Month: August 2024

The “College Presidents for Civic Preparedness” have an Agenda 

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

This election season, there has been a lot of talk about defending Democracy. What that means to young people, and how they will act upon it in their lifetimes, is the question and the focus of College Presidents for Civic Preparedness. Growing out of The Institute for Citizens and Scholars in 2023, the coalition of diverse leaders coalesced around a concern that the lack of civil discourse—indeed, the dismissal of civics as an integral part of higher education—may be contributing to the polarization of America and the inability of young people to engage in meaningful debate. As the protests over the war in Gaza roiled campuses last spring, they frequently gave way to vitriol, misinformation, and obstinate behavior. And these leaders find themselves fighting what has been a simmering fire on campuses across the country: the urgent need to educate students in the practice of becoming productive, well-informed citizens.

“In my conversations with college presidents, they emphasized the need for higher education to rebalance its responsibilities between private and public good. They see an opportunity to strengthen our democracy through promoting healthy civil discourse,”  says Rajiv Vinnakota, President of The Institute for Citizens and Scholars, a nonprofit organization focused on cultivating talent, ideas, and networks to develop young people as empowered, lifelong citizens.

Cultivating good citizenship may once have been an expected goal of higher education. But some presidents express frustration with the difficulty of getting institutions to embrace this as a priority, says Vinnakota. Pushback from a broad range of stakeholders—including students, faculty, trustees, alumni, and policymakers—reflects a decades-long trend in public opinion, where college is viewed more as a personal gain than a public good. This can lead institutions to burrow down on career development, while ignoring civic engagement.

There may be more at stake here than a healthy Democracy. Gallup surveys in 130 countries show people with higher personal well-being are more likely to say they give something— time, money, or help to a stranger— back to their communities. Civic Engagement Index scores, which measure people’s likelihood to do all three, are twice as high among those who are “thriving” compared with those who are “suffering.”

The Institute for Citizens and Scholars took the lead in connecting these administrators to create what Vinnakota envisioned as “a coalition of the willing where the collective power of presidents working together might move this common cause forward.” The Institute began by initiating a series of virtual conversations among presidents in early 2023, and officially launched the coalition with 15 leaders in August of last year. The group has since grown to 92 presidents and counting—particularly critical in a year where questions and confusion over fundamental principles such as free speech, and the right to protest vs. the protection of individual rights, dominated the public zeitgeist.  

The roster is a diverse and impressive array of schools. Participants range from elite institutions like Dartmouth, Vassar and Amherst to large public universities like Cal State San Marcos and Indiana University, including minority-serving institutions like Claflin College and Howard University. Vinnakota says presidents join for different reasons, but are united by the shared understanding that civic preparedness must be at the heart of the academic experience and campus life. 

“Some college presidents are already making this a central focus within their institutions. These are the true believers. Others are earlier in their journey and are eager to learn from leaders and utilize the tools we provide,” he says “Many have faced significant challenges since October 7th [the start of the Israeli-Hamas war] and are relying on our support to help guide their institutions through this period as effectively as possible.”

Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway was an early member of the group, and says connecting with other leaders who shared his concerns and experiences was one of the first benefits of coming together.

“It was obvious in meeting Raj that I wasn’t alone in being concerned about the quality of the discourse in civic spaces or on civic topics. I wasn’t alone at being dismayed at the poor level of awareness in a college-going population about the basic building blocks of our democracy,” he says “Joining a group of leaders who shared this feeling of deep concern about the quality of civil discourse became a means for me to put into action a lot of what we’ve been thinking about here.”

Holloway, who defended his institution before Congress in the antisemitism hearings in May, believes the dismissal of civics education only serves to further erode a discipline that has been in decline. According to the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the US invests just 5 cents in civic education for every 50 dollars allocated to STEM subjects.

Joining a group of leaders who shared this feeling of deep concern about the quality of civil discourse became a means for me to put into action a lot of what we’ve been thinking about here.

“The defunding of civics education is a major part of the problems we are seeing today,” he says. Holloway lays the blame, in part, on the quality of the education itself. “One of the reasons for the pushback [on civics] is that, frankly, it was being done poorly. It was antiquated and writing people out of history,” he says. “Civics should be about speaking to the complexity of our nation and all the different strengths that come with it, but we didn’t evolve our government civics courses to meet that need in K-12.”

Holloway teaches a first-year semester course at Rutgers on civil discourse and is a staunch defender of free speech, in all its discomfort. He believes the decline in civic preparedness education came at a time when the country may have needed it the most. “The ways education has been totally unprepared for the addictive power and influence of social media has added to the problem,” he says. “The complete freedom for people to say whatever they want may look like free speech but there is no accountability and no civility and that’s a really toxic combination.”

Building a Good Citizen

College Presidents for Civic Preparedness is taking all of this on with three Civic Commitments that each member institution adopts: “Educating for democracy is central to our mission. We will prepare our students for a vibrant, diverse, and contentious society. We will protect and defend free inquiry.”

In interpreting this, Vinnakota believes we need to ensure that young people are civically well-informed. “This means understanding how their government functions, the historical context of our current situation, and having the ability to distinguish fact from opinion,” he says. “Secondly, they should be productively engaged for the common good, which includes voting and having respectful conversations about public issues—even when there are disagreements. Finally, a commitment to democracy involves building trust in institutions, government, and fellow citizens.”

According to their materials, the presidents develop programming on their campuses to advance these civic commitments in keeping with their unique institutional missions. These include: hosting speaker series that promote diverse viewpoints; expanding course offerings centered on civic preparedness; utilizing orientations for student debates and free expression skills; designing student programming around constructive dialogue and civic engagement and learning; promoting voter engagement initiatives; and highlighting the themes of democracy and civic life through speeches and seminars.

In its recent report, “From Polarization to Progress,” the coalition describes the ways in which the schools are working toward these goals, both collectively and individually. The group continues its confidential presidential forums, and held its annual meeting at Howard University in January. Its blueprint, built off of the three major goals, includes launching initiatives and learning opportunities in several domains, reflecting a theory of change that spans policy and practice. They are:

  • Administrative, led by presidents and provosts and involving campus-wide initiatives like Campus Call for Free Expression, a series of activities designed to spotlight the principles of critical inquiry and civil discourse;
  • Classroom, involving curricula, first-year learning and certification programs, as well as faculty development through the Faculty Institute, which held its first convening in June at Rutgers;
  • Centers and Institutes, such as Wellesley College’s Hilary Rodham Clinton Center for Citizenship, Leadership and Democracy;
  • Auditorium, encompassing speakers, public events and lectures. 

Many of the myriad initiatives were already well-established, but bringing them together under one umbrella is part of the learning. The report notes strong activity in the past year: 88% of members offered courses or seminars that centered on civil discourse; 98% generated new civic research, fellowships, or initiatives; 98% hosted speaker series, dialogue dinners, or debates; and 94% held community, civic, or political engagement events. In 2025, 20% of current consortium members will offer programs that reach every student.

Bennington College President Laura Walker would be considered a “true believer.” The former president of New York Public Radio was drawn to the small liberal arts college in Vermont largely because of its mission “to work towards a world more beautiful, sustainable, democratic and just.” She has launched programs that support this mission including the Free Expression Task Force, which brings together a diverse group of students, faculty, staff, and Board of Trustees members to craft long-term policies that ensure these fundamental rights are preserved and nurtured within the institution. This fall, Bennington’s Center for the Advancement of Public Action is launching a seven-week course called “Saving Democracy Together,” open to Bennington students, alumni and the public.   

Like Holloway, she believes we dismiss civics preparedness in higher education at our peril. “I believe we are witnessing the effects of this lack of prioritization, compounded by the fractured media landscape and other factors, in today’s political climate,” she says. But Walker, like the other leaders in the group, is in it to change it. “Despite the sometimes grim appearance of our political landscape, it is not too late to effect change. I remain hopeful that we can make a concerted effort to reconnect education and democracy in ways that secure our future.” 

Vinnakota says the organization’s blueprint will lead to a number of changes on today’s college campuses: a decrease in polarization; comfort speaking up, especially if you feel you have a minority viewpoint; and a willingness to engage with people whose views are different than yours. In prioritizing constructive conversations, it is clear that this group of leaders, many battle-worn from drowned-out assemblies and political intervention on free speech, have civil discourse as top of mind going into this school year ahead of a contentious election.

“The presidents know that the protests are not going away. The students have been very clear about that,” says Vinnakota. “The question is how can administrators address this in a productive manner?  How can we engage students in an effective way where they feel as though they are making an impact on the direction of this country?”

Holloway sees this as the opportunity. “College is a great moment of re-articulation where a young person comes in and can have a set of experiences that either affirm their views or radically change them,” he says. “To me, this is the perfect breeding ground for wrestling with ideas.”

Where Did All the Good Times Go?

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

Listen Here:

They are familiar culprits: smartphones, social media, the decline of in-person social connection that began before, bloomed during, and held firm after the COVID-19 pandemic. A growing reserve of data and reporting raises the alarm about Gen Z’s age of discontent, always coming to the same conclusion: it doesn’t look good for the digital generation. As panic descends over what the Surgeon General has labeled a mental health emergency and, more recently, a loneliness epidemic, few accounts of Gen Z’s state of mind manage to foreground what I suspect is at the root of my generation’s distress: the shrinking of three-dimensional life, and with it, the loss of risk, adventure, and thrill.

Forty-two percent of Gen Z suffers from depression and feelings of hopelessness, a rate almost twice as high as that of American adults over 25 (23%). On the climate crisis, 56% believe humanity is doomed. Since 2010, anxiety among American college students has increased by 134%, depression by 106%, bipolar disorder by 57%, and anorexia by 100%. In a 2023 poll of college students, 39% said they had experienced loneliness the previous day, ranking it above sadness (36%). 

As our parents’ generations had fewer children and nurtured them longer, we were raised to be risk-averse. Emergency room visits for accidental injuries—falling off a bike, breaking an arm, spraining an ankle on the soccer field—have declined significantly among children and teenagers born in the early aughts. That sounds like a good thing—fewer broken arms means kids are safer, right? But while accidental, play-related injuries have gone down, emergency room visits for self-harm have increased 188% for adolescent girls and 48% for boys since 2010. We are not safer; not with ourselves.

As Gen Z grows up, our adulthood shows signs of developmental delays. We go on fewer dates and have less sex. We are getting our driver’s licenses later or not at all; we are living with our parents longer. We drink less and go to fewer parties than past generations. Our abstinence from risk is not a reflection of strict moral influences or time redirected to other, “safer” ways of interacting with the three-dimensional world—far from it, we are less likely than past generations to engage in hobbies, play and watch sports, or work after-school jobs. We are, quite simply, doing less than any generation before us. 

Chart: Zach RauschSource: Monitoring the Future Get the data Embed Download image

Social psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation Jonathan Haidt argues that our increasingly two-dimensional lives are the result of “the end of play-based childhood” and its replacement with “phone-based childhood.” During a recent talk in London, Haidt asked audience members of the Gen X and Baby Boomer generations to think back to their childhoods. He asked them to remember the things they did with friends, the adventures they had, and then imagine removing 70% of those encounters – remove hobbies, then risks, thrills, and adventures where you might have gotten hurt—imagine 80% of that gone, he said. Now imagine growing up with what’s left. That is the extent to which Haidt believes smartphones gutted Gen Z’s childhood and adolescence. Our lives are now smaller, hollowed out, contained within digital software. 

“The fact that risk-taking activities like drinking are going down is a broader sign that young adults and adolescents are engaging with the world far less,” says Dr. Jessie Borelli, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of California, Irvine. “Becoming an adult involves risk. Making mistakes, including through risk-taking behaviors, is practicing being an adult.” 

Moreover, she says, “Getting together in person is effortful. You have to endure a certain amount of discomfort, whether it’s the cost of leaving the house, encountering traffic, or the time it takes to put on different clothes.” 

We are not safer; not with ourselves.

For a subset of the population who grew up on social media and spent some of their most formative developmental years taking classes and interacting with peers only online, any effort at real-life interpersonal connection carries inherent risk — embarrassment, rejection, heartbreak, abandonment. When we weigh the decision of whether to engage effortfully with the world or just stay home, it’s no wonder we gravitate toward the option that involves less risk.

What that cost-benefit analysis is missing, however, is the fact that loneliness and isolation have profound consequences for not just our emotional wellbeing, but our long-term physical and cognitive health. “Social isolation and loneliness increase a person’s risk of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, dementia, depression, anxiety, suicidality, and premature death,” says Shannon Vyvijal, the Communications and Programming Coordinator for the Foundation for Social Connection. The upside, Vyvijal says, is that “social connection is really both a remedy and a preventative measure. In addition to making us healthier, it makes our communities safer. Socially connected communities have lower rates of gun violence and drug deaths. It makes communities more prosperous and helps local GDP. It leads more people to volunteer in their communities. It helps us become more civically engaged. We begin to trust institutions and one another again.”

Gen Z knows it’s lonely. “Loneliness is a discrepancy between how connected we are, and how connected we want to be,” Vyvijal says. “If, like many members of Gen Z report, you are someone who wants to date and hasn’t yet, or you are on dating apps and not satisfied with the level of connection they provide, that discrepancy is contributing to loneliness.” The disconnect between having and wanting connection often sets in motion a self-fulfilling prophecy, with the stigma of social undesirability increasing a person’s tendency to retreat from others. “The lonely brain continues to self-isolate,” she explains. 

They—we—are not content to live in a purgatory of risk-averse, adventureless post-post-adolescence.

Even as hyper-individualism in work and school swells and spills over into life after-hours, Gen Z is begging for community. We are begging for risk. Signs of our accelerating desperation occupy every corner of the Zoomer internet. In the r/GenZ subreddit, an 18-year old appeals to their peers for advice on how to make friends; a 21-year-old college student laments her campus’s lack of community; a 19-year-old worries she’s a “loser” for having never gotten drunk or gone to a party.  On Facebook, young adults post friendship applications. A Gen Z woman complains of the death of clubbing in a TikTok video that amassed over 3.5 million views. A viral dating deep-dive from The Cut shows young women crying on camera while describing their longing for partnership. 

Not far behind, tech companies roll out solutions for Gen Z to cure our loneliness without looking up from our phones. Tinder backs a new “dating app for friends.” On Bumble BFF, users swipe right on pictures of prospective friends. Still lonely? Try downloading Replika, “THE chatbot for anyone who wants a friend with no judgment, drama, or social anxiety involved.” No risk, all reward.

But Gen Z is getting older, in spite of its delayed adulthood, and making the move toward real-world community as a form of generational healing. The tide of self-isolation appears to be turning as loneliness and boredom reach a fever pitch, with a growing number of young adults taking the matter offline and into their own hands. Running clubs, singles parties, book clubs, wine nights, and self-made social events are on the rise. A new trend emphasizes the importance of third places—communal spaces like public parks, libraries, and coffee shops where people can come together and fill the time between work and home. They are taking their hobbies offline. They are volunteering more. They are urging moral awakening over self reinvention. They—we—are not content to live in a purgatory of risk-averse, adventureless post-post-adolescence.

I can’t say I wish playground injuries on kids or hangovers on college students. I do hope, however, that we will return to a margin of risk where it’s OK to fall off your bike, get your heart broken, dance badly at a party—because that’s part of the deal of living in the three-dimensional world. If we watch from a safe distance, that world will keep outgrowing us.

Learning and Flourishing in America’s City for Health

Posted on by Ella

Rochester, Minnesota has one of the highest per capita physician to population ratios in the country. Home to the Mayo Clinic, it benefits from the prosperity and diversity of its anchor institution, consistently rated the best hospital in the world. In 2009, the city strengthened its distinction as “America’s City for Health” when it launched a research university that would complement Mayo Clinic’s medical research enterprise and meet its ongoing workforce needs. The community appears to be getting all that and more with the University of Minnesota Rochester (UMR) – an innovative learning environment that centers equity and wellbeing as it takes on healthcare’s grand challenges. 

“Building a major university here, particularly one focused on health care, has been so important to the fabric of this city,” said Mayor Kim Norton. “I am so proud of the work that they do and the success they have had with their students.” 

UMR opened its doors to its first 57 students in 2009 after a multi-year effort among community leaders brought a regional branch of the University of Minnesota to town. It has grown to nearly 1,000 students who prepare to enter a variety of health-related fields, clinical, technical, and administrative. Two-thirds of the students are in at least one category that would be considered historically underrepresented. This fall, nearly 50% of the student population will be BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, people of color). 

Bringing more students of color into the medical professions is one of the goals of the UMR/Mayo Clinic partnership which hopes to provide a stronger pathway to medical careers as it diversifies a health care workforce that serves patients from around the world. “We have a strong focus on diversity, equity and inclusion here to make sure we represent all of society and that our patients can see themselves in their caregivers,” said Karen Helfinstine, Mayo Clinic’s Vice Chair of Education Administration. “Our partnership with UMR is critical to cultivating the workforce of the future.”

From the university side of the partnership, Mayo Clinic provides the promise of a good career for its students as well as an opportunity to foster an educational environment leading to flourishing in life and work. The teaching hospital adjacent to the university has built-in opportunities for experiential learning, research and mentorships — educational experiences that have proven to lead to improved wellbeing — and all part of UMR’s innovative, student-centered learning environment. 

The university’s motto is simple and forthcoming, aptly describing the building blocks that have led to its early success. “Students are at the center. Research informs practice. Partners make it possible.” Lori Carrell is UMR’s Chancellor and its passionate champion. It is clear she views the world through an asset-based lens, believing starting from scratch is an opportunity for innovation, just as students who have struggled possess valuable qualities. 

The teaching hospital adjacent to the university has built-in opportunities for experiential learning, research and mentorships

“One of the things that our students have in common is that they have persevered through major challenges in childhood or and adolescence,” she said. “There’s a resilience element we have the privilege of seeing in admissions. If a student can describe how their perseverance has been a catalyst for their passion to make a difference in the world through a career in health, we believe them to be well equipped for the rigor and compassion of this work.” 

A communications scholar who has published books on the need for change in higher education, Carrell says the methods they were experimenting with at UMR are what attracted her to it in 2014, when she first became Vice Chancellor. One of the university’s founding principles is a unique research mission where every faculty member does their primary research on student learning and student development regardless of their own subject matter expertise. 

“One of the great misses in higher education is we do not apply educational research or neuroscience about learning to how we structure college degrees or college life,” she said. “At UMR, we had a blank canvas to do that. Our faculty are in one interdisciplinary department called the Center for Learning Innovation. They demonstrate teaching excellence by providing evidence of learning and they progress in their careers by doing research on student learning and student development.” 

Andrew Petzold is a biology professor at UMR and, like Carrell, was drawn to the school because of its innovative teaching environment. “We are really in the trenches collecting data on the educational process and what students are actually learning and we use that to better inform our teaching in the future,” he said. “The interest is in student success rather than just publishing anything we possibly can.” 

Petzold says that the interdisciplinary focus on educational research leads to joint scholarship as well as active, student-centered classrooms. “We all have our own disciplinary focus, but I can talk and collaborate with other faculty in a much easier way because we all have a background in educational research.” 

UMR’s unique teaching environment has been highly recognized within the system and beyond. In its short history, seven UMR faculty members received the Horace T. Morse-University of Minnesota Alumni Association Award for Outstanding Contribution to Undergraduate Education. But fans of UMR’s research-embedded learning are quick to acknowledge the importance of pairing great teaching with proven student success strategies, many included in AAC&U’s high impact practices. Every student at UMR has a student success coach. With a ratio of one to 80, “success coaches” help with everything from flagging academic struggles to connecting people to internships to making sure students are focusing on their wellbeing. Graduating students joke that their student success coaches are what they most want to take with them when they go. 

“These kinds of personal connections are where the sense of belonging comes from,” Carrell said. “‘I am connected to somebody and I matter here, so I can be ok even on really hard days.’” 

UMR’s health majors are academically rigorous and can be challenging for some students. For this reason, the campus launched with a “JustASK” program which is important to active learning and made possible by the openness and collaborative nature of the faculty. “There are no lectures here,” said Carrell. “Our instruction is active and experiential so students have to be prepared to do project work in the classroom and they have to have access to faculty if they need help,” she said. Instead of office hours, which many students don’t utilize, UMR faculty sit out in open spaces as an interdisciplinary team at JustASK so someone is available to help with a question or concern. 

“These kinds of personal connections are where the sense of belonging comes from. I am connected to somebody and I matter here, so I can be ok even on really hard days.”

Perhaps the most notable outcome of UMR’s evidence-based learning practices is the fact that the university has all but eliminated the achievement gap between underrepresented students and other students. . This outcome is something the campus community is very proud of but does not take for granted. She says building on UMR’s early success with students will take vigilance and a comprehensive approach which includes addressing one of the biggest barriers to a college degree for underrepresented students – affordability. Here, UMR and Mayo Clinic are leading the way with an innovative partnership called “NXT GEN MED.” 

In December of 2024, the first class of NXT GEN MED students will graduate with a degree from the University of Minnesota within 2.5 years. The accelerated degree program for students interested in non-patient care careers has taken the traditional eight semester bachelors degree and applied it to a yearly calendar, lessening overall costs for students who are also given scholarship money if they are eligible. The partnership with Mayo Clinic includes a paid, credit-bearing internship, a Mayo Clinic mentor as well as a student success coach and research experience. As a result, UMR students are well positioned for employment upon graduation, either at the Mayo Clinic or in other institutions.

“What has been so beautiful about this partnership is hearing from the students how meaningful these experiences have been for them,” said Mayo Clinic’s Karen Helfinstine.

The program is an early example of a movement to create undergraduate degree options that increase student success while decreasing student cost known as “College-in-3.” Chancellor Carrell is a national leader in this area and views her advocacy as an extension of her work to revitalize the sector. When it comes to higher education challenges, Carrell says there are two for which there is little disagreement: college costs too much and many students who start do not complete. “College-in-3” programs are meant to address both of these problems at once, with evidence-based curricular designs. 

“These programs are not about lopping something off, they’re about crafting something better. You’ve got three years. How do you design research-embedded, experiential, transformative learning that leads to human flourishing? That’s the opportunity.”

Invented Here

Posted on by Ella

Invented Here is a podcast series from LearningWell Radio and the Coalition for Transformational Education. In this episode, Dr. Angela Lindner joins LearningWell Radio co-host Dana Humphrey to discuss UF Quest, a Gen-Ed program at the University of Florida that aims to provide first-year students, particularly FTICs (first time in college), an opportunity to learn how to learn within an intimate, interactive classroom environment. 

Listen now on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

The Case for Transformational Education

Posted on by Ella

Higher education is currently under enormous scrutiny. Part of this scrutiny results from the challenge of balancing the traditional roles of college in helping students “find a job” and “find themselves.” Eliminating the conflict between these goals, and indeed underscoring their interdependence, offers an excellent opportunity for higher education to take steps toward restoring public trust. To take full advantage of this opportunity, we must work harder to deliver the real value of a college education: a transformative learning experience.

For generations, traditional age students have enjoyed the benefits of college’s unprecedented ability to offer intellectual discovery at the inflection point of their personal development. This exceptional combination comes with a shift in learning that distinguishes college from primary and secondary school experiences dominated by extrinsic motivation like deadlines, teacher approval, and grades. Higher education, when done well, sets the stage for life-long learning by introducing intrinsic motivation that goes beyond knowledge and skill, shaping attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs — or “mindset.” Colleges and universities’ ability to teach students how to learn, not what to learn, is fundamental to the personal and professional success of graduates, often including, ironically, higher education’s harshest critics. 

Experiences in college can lead not only to professional success, but to a greater sense of wellbeing long after graduation. Current evidence based on measures of life-long wellbeing developed at Gallup indicates that having emotionally supportive mentors, particularly faculty, correlates strongly with life-long wellbeing. Gallup alumni surveys additionally show that initiatives that increase students’ sense of agency, through experiential learning opportunities such as projects or internships, also correlate with wellbeing long after the college years. One particular program, Purposeful Work at Bates College, produced profound evidence that a sense of wellbeing is substantially enhanced in students who find career opportunities closely related to areas of study that develop a sense of purpose and meaning.

Higher education, when done well, sets the stage for life-long learning by introducing intrinsic motivation that goes beyond knowledge and skill, shaping attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs.

The challenge facing higher education is how to achieve a broader recognition of the need to strengthen students’ transition from extrinsic to intrinsic learning and encourage experiences like hands-on learning and mentorships correlated with wellbeing at a time when vocationalism and return on investment dominate the public narrative.  Barriers such as check-box general education curricula and faculty reward systems that disincentivize truly student-centered, innovative teaching exacerbate the problem as does the underlying issue of the cost of a college degree.  

Restoring the public’s esteem for higher education by promoting lifelong wellbeing and refocusing the conversation on the student experience make up the central mission of The Coalition for Transformational Education. The Coalition is a learning community of almost 30 institutions across the country dedicated to changing the ways we teach and students learn, each pursuing distinct initiatives that offer best practices in engendering identity, belonging, agency and purpose in students based on experiences known to promote wellbeing.

The Coalition is focused on promoting this transformation across all of higher education by changing the narrative about what matters most in the student experience and encouraging faculty to experiment at the undergraduate level with evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes and wellbeing, and scaling these to all enrolled students. All of the institutions that are members of the Coalition are committed to assessing the interventions they introduce and refining them over time to continually improve their long-term impact. 

All members of the Coalition are committed to producing positive educational experiences that touch all enrolled students, not simply those that are focused only on specific populations such as the talented and gifted or the under-resourced or under-prepared. The Coalition is dedicated to making all of these interventions accessible to every enrolled student, regardless of their academic record or financial resources. The Coalition has the potential to transform higher education in ways that allow it to deliver on its full promise of career preparation and personal development, ensuring that students graduate not only with broader and deeper intellectual outcomes, but also with a greater sense of who they are and who they can become.

Public Opinion

Posted on by Ella

A new report released last week from public policy think tank New America underscores the nation’s complicated relationship with higher education and provides instructive insights for a sector struggling to define its place in the country. While the survey gives more evidence of the public’s waning trust in higher education, it reaffirms Americans’ belief in its economic value and their desire to personally benefit from it. The consistency with which people of both parties view the good and the bad of higher education is also an indication that when it comes to going to college, Americans may be more alike than they are different.  

Trends within the “Varying Degrees” survey, now in its eighth year, show that the public’s opinion of higher education continues to decline, with only 36% of all respondents saying the current state of higher education is fine as-is. The share of Americans who think that higher education is having a positive impact on the country today has dropped by 16 percentage points since 2019, to just 54 percent, in the latest report. Yet the survey also shows that despite its disillusionment with college, 70% of Americans want their children or family members to earn at least some kind of post-secondary degree and more than 75 percent think that the value of an associate and a bachelor’s degree is worth it even if students need to take out debt.

“The decline in public confidence for college is certainly concerning. But a decline in the public confidence of colleges and universities in general doesn’t necessarily mean that Americans no longer see colleges as worth it. Just as the higher education system is complex, so too are the opinions of Americans,” said Sophie Nguyen, a senior analyst at New America and one of the authors of the report.  

Indeed, the love/hate relationship that Americans appear to have with higher ed gives a glimmer of hope for the sector in a hostile political climate where conservative politicians, frustrated with the dominance of academia’s left-leaning factions, have been battling with the academy on a wide range of topics at both the federal and state levels. (In the survey, only 39 percent of Republicans think colleges and universities are having a positive impact.) Yet, despite comments like the one made recently by vice presidential candidate JD Vance, who vowed to “aggressively attack the universities,” not all Republicans view higher education as the enemy.  

On this score, data on economic mobility may be more influential than rhetoric. Research shows that those with a bachelor’s degree earn significantly more than those with only a high school diploma.  Just last week,Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce predicted that a bachelor’s degree will significantly increase the chances of getting a “good job” in the future. (The report defines a “good job” as one that pays a national minimum salary of $43,000 to workers aged 25 to 44 and $55,000 to workers aged 45 to 64.)  

“The love/hate relationship that Americans appear to have with higher ed gives a glimmer of hope for the sector in a hostile political climate.”

In the New America survey, Democrats and Republicans agreed at similar rates (two-thirds) that those with at least some higher education will have better access to good jobs, better earnings, and greater financial well-being. When it comes to the benefits that those with higher education might bring to their communities, more than 80 percent of survey respondents agreed that they increase tax revenues, contribute to a skilled workforce, and create more jobs. Three in four believed that those with postsecondary credentials vote and volunteer more often and offer greater support for local businesses. Despite some variance, these beliefs were primarily party-neutral. 

The one area that shows the strongest alignment is the perception that college costs too much.  In the New America survey, nine in 10 respondents believe that people are choosing not to enroll in higher education because they cannot afford it. Eight in 10 think that this lack of affordability is the biggest barrier to enrollment for low income and first-generation students.  One of the most important findings in the survey is the fact that more than 70 percent of respondents (85 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of Republicans) said the presidential candidates’ stances on higher education affordability will be important to their votes. While it is yet unclear how the candidates will address affordability from an education policy perspective, it is worth noting that voters will be watching. 

On the question of who should pay for college, the survey shows a predictable gap between party affiliation, reflecting divergent philosophies on whether higher education is meant for public good or private gain. The authors write, “This question has seen a decline, since we started asking, in those believing the government should be responsible, particularly since 2020. This year just over half of Americans—56 percent— believe the government has the primary responsibility for funding higher education, with 43 percent believing individuals should fund higher education because they personally benefit. There has always been a sharp partisan divide in the response to this question, and this year was no exception. Nearly eight out of ten Democrats believe that the government should fund higher education because it is good for society, whereas nearly seven out of ten Republicans believe that students should fund higher education because they personally benefit.” 

“Nine in 10 respondents believe that people are choosing not to enroll in higher education because they cannot afford it.”

Yet here the survey delivers another reason to check one’s assumptions. Despite philosophical differences, about seven out of 10 of all respondents agree that states should spend more tax dollars on public two- and four-year colleges and universities with Democrats and Republicans both agreeing, though at different rates. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans (80 percent) agree that the federal government should increase the maximum award for Pell grants so that students with the greatest financial need receive more grant-based assistance.

Another point of consistency which emerged from the survey is the view that higher education, as an industry, does not spend money wisely or run efficiently. Given tuition rates that are unattainable for many Americans, this perception may be contributing to the waning public trust. The call for more transparency in higher education is also widely held.  Approximately 65 to 75 percent of respondents agreed that institutions should lose access to taxpayer dollars if students have poor outcomes which raises questions about whether institutions are providing sufficient information to students and families. “Over the years,” the authors write, “Americans have made clear that data transparency is important, with near universal agreement across party lines.”