It’s a question that Noah Geisel, the micro-credential program manager at the University of Colorado Boulder, asks employers, admissions counselors and all other professionals trying to find the most qualified human among the swaths of faceless applicants—the hay. Currently, too many industry stakeholders are too dependent on the pitchfork, according to Geisel.

“It’s a crummy tool,” he quips. Pitchforks stab chunks of hay and toss it around to search for the needle, adding to the chaos and confounding the seeker. One would be better off using a high-powered magnet to attract the needle to them rather than attempting to cut the hay out of the way.

Digital credentials and the machine-readable devices that can authenticate them, Geisel believes, are precisely that tool.

He joins a budding cohort of higher education professionals, industry leaders and state legislators who recognize its revelatory potential to foster the next chapter of academic equity, workforce access and attractive program offerings in higher ed.

What exactly are digital credentials, and what are they good for?

Micro-credentials, alternative credentials, stackable credentials—the list goes on, creating a jargon soup many leaders are hesitant to touch.

“It is confusing. Academic microcredentials, nonacademic microcredentials. There are still many moving parts,” said one higher education leader, according to EDUCASUE’s QuickPoll survey on micro-credential trends.

What’s important is how digital credentials umbrella all these programs to provide admissions counselors and employers a nuanced, insightful snapshot of an applicant’s specific skillsets. Geisel says it best: A micro-credential is to a digital credential, what a degree is to a diploma. And combining a diploma and digital credentials creates a textured picture.

“Digital credentials can contextualize formal recognition of achievement, skills, competencies and experiences. A diploma just has a name on it. If a diploma is issued with digital credential technology, we can contextualize it to turn it in from this flat piece of paper to this 360-degree, high-definition narrative,” says Geisel. “It takes on a storytelling capacity to better communicate who this person is as a learner and achiever.”

The key to developing a meaningful digital credential is that it communicates a specific value, much like a currency does. If it’s not specific, then it’s frivolous.

“On one hand, it can be so granular as to lose meaningfulness, but on the other end, where you aren’t specific, you can also lose meaning,” says Geisel. “What if we issued a badge on DEI?” Geisel says. “At best, the most reliable signal there is a hiring manager knows you’re interested in it, you know? It’s such a broad thing to have a credential called DEI because it’s lacking in granularity.”

While a DEI credential may be too broad, Geisel adds, one highlighting the specific competencies learned within the DEI curriculum is on the right track. Here’s a good example for one: sustainability planning for business. That’s a credential Geisel is currently issuing at CU Boulder.

For beginners in the digital credential space, the most important aspect to focus on is not its taxonomy. It should be on whether it is effectively communicating something of concrete value and contextualizing the person behind the credential.

Digital credentials’ great potential

Certificates and special non-degree credentials were the only programs to experience positive enrollment rates across every sector of higher education this past spring semester, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Private for-profit and 2-year institutions were the only sectors of higher education to increase enrollment, and it’s a direct result of their impressive non-degree enrollment rates.

In the workforce, a February report found that 95% of employers said a résumé listing micro-credentials benefited the candidate because it demonstrates a willingness for skill development (76%).

“Everybody’s talking about micro-credentials, even those campuses that a year or two ago were saying they weren’t. They’re changing their tune,” says Kristi Wold-McCormick, assistant vice provost and University Registrar at CU Boulder and president-elect of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). “The ‘why’ is a big question when we talk to different campuses.”

Wold-McCormick finds that institutions are incentivized by their potential to broaden their reach, diversify revenue streams, and competitive pressure from other institutions beginning their programs. Legislatures, too, are driving the movement, as they’re interested in seeing how schools can turn some of these learning opportunities into stackable credentials.

“How can some of these micro-credentials be stacked into certificates, and how can certificates be stacked into degrees?” says Wold-McCormick. “It’s incremental learning, which I think appeals to populations that haven’t historically had a path to traditional education.”

Wold-McCormick and other academic leaders are realizing that micro-credentials can tap a new range of students that have traditionally been boxed out of higher education. While online learning has been the predominant medium for the working class to attain a degree, nearly half have not completed their last program of study. Similarly, Black and Hispanic adults interested in pursuing higher education but are not enrolled are significantly more responsible for caring for a child or family member than white adults.

“They can be used to help get people into higher education streams that traditionally don’t have that access by giving them opportunities to take a course or two in smaller credentials,” says Wold-McCormick. “It can then give them that roadmap on how to use these credentials to inform larger credentials and keep that interest going once they’ve gotten a taste for it.”

Despite the direct interest from students and employers in micro-credentials, most colleges and universities are behind the eight ball. Only 9% of institutions have a mature micro-credential program, according to EDUCAUSE. Another 32% say they have a program that is not yet mature.

Standardizing together

As colleges and universities develop their programs, Wold-McCormick cautions higher education stakeholders of the dangers of developing digital credentials in silos.

“What we don’t want are different types of guidance and standardizations and reports coming out from all these different associations that might not be aligned,” she says. “What we need to do as a higher ed community is get on the same page regarding definitions and standards.”

And as passionate as Geisel is about digital credentials’ ability to open the doors for new student demographics, he urges stakeholders to be intentional, vigilant even, to ensure those voices are in the room developing it as well.

“There’s so much power in deciding what counts because we are also deciding at that moment what doesn’t make the cut,” Geisel says. “When we’re looking around the room and realizing that for all of our talk and intentions and passion for serving learners who do not look like the learners who have historically been served well by our institutions. If we’re not seeing those people represented in the room, I think that’s a huge opportunity for us to pump the brakes.”

The post Digital credentials: Higher education’s new frontier appeared first on University Business.

2U recently announced two new degree programs with Cabrini University, extended its contract with Southern Methodist University and signed an agreement with Arcadia University to launch its online Doctor of Education program. Additionally, last year they acquired another popular edtech company edX, which one American business magazine listed as the third-most innovative education company of 2023.

However, 2U has gained notoriety recently for allegedly engaging in deceptive recruitment strategies and contributing to students’ high debt load. Students and the federal government have waged lawsuits and called for stronger oversight of the edtech company. Yet, 2U has managed to fight back on all fronts. Should higher education hold faith in 2U despite its recent spats?

More from UB: Ohio is the latest state to try making college costs, ROI clearer—is it worth it?

Student lawsuits

Online students at the University of Southern California have sued the private Los Angeles school in two separate lawsuits relating to its online programs’ deceptive recruitment, which 2U helps operate. In one case filed late last year, Student Defense and Tycko & Zavareei LLP filed a lawsuit against USC and 2U for luring students to enroll in the Rossier School of Education using manipulated U.S. News data. According to the suit, 2U “assumed responsibility for recruiting these online students and was paid a substantial percentage of tuition.”

Additionally, students sued USC again in a class-action lawsuit last month, alleging the university’s online Master of Social Work (MSW) program misrepresented its program’s quality. Specifically, the university advertised its online and on-campus programs were equal in value; however, students found that its online MSW offerings, provided by 2U, were outdated and inferior in quality.

“They paid an unjustifiably high price for a program that was promised to be the same as the on-campus version when in reality, it was run by a for-profit education company. Students were lied to and now are standing up and fighting back,” said Eileen Connor, president and director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending, which is helping to represent the plaintiffs, in a statement, according to USA Today.

While 2U was not named a defendant in the MSW lawsuit, they quickly addressed it, claiming the allegations were “without merit” based on their call recordings and student feedback forms.

Pending federal regulation

Last year, several U.S. Senators voiced their concerns about the dangers of online program managers (OPMs), such as 2U. Aside from engaging in “aggressive marketing and recruitment practices,” the senators were also concerned about OPMs’ ability to burden students with high costs.

“We continue to have concerns about the impact of OPM partnerships on rising student debt loads,” wrote the senators. “OPMs often receive 50% or more of students’ tuition. These agreements may create a disincentive to lower costs.”

A year later, the Department of Education announced that it expanded its definition of third-party services to include OPMs, such as 2U. The department recognized that because the function of OPMs is interlinked with institutions’ Title IV administrative activities, companies like 2U must also comply with TPS requirements as well. Consequently, the edtech company would be forced to report their business dealings and be subjected to tighter regulation, oversight and potential audits.

However, 2U has since sued the Department of Education, claiming it exceeded its authority and did not collect enough input from outside stakeholders to make the decision. Additionally, several higher education leaders have asked the department to rescind the guidance, such as Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, who spoke for more than 80 higher education associations.

The department has since delayed implementing the ruling on OPMs. However, if the department eventually decides to rule against OPMs, 2U can find itself scrambling for a new revenue stream.

“Because revenue sharing with institutions is central to their business model, the Ed Dept’s expanded definition of a third-party service provider could pose significant challenges to 2U’s business model in the future,” said Matt Winn, Tambellini Group’s senior analyst covering academic technology in an email.

The post Despite regulation efforts and student complaints, this popular edtech platform marches on appeared first on University Business.

As prestigious—and exclusive—a degree from Stanford may be, that hasn’t stopped two professors from creating Code in Place, an online program free of charge and open to the public to learn the basics of programming. While the program doesn’t offer teachers any financial incentives or learners any college credit, the rewards both groups have reaped are immeasurable.

“Coming together as a community of educators to help spread the joy of programming to thousands is both humbling and uplifting,” said Mehran Sahami, chair of the Department of Computer Science, according to Stanford Engineering. “It’s honestly been one of the greatest experiences I’ve had as a teacher.”

As its third program concludes on June 10, the program will have enrolled about 30,000 students and another 3,000 instructors.

Stanford Vice Provost for Digital Education Matthew Rascoff has recognized the intangible values of this program, such as its ability to open a programming education to students regardless of their background. “If universities are serious about a mission to democratize education, this course is one terrific way to accomplish it,” Rascoff said, according to Forbes.

Aside from contributing to higher education’s mission to break down barriers to quality learning, Code in Place has also had some direct benefits to its own student body.

More from UB: Good news! Current students believe their degree is worth the cost

Fostering community

Instructors for Code in Place are primarily made up of retired teachers, college students studying computer science, and former Code in Place students. One Stanford student joined as an instructor during the height of the pandemic, and his ability to engage with others and teach about programming ended up helping him through it. “Code in Place helped me personally get through that rough period by helping others,” said Cameron Mohne. “The people you work with and the fundamental knowledge you get is incredible. Code in Place lets you gauge your interest in a powerful concept that can change your life.”

Improving student outcomes

Another student, Katherine Michel, believes Code in Place helped her escape a pandemic-based rut. After discovering the free program through a Tweet, she claims she gained the fundamental skills and knowledge to revitalize her career and confidence. She is now with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and currently serves as a section leader in Code in Place.

The post How to ‘democratize education’: Stanford’s free online course gains 30,000 students in 3 years appeared first on University Business.

After surveying over 2,000 students in March, Gallup has discovered that 71% nationwide agree that the degree they are receiving is worth the cost. Only 8% of currently enrolled students believed their degree’s value did not match it.

Private non-profit institutions had the most polarizing responses compared to public students. Private non-profit institutions had the highest percentage of students to both strongly agree (41%) and strongly disagree (4%) that their degree’s value matched its costs. This is partially due to public institution students being more on the fence about its value than taking an opinion.

The driving factor leading to public and private nonprofit institutions students’ high regard for their degree is their trust that it adequately prepares them for life after college. Three-quarters of all students agreed with this statement, with 38% percent strongly agreeing.

More from UB: How should we teach with AI? The feds have 7 fresh edtech ideas

The top seven factors boosting students’ confidence in their degree:

1. Preparation for life after college
2. The ability to express oneself freely on campus
   • Several states have begun implementing initiatives to boost constructive discourse in light of higher education’s increased political polarization.
3. The extent to which students have the opportunity to interact with people with different views
4. Perceptions of physical safety
5. The extent to which professors care about students as people
6. Perceptions of belonging
   • Mental health remains a top concern for student wellness on campuses. Although colleges and even the federal government are employing more robust efforts to address the issue, students are still most likely to seek belonging and help from their peers more than official resources.
7. Admissions selectivity of the institution according to IPEDS
   • Despite this being a solid factor in students’ valuation of a degree, the Gallup report noted that U.S. News’ college ranking was not essential to them.

The post Good news! Current students believe their degree is worth the cost appeared first on University Business.

The protests at Boston University erupted due to the ongoing Writers Guild of America strike, which the union waged against Warners Bros. Discovery and several other Hollywood studios for poor wages and other mistreatment. Zaslav, the president and CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery, faced chants, signs and protestors picketing in front of the entrance to the event.

While Brown defended the right to protest and asserted its function to sustain a liberal democracy, Brown repelled the behavior he believes is an offspring of “cancel culture.” Instead of vigorous debate and discussion, he sees this new trend as a mutation to “gain power, not reason.” And BU’s president is not alone in being fed up with students’ interpretation of free speech.

Around the country, several college leaders have spoken up to defend free speech against a student body that they believe steps on free expression. In leaders’ views, these actions form a hostility toward open dialogue and counter the mission of their respective universities. Their opinion isn’t unfounded either; Undergraduate students are by far the most likely demographic to attempt imposing sanctions on college professors.

More from UB: These schools are working smarter, not harder, to boost international student enrollment

Dean Jenny Martinez – Stanford Law School

In March, students stormed a conservative campus event that Trump-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan was attending. Facing hundreds of heckling protestors led by the law school’s associate DEI dean, Duncan’s planned talk devolved into a fiasco filled with “idiots,” “hypocrites” and “bullies,” according to Duncan.

Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez quickly issued an apology, and Martinez was quick to defend why. In a 10-page open letter to the law school’s community, the dean wrote that some protestors “crossed the line” from protest to disruption. “There is temptation to a system in which people holding views perceived by some as harmful or offensive are not allowed to speak,” Martinez wrote. “History teaches us that this is a temptation to be avoided.”

Martinez believes the DEI associate dean and the students worked counter to what diversity, equity, and inclusion stand for. “I believe that the commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion actually means that we must protect free expression of all views,” Martinez wrote.

In the fallout, the DEI associate dean is on leave. Because Martinez found it impossible to differentiate between the students practicing protected forms of speech and those abusing it, she found it best not to reprimand anyone. Instead, she had law school students undergo a mandatory half-day session this past spring semester on free speech and its place in the legal world.

President Martha E. Pollack & Provost Michael I. Kotlikoff – Cornell

While Brown and Martinez defended the First Amendment by calling out attempts to disrupt speech, two Cornell leaders in April denied one student resolution they believed suppresses it.

The resolution, which Cornell’s Student Assembly approved, urged instructors to provide a heads-up in class syllabi for potential “traumatic content,” such as sexual assault, hate crimes and self-harm. However, President Martha E. Pollack vetoed the resolution, writing in a statement alongside Provost Michael I. Kotlikoff that, “Such a policy would violate our faculty’s fundamental right to determine what and how to teach.” The leaders wrote that allowing students to step away from such sensitive content would be detrimental to their intellectual growth and restrict professors’ academic freedom.

The post Why these school leaders are clashing with students’ free speech judgment appeared first on University Business.

Enabling new forms of interaction between educators and students and more effectively personalizing learning are among the potential benefits of AI, the agency says in its recent report, “Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations.” But the risks include a range of safety and privacy concerns and algorithmic bias. To mitigate them, the department strongly emphasizes keeping humans in the driver’s seat.

“We envision a technology-enhanced future more like an electric bike and less like robot vacuums,” reads the report. “On an electric bike, the human is fully aware and fully in control, but their burden is less, and their effort is multiplied by a complementary technological enhancement.”

Educators and policymakers should collaborate on the following principles:

1. Emphasize humans-in-the-loop: As students and teachers begin interacting with chatbots to help with coursework and plan personalized instruction, teachers must stay abreast of safety precautions if things begin to fall astray. Keeping other teachers involved in loops is a vital way to remain vigilant. Additionally, teachers must stave off becoming so reliant on AI that it depletes their judgment. AI is known to commit errors and make up “facts,” so teachers must analyze AI prompts to flag errors.
2. Align AI models to a shared vision for education: The educational needs of students should be at the forefront of AI policies. “We especially call upon leaders to avoid romancing the magic of AI or only focusing on promising applications or outcomes, but instead to interrogate with a critical eye how AI-enabled systems and tools function in the educational environment,” the Department of Education says.
3. Design AI using modern learning principles: The first wave of adaptive edtech incorporated important principles such as sequencing instruction and giving students feedback. However, these systems were often deficit-based, focusing on the student’s weakest areas. “We must harness AI’s ability to sense and build upon learner strengths,” the Department of Education asserts.
4. Prioritize strengthening trust: There are concerns that AI will replace—rather than assist—teachers. Educators, students and their families need to be supported as they build trust in edtech. Otherwise, lingering distrust of AI could distract from innovation in tech-enabled teaching and learning.
5. Inform and involve educators: Another concern is that AI will lead to a loss of respect for educators and their skills just as the nation is experiencing teacher shortages and declining interest in the profession. To convince teachers they are valued, they must be involved in designing, developing, testing, improving, adopting, and managing AI-enabled edtech.
6. Focus R&D on addressing context and enhancing trust and safety: Edtech developers should focus design efforts on “the long tail of learning variability” to ensure large populations of students will benefit from AI’s ability to customize learning.
7. Develop education-specific guidelines and guardrails: Data privacy laws should be reviewed and updated in the context of advancing educational technology. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a potential candidate facing reevaluation as new accessibility technologies emerge.

More from UB: Only 7 U.S. universities make THE’s sustainability impact rankings’ top 100 list

The post How should we teach with AI? The feds have 7 fresh edtech ideas appeared first on University Business.

The 2023 Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings assesses universities worldwide for their commitment to sustainability efforts in research, stewardship, outreach and teaching based on metrics provided by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

When evaluating how colleges and universities fare overall by aggregating all 17 SDG categories, only seven U.S. institutions made the top 100 list. Arizona State University (Tempe) ranked highest at 6. Michigan State University tied for 26, Penn State (main campus) tied for 40, Oklahoma State University tied for 72, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University tied for 92, Iowa State University ranked 96 and Florida International University tied for 100.

More from UB: This program dedicated to boosting first-gen success rates is tripling down

THE’s top 10 ranking

Canada had the most institutions to make the top 10 list with four, followed by Australia with three. The U.S. only had one.

Individual Sustainable Development Goals Rankings

Aside from THE’s overall rankings, the website also ranked colleges and universities across all 17 of the United Nations’ SDGs. The U.S. failed to rank first in any category, but several reached the top 10 in seven categories. U.S. universities performed the best in SDG 14 (Life below water), the focus being to “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.”

“American universities are doing well in a number of key areas,” said Phil Baty, chief knowledge officer for THE. “However, given the breadth and depth of higher education in the country, and global leadership in university research, we expect to see more American institutions come forward and demonstrate their commitment to supporting a sustainable future for all.”

• SDG 1 – No poverty: Arizona State University (Tempe) – #10
• SDG 2 – Zero hunger: Iowa State University – 3#
• SDG 3 – Good health and well-being: University of Colorado Denver (Anschutz Medical Campus) – #35 (tied)
• SDG 4 – Quality education: Arizona State University (Tempe) – #62 (tied)
• SDG 5 – Gender equality: Towson University – #26
• SDG 6 – Clean water and sanitation: Arizona State University (Tempe) and Florida International University – #7 (tied)
• SDG 7 – Affordable and clean energy: Iowa State University – #16 (tied)
• SDG 8 – Decent work and economic growth: Arizona State University (Tempe) – #77 (tied)
• SDG 9 – Industry innovation and infrastructure: University of South Florida – #49 (tied)
• SDG 10 – Reduced inequalities: Arizona State University (Tempe) – #24 (tied)
• SDG 11 – Sustainable cities and communities: Penn State (Main campus) – #11 (tied)
• SDG 12 – Responsible consumption and production: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University – #22 (tied)
• SDG 13 – Climate action: Arizona State University (Tempe) – #6 (tied)
• SDG 14 – Life below water: Florida International University – #2, Arizona State University (Tempe) – #4 and Penn State (Main campus) – #9
• SDG 15 – Life on land: Arizona State University (Tempe) – #5 and Michigan State University – #9
• SDG 16 – Peace, justice and strong institutions: Arizona State University (Tempe) – #8
• SDG 17 – Partnerships for the goals: Michigan State University – #34

“We hope this year’s ranking will help showcase and spread good practice and provide the impetus for more American universities to step up next year,” said Baty.

Learn more about THE’s methodology for this ranking here.

The post Only 7 U.S. universities make THE’s sustainability impact rankings’ top 100 list appeared first on University Business.

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.

Public 2-year and for-profit 4-year colleges were the only sectors to experience a positive enrollment rate, and it’s partially attributable to their non-credential and certificate programs. For example, non-degree offerings experienced a 14% gain at for-profits, the highest rate across all its programs. Since spring 2020, non-degree offerings have exploded in this sector by 115%, contributing to its third consecutive year of positive enrollment growth. Moreover, non-degree offerings at community colleges grew by 2.3%, contributing to two-year colleges’ first positive growth rate since spring 2020 (0.5%).

Non-degree credentials and certificates accounted for by the clearinghouse dub this program as “Other Undergraduate,” which includes undergraduate certificate/diplomas, teacher preparation and special non-credential programs, “that have been classified by institutions as undergraduate programs, as well as enrollments that are not part of any structured program and missing program level data.”

When broken down by sector, bachelor’s degree-seeking programs for students only experienced a positive growth rate at for-profit institutions. “Graduate/professional programs”—post-baccalaureate certificates, master’s degrees, doctoral degrees, first-professional degrees, graduate/professional certificates, and special non-credential programs—declined across all sectors.

“With the pandemic now behind us, a new set of factors appears to be preventing students from returning to campuses,” said Doug Shapiro, executive director of the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. “And these new factors are having a stronger effect on students who are seeking bachelor’s degrees than on associate-seekers.”

Higher education as a whole must recuperate more than 1,000,000 students to return to pre-pandemic numbers. Private for-profit 4-year institutions make up the only sector to have recuperated and succeeded its spring 2020 numbers.

More from UB: Men are falling behind in higher ed and the trend may not be letting up

Community college students drive a high rate of first-year enrollment

While enrollment among all undergraduates experienced a modest decline this spring semester, first-year students continue to show signs of promising growth. Higher education’s youngest student cohort showed increased enrollment across all sectors for a second year in a row, growing 9.2% since spring 2022. A key factor to first-year student enrollment seems to be public, two-year community colleges.

Community colleges experienced a whopping 12.4% increase in first-year students, eclipsing spring 2020 levels by 7% and nearly doubling last spring’s growth. In fact, nearly 60% of all spring freshmen enrolled at a community college. Dual-enrolled students seem to be driving this trend, for they made up 8% more students at community college than last year. Consequently, the median age of community college students has dropped a year since 2019.

The post Spring report: Non-credential programs drive enrollment as bachelor’s, postgrad falter appeared first on University Business.