A report by Momentive, an experience management company, found that while students support AI’s usage in the classroom, it renders their knowledge and critical thinking skills obsolete and will chip away from their post-college prospects.

More from UB: President moves: Hired, fired, retired and one unexpected loss after a 19-year tenure

“Momentive Study: AI in education” found that 71% of students have used AI software, such as ChatGPT, in the past six months. The majority tend to use it daily or weekly (38%) compared to those who have only used it a few times (33%). The kind of work students are most interested in using AI for is research (42%), helping complete assignments (42%) and summarize reading assignments (40%). More than 70% of students support using AI for schoolwork, and in five years, 78% believe it will play a more significant role in their education.

As much as students claim to support the use of AI, they can’t seem to agree on whether AI will positively or negatively impact higher education. The majority are neutral on its effect (38%), followed by positive (35%) and negative (28%). Similarly, students are split on whether it will create a more equitable environment for learning.

However, students can agree on a few less-positive implications of the technology. Half (50%) of undergraduate college students expect AI to reduce the number of opportunities available to them after college. This is because 61% of students believe AI will replace the skills and knowledge they learn in college.

The degree to which students believe AI can outperform their mental processes might help explain why the majority believe it hinders their critical thinking skills (55%). On the other hand, the legwork that AI will be able to get done will actually boost students’ and professors’ ability to focus on higher forms of critical thinking.

“With AI, we can automate the lower end of the cognitive domain, and I say, ‘Thank GOD,’” said American technology futurist Daniel Burrus. “We’re going to free teachers to teach the stuff they wanted to get to in the first place—the higher levels of the cognitive domain. There’s room for us all. This is the time for a revolution.”

AI in leadership

While most students believe their school is doing just enough to keep up with the advancement of AI (56%), students reported that their professors’ actions aren’t reflecting that. Specifically, 66% of professors have chosen to ignore or ban AI in the classroom.

Students are torn about whether AI can teach subject matter better or worse than a professor, with 35% saying better and 34% saying worse. One study recently discovered that college professors face the highest exposure to the capabilities of AI.

On a broader level

Earlier this month, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, the company responsible for ChatGPT and GPT-4, testified on artificial intelligence in a Senate committee. As much innovation the technology has the potential to provide for the world, he believes it’s essential that models “above a threshold of capabilities” should face government regulation. “We think it can be a printing press moment,” said Altman. “We have to work together to make it so.”

Without leadership and cooperation, everyday people—such as our students and professors—could find themselves without a sense of worth or need.

“As this technology advances, we understand that people are anxious about how it could change the way we live,” Altman said. “We are, too.”

The post Existential threat: Students worry AI will replace their skills and knowledge appeared first on University Business.

Despite first-generation college students making up one-third of today’s students, only 27% graduate in four years, according to NASPA’s Center for First Generation Student Success. Among those from low-income households, about 90% do not graduate within six years, according to EAB, an education consulting firm.

“First-generation students too often come to our institutions, and it seems like this maze of, ‘How do I get to where I think I want to go? How do I even figure out where I want to go?'” says Kessler Scholars Collaborative Executive Director Gail Gibson. “This is so critical to think about when working to find success for these students.”

The Kessler Scholars Collaborative embarked on a mission in 2017 to support this vulnerable slice of the student body at a handful of esteemed institutions, and its pilot program proved a success. First-generation college students’ four-year graduation rate at the University of Michigan reached 83%, one point less than continuing education students. At Johns Hopkins, students experienced a 100% first-to-second-year persistence rate. Consequently, its buzz is growing.

Fueled by a $10 million donation from Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Judy and Fred Wilpon Family Foundation, Kessler Scholars will expand in the upcoming academic year to ten more colleges, nearly tripling its institutional reach and quadrupling its support network to 1,600 first-generation students. The initiative now reaches 16 schools nationwide.

Institutions launching Kessler Scholars Programs must create a student cohort of 60% Pell-eligible students to emphasize support for lower-income students. “The challenges of the first-gen experience aren’t necessarily bound only by income, but we know that when there are income disparities, there are more challenges when the student gets to the institution,” says Gibson.

More from UB: Elite private colleges may be the only financially healthy segment 3 years from now

Funding the under-resourced

Each newly enrolled school will receive a $1 million grant to support the initiative’s operational costs. Such schools include Bates College (Maine); Brown University; Centre College (Ky.); Ohio State University; St. Mary’s College (Ind.); the University of California, Riverside; the University of Dayton (Ohio); the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Pittsburgh and Washington University in St. Louis.

Kessler Scholars trusts its network to spend the funding however it deems fit. Gibson understands how the needs of first-generation students may differ circumstantially, so Gibson stresses how important it is for each participating institution to spearhead its own operation.

“The schools are making those calls about, ‘What are the resources in our context that are the most critical?'” says Gibson. “If this project is going to work well, it has to be responsive to local context, and that’s why some of the determination about how the funds should best be used are best made at the local level.”

Some colleges have spent money on experiential or high-impact practice learning exploration, staffing, internship funds, research opportunities or emergency funds. For example, at Queens College, a commute-based college, Kessler Scholar students are given a transportation stipend. Syracuse University, whose been part of the collaborative since 2020, is using the funds toward laptop distribution.

Collaboration—not competition

While institutions can credit themselves for their solutions, the real magic of being part of the Kessler Scholars Collaborative is its school network. Aside from providing colleges funding, Kessler Scholars is facilitating collaboration between different institutions so that they can get better together—not apart.

“Universities and colleges tend to be pretty siloed places. One of the aims of this project from the start was how we can make this a space where we can truly and authentically bring those silos down,” says Gibson. “How can we re-serve these institutions’ competitive nature so that we are learning from each other that the success at one institution truly can be the success for this greater group.”

Syracuse University has created a powerful mentorship program, which Kessler has shared with other schools to save time and energy and streamline student success rates.

The post This program dedicated to boosting first-gen success rates is tripling down appeared first on University Business.

The report surveyed over 5,000 students and almost 2,500 college instructors and found that 53% of students are having trouble retaining class material, 55% of undergraduates are struggling to stay interested in their classes, and 66% of instructors find it challenging to keep students engaged.

The main culprit for the chasm between the student and the classroom seems to be financial and emotional stress, which corroborates reports from TimelyMD’s study on student’s top stressors.

“Students are facing a wide range of financial and emotional challenges in today’s new normal,” says Wiley Executive Vice President Matt Leavy. “These challenges are leading to disengagement that threatens their success and the outcomes and objectives of the schools serving them. Students will need extra support to remain in school, stay engaged and ultimately meet their academic and career goals.”

Specifically, 51% of students struggled to pay their tuition and appropriate materials, which is a 7% bump from last year, and 43% are having a tough time covering living expenses—a 14% hike.

Students are also at a loss with how their degree is conducive to success outside of college, and their qualms are well-founded: A similar Wiley report found that companies are finding it harder to recruit people whose talents align with their mission.

Wiley’s recommendations

• Provide more financial and mental health assistance at schools. If a sufficient amount of resources are in place, increase awareness of the programs.
• Check in with students earlier in the semester and maintain contact with them throughout the semester. Especially ensure at-risk students are being heard and understood.
• Connect what students are learning to relevant career experience. For example, present students with real-world case scenarios and professionals who can link what they’re studying to what they should expect after they graduate.
• Boost transparency between the degree they’re pursuing and the relevant careers they can expect to pursue.
• Ensure every course students take is passing the “So what?” question: How is what they’re learning preparing them?

More from UB: Guest speakers on campus: Here’s what students want

The post Attention, please: How to ensure students are engaged in class appeared first on University Business.

When David Rettinger, an accomplished academic integrity researcher, discovered the report, he was “disappointed, but not even a little surprised.” In reports he conducted through the International Center for Academic Integrity, 70% of students admitted to some form of cheating during their college career, compared to the 61% who admitted adding untrue information to some part of their college application.

With a student population prone to cheating, Michele Sandlin from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers consulting extension is curious about what the real value of the essay is. She’s fielded complaints about the application essay for quite some time now, the reasoning always the same and completely legitimate: they’re vague, hard to score, and there are too many applications to sift through to verify the information. Large public universities can see up to 70,000 applications per year, according to Sandlin. Adding insult to injury, 34% of students claimed to write untrue stories.

“Do they have an enormous amount of time to check all this stuff? No, they don’t. They’re overwhelmed with applications,” she says.

This makes the essay portion ripe for students to take advantage of. There are second-review processes to check on things that don’t look right or don’t align with the rest of the application, but this happens rarely. And if a student does lie, what’s the consequence? Rettinger explained how students are motivated to lie because there is none.

“If you think about it from a student’s perspective, what’s their incentive for telling the truth? If they lie on their application, what happens when they get caught? The worst thing that happens is the thing that would have happened anyway: They won’t get in,” he said. “They’re not thinking of the bigger consequences—the cultural values.”

Rettinger, along with Michele Sandlin from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers consulting extension, believes the best solution is to design a process that reduces a student’s ability to cheat or lie rather than just hoping they won’t.

More from UB: Fresh student enrollment data suggests “encouraging” recovery

The remedy for the college essay problem that many schools are moving toward is asking shorter, more pointed prompts that test the experience a student listed. It’s not what experience they have, it’s what they learned.

“If you’re just getting a laundry list that’s not telling you how they’re involved, how they’re engaged, how they learned from it, those fake answers can get weeded out a lot more quickly,” she said. “A lot of the essay pieces have to do with how the questions are written, how descriptive they are, and the valuables you’re looking for in the response. We’re looking for deeper learning.”

Rettinger echoed something similar when he suggested applications should focus on asking questions that illicit what students can do rather than some checklist of what they’ve done.

Other portions of the application might be trickier to inhibit students from lying on though. For example, 39% of students confessed to misrepresenting their race or ethnicity, and Rettinger believes that may be due to students perceiving the application as unfair.

“Applicants have bought into this scenario that white people are being discriminated against in college admissions, and there are forces in our culture that are selling that story regardless of whether that’s true or not,” he said. “People are willing to excuse their own dishonesty when they believe the process is stacked against them. They see an exception to the rule about lying.”

Sandlin was surprised by the figures on ethnicity but found it important not to jump to conclusions.

“According to this survey, students are claiming they know they faked it or is it that our questions are too confusing and they’re picking the one that’s closest?” she said. “I would first ask ‘Are we asking the questions wrong? Can we be asking the questions differently?’ I would look internally.”

The post College application essays: How to stop the lies appeared first on University Business.

Watermark, a higher ed tech company, had partnered with the school system in the past to examine the effects of individualized success coaching on student outcomes and found that minority male students were most positively impacted. This makes sense considering one study that found only 7% of low-income and minority community college students attain a bachelor’s degree out of the 80% of freshmen who intend to.

More from UB: At-risk and minority college students need more support

Mentoring this group of at-risk students has been one of NCCCS’ highest priorities for the past 20 years, but schools were shaken up after the pandemic, unable to physically be there for students and lacking funding.

Leveraging a cost-effective, technology-based approach to guide minority male students, Watermark and NCCCS led the Minority Male Success Initiative (MMSI), and the results further proved how necessary it is to find innovative ways to reach students.

The three-year study found a 22.4% retention increase in new, minority-male, full-time students in pursuit of an associate degree and a 47% persistence rate increase in the third term among students identified with a medium and high risk of dropping out. Online students, too, were significantly impacted, as they experienced an 8.8% increase in course completion rates.

“I have seen what it looks like when students don’t have help,” said Nash Community College success coach Jamal Pitt. “Once they walk through that door, I tell them, ‘My job is to help you get across the stage. That’s my job. That is my goal, whatever that means. If that means I have to stay on you every day of the week, congratulations, I’m your new backpack.'”

MMSI ensured colleges were equipped and onboarded with Watermark’s Student Success & Engagement retention solution tailor-made to support underserved students. Success coaches were then assigned to every student and their grades, attendance, registration, and other metrics were sent directly to the coaches via alerts. Coaches had transparent data that gave them specific things to address when reaching out to students, making their outreach more specific and intentional.

While the insight that the technology provided coaches was a game-changer, personalized engagement between coach and student was the X-factor. Institutions whose success coaches were more engaged with their students than other institutions saw higher student persistence rates across all terms observed, save one. In fact, course competition and retention rates only proved to be effective for students who continued with the same coach compared to those who had multiple.

“When all of this comes together in the right way, it’s magic. The technology almost fades into the background, but it’s enabling all of this engagement to happen. It’s enabling these conversations. It’s enabling this outreach,” said Alex Leader, Watermark’s chief impact officer. “It’s ultimately enabling these relationships to occur, which is exactly what progresses not only this population but all populations in higher ed.”

The Maceo Parker Minority Male Success Endowment fund at Lenoir College identified first-year, first-semester minority males that are most burdened by college expenses and supplemented their resources with Watermark’s technology. MMSI coordinator Jamal McMillion believes that students were very responsive to the layers of student outreach.

“I found the platform to be a huge asset when working with students and addressing barriers to academic success, he said. “The MMSI project has proven to be an effective modality to track student academic performance, chronicle student challenges, and more.”

The post Mentorship program bumps retention rates of minority male students, study finds appeared first on University Business.

And some 60% of the users report relying on the tool for 50% or more of their written assignments, according to a survey by Intelligent, which ranks colleges and universities based on publicly available data.

When it comes to the institution’s response, about half of the students surveyed say either their professors or schools have banned ChatGPT for homework but about one in four don’t believe their professors know it exists. Other instructors, meanwhile, are now thinking about how to incorporate ChatGPT or at least acknowledge its existence. Ronnie Gladden, an English professor, for example, told Intelligent that he is adapting by having students start drafts of essays in class.

More from UB: At the state level, these are the top priorities for higher ed in 2023

Lisa Maione, an assistant professor of graphic design at the Kansas City Art Institute, told Intelligent that she “will be activating ChatGPT as a partner in our projects.”

“As our department embraces an inquiry-based model for education, ChatGPT is one more place from which we can consider how a question might affect our sense of the answer,” she added. “ChatGPT does not replace critical thinking or critical reading or critical writing. In some ways, I sense this tool will encourage both my students and me to engage with even more reading, writing and editing.”

And Kristina Martin, an adjunct professor at Albright College, told Intelligent that she has asked students to experiment with ChatGPT but discourages them from using it to answer discussion posts or complete other writing assignments. “When I talk about ChatGPT and AI, I also discuss the ethical considerations of using these tools and the responsibility of the user,” Martin added. “I give them a list of things that they can use ChatGPT for as well.”

Here is one more potentially shocking stat from Intelligent’s survey: 20% of students said using ChatGPT does not constitute cheating.

The post Nearly 1 in 3 college students let ChatGPT do their writing assignments appeared first on University Business.

A new analysis ranks the return on investment of all 50 state public university systems by comparing tuition and other financial factors to the increase in lifetime income that graduates earn from their degrees.

“While some state college systems succeed in moving large numbers of students into the middle class, others fail to deliver on the promise of economic mobility,” says study author Preston Cooper, a research fellow at Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, an organization that works to improve outcomes for underrepresented students.

More from UB: Best law schools—US News is revising rankings after list dropouts 

“While maximizing ROI is not the only goal of higher education, students consistently report that their primary reasons for attending college are getting a better job and increasing their earnings potential,” Cooper adds.

Top performers include South Dakota, Kansas, and Pennsylvania while Montana, Louisiana and Connecticut, and New Mexico. For example, ROI at South Dakota’s public colleges is nearly twice the national median of $118,182 while the price and outcomes in the state at the bottom of the list was found to have a negative return on investment.

The report also identifies the most value individual academic programs in each state and the public systems with the riskiest returns. “To increase aggregate ROI, states should consider implementing performance-based funding and removing restrictions on high-value majors,” Cooper concludes.

Price & outcomes: ROI rankings

Here’s where each state system of public colleges and universities ranks for median ROI:

1. South Dakota: $217,000
2. Minnesota: $215,000
3. Iowa: $214,000
4. Kansas: $181,000
5. Pennsylvania: $167,000
6. Virginia: $166,000
7. Arizona: $164,000
8. Texas: $159,000
9. Michigan: $154,000
10. Nebraska: $154,000
11. Washington: $144,000
12. North Dakota: $142,000
13. Ohio: $138,000
14. Alabama: $138,000
15. Delaware: $136,000
16. Oklahoma: $134,000
17. Florida: $133,000
18. Wisconsin: $131,000
19. Missouri: $124,000
20. Indiana: $120,000
21. Georgia: $120,000
22. Illinois: $112,000
23. Maine: $115,000
24. California: $109,000
25. North Carolina: $107,000
26. Massachusetts: $106,000
27. New Hampshire: $106,000
28. South Carolina: $103,000
29. Vermont: $93,000
30. Oregon: $87,000
31. Maryland: $86,000
32. New York: $86,000
33. Colorado: $73,000
34. Idaho: $70,000
35. Wyoming: $67,000
36. Arkansas: $64,000
37. Tennessee: $64,000
38. Alaska: $63,000
39. West Virginia: $61,000
40. Rhode Island: $60,000
41. New Jersey: $59,000
42. Nevada: $57,000
43. Mississippi: $54,000
44. Utah: $54,000
45. Kentucky: $43,000
46. Connecticut: $39,000
47. Montana: $25,000
48. New Mexico: $21,000
49. Louisiana: $18,000
50. Hawaii: -$5,5720

The post Here is where all 50 state university systems rank on ROI—and why appeared first on University Business.

Higher ed R&D got a jolt from the largest increase in federal R&D spending since 2011, when Great Recession relief funding came to the rescue. Campus leaders also reported increases in state and local contributions though nonprofit spending dropped, according to the latest Higher Education Research and Development Survey.

The top 30 R&D universities—more than half of which were public institutions—accounted for 42% of total R&D spending, a number that has remained consistent over the last several years. Twenty-four of those universities invested more than $1 billion and all but three reported R&D expenditures for their medical schools.

More from UB: More education leaders ban TikTok for students and employees

Vanderbilt University and Vanderbilt University Medical Center moved into the top 30 (see the full list below) after making changes to their accounting systems while the University of California, Berkeley fell off the list. More effective accounting also helped Ohio State University make a big jump—from No. 24 to No. 12.​

Institutions that dropped down the list include the University of Minnesota, which slipped two positions even though the flagship spent $31 million more on R&D in 2021. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology moved down six positions to No. 29 after a decrease in R&D spending.

The top 30 R&D performers:

1. Johns Hopkins University: $3.2 billion
2. University of California, San Francisco: $1.7 billion
3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: $1.6 billion
4. University of Pennsylvania: $1.6 billion
5. University of Washington, Seattle: $1.5 billion
6. University of California, Los Angeles: $1.45 billion
7. University of California, San Diego: $1.42 billion
8. University of Wisconsin-Madison: $1.4 billion
9. Stanford University: $1.3 billion
10. Harvard University: $1.25 billion
11. Duke University: $1.2 billion
12. Ohio State University: $1.2 billion
13. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: $1.2 billion
14. Cornell University: $1.2 billion
15. Yale University: $1.2 billion
16. Texas A&M University, College Station and Health Science Center: $1.1 billion
17. University of Maryland: $1.1 billion
18. University of Pittsburgh: $1.1 billion
19. University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center: $1.1 billion
20. Georgia Institute of Technology: $1.1 billion
21. Columbia University in the City of New York: $1.1 billion
22. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities: $1.1 billion
23. New York University: $1.1 billion
24. Vanderbilt University and Vanderbilt University Medical Center: $1.billion
25. Washington University in St. Louis: $989 million
26. Pennsylvania State University, University Park and Hershey Medical Center: $971 million
27. University of Florida: $960 million
28. University of Southern California: $956 million
29. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $949 million
30. Northwestern University: $913 million

Check the chart below for R&D spending in specific academic fields:

The post Billion-dollar business: These are higher ed’s top 30 R&D performers appeared first on University Business.

“As a result, sector-wide quantitative data and research are nearly nonexistent, and RPUs and their students experience ongoing invisibility in scholarly and policy discussions,” the authors wrote, adding some key stats about the schools. For instance, more than two-thirds of students at regional public universities and colleges are Pell grant recipients while RPUs also educate:

• 47% of bachelor’s degree-seeking students at four-year public institutions.
• 58% of Black students
• 47% of American Indian or Alaska Native students
• 35% of Asian American students
• 39% of Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander students
• 44% of Hispanic or Latino students
• 44% of multiracial students

RPUs also tend to be more affordable, with an average $8,896 in annual tuition and fees compared with $12,325 for non-RPUs.

More numbers: Regional public universities and colleges

The new analysis identified 474 RPUs that enroll 3.8 million full-time students and about 1.3 million part-timers, with an average enrollment of 10,987. RPUs exist in every state (except Wyoming) and in several U.S. territories.

The report aims to help leaders of regional public universities and colleges identify their counterparts at other RPUs to collaborate around best practices and other strategies. National associations—such as the American Association of State Colleges and Universities—can use the list to inform lobbying and advocacy efforts on behalf of RPUs.

About 30% of these schools qualify as minority-serving institutions and nearly half are rural-serving while the counties that RPUs serve have higher needs—such as low education, low employment, and persistent poverty—compared to counties served by other institutions.

Good news for higher ed: Applications are on the rise for fall 2023 

Regional public universities and colleges also receive $1,091 less per full-time student in state appropriations though those funds represent a larger proportion of RPUs’ budgets. As a result, RPUs have, on average, fewer tenured faculty and full-time instructional, research, and public service staff.

And even though state and federal policymakers have set goals and established initiatives to improve outcomes for underserved students, there has been far less effort made to better support the RPUs that enroll these students. The report urges the creation of federal grant or trust programs that would also require states to increase funding for RPUs. This spending could focus on student success programs such as aligning degree offerings with local industry needs, creating small business incubators, and conducting research on K-12 education.

One troubling trend identified in the report is the opening of branch campuses by larger universities in the service areas of RPUs.  For example, the University of Oregon and Oregon State University now operate campuses within Portland State University’s service area. Colorado State University will begin offering degree programs in Denver alongside Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Such moves are placing greater enrollment pressures on smaller colleges and universities. “RPUs are anchor institutions for their communities and for the nation, and their continued ability to serve in these roles hinges on improved policy, research, understanding, and funding,” the report concluded.

The post How an important group of colleges and universities has become ‘invisible’ appeared first on University Business.

“Colleges are failing to meet the needs of students and the result is a crisis for universities—public perception is wavering and students are seeking career-aligned credentials elsewhere,” according to WGU Labs’ new report, “Solving Higher Education’s Wicked Problems.”

Here’s a quick overview of higher ed’s seven wicked problems and how WGU Labs suggests solving them:

Problem 1: Postsecondary access

More flexible learning environments are required to meet the needs of new learner populations. This will elevate the role of instructional designers who can create new ways for students to access and absorb tech-enabled content. The report predicts an increase in open learning content, educational resources, and courses.

Problem 2: Financial aid

Higher ed leaders and researchers will continue to explore alternative models of financial support and how to more efficiently dispense aid to “students who are caught between paying essential bills and staying in school,” the report says. Employers who want to upskill and retain employees will have a bigger role in supporting learners financially. Also, institutions will have to better structure aid for students working toward short-term certificates and micro-credentials.

Problem 3: Student belonging

It will be harder for campus leaders to foster student belonging as demand increases for virtual instruction and other flexible learning methods. Campuses will have to figure out how to use technology to bring students together and provide updated training to faculty and other student-facing staff.

Problem 4: Tech-enabled learning

Campus educators will have to get a handle on concepts of digital tool management to discover the technologies that best meet students’ needs and develop multi-year roadmaps for adopting ed-tech solutions.

Problem 5: Diverse learning pathways

Competency-based education is emerging as a key way of showing higher ed’s return on investment, aligning instruction to workforce needs and filling workforce shortages. Under the banner of competency-based education, colleges and universities can now work to match the principles of learning science with marketplace demands.

Problem 6: Learning-to-work transition

The transition from learning to work can be rocky for students and employers. Administrators are now investing more heavily in career assistance resources for students and embedding them into the core learning experience.

Problem 7: The future of learning

Higher ed is not structured to support the “continuous work-learn cycles that are required in the modern workforce,” the report says. In 2023, colleges and universities will further diversify their offerings of micro-credentials, short-term certifications, and other flexible, workforce-oriented skills to drive enrollment and compete with other industry certification programs.

More from UB: Holiday stress—7 reasons students don’t feel merry and bright about winter break 

The post Higher ed has 7 ‘wicked’ problems. Here’s how leaders can solve them appeared first on University Business.