part of the Office of the Provost. The Managing Director will be part of strategic discussions with deans and institute directors, with colleagues in the provost’s and president’s offices, and will work hand-in-hand with faculty and staff developing and running our online and hybrid programs.

As the team grows, the Managing Director will directly supervise a high-performing team that will add expertise and capacity to support our schools in realizing their strategic goals.

Q3: What would success look like in one year? Three years? Beyond?

A: I think that within one year, the Managing Director will have brought on several key new hires as well as engaged with outside consultants and vendors to round out the expertise and services we wish to provide our partner schools.

He or she will have developed a trusted working relationship and strong rapport with colleagues across campus (we call it Grounds) and will have significantly enhanced or helped launch one or more online or hybrid programs.

A successful Managing Director will also facilitate communities of practice that bring together key administrators, faculty, and staff engaged in the work of expanding access to our programs beyond Grounds.

In three years, I imagine we will be that much further along in our journey with this work and will have earned our place as a key part of the university’s success in meeting the goals laid out in the 2030 Plan.

Q4: What kinds of future roles would someone who took this position be prepared for?

A: The person in this position would be preparing to step into a top leadership position in higher education, online education and digital innovation. Different universities have different titles, so it’s a bit tricky to pick just one. Assistant, Associate or Vice Provost for Online Education would be a likely title. I have a bunch of friends and colleagues in this role, and they all have different titles.

We are starting to see people in these roles step into provost and president roles, albeit in small numbers so far. Further down the road, if someone in this role had that ambition, I could see it being a real possibility at a smaller or predominately online institution.

Understanding the experiences and needs of first-generation college students can be a challenge for college and institutional leaders, in part because there is no common definition of a first-generation college student.

The 1998 Higher Education Act Amendments identifies a first-generation college student as someone for whom both parents (or parent, in the case a student resides with and receives support from only one) did not complete a baccalaureate degree, and this definition has served as the qualification for TRIO participation, as well.

However, that criteria does not take into account the experiences of students whose parents earned college degrees in other countries or students who have older siblings or grandparents who earned college degrees, who may face different barriers to completion and retention compared to their continuing-generation peers.

New research from Common App looks at how ranges of parental degree attainment can have an impact on which students are classified as first-generation and how, even within the first-generation band, student experiences vary.

State of play: Across applicants in the 2022 season:

• 30.4 percent do not live in a household with both parents.
• 11.6 percent have limited information about one or more parents.
• 26.6 percent of students’ highest parental degree level was bachelor’s (the greatest share among applicants).
• 8.8 percent have parents who obtained a bachelor’s, but from outside the U.S.
• 29.7 percent have parents who didn’t obtain a bachelor’s degree but still attended some college.
• 19.2 percent of students reported two parents with no college attendance, the most common parental degree combination.

A quarter reported both of their parents did not attend college, 5.2 percent said one parent had some college but no degree, and 5.5 percent said at least one parent held an associate’s degree, making 37 percent of applicants first-generation (if bachelor’s degree attainment is the threshold).

Defining first gen: Common App’s research found the benchmark for what makes a student first-generation can influence both the number of students who fall into that category as well as the demographics of the group.

The broadest label (no dual-bachelor’s by parents) compared to the narrowest (no college attendance by parents) shows variance of almost 400,000 students.

“Thinking about this in more concrete terms, these differences would likely create substantial changes to any programs or initiatives catering towards first-gen students in terms of participation, funding, staffing, and other resourcing considerations,” according to the brief.

These parental education bands also align with variation in the socioeconomic status of first-generation students. For example, if first-generation students are defined by not having two parents with a bachelor’s degree, just under 50 percent of these students are considered low income. If no college attendance by parents is the definition, two-thirds of first-generation students are considered low-income. Similar shifts happen when looking at average numbers of AP tests passed and average number of college applications submitted, students in the various groups perform at higher or lower levels depending on how first-generation is determined.

Continuing-gen students: The research also identified interesting trends among students whose parents had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. Parental education, overall, provides similar predictive power about college readiness compared to using first-generation status, underrepresented racial minority status, high school type and fee waiver eligibility for submitting the Common App.

Students with higher levels of parental education, measured by either the highest parental degree or combination, are more likely to be considered college ready (scaled GPA) and are more likely to have a higher socioeconomic status.

The one exception is students who report only one parent on their application, because they generally are outliers compared to their peers in the same highest parental degree group, which speaks to the unique challenges of single-parent households. “It may thus be of value for programs and institutions to consider tracking single-parent families separately from first-generation status as another indicator of socioeconomic status,” according to the brief.

So what? Common App’s research identifies two key themes in supporting first-generation student success: the importance of a singular definition of first-generation and use of institutional data, explains Brian Heseung Kim, Common App’s director of Data Science and Analytics.

A clear definition about who is a first-generation student benefits the institution internally and the learner because it helps staff and faculty members figure out who may need additional support in college and what kinds of interventions are necessary.

For example, if a university has a narrow definition (students whose parents or siblings have never attended a postsecondary institution), access to and visibility within the collegiate experience would be the most important interventions, helping guide learners through the hidden curricula of academia. But, if a student is first-generation if neither parent has a bachelor’s degree, helping students retain and persist beyond enrollment may be most helpful in their college experience.

Beyond creating a shared definition, college and university leaders should dig into the data they have on first-generation students and continuing-generation students to curate these interventions and recognize the unique characteristics of their learners, Kim says.

Common App regularly provides member institutions with the demographic data it collects, but fewer colleges and universities create data pipeline processes in which they equip their own systems with this information. Kim sees an opportunity for Common App to evaluate which of its institutions are using data and how data analysis can be further encouraged.

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

Society is often a mirror, reflecting what we collectively value. Athletes are celebrated and revered, their physical prowess and competitive spirit held up as a testament to human achievement. For a timely example, just think of all the public attention directed toward basketball over the past weeks of March Madness, culminating in the upcoming National Collegiate Athletic Association’s Final Four games.

But what if this acclaim was shared equally with another group of influencers: our teachers? What if we, as a society, esteemed educators as highly as we do athletes?

In this piece, I envision a hypothetical society where teachers are revered as highly as athletes, reassigning the respect and admiration usually bestowed upon physical prowess to intellectual capability and the art of teaching. I use some hyperbole to highlight the divergence between our present societal norms and an imaginary future in order to consider how transformative such a redirection would be. I don’t mean to belittle sports or athletes; rather, I seek to emphasize the potential benefits of funneling similar levels of passion, resources and attention into the field of education.

So let’s visualize a world where a phrase like “He’s the Zach Edey of sociology!” or “She’s the Caitlin Clark of physics!” is not a ludicrously lofty ideal but a common expression that encapsulates the respect and admiration we harbor for exceptional educators. Imagine living in a world where the measure of a person’s worth is not confined to physical strength, but rather expanded to the world of intellectual capability and the power of teaching. What if the same passion, financial resources and attention that we pour into professional sports were instead focused on our educators and the pivotal role they play in shaping the future? It’s an enticing vision, to be sure. And it’s one worth exploring.

In a society where college and university instructors receive as much recognition as sports stars, it isn’t difficult to envision the vast implications. First, we would see an immediate and dramatic increase in the attractiveness of the teaching profession. A newfound prestige would accompany the role of educators, enticing a surge of talent into the sector. This influx of much greater numbers of impassioned, respected and well-resourced educators would lead to enriched, effective and inspiring teaching and learning for many more people.

The increased investment in education would lead to a well-funded and well-resourced sector. Smaller class sizes, state-of-the-art learning technology and robust support systems for students would become the norm rather than the exception. Teachers would also be rewarded with higher salaries, encouraging them to continually innovate and improve their teaching methods.

Education would become a field of play where the stakes are high, competition is fierce, and the rewards are great. For those wondering how competition could fit into the landscape of education, we can draw parallels from the world of sports. Just as athletes continually seek to outdo their personal best and set new records, teachers could engage in friendly competitions to see who can bring about the most progress in their students’ understanding, critical thinking skills and overall knowledge. We could even have league tables ranking instructors on their talents for inspiring students, fostering creativity and facilitating deep and long-lasting learning.

To make this idea more concrete, consider televised “education matches,” or Pedagogical Playoffs, where leading teachers across various disciplines demonstrate their teaching skills. Students could be presented with complex problems, and these matches could become an opportunity to spotlight the beauty of the learning process, where the journey to the solution is just as important as the solution itself. It would be a chance to highlight that learning is not about rote memorization, but about fostering nuanced understanding, nurturing curiosity and honing critical thinking skills.

A Ripple Effect

Now, let’s talk about the social impact, which would be nothing short of transformative. Education would no longer be considered a chore or a necessary evil, but rather a celebrated, communal event. Just as we gather to watch a Final Four game or a World Cup match, we would come together to watch, learn and engage in intellectual pursuits. This paradigm shift would create a ripple effect in society—inspiring a culture that values learning, intellect and the development of human potential.

Education is not just a process or a system, but the bedrock upon which we build our society. It’s a tool of societal advancement, carving paths for future leaders, innovators, artists and thinkers. At the heart of this transformative process stand teachers—individuals who influence the minds that will innovate tomorrow. These educators, in the grandest sense, are every bit as heroic as the athletes we cheer for on the field.

Now, imagine a society that truly understands this. A society that sees the value in its educators and invests in them with the same fervor and enthusiasm that it does in its athletes. What would that look like? Perhaps it would herald an era of the Education Super Bowl, the Teaching World Cup and the Instructional Olympics. Maybe we would see education stadiums filled with cheering fans, celebrating innovative teaching methods and applauding breakthroughs in student understanding. Sure, it might seem like quite a stretch today, as fanciful as flying cars and cities on Mars, but every reality starts as someone’s daydream.

In such a world, we are not merely changing our perception of education; we are transforming our perception of society and its potential for the future. We’re acknowledging that those who ignite curiosity, impart knowledge, and nurture critical thinking are as integral to our societal fabric as those who score goals, break records and win medals.

Admittedly, this sounds like a utopian dream, an ideal that veers far from our present reality. But remember, as a society collectively aspiring to recognize and elevate our educators, every significant change begins with imagining the possibility. If we can visualize a world where instructors are as valued and esteemed as athletes, we can start the necessary dialogues, formulate plans and make the shifts needed to turn this vision into reality.

We have within us the power to redefine societal values, to shift what and whom we celebrate, and alter our collective aspirations. It’s time we—educational leaders, policymakers, community advocates and engaged citizens—leveraged that power to invest in the educators who shape our future in their classrooms. Because, ultimately, a society that places teachers on the same pedestal as athletes is a society that understands the true value of the future. It is a society that appreciates the weight and worth of the task of empowering minds and that recognizes the impact of this task on the trajectory of humanity.

By valuing our teachers as much as our athletes, we’re not just investing in education—we’re investing in the potential of generations to come. It’s a goal that may seem lofty, but it’s one that we should strive for if we truly aim to build a society that understands the value of its future.

Today on the Academic Minute, part of Indiana University’s Total Solar Eclipse Week: Catherine Pilachowski, Daniel Kirkwood Chair and distinguished professor of astronomy, describes the rare chance the eclipse presents for astronomers to make breakthrough discoveries. Learn more about the Academic Minute here.

During these times of economic instability and societal unrest, leaders are turning increasingly toward values, core beliefs and principles about what doing good looks like, as they guide their organizations. They often espouse specific values to motivate and encourage people to make important changes. For example, academic administrators may revamp their honor code or adjust policies on important topics like work/life balance to improve morale and promote healthier workplaces.

Most recently, external stakeholders are putting growing pressure on colleges and universities, often driven by a lack of support for specific institutional policies and practices that, the critics claim, lack a moral foundation. They question whether those policies and practices match those institutions’ espoused values or whether they are simply a form of virtue signaling. Thus, higher education leaders increasingly must articulate and enact specific values—such as transparency, efficiency, reliability, safety and many others—not only to improve their college or university’s performance but also to communicate to a skeptical public that they and the institution are trustworthy.

At the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics (NCPRE), we maintain that principled leadership is both the right thing and the smart thing to do. We help academic leaders at all levels reflect on the values that guide, or should guide, their work and how to pursue institutional integrity—by which we mean the alignment between espousing values and actually enacting them.

In this article, we’ll explore one example of principled leadership that has deep roots in both Western and Eastern philosophies and has recently grown in popular interest: having, and demonstrating, humility.

A Help or Hindrance?

Humility—a willingness to see oneself accurately, appreciate the contributions of others, admit error and be open to teachable moments—is increasingly seen as an important element of leadership. Humble leaders model appropriate behavior to followers and help them grow and improve, whereas leaders with a lack of humility frequently find that other people view them with some suspicion. If you want those around you to keep an open mind and be willing to change, you need to set an example.

Let’s be clear: Humility is not incompatible with a healthy self-confidence and a good understanding of one’s strengths as well as shortcomings. Indeed, it is often the confident, accomplished person who finds it easiest to be humble, because they do not see it as a threat to their authority and respect in the eyes of others. Conversely, someone who has to keep reminding people how important they are may actually be signaling insecurity.

While research increasingly demonstrates that humility in leadership builds trust and openness in organizations, being humble may not be the best approach in certain situations. For example, while seeking other people’s perspectives can be vital for improving the quality of decision-making, attempts to appease all the members of a department may, in fact, bring decision-making to a halt. Similarly, being excessively humble can sometimes go against the traditional norms of tenure evaluation. If an author, say, bends over backwards to emphasize the work of their collaborators on publications or grants, it could undercut how their own contribution is perceived.

We also need to consider how other people interpret being humble. Some may view it as a sign of weakness, or that a leader lacks the conviction, confidence or basic competence to fulfill their role. In addition, leaders with certain demographic characteristics related to race, gender or education level may not benefit from being humble as much as their peers, as it may “land” differently on others, depending on the leader’s position or identity. The very same acts of humility may be coded differently depending on context and who is speaking.

Consider, for instance, how a senior, white, male professor might be characterized in praising another’s suggestion in a departmental meeting. (“He’s so thoughtful and generous.”) Compare that to the way people could perceive a more junior, nonwhite woman performing the same action. (“She is such a sycophant—trying to make people like her.”) Humility can be seen as overly self-effacing or as a lack of competence for people who are already struggling to be taken seriously. That suggests that even moral principles such as humility may be more accessible for individuals with greater personal power or status, as opposed to those on the margins.

If you are a campus leader, learning, asking questions and cultivating curiosity are at the core of being humble, so, at NCPRE, we encourage practices like the “and stance,” “cultivating curiosity” and “personal scripts.” They not only communicate personal values and attitudes toward others but can also help you garner information and perspectives that can inform and improve your leadership.

It’s also important to ask what kind of humility, and how much humility, might be appropriate or inappropriate in certain circumstances. Being humble can look and seem different depending on the context. For example, humble leaders may use a participative approach to leadership to solicit the input of others on important issues, but when time is less abundant, they may need to act more decisively and rely on their own understanding of the problem.

How other people interpret such an act of humility can also vary. For instance, some leaders may view a participatory discussion about the promotion of someone in a college or university department as inclusive or generous, while others may see it as a drain of resources or as wasting time. Ultimately, determining the right kind or amount of humility depends on a leader’s awareness of their situation. Understanding what people need comes from open, honest relationships and a safe, trusting team environment, and humble leaders excel at fostering those conditions.

To evaluate whether being humble makes sense in an academic environment, it may be helpful to use a virtue ethics lens. Philosophers have mused that humility and other virtues may be most helpful and beneficial for people if applied at an “optimal” level—not too much, and not too little. Aristotle referred to this concept as the “golden mean” and Buddhism calls it a “middle path,” suggesting that truly moral behavior is found by balancing principles such that they avoid both excess and deficiency. This isn’t a percentage calculation, but a judgment based on experience about suitability in terms of the context and circumstance—what Aristotle calls “phronesis” or practical judgment.

That said, finding the right level of humility for your role or organization is not as easy as we might like. And as we’ve suggested, the answer may be different for different people. The skill of phronesis can only be developed through experience, learning and practice. Striking the right balance between the positive qualities of a humble leader—such as being a good listener, a willing collaborator or an eager mentor—while avoiding the potentially negative applications—such as being indecisive, never saying “no,” or trying to help too many people—is an art unto itself. One place to start is to consider the audience, roles and responsibilities needed to help your specific unit run well.

Values Work

One concept—values work, or the purposeful effort to translate abstract values into concrete practices—offers insights that you as a leader can use to incorporate values into people’s daily lives. Drawing from it, we offer a few suggestions that may help you determine whether and how humility (and other values) are appropriate for your workplace:

Take a values inventory. Consider how a value like humility might compare or compete with other values your institution prioritizes. Ask yourself:

• Which values are the highest priority at my institution?
• How might a new value like humility fit in among those other values?
• What conflicts do I foresee in trying to emphasize humility in the workplace?

Reflect on your department or unit’s strategy regarding those values. (We offer some resources here.)

Study the context. Unpack how enacting a value like humility might be interpreted in the context of your institution, department or student body. Ask yourself:

• Do the leaders at the college or university level understand and support this value in the same way I do?
• Do my departmental colleagues or students understand and support this value in the same way I do?
• Who are the stakeholders outside my department or unit whose perspectives are important? How might they understand and support this value?

Identify the specific challenges that may threaten your department or unit and how deferential or directive you might need to be in addressing them.

Explore possible adjustments. Make needed changes to allow a vital new value to “fit in” at your institution. Ask yourself:

• How might a leader who enacts a value like humility be affected in terms of promotions and evaluations?
• What are the common characteristics of successful people in my department or unit? Does this new value fit this mold?
• What might the “golden mean” of this new value look like in my department or unit? Do we need to adjust any systems to accommodate that?

Also, consider the changes you may need to make due to cultural or generational differences in your unit.

Introducing and making new values, such as humility, part of a department’s culture takes time and patience. It may even be that some values do not belong, regardless of how benevolent or useful they may seem in principle. But articulating what your values are and trying to engage with new ones are worthwhile practices. They can yield positive results for leaders in higher education in terms of both credibility and effectiveness.

Colleges and universities across the country have prioritized broadening student access and boosting credential completion, with the assumption that doing so will lead to strong post-graduate outcomes. But mounting levels of student debt and high rates of underemployment are starting to show that’s not enough to ensure success.

The Strada Education Foundation released a data-heavy report today that aims to quantify and rate states’ performance in each of five areas: postsecondary affordability, quality career coaching, work-based learning experiences, alignment with employer interests, and transparency of outcome data.

By aggregating state data and conducting national surveys of recent college graduates, the State Opportunity Index report handcrafts and analyzes a set of metrics for each area. It then designates a rating for each, ranging from “foundational” to “leading,” with “developing” and “advanced” in between.

The comprehensive report finds that although many states are succeeding at clearly measuring their post-graduation outcomes and on improving affordability, collectively they are struggling to provide quality coaching, work-based learning, and alignment with employers. Not a single state was ranked as “leading” in any of the latter categories.

“While there’s a lot of good work happening across the country and every state has at least a few examples of progress to be proud of, every state also has substantial room for improvement,” said Strada’s CEO, Stephen Moret.

“There’s an urgent need for all of us to place more attention on helping people successfully launch their careers,” he added. “What this report really gets at are some of the major things that institutions and policy makers can do to help ensure that people have good outcomes in terms of jobs and economic mobility.”

Filing Major Data Gaps

Although many past reports have looked at individual variables such as affordability, return on investment or socioeconomic mobility, higher education officials say few have attempted such a comprehensive approach as this.

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education used to publish a biennial report, Measuring Up, that rated states’ work on higher education. But it ceased in 2008, and even at the time it was publishing, critics said there were still major gaps in the data, particularly on student outcomes.

“Despite all the talk in Washington and state capitals about the need for better data and more robust accountability systems, we have made little progress,” an opinion author wrote for Inside Higher Ed more than 15 years ago. “Our efforts to make higher education more accessible and affordable will stall unless we change this.”

Michael Meotti, executive director of the Washington Student Achievement Council, said he hopes this Strada report will finally spur change.

“It may not be saying anything we didn’t already know,” he said. “It just brings it together in a more coherent way and puts it in a benchmarking model, compared to other states. So it gives you some sense that there are avenues to go down and explore how you might get better.”

“It doesn’t tell you what to do,” Meotti added. “But if you do believe that those things are important to increasing success, then it helps you know what states to look to for ideas.”

Survey Says

Nationwide, the Strada report finds, the strongest performance by states is in the category of “clear outcomes,” with about half of states ranking as leading or advanced. But even then, not a single state database included all 10 elements Strada outlines as necessary.

Affordability was the next strongest. There were two leading states—California and Washington—where students had to work fewer than 10 hours a week during the school year to cover their net cost of attendance. Another 15 ranked as advanced, requiring 10–20 hours a week. But nine states—Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota—remained unaffordable even at 30 hours.

The report also separately calculated average rates of positive return on investment, or the proportion of students who can pay off all debt within 10 years at a median salary. The lowest was Idaho at 55 percent, and the highest were New York, California and Delaware at 79 percent.

Data from the remaining three categories, however, demonstrated a lag in practice from coast-to-coast. In fact, research showed that not a single state could provide enough substantive data to quantify opportunities either for “quality coaching” or “work-based learning.” Instead, Strada conducted a national survey of recent graduates, and chose to hyper-focus on a select group of four states—California, Texas, Florida and New York.

National data showed that only 20 percent of bachelor’s degree students had access to full-capacity career coaching and only 26 percent had completed a paid internship. All of the individual states ranked as foundational or developing at best.

Leveraging Results

Chris Lowery, Indiana’s commissioner for higher education, said insights from Strada’s report are the best he’s seen from a report about higher education in years. Although he said he is “pleased” by Indiana’s results, which ranked it as advanced in clear outcomes and affordability, he was “not satisfied.”

He believes the report’s data will help him raise increased funds for existing programs, such as a recently announced career coaching grant that will institute career-pathway advising for students as early as the freshman year of high school.

As of now, the commission has $25 million to dispose of, but in the few weeks since the grant was announced, Lowery said he’s already received 41 applications seeking a total of three times the amount currently available.

“I am just so eager to continue to leverage this report … and to let both lawmakers and philanthropists know, we’re doing some of this, some of it’s in an early phase, some of it’s in a more mature phase, but we’ve got to do more of it,” he said. “For me, Strada’s report really helps to quantify and underscore the strategy we’ve adopted.”

Avoiding Barriers

Moret, from Strada, said the report’s results also show a need for more alignment between employers’ needs and states’ educational offerings. And he suggested that cross-agency data sharing and more collaboration between employers and universities is a must, particularly when it comes to the coordination of education and economic development.

“While they’re ostensibly linked … It’s very rare that you see states really say, ‘Here are the steps we’re going to take to better meet the needs for these particular high wage, high demand jobs that are going unfilled,’” he said.

Jaimie Francis, vice president of programs and policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation, agreed. She said the fact that nearly 75 percent of states are only foundational or developing when it comes to employer alignment is “telling.”

“If we don’t have companies actively engaging and collaborating on the solutions, then we’re going to find ourselves experiencing the challenges that we have today for a long time to come,” she said.

Michael Brickman, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank, believes the report draws attention to the things states do, whether “intentionally or unintentionally,” that make it more difficult to establish an ecosystem of opportunity. He also hopes it prompts some of those things to change.

For example, data show that among the few students who have had an internship, the likelihood of being underemployed was about 20 percentage points lower than for those who did not; there was an even larger difference—30 percentage points—between those with no internships and those with paid internships. And although Brickman agreed with Strada’s recommendation that states should explore policies that promote more on-the-job training, he worried regulations, such as requiring all internships be paid, could burden employers and dissuade them from expanding work-based learning opportunities.

“Remember, employers are there to provide a product or service. They, of course, need skilled workers to do that, but developing them is not their primary expertise,” he said.

Brickman added: “Hopefully, this will shine a light on opportunities for employers, education providers, workforce training programs to all work better together, so that they’re focused on opening doors to more people and hopefully making the pathways to jobs as affordable and accessible as possible.”

A coalition of 11 Republican-led states is suing the Biden administration to block its new student loan repayment plan. Kansas is leading the lawsuit.

Filed Thursday, the lawsuit argues that the plan, known as Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE), exceeds the Education Department’s authority, hurts the states’ bottom lines and is just another version of the broad-based debt-relief plan that the Supreme Court struck down last summer in Biden v. Nebraska.

“The law simply does not allow Biden to do what he wants to do,” Kansas attorney general Kris Kobach said in a news release. “Biden is trying to exercise the powers of a king rather than the powers of a President in a constitutional republic.”

Kobach is joined in the suit by attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey, who was a plaintiff in Biden v. Nebraska, announced Thursday that he’s also leading a multi-state coalition to bring a similar legal challenge to SAVE.

“Between our two coalitions of states, we will get this matter in front of a judge even more quickly to deliver a win for the American people,” Bailey said in a statement.

The income-driven repayment plan, first proposed in January 2023 and finalized that summer, makes loan payments more affordable and offers more pathways to forgiveness.

Previous iterations of the income-driven repayment plans offered forgiveness after 20 or 25 years of payments, but SAVE offers a quicker pathway for low-balance borrowers. In February, about 153,000 people who enrolled in SAVE and borrowed less than $12,000 in loans and spent 10 years in repayment had their balances wiped out—the first group to see such relief under the plan. That action totaled about $1.2 billion, and ignited a fresh round of conservative furor over the plan.

“Defendant Biden openly boasted about his defiance of the Supreme Court with this move, stating in Jacksonian fashion: ‘the Supreme Court blocked it. They blocked it. But that didn’t stop me’,” the states’ complaint says. “This lawsuit is now necessary to prevent defendants from continuing to flout the law, which includes ignoring Supreme Court decisions.”

With the spring semester halfway over, many institutions are preparing to make cuts before the next academic year. While multiple colleges and universities announced job cuts in March, others noted the need to tackle budget deficits but did not specify whether layoffs were coming. Some are conducting academic portfolio reviews that will likely result in at least some low enrollment programs being shuttered.

Click here for our recent coverage of other campus cutbacks.

Rockland Community College

Rockland Community College, part of the State University of New York system, will eliminate 19 positions as it navigates a structural deficit of $3.6 million, the local Journal News reported. Furloughs are also expected while the college seeks to cut $8 million from its budget.

This is the second round of cuts after layoffs and furloughs in December.

The Rockland Community College Faculty Senate responded to the cuts with a no-confidence resolution in President Lester Edgardo Sandres Rápalo and other senior administrators. Other campus constituent groups also signed onto the statement of no confidence in leadership.

Saint Martin’s University

Citing “dire” financial issues, St. Martin’s University in Washington plans to cut an unspecified number of jobs, local NBC affiliate King 5 News reported. Though the university did not identify the number, the network reported that 14 jobs are expected to be lost. Additionally, the university has frozen hiring for 25 vacant positions, according to its website.

Majors and minors in the humanities are also being considered for elimination.

The cuts come amid declining enrollment at St. Martin’s, which federal data shows slipped from about 1,800 a decade ago to 1,357 this spring, according to numbers on the university’s website.

St. Norbert College

Facing a $5 million budget deficit, St. Norbert College in Wisconsin laid off 12 faculty members earlier this month, the Green Bay Press Gazette reported. The move follows 45 layoffs last fall.

The layoffs, which were accompanied by cuts to retiree health benefits, prompted protests from students concerned about transparency in the process.

Officials have defended the cuts as necessary due to declining enrollment. Federal data shows the headcount at the private Catholic college fell from around 2,100 in fall 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, to 1,750, according to the latest figures reported by the newspaper.

Portland State University

Portland State University is eliminating its Intensive English Language Program by July 1, according to an announcement earlier this month by President Ann Cudd. She noted that the university is “rapidly spending down our reserves,” prompting budget cuts ahead. With only 30 students enrolled in the Intensive English Language Program for nonnative English speakers, typically international students, Cudd said it had become unsustainable.

As part of the program elimination, it appears 12 jobs will be cut. Though the announcement references 11 full-time, nontenure track professors in the program, the Portland State University chapter of the American Association of University Professors said in a newsletter that 12 employees will be terminated along with the program. The AAUP chapter also disputed Cudd’s claim that the decision was made in conjunction with faculty.

St. Joseph’s College

The Maine institution has laid off 10 employees as part of a restructuring, the Portland Press Herald reported. All 10 were in administrative positions, according to the newspaper.

Affected departments include information technology, marketing and athletics.

Additional layoffs are not expected, according to St. Joseph’s President Joseph Cassidy, who joined the college in August. He cited cost savings as part of the rationale for the layoff decision.

Drake University

Following a review, Drake University in Iowa is looking to discontinue 13 academic programs at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, the private institution announced earlier this month.

Targeted undergraduate majors include anthropology and sociology, astronomy, physics, religion, rhetoric and health care administration. At the graduate level, masters programs in accounting and public administration, and an evidence-based health care certificate, will be cut.

The Iowa Capital Dispatch reported nine faculty members will lose their jobs due to the cuts, which won’t be finalized until late April when the Board of Trustees is expected to vote on the plan.

State University of New York at Fredonia

Due to budget issues, SUNY Fredonia is moving forward with a plan to cut 13 majors, including various language and fine arts programs, according to the local Democrat & Chronicle. Beginning in June, students will no longer be admitted into those 13 majors as the programs begin to wind down.

University officials told the newspaper the number of teaching positions affected is unclear.

University of Houston-Victoria

The University of Houston-Victoria is looking to cut $3.7 million by August 31, the Victoria Advocate reported. The university has already enacted a hiring freeze and is now cutting jobs.

Just how many jobs will be affected remains unknown to the public. “We are not currently prepared to share the number of individuals or specific departments affected out of respect for the employees who are impacted by this decision,” President Bob Glenn told the newspaper, adding that the layoffs are the university’s “only anticipated reduction at this time.” Glenn is reportedly taking a 10 percent salary cut as part of the belt-tightening plan.

Officials cited declining enrollment and retention as the reasons for the layoffs.

University of Montana

Big changes may be coming to the University of Montana, where 67 programs are under evaluation as part of an academic portfolio review, NBC Montana reported. Reviewers are looking at enrollment and degree completion in those programs over the last seven years.

The review is expected to be completed by fall, with potential changes coming in the 2025–26 academic year, NBC Montana reported, adding that such program reviews are expected to become annual.

Valparaiso University

Cuts could also be on the horizon for Valparaiso University.

Currently, 28 academic programs are under review, the Chicago Tribune reported. Decisions on programmatic cuts are not expected to be made until August, when the fall semester begins. Any programs that end up on the chopping block will likely be phased out in the 2026–27 academic year to allow current students to complete their majors, the newspaper reported.

Marquette University

Marquette University plans to cut $31 million from its budget over seven years, including $11 million for the 2025–26 academic year, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Currently the university is facing a $9.5 million budget shortfall, which has caused it to tap contingency funds.

“Although we are in a strong financial position, Marquette—like other universities—is facing increasing economic and demographic pressures. Fewer traditional students are attending college, and those who do attend often need more financial and other support,” university officials said in a March 18 statement outlining the financial challenges and budget reductions.

While they did not reference possible layoffs, Marquette has made deep job cuts in recent years.

L. Song Richardson’s decision in February to step down from her position as president of Colorado College surprised many people both within and outside of higher education. It also has raised some interesting questions to interrogate especially for many of us who hold a similar office.

Richardson, a celebrated academic law professor and former dean of the School of Law at University of California, Irvine, was appointed as the chief executive at the small liberal arts college just a little less than three years ago. Although serving in that capacity was clearly an achievement and honor, holding the office created an audio shackle of sorts, according to Richardson. She came to feel that the desire to use her voice and perspective to weigh in on the most controversial issues of the day conflicted with the perceived roles and responsibilities of a university president.

While I respect and support my colleague’s decision, I’m not sure that I share all of the implied assumptions surrounding it. One such assumption is that a president must remain unbiased in their opinions and perspectives, even though every member of a university community holds some. It’s impossible for presidents to not hold their own views, even if they keep them to themselves.

Another assumption is that presidents are required to maintain an objective posture on issues so students can experience the full range of available perspectives free of any bias or contamination that a president may inject into a discussion. But I’m not sure I subscribe to the notion that students’ intellectual and emotional sensibilities are so tender and fragile that they are incapable of sifting through a chief executive’s opinions on certain issues and forming their own independent conclusions.

The fact is that the college and university campuses we presidents lead should be the places and spaces where the most important issues of our day become the topics of critical discourse and analysis. The vigorous exchange and weighing of ideas is a hallmark of the academy and a cherished value. A part of bold, dare I say progressive, leadership is framing narratives around a whole host of perspectives—indeed, it would seem to be an academic ideal.

That is particularly true in a changing national zeitgeist and media climate that is often void of authentic intellectual rigor, dominated by skewed political perspectives, anxious to forget or deny the historical wrongs of this country’s past, and prone to shield people from their emotional and intellectual discomfort. Moreover, especially of late, it’s all occurring in an atmosphere in which many people seem determined to suppress any signs of a “woke” agenda—that is to say, any efforts that seek to raise awareness and expand consciousness on ways to usher in a more compassionate and respectful appreciation of cultural differences.

Richardson’s case does raise a different line of inquiry, however: As presidents, how do we reconcile the choice between what we must do and what we feel is right to do? Unquestionably, the recent scrutiny placed on presidential opinions when it comes to domestic issues such as affirmative action or women’s reproductive rights, or more global issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the Russian aggression against Ukraine, is quite pronounced. And given the backlash presidents can endure for disappointing and even angering constituents when rendering opinions on controversial subjects, many chief executives have decided to mute their voices in hopes of enjoying a safer terrain free from, at best, unwanted public scrutiny or, at worst, severe critique.

Presidents, like executive managers in corporations, are expected to remain poised and objectively professional. In managing our college or university’s affairs in the midst of national trends, we must guard against antagonizing key stakeholders like boards, major donors and key legislators who have or seek to exercise authority and oversight over our positions. We are also expected to use our voice and position to articulate perspective on the challenges our institutions are facing, and yet we must do so in adherence to a set of institutional or corporate norms and values.

But the norms and values of our institutions may run very well contrary to our own, as the case of L. Song Richardson epitomizes. And while most presidents have faced scrutiny and felt the tensions I’ve described when it comes to speaking out, the issues she and others have confronted in their presidencies increase in complexity when we add in variables like race and gender.

By that I mean that when the norms about how a president should act or respond in a given situation are anchored in a framework that is decidedly white and male, there is a high degree of congruence between people’s expectations and how that individual responds. In contrast, women, people of color and others who are underrepresented in college presidencies can face greater expectations, as they are often the first woman or minority person holding the top position at their institution. At the same time, various constituents may perceive their perspectives and comments as deficient or inappropriate because they diverge from societal norms as a result of those leaders’ different cultural identities.

Moreover, what’s just as important—if not more so—but often not discussed, is that presidents who aren’t white and male must frequently grapple with distinct internal dilemmas. From my vantage point as a fellow African American president, and a culturally conscious one at that, I’m aware that presidents of color and other marginalized groups often hear a different voice. The President Richardsons of the world often hear the voice of the Afro-Caribbean psychiatrist Frantz Fanon, who argued that, “Each generation, out of relative obscurity, must reach out, and seek to fulfill its legacy or betray it.”

How does President Richardson—or do I, for that matter—in recognizing the struggle and sacrifice our ancestors waged for us to occupy the seats that we do, fulfill a legacy by remaining silent? Socially and culturally conscious leaders often hear the vocal stylings of Martin Luther King Jr., who reminds us that “our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter,” that “there comes a time when silence is betrayal,” and that “in the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.”

People both within and outside of higher education must understand the psychic dissonance that challenges culturally different and conscious leaders, who grapple with the discrepancy between what one must do or say and what that leader feels is right to express in oral opinion or written exposition. These personal, inner-voice discussions force many academic leaders to question what one is prepared to sacrifice: perhaps position, integrity, or the validation and valuation one receives from others they believe need to approve of the content and process dynamics of their speech.

We struggle with a quandary I have articulated in my own scholarship on racial identity development. I argue that the central question that presidents of color all must confront and navigate is how to maintain a sense of our own cultural integrity in a world that does not fully support or affirm our humanity.

L. Song Richardson’s decision to resign from her position and return to the law school at UC Irvine may be the best choice for her, as well as an unexpected windfall for her former institution. Yet, as I sit here at the close of Women’s History Month, I cannot help but be struck by how far academe still has to go when it comes to issues of leadership, especially those of nontraditional presidents who face distinct and sometimes even existential challenges. And I cannot help but grieve the loss of my colleague in that presidential seat and the void her presence will leave among the ranks of those of us who dare traverse the landscape of guiding colleges and universities forward in this day and time.

When Kyle Rittenhouse came to speak at the University of Memphis last week, protesters filled the venue, booing and shouting at him as he took the stage.

Rittenhouse, best known for killing two people during unrest concerning police brutality in Kenosha, Wisconsin, when he was 17, was sponsored by the conservative organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA); Memphis was the second stop on a four-campus circuit.

His talk, entitled “The Rittenhouse Recap,” centers on “themes related to individual rights, self-defense, and the importance of upholding the rule of law,” Turning Point spokesperson Aubrey Laitsch told Inside Higher Ed in an email.

One video of the March 20 event in Memphis shows an audience member asking Rittenhouse about racist statements made by Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA’s founder.

“What racist things has Charlie Kirk said?” Rittenhouse asked, to cries of disbelief from the crowd. “We’re going to have a little bit of a dialogue. What racist things has Charlie Kirk said?”

“OK, I’ll answer the question,” the audience member said. “He’s said we shouldn’t celebrate Juneteenth, we shouldn’t celebrate Martin Luther King Day, we should be working those days. He’s called Ketanji Brown Jackson an affirmative action hire, he’s said all this nonsense about George Floyd, and he’s said he’d be scared if a Black pilot was on a plane. Does that not seem racist?”

“I don’t know anything about that,” Rittenhouse said.

The questioner then asked if such comments constitute hate speech. Rittenhouse declined to answer, prompting more jeers from the crowd.

After the exchange, another person appears to start walking onto stage, but the video cuts off as he walks toward Rittenhouse. According to Richard Massey, a Memphis student who attended the talk to protest, the individual said something inaudible to Rittenhouse, who then walked off stage, ending the lecture.

“Once he was pressed by a student and asked about the vulgar remarks by Charlie Kirk … Rittenhouse abruptly left,” Massey said. “It’s clear he wasn’t prepared for the backlash.”

But Laitsch disputed that account, claiming that Rittenhouse was able to speak for his entire allotted 30-minute time, then held a private Q&A with members of Memphis’s TPUSA chapter.

Even before the talk, there was controversy over ticket distribution; Turning Point initially dispersed the tickets, but shortly before the event they were all invalidated and had to be reordered through the university’s ticketing service. Explanations for why vary by source; according to an article by the local news affiliate ABC24, a university spokesperson attributed the decision to concerns about Turning Point’s ticketing service.

The University of Memphis did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment.

“Definitely Provocation”

According to Turning Point, Rittenhouse’s talks do not comprise an official tour; rather, members of TPUSA chapters at four colleges reached out and invited him to campus in conjunction with the release of his book, Acquitted, which came out last fall.

Rittenhouse, who was acquitted of all five homicide and reckless endangerment charges on the grounds that he acted in self-defense, is a highly controversial figure. Many on the right see him as a hero who defended himself from a “violent mob,” while critics view him as emblematic of white vigilante violence against people of color and their allies. His campus appearances have inspired backlash from students who argue not only that he makes their campuses less safe for student of color, but also that he brings nothing valuable to an academic setting.

“There’s nothing scholarly … about him,” said Massey, who objected to Rittenhouse coming to speak in a majority-Black city that is still reckoning with the aftereffects of the 2023 death of Tyre Nichols, a Black FedEx employee, who was severely beaten by police.

Rittenhouse isn’t the only polarizing figure Turning Point has brought to college campuses. Listed among the speakers on the TPUSA website are conservative personalities such as Tomi Lahren, Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter and Jordan Peterson—all of whom have held talks on college campuses that were disrupted by protesters.

Some believe the organization purposefully uses polarizing speakers—and the campus protests they inevitably incite—to further widen the divide between the left and the right.

“[TPUSA’s] space within the field of college activism is definitely provocation,” said Jeffrey Kidder, a professor of sociology at Northern Illinois University and the co-author of The Channels of Student Activism: How the Left and Right are Winning (and Losing) in Campus Politics Today (The University of Chicago Press, 2022). “This is a group that, several years ago, had stickers that said things like ‘socialism sucks’ that are meant to be catchy and in your face and at least a little bit offensive, if not very offensive … the cycle of outrage continues on both sides of the political spectrum.”

Turning Point USA argues that its aim is not to incite anger among liberal students but rather to inspire dialogue.

“Kyle’s experience and perspective offer valuable insights into issues related to self-defense and the justice system, which are relevant topics for college students to explore and discuss. By hosting speakers like him, TPUSA aims to encourage critical thinking and informed debate among students,” Laitsch wrote.

Other Appearances

His inaugural presentation of the “Rittenhouse Recap,” at East Tennessee State University, triggered a demonstration hours before the event, according to the Johnson City Press. Protesters held signs denouncing racism, fascism and violence.

But the event itself went off without interruption, according to TPUSA and local news articles. East Tennessee administrators had told news outlets prior to the talk that student organizations are permitted to invite to campus any guest speaker they want, and that the First Amendment prohibits the university from interfering—unless the event poses a safety risk.

Rittenhouse is slated to appear this Wednesday night at Western Kentucky University, and on April 16 at Kent State University. Neither university responded to requests for comment.

But some Kent State students said they consider it especially insensitive for their campus to host an individual who fatally shot protesters, given that the Ohio National Guard killed four students and injured nine during an anti-war rally there in 1970.

“The parallels to what happened on that August night [in Kenosha] and the fateful events that happened on our own campus are uncanny,” Leah Shepard, a reporter for the university’s newspaper, Kent Wired, wrote in an op-ed.

“This is a slap in the face of everything Kent State has done to memorialize that day. It desecrates the memories of those who gave their lives for peace and progress.”

Another Kent State student, Ally Greco, started a petition against Rittenhouse’s appearance, which now has over 3,300 signatures.

She said that TPUSA’s goal in inviting him is to cause controversy and raise the group’s own profile.

“They do benefit from having this conversation even though it’s negative,” she said. “There’s more eyes on their organization … they’re still getting more people to talk about them.”

Having worked in career development for graduate students and postdocs for more than 15 years, I’ve heard both wonderful and terrible career advice. Some of my least favorite quotes included: “Apply to everything” and “You have to go where the jobs are.” I dislike those the most, because they are based on the assumptions that you are at the mercy of the job market and that this career is the most important aspect of your life—that it’s so important that you would live wherever or do whatever to attain that job. Fortunately, folks are much more complex than this.

I’m also not fond of the advice to “follow your passion.” It’s a vague and toxic approach to thinking about your future. Sure, you can be passionate about certain aspects of your work but, in reality, a career is just one aspect of life. Having a passion now assumes that it won’t change over time, but change is something that we all know will occur. Instead, the best way to feel empowered in the job search is to identify what is most important to you and then design a life that includes work but also centers your values. Let’s walk through what a values-forward job search can look like, and how you can take some of your power back.

In a values-forward framework, values act as the parameters for your next work environment, helping you clearly articulate what you need in a job. You would never move to a new city and apply to every apartment building when looking for your next living situation. You would have specific requirements for how much you can pay for rent, what your commute tolerance is, and how many bedrooms you need. Similarly, when applying for jobs, the first step is not to figure out what you are qualified for or what you can do. It’s to figure out what is most important to you and how you can maximize your time and resources.

So, before applying to jobs, take stock of what you need from work and use those needs as filters for the kinds of positions that you decide to invest time in applying to. Several free and trustworthy resources can help you clarify your values, including ImaginePhD, the life values inventory and Stanford’s Meaningful Work Kit. The most important part of this exercise is narrowing down your values to five and ordering those from most to least important. That ordering can also set you up for good conversations in an interview process and clear negotiation levers in terms of needs and wants.

Next, define what those top five values mean to you. For example, location is often something that acts as a clear driver for job searches. But how each person defines what location specifically means varies widely. Where one individual might limit their search to three cities, another might care less about the exact city and instead need mountains or a body of water nearby.

Similarly, if creativity is something you need in a work environment, how do you define that? Is it about having access to creative tools and people, or do you need to have the freedom to pursue creative ideas or projects? What if stability is something you need in a work environment—what is it for you? Are you interested in working at an organization where the workload is relatively routine and evenly paced, or does stability mean that nobody has been laid off or fired in the last 20 years?

Balance is another value that people often list among their top five values, but what does that actually mean? Do you prefer to keep work and personal time separated, with a clear work schedule and no off-hour, work-related communication? Or is balance about being able to work at your own pace, time and location? One aspect that contributes to balance is having a clear understanding of what is expected from you at work. Ambiguity breeds environments where people take on more than they can, and that leads to overwork. It’s rampant in academia and often manifests through the ambiguity of degree progress or the tenure process.

So, when thinking through what is important to you, it’s important to understand the conditions that are necessary in a work environment that creates the culture you want. Because values can have so many different meanings, articulating your own definition will help you sort through and identify the opportunities that meet your conditions.

Now that you have defined your work values, you can set up your job search to align with those values. Location and compensation are some of the easier filter criteria you can set on any job alert. But filtering for more nuanced information such as stability, balance, or autonomy requires a bit more time and planning on the front end of the job search.

Values-forward job searches are most productive when your research on organizations is beyond a quick LinkedIn scan. You can dig into more depth by talking with people who actually work in those organizations about their projects, department, organizational culture, performance expectations and what they value at work. But before meeting with them, you need to identify questions that will provide you with as much information and connection to them as possible. When someone asks a good question, we come to understand who they are and what they are all about in a much more interesting way.

Here are some questions, aligned to values, that you can use in an interview. Good questions are specific, ask for examples, and make people think about their own work in reflective ways.

• What is important to you in a work environment, and how often do you realize those values at work? What is important to you that is not realized?
• When was the last time your leadership made a decision that was based on employee input? (collaboration)
• When was the last time someone was promoted, and how was that celebrated? (recognition, achievement)
• What does the balance between project work and communication with the team look like, and do either go beyond a typical 40-hour work week? (balance)
• Based on your experience, what other organizations do you think have similar work cultures? Are there organizations you would love to work with and why?

This last question is important, because it will help you flesh out a targeted list of organizations that may align with your values. The more people you talk to, the more you come to know the ins and outs of how certain entities function and what the range of work cultures looks like. A values-forward approach maximizes relationships, research and insight to navigate the job market.

Use this list to ground your job search with your top five values highlighted. And the next time someone tells you to “apply to everything,” you can feel self-assured you’re applying to everything that aligns with you.