While the Supreme Court is readying to strike down affirmative action nationally, universities that have leveraged race-based admissions are concerned about how Black and Hispanic enrollment might fare. State and student demographic data collected by Data Commons and Data USA from 2012 to 2020 shows that while Black and Hispanic populations have substantially grown throughout California, Washington, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire and Oklahoma, the student body of those states’ flagship universities has not reflected that increase whatsoever.

For example, the Hispanic population has increased by 26% in states where affirmative action has already been banned. However, the average increase in the Hispanic student body across their flagship universities is only 4%.

Similarly, while these states’ overall Black population has increased by 14%, Black student enrollment has only increased by less than a percentage point on average at flagship universities.

Minority students weighing whether to enroll at a major university may be worried about finding others who share their cultural experience. Ultimately, those schools can lose out.

“Why would I go to U of M?” said Odia Kaba, a class of 2022 student who chose to remain at Eastern Michigan University to finish her studies, according to AP News. “I’m just going to be stuck with people that don’t look like me, can’t relate to me, and with no way to escape it.”

This article covers the first eight states to have banned affirmative action since their states’ Supreme Court denied its practice in or before 2012. On the other hand, Idaho struck down race-based admissions in 2020, so its long-term trends have not matured enough to analyze.

Percent demographic changes from 2012 to 2020: State vs. State’s flagship university

California

State population

• Black: unchanged (2.25 million in 2020)
• Hispanic: 10% increase (15.4 million)

University of California Berkeley

• Black: unchanged
  • 3% of the student body in 2020
• Hispanic: 5% increase
  • 17% of the student body in 2020

Washington

State population

• Black: 22% increase (290k in 2020)
• Hispanic: 29% increase (972k)

University of Washington – Seattle

• Black: unchanged
  • 3% of the student body in 2020
• Hispanic: 3% increase
  • 9% of the student body in 2020

Florida

State population

• Black: 12% increase (3.38 million in 2020)
• Hispanic: 29% increase (5.47 million)

University of Florida

• Black: 1% decrease
  • 6% of the student body in 2020
• Hispanic: 6% increase
  • 21% of the student body in 2020

Michigan

State population

• Black: 2% decrease (1.36 million in 2020)
• Hispanic: 19% increase (521k)

University of Michigan – Ann Arbor

• Black: 1% increase
  • 5% of the student body in 2020
• Hispanic: 3% increase
  • 7% of the student body in 2020

Nebraska

State population

• Black: 12% increase (91.9k in 2020)
• Hispanic: 29% increase (215k)

University of Nebraska – Lincoln

• Black: 1% increase
  • 3% of the student body in 2020
• Hispanic: 3% increase
  • 7% of the student body in 2020

Arizona

State population

• Black: 24% increase (325k in 2020)
• Hispanic: 19% increase (2.26 million)

University of Arizona

• Black: 1% increase
  • 4% of the student body in 2020
• Hispanic: 6% increase
  • 27% of the student body in 2020

New Hampshire

State population

• Black: 37% increase (21k in 2020)
• Hispanic: 41% increase (52.8k million)

University of New Hampshire

• Black: unchanged
  • 1% of the student body in 2020
• Hispanic: 1% increase
  • 4% of the student body in 2020

Oklahoma

State population

• Black: 6% increase (288k million in 2020)
• Hispanic: 30% increase (431k)

University of Oklahoma

• Black: 1% decrease
  • 5% of the student body in 2020
• Hispanic: 4% increase
  • 11% of the student body in 2020

The post Minority enrollment at these flagship universities underwhelms compared to state population gains appeared first on University Business.

“What Works for Improving Mental Health in Higher Education” dispels lackluster mental health service strategies and advises college leaders on which evidence-backed intervention strategies will improve counselors’ efficacy.

While Healthy Minds Study found that the percentage of students receiving mental treatments has doubled in the last decade, mental health remains an increasingly prominent issue among college students. ACE finds that this is partially due to the current literature evaluating mental practices and the campus dialogues surrounding student mental health operate in silos from one another. As a result, progress is disjointed.

ACE utilized a comprehensive review of campus interventions strategies from various academic fields and journals to make its recommendations. As campus communities consider more proactive measures to student mental health, the council first recommends utilizing data-supported models to drive action and measure progress.

More from UB: Remuneration under inflation: Adjusted faculty salaries and benefits continue to plummet

Strategies with proven effectiveness

Skill-training interventions (extensive evidence)

Supervised student practice encourages the development of social, emotional and coping skills through behavioral rehearsal and supportive feedback. Such programs, such as mindfulness, boast consistently positive evidence improving social-emotional skills, enhancing self-perception, reducing emotional stress and mental health symptoms and improving sleep.

Screenings

This method can identify at-risk individuals struggling with symptoms of anxiety, depression and suicide risk. However, screenings are only helpful if campuses are resourced with the services they believe would most greatly assist the identified students’ needs.

Means restriction

Add fixtures to the campus environment to prevent self-harm, such as nets on bridges and rooftops.

Revise or discontinue

Psychoeducational interventions (minimally effective)

These target students’ knowledge of stress and mental health issues to identify symptoms, adopting a “knowledge is power” approach. ACE recommends this strategy is helpful as part of a multi-component intervention rather than a primary or independent approach to improving student outcomes.

Gatekeeper training (questionable effectiveness)

This method seeks to skill students to identify community members in distress and connect them with the correct avenues for intervention. While gatekeeper training has improved students’ confidence in initiating intervention for those in need, no literature suggests that it improves their behaviors.

Showing promise but needs review

While few intervention techniques exist that have been extensively reviewed and supported by academic journals, there are many more that have shown promising—though not convincing—results.

One promising example includes peer support programs, in which two meta-analyses deduced that it helped significantly decrease depressive symptoms at the same rate as professional-led interventions. Peer support programs can also entice students who don’t feel accepted, understood or motivated in traditional care routines. This method also lends to a cascading effect to another promising yet not fully founded intervention technique: cultivating a sense of belonging.

Other emerging strategies to tackle mental health include:

• Reduce stressors associated with students’ learning, testing, and the classroom environment
• Mentoring and coaching
• Post-crisis intervention
• Prevent discrimination and micro-aggressions
• Increased financial aid packages

How can your institution begin developing evidence-backed strategies?

ACE recommends that the strongest way to develop a no-nonsense package to alleviating student mental health concerns is collaborating with policymakers, foundations, philanthropists and even the private sector; it takes a village. With that in mind, here is their blueprint.

1.  Develop and maintain a centralized database of evidence.
2. Provide active support for decision-makers such as campus leaders and administrators.
3. Enhance incentives for using evidence to inform practices.
4. Invest in innovative research to address the evidence gaps.
5. Develop and strengthen the networks of practitioners and researchers.

Overall, ACE posits that developing students’ mental health with scientifically backed strategies not only strengthens the community, but it also reverberates back to the institution and community. Colleges and universities earn more tuition revenue due to increased retention, and more graduating students increases the skilled workforce, bolstering the U.S. economy.

The post Which mental health strategies should be embraced—or avoided? Check the data appeared first on University Business.

Legislatures in Indiana and Texas are remodeling their financial allocation to colleges and universities based on an outcomes-based formula rather than blanket recommendations based on enrollment as each state grapples with higher education’s most prevailing trends: student workforce preparation and faltering enrollment.

“The current model is one that’s based upon contact hours, heavily influenced by enrollment and type of courses offered,” says Ray Martinez III, president and CEO of the Texas Association of Community Colleges (TACC), according to Diverse. “What do we need to do as a matter of state policy to ensure that students have the support they need, the scaffolding to ensure they can complete a post-secondary credential?”

More from UB: Ghosts of Mississippi: Since last June, 7 presidents have stepped down in the state

Texas tackles workforce demands at the community college level

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott approved legislation on Monday to increase its community college biennium funding by nearly 25% for $2.2 billion, according to Dallas Innovates. Aside from the increase in funding, the legislation also marks a bold new direction for which colleges will earn the lion’s share. Texas will now fund its community colleges based on upward student transfer rates, high school dual degree completion, and whether they’re awarding “credentials of value.” Credentials of value include badges, certificates and degrees that “position graduates for well-paying jobs” in high-demand fields.

Texas’ former community college state funding formula relied almost entirely on contact hours, according to the Texas Commission on Community College Finance (TxCCCF), which strongly recommended the outcomes-based changes to the state. TxCCCF found that 2021 was Texas’ worst year for community college enrollment, which is particularly damaging for the state considering that the sector makes up more than 40% of its post-secondary student enrollment.

By repositioning the state’s 50 community colleges to deliver credentials of values while promoting college affordability, TxCCCF and Texas legislatures believe they are in a prime placement to recoup state enrollment by churning out workforce-ready individuals.

“A highly educated and skilled workforce is critical for Texas to remain the most attractive state to do business, and community colleges are ground zero for students to access the necessary skills and training for in-demand careers,” said Sen. Brandon Creighton, according to the Austin American-Statesman. “This new funding framework will only encourage more successful programs for Texas to train the workforce of the future.”

Indiana wants to bring students back

With only 48% of Indiana’s citizens being credential or degree earners, Gov. Eric Holcomb wants to increase the rate of Hoosiers with postsecondary education to 60% by 2025. With public college tuition and fees decreasing 4% over the past five years and the state recuperating from one of its lowest enrollment rates in recent history, Indiana’s 2023 legislative session seeks to bump state college funding by $130 million in the next biennium budget.

With a revamped budget comes an updated budget strategy. On top of the base funding each college and university will receive, they will also be eligible for additional funding based on five metrics: quality and career relevance, completion, college-going rate, quantity of adult students and graduation retention rates.

For example, colleges that score 80% of their forecasted goal on one of those five metrics will receive 80% of the additional funding they were promised. That additional funding earned in the first year of the biennium would be guaranteed in year two. It then has the potential to build from there.

Equity concerns with outcomes-based funding

While more states become outcome-oriented when deciding which colleges and universities to fund, some professionals believe doing so can hurt minority-serving institutions.

Institutions that serve students and color and those from lower-income households are already under-resourced. If they can’t deliver on state metrics, their situation will never improve, creating a “self-fulfilling prophecy,” wrote Dr. Kalya C. Elliott, interim director of Education Trust and co-author of the report cautioning against outcomes-based funding.

The post Why these 2 states are changing their higher ed funding model appeared first on University Business.

These are some key takeaways EAB gathered in their latest meta-report that creates a comprehensive picture of higher education’s future college cohort: “Gen P.” It draws from conversations with over 20,000 high school students, counselors, parents, EAB partners and college enrollment teams.

“Gen P” students have been molded by a world event that few can compare to, and thus they are unique in their college preferences. EAB aims to identify who they are so higher ed leaders can identify their needs—and win their selection.

More from UB: Digital credentials: Higher education’s new frontier

1. Gen P wants higher ed to be vocal about mental health offerings

In the 2021-22 academic year, 87% of public schools reported that the pandemic negatively impacted students’ socioemotional development, according to the CDC. Similarly, EAB reports that depression and anxiety have steadily increased in that period, partially due to their uptick in social media use and online interactivity. The issue has gotten so bad the U.S. Surgeon General believes social media deserves a warning label as youth mental health has become “the defining public health issue of our time.”

With the declining quality of youth mental health coalescing with their poorly matured socio-emotional development, 22% of students in 2023 opt out of college because they are “not mentally ready,” according to EAB. That’s an 8% rise compared to 2021. Moreover, the rates of first-generation and low-income students reporting this are higher.

2. Less confident about college success

EAB reports that 73% of counselors believe the pandemic weakened their students’ academic preparation at least moderately. Their concerns aren’t unfounded: Average assessment scores between 2020 and 2022 have dropped by 5%, the largest ever recorded by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Students’ academic troubles interweave with their stunted social and mental development, making them feel as if they might not belong if they pursued a route in higher education. Consequently, 26% of students are worried about successfully pursuing a degree, which is one of the leading issues for turning a cold shoulder to college.

3. Holding higher ed in lower regard

From 2017 to 2022, freshman enrollment has decreased across three major sectors of higher education: public 4-year (2.9%), public 2-year (22%) and private 4-year (1.8%). While enrollment seems to have either increased or steadied in 2022, the 5-year decline is driven by a massive drop in 2020.

Despite leveling off last year, high school student sentiment for high education has become undeniably worse. Specifically, a fifth of students (20%) now agree “college isn’t worth the cost.” In 2019, less than a tenth agreed with that statement (8%).

And although higher ed’s reputation has taken a massive hit since the pandemic, its enrollment has long since declined. A separate report EAB conducted between 2016 and 2020 found that the rate of college-going high school graduates declined by 10%.

Among the top four reasons students are deciding against college, three have to do with the bottom line: cost.

Top factors students are deterred from attending college

• Cost concerns/debt (70%)
• Costs outweighing earning potential (34%)
• Academic readiness (33%)
• Cost of living (31%)

Gen P is only willing to enroll in higher education if it provides quantitative financial outcomes. This may explain why enrollment in liberal arts colleges has sharply declined over the same period as general enrollment in higher ed has.

4. Hunger for in-person events

The rate of prospective students attending campus visits has bounced back to 2019 levels, and while college fair attendance hasn’t entirely recuperated, they have increased. Similarly, in-person events have increased by 38% in 2022, while virtual event show rates have decreased by 58%.

The most popular recruitment event preferred by students were medium-sized, on-campus events with 50-100 attendees.

While virtual events have decreased significantly, EAB believes colleges should keep hybrid events for low-income students who do not have the time or money to attend events in person.

5. Digital engagement demand

A college’s website can make or break students’ esteem for an institution. For example, nine out of ten prospects make a point of visiting the website of a college they’re considering. Among them, 89% agree that “A well-designed website will improve” their opinion of a college, and 81% agree that “a poorly designed website will negatively affect” their opinion of a college.

While nearly three-quarters of students reported engaging with colleges via social media in 2023, an 11% bump over two years, students still prefer email as their main communication channel.

6. Students’ search behavior is shifting

Students are beginning their college search way later than four years ago. While the rate of students starting their college search their spring sophomore year was 67% in 2019, it was down 40% in 2023. However, EAB is unconvinced that this is a long-term trend, as the pandemic could have disrupted their priorities.

One long-term trend regarding students’ college selection process is that they visit colleges later. EAB posits that one possible reason is that students are waiting to know whether they were accepted and if their financial aid package is worthy enough to consider attending.

Similarly, Black and Hispanic/Latinx students are more likely than any other race/ethnicity to apply to an institution for being test optional. This is likely due to professional organizations purporting that standardized tests contain inherent biases against these demographics.

Trends exacerbated by the pandemic

Most of Gen P’s traits did not arise in a vacuum. EAB believes that some of their most significant characteristics result from long-developing trends that the pandemic helped push to the forefront. Among them are:

• Mental health concerns
• Academic achievement
• Equity gaps
• Student value of higher ed

The post Know who you enroll: the 6 traits of the upcoming college student appeared first on University Business.

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.

Four of the state’s most LGBTQ-friendly colleges also feature on BestAccredited Colleges’ top 10 LGBTQ-friendly college ranking. The University of Michigan – Ann Arbor, Ithaca College, Kansas State University and University of New Hampshire are among them.

Best Colleges compiled data available from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and Campus Pride’s Index Score to map out the most LGBTQ-friendly institutions. Best College’s methodology ranking system utilized NCES data and focused primarily on academic quality and college affordability. For academic quality, BestColleges analyzed institutions’ rates in admission, enrollment, retention and graduation. For college affordability, it assessed the percentage of students taking out loans to the average loan default rate. This data is then blended with Campus Pride’s index score, which evaluates its metrics for institutions’ LGBTQ-friendly policy, institutional commitment, academic Life, housing, counseling and other factors.

If a state’s most accommodating institution for LGBTQ+ students—according to BestCollege’s evaluation—did not garner at least four stars out of five from Campus Pride Index, BestColleges did not include a college for the state.

More from UB: 5 reasons fewer students may be going to college this year

• Alabama: University of Alabama (4.5 stars)
• Alaska: n/a
• Arkansas: n/a
  • School with the highest index score: University of Arkansas at Little Rock (2.5 stars)
• Arizona: Northern Arizona University (4.5 stars)
• California: San Diego State University (5 stars)
• Colorado: University of Colorado Boulder (5 stars)
• Connecticut: Connecticut College (4.5 stars)
• District of Columbia: American University (no score given)
• Delaware: University of Delaware (no score given)
• Florida: University of North Florida (5 stars)
• Georgia: Emory University (4 stars)
• Hawaii: n/a
• Iowa: n/a
  • School with the highest index score: Cornell College (1 star)
• Idaho: n/a
  • School with the highest index score: The College of Idaho (2.5 stars)
• Illinois: Northern Illinois University (5 stars)
• Indiana: Purdue University (5 stars)
• Kansas: Kansas State University (5 stars)
• Kentucky: University of Louisville (5 stars)
• Louisiana: n/a
  • School with the highest index score: Louisiana State University (2.5 stars)
• Massachusetts: Tufts University (5 stars)
• Maryland: University of Maryland (5 stars)
• Maine: University of Maine at Farmington (4.5 stars)
• Michigan: University of Michigan – Ann Arbor (5 stars)
• Minnesota: Macalester College (5 stars)
• Missouri: Washington University in St. Louis (5 stars)
• Mississippi: n/a
  • School with the highest index score: University of Mississippi (3 stars)
• Montana: Montana State University – Bozeman (4 stars)
• North Carolina: Elon University (5 stars)
• North Dakota: University of North Dakota (4 stars)
• Nebraska: University of Nebraska Kearney (5 stars)
• Nevada: University of Nevada Las Vegas (no score given)
• New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire (4.5 stars)
• New Jersey: Princeton University (no score given)
• New Mexico: University of New Mexico (no score given)
• New York: Ithaca College (5 stars)
• Ohio: Ohio State University (5 stars)
• Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma (4 stars)
• Oregon: Portland State University (no score given)
• Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania (5 stars)
• Rhode Island: Brown University (no score given)
• South Carolina: n/a
  • School with the highest index score: College of Charleston (3.5 stars)
• South Dakota: n/a
  • School with the highest index score: South Dakota State University (3 stars)
• Tennessee: Vanderbilt University (no score given)
• Texas: University of Texas at Dallas (5 stars)
• Utah: University of Utah (no score given)
• Virginia: Virginia Wesleyan University (5 stars)
• Vermont: University of Vermont (5 stars)
• Washington: University of Washington (no score given)
• Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire (5 stars)
• West Virginia: West Virginia University (4.5 stars)
• Wyoming: n/a

The post Here is every state’s most LGBTQ-friendly college 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.

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.

While Fall enrollment among men and women has mostly declined between 2017 and 2022, women have weathered the storm far better across non-profit and for-profit institutions. For example, male enrollment at 4-year public institutions has dropped nearly 6% more than women, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Among all student demographics in this sector, white men experienced the sharpest decline in enrollment, falling nearly 20%. Moreover, fall enrollment rates for women at for-profit institutions have increased in the same period while male enrollment has declined.

Enrollment numbers don’t tell the whole picture. Men are also graduating at a lower rate than women. The rate at which men are graduating from 4-year institutions is 6% less than that of women, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

Additionally, a recent report by YouthTruth surveying over 25,000 graduating seniors suggests that the gender gap may widen for higher ed’s next cohort of young students. The Class of 2023 reported that while 68% of young men want to go to college, only 57% expect to actually attend. On the other hand, 83% of young women want to go to college, and 77% expect to go.

More from UB: These 25 bachelor’s degrees earn graduates less than those with a high school diploma

Why are men ducking a college degree?

The reasons why men may be skipping out on college are tangled in a web of cultural and socioeconomic factors.

First, students are increasingly looking at vocational training and short-term credentials as a viable route post-high school, and men are more inclined to pursue unskilled labor, such as construction, to earn a wage. “Men at 18 have a higher wage premium than women,” said Michael Hicks, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University (Ind.), according to Newsweek.

Secondly, first-generation college students are 44% less likely to graduate than students with at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree, according to the Pew Research Center. Without proper guidance from family members, men who are first-generation college students may not be able to visualize success in academia truly. “You’re encouraged to go better yourself, but my dad would always call me ‘college boy,’” said one student, according to The Hechinger Report. “It was confusing because I thought it was what I was supposed to be doing. But then there’s this resentment.”

College hopefuls from a minority background may be particularly affected by cultural setbacks. For example, initiatives to boost college enrollment at Montclair State University are facing an uphill battle, according to assistant provost Daniel Jean. “There are more accolades for getting out of jail than for graduating from college,” he said. “There’s an anti-intellectual environment that’s gotten worse. The definition of manhood is often flawed.”

Lastly, among college students, men may be struggling internally but not reaching out for help. More than 40% of men considered quitting college in 2022 and find it challenging to remain enrolled. More than half of all students surveyed on why they considered stopping out cited emotional stress and personal mental health reasons.

Community colleges tackling the problem

One of the key objectives the American Psychological Association made to understand better male academic performance was to examine how Black and minority males may be underserved in academia. At least two community college systems have implemented mentorships and success coaches for minority demographics with promising results.

The North Carolina Community College System, in partnership with one edtech company, led the Minority Male Success Initiative (MMSI). This three-year study examined minority male retention rates over three years when assigned a success coach. Consequently, the study found a 22.4% retention increase in new, minority-male, full-time students pursuing an associate degree and a 47% persistence rate increase in the third term among students 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.

Similarly, the African American Male Education Network and Development (A²MEND), spanning across California’s 116-campus community college system, is creating individualized mentoring and meeting spaces for its Black students.  In 2021, A²MEND’s reported that “two-thirds” of its mentored students remained in college during the COVID-19 pandemic despite the overall 8% drop in African American males in that same period. Moreover, “most” students continued their studies by transferring to a California college system institution or an HBCU, according to the statement.

Is the tide changing?

The pandemic may have caused a shift in declining enrollment rates for women. Between Spring 2021 and 2023, female college enrollment has dropped twice the rate of men, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. This concerning figure deserves an analysis over an extended period to judge whether this is an anomaly or a new trend.

The post Men are falling behind in higher ed and the trend may not be letting up appeared first on University Business.