Month: November 2024

“Higher Education Builds America” 

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

On the first two Sundays in October, the American Council on Education ran a full-page ad in the New York Times targeting both presidential candidates with the tagline “Higher Education Builds America.”  In what was both a PR campaign and a policy brief, the ACE ad was part of a larger effort to promote higher education’s economic value within a bipartisan message meant to withstand either election outcome.  Now that the candidate less likely to embrace their agenda heads to the White House, ACE continues the fight with renewed vigor. 

The face of the campaign is ACE president Ted Mitchell, but the person in charge of it is  Nick Anderson, former long-time higher education reporter for the Washington Post, now ACE’s vice president for higher education partnerships and improvement.  As a former journalist who has observed the highs and lows of a sector considered the bedrock of the American dream, Anderson does not seem defeated or discouraged by the political situation. More than most, he knows that higher education isn’t going anywhere. 

While this may be true, innovation in higher education is something Anderson says is part of the campaign’s message. But messaging is different than policymaking, and it remains to be seen how ACE’s left-of-center advocacy agenda performs in the Republican legislative lock-down. In its open letter to candidates, ACE laid out  a set of priorities that include increasing federal aid for students and research, repealing the taxability of scholarships, reforming the endowment excise tax, and improving the visa process to better support international students. 

As the non-profit’s government affairs professionals work the agenda on Capitol Hill, Anderson and his colleagues will be in forums, and on social and traditional media, getting policymakers and thought leaders to look at the bigger picture.  

Here is an excerpt of our interview for LearningWell.

LW:  Let’s start at the beginning.  What motivated ACE’s new campaign? 

We started the campaign a little before September when we were thinking about what to say to the presidential candidates.  We wanted to articulate some core principles.  We wanted to say to the campaigns: “This is who we are, this is what we do, and here’s what we’d like you to look at when you take office.” 

It’s been a rough year for higher education.  Arguably, it’s been a rough few years for higher education and yet, here we are, definitely wanting to be part of the conversation – the policy conversation and the political conversation and we’re not going away.  Higher education has been part of the country since the beginning, for all of our flaws.  We have grown with the country and helped the country grow.  And now in the 21st century, we’re here to help it grow some more. In September, we wrote an open letter to the candidates – which was the basis for the New York Times ad – that articulated this vision of our history and our connection to America with a strong message that whoever wins the election we are ready to work with you. 

LW: What is it you hope to communicate through the campaign? 

From a message perspective, we wanted to draw the big picture for folks. We wanted to step away from the controversies of the moment – and there will always be controversies – and remind people that higher education is simply part of the American story. It has been here from the beginning. Thomas Jefferson went to William and Mary and founded the University of Virginia. Abraham Lincoln signed the Land Grant Act that created land grant institutions throughout the country.  There’s the establishment of the HBCU’s, the national enterprise of the community college movement, the GI Bill, the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Pell Grant and on and on. This historical through line of higher education is something we need to really emphasize to President Trump now and to Congress.  

We are not a sector that sprang up yesterday. We are here and we have always been here. When you talk about national security, when you talk about public health and medicine and lifesaving medical breakthroughs, when you talk about the regional economies of this country and the national economy, we have always built America and we will keep on building.  These are the kind of big picture messages we want to advance because, frankly, that often gets lost in the public narrative.

“We have always been part of the American story”

LW: Is ACE concerned about the election of Trump and the anti-higher education rhetoric his campaign employed? 

The rhetoric around the campaign season can get pretty heated, but there are campaigns and then there is governing.  We’ll see what all this means.  Trump hasn’t taken office yet. The new Congress hasn’t been sworn in. We are extending our hand to every national leader from the president to the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, the House speaker, the House minority leader. We obviously will stand up for ourselves but wherever there is opportunity for advancing, we will advance. 

Regarding the attack on higher ed, I would say we are big enough to weather critiques. If there are people outside or inside of higher ed who are labeling us as “woke” or “elitist” or any particular adjective, we have to reckon with that. What does that mean? I would argue that we can absorb those critiques and evolve and take necessary steps if need be, but, more importantly, we need to simply be there and listen so that people understand that higher ed is hearing them. We have to avoid being defensive. We are institutions that promote, elevate and value the marketplace of ideas and political debate. As such, we have to be big enough to absorb any criticism and listen to it.  At the same time, we have to continue to promote our values.  We value academic freedom.  We value free speech. And we value institutional autonomy. 

LW: As part of the campaign, you acknowledge the need for change along with the value that higher ed brings.  What are some examples of that?

We have real work to do on the affordability front. I think it’s two things at the same time. There’s plenty of data that shows that college opportunities are affordable and available in many ways and we need to do a better job at communicating that. We are champions of access and champions of policies that promote affordability. We are champions of the Pell Grant. We are champions of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, which had a disastrous year, but it’s now on the road to getting better. 

We want very much to promote the message that college is affordable, and yet we know that there are things that must be done to make it more affordable to more people and to have the value of college be elevated so that families, when they’re thinking about making a significant investment of money, and time, that they think it’s worth it. 

I also want to be crystal clear that what we’re saying here is meant to be maximally inclusive and has relevance for those who choose not to go to college.  Your life could have many paths that intersect with college at different points.  Our fixation with the education of 18 to 22 year olds is well grounded because we all care about our children and their emergence as adults in the economy and in their communities. But that traditional pathway has been shown many times to be too narrow to define what higher education is. There are a lot of people who intersect with higher education after age 25, and we need to capture that in our conception of who we are.

LW: What changes to do you see coming?

The sector is really a vast field of institutions and I think there’s a real value in partnerships between different types of institutions – community colleges and research universities, for example. Universities are an obvious example of fertile ground for partnerships and coalitions that would bring home to average folks that, “Hey, I’ve got college everywhere available to me. It’s not just that distant state flagship or those private universities off on the coast somewhere.”  Promoting community colleges and the wonderful work that they do and their accessibility is critical to that. But promoting the linkages between colleges that can be very different is really essential as well. 

We also have to promote different modalities.  Online education is here to stay. It’s not the enemy, it’s part of our fabric right now. I think the pandemic accelerated that and raised some questions about how it fits with residential higher education, but there’s no question that online higher education is real and important and potentially a crucial area for higher education to expand access to more Americans. There’s also a really important movement of credit for prior learning that we are very interested in helping to integrate into our thinking about higher education.  Innovation is part of higher education. To go back to my theme, I want to emphasize to the thought leaders and policymakers the vastness of who higher education is, what higher education is. 

LW: You have covered higher education for many years.  What is your observation about the state of higher education today? 

I literally covered higher ed directly for the Washington Post for 12 years. And every one of those years there were burning issues that were perceived in some way as an existential crisis for higher ed.  And in the last decade there have been plenty of crises of the moment. Certainly Covid was an existential crisis. There were crises related to “Me too” scandals and questions about sexual misconduct and sexual assault on college campuses that were really crucial to acknowledging the age-old problems of securing safety for students and creating an environment free of harassment and free of intimidation. The last year seemed to have very acute challenges, with the protests (over the war in Gaza) and the congressional hearings, but it’s not the first time that colleges have been rocked by challenges.

LW: What excites you about this new role?

I spent a couple of decades covering education and now I’m fighting for it. That, for me, is a wonderful pivot. There’s a lot of work to do. People in this country care about the American dream and getting ahead. And I think they also care about the free exchange of ideas and all those good things that higher education provides for us.  

Learning from President Cauce

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

Ana Mari Cauce has been president of the University of Washington for nine years. During that period, she has steered the public research university through rising rates of mental health issues among college students, a global pandemic, student protests over war and injustice, and declining public faith in higher education. But while these challenges have made many higher education leaders justifiably reticent, Cauce remains forthcoming and remarkably clear.  

In an interview in her office on the Seattle campus, Cauce considers a host of questions within a context drawn from research as well as her own experiences in life. She weaves stories about her family, her early career, and her own education through serious topics like free speech, DEI and careerism in higher education. In doing so, she demonstrates the important skill of learning one’s truth, which has earned her a reputation for being the real deal.

Cauce believes guaranteeing free tuition relieves a psychological barrier for students and families who are fearful of “sticker shock” and the debt students incur as a result. In addition to free tuition, most Husky Promise students receive additional aid to cover cost of attendance, including housing, transportation, and books. However, none are offered aid to cover the full cost of all expenses and are responsible for some costs, although they can be covered through jobs, which can be provided on campus. Cauce says it helps with retention because students have skin in the game and is an important message for taxpayers who support the school.

Low-income students also have a host of supports at UW from basic needs to academic advising. Cauce is adamant that getting in is not enough. “We are serving a class of students that weren’t making it to the university, and they need more help,” she said. The support is paying off. When asked what she is most proud of at UW, Cauce mentions closing the graduation gap. There is very little difference between the school’s Pell-eligible and non-Pell-eligible 6-year graduation rate.

Struggling to pay for college is something Cauce has personal experience with growing up in a college-going home with financial challenges.  Her father was the minister of education in Cuba before the family fled to Florida in the 1960s where he then got a job in a factory. Cauce lived at home and worked while on scholarship at the University of Miami.  Her brother started out in community college and eventually earned a full scholarship to Duke only after a mentor recognized his talent and helped him apply for aid.

“There was no question that we were going to college,” she said. “The real question was how were we going to pay for it. My parents didn’t understand the system.  School was free in Cuba.”

When she graduated from university, Cauce intended to take on the world as an investigative journalist a la Woodward and Bernstein but changed course when a good paying research job emerged in a lab.  Her love of research and human development led her to a career in clinical psychology and a PhD from Yale.

But Cauce says her experience as a minority student in an elite institution left her with “zero self-esteem,” and no doubt contributed to her passion for inclusion.

“I say to students all the time, the world is not small and private. It is big and public,” she said.

Indeed, Cauce’s down-to-earth style is refreshing for someone working in a sector increasingly viewed as out of touch with everyday people. While she defends the support students of marginalized identities receive through DEI programs– “That’s what those offices are there for.  This work must be done” — she is less concerned about how they are organized. She also sees the need to view diversity more broadly.  “I’m not sure higher ed has done a good enough job at that,” she said.

As a clinical psychologist, Cauce addressed the rising rates of mental health issues among students early on in her presidency with increased clinical supports. But in discussing mental health, she also emphasizes the need for coping skills. 

“Nine out of ten times what messes you up is not the problem itself, it is the way you cope with it,” she said.

I say to students all the time, the world is not small and private. It is big and public.

The university has a Resilience Lab which promotes wellbeing through research, education and strategic programs and initiatives. It includes a six-week program which equips participants with cognitive skills to manage stressful emotions and situations, and mindfulness skills to strengthen self-awareness and empathy.

Asked how to create a sense of belonging in a school so large, Cauce says there are myriad ways for students to “find their people” and believes navigating large environments like a public university teaches important life skills.  “I wonder if we don’t do our students a disservice with too much handholding,” she said. 

Cauce is predictably pragmatic on the debate about the value and purpose of college.  “We do have to justify what we’re doing and why it makes a difference if we’re getting public money, and all of us do,” she said. 

As to the question of whether you go to college to get a job or to grow as a person, Cauce said, “I think this idea that it’s careerism versus knowledge for life is a false dichotomy. It’s really important not to be narrow-based in our teaching because we need to be giving people an education where they are life-long learners and informed citizens.  But there is nothing wrong with the fact that our students want jobs. As DuBois said, ‘It’s not just about making a living, it’s about making a life. But if you can’t make a living, you can’t make a life.’”

Ana Mari Cauce will retire from UW in June of 2025.

The Flourishing University

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

What if higher education made student wellbeing a goal on par with graduation rates and GPA’s? That is the organizing vision behind the Flourishing Academic Network (FAN), a group of centers, institutes, and universities across the United States and Canada dedicated to embedding flourishing throughout higher education for the benefit of students, communities and society.

The idea to gather like-minded institutions into a flourishing collaborative grew from the pioneering efforts of four big thinkers at three separate universities. David Germano, a religious historian at the University of Virginia and former Director of the school’s Contemplative Sciences Center, was determined to connect the work he was doing in mindfulness and flourishing to the emerging crisis in college student mental health.

Germano was joined in this purpose by colleagues Richard Davidson, William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry and Director of the Center for Healthy Minds at the University of Wisconsin; Mark Greenberg, former Director of the Prevention Research Center at Pennsylvania State University; and Rob Roeser, the Bennett Pierce Professor of Caring and Compassion at Penn State. The scholars came from different disciplines but shared a common belief that embedding flourishing concepts into the college experience was both a pragmatic approach to addressing mental health issues among students and a moral imperative for higher education.

A major contribution of the alliance was the creation of “The Art and Science of Human Flourishing,” an interdisciplinary course they created that helps students develop skills and perspectives that support individual and collective flourishing, defined as “living a fulfilling life of meaning, purpose and a sense of belonging.” 

The course was launched in 2017 at all three universities. With consistent outcome data showing significant improvement in mental health symptoms among participants, the collaborators soon formed what they called “The Flourishing Academic Network” to welcome more colleges and universities into the learning community. But like so many initiatives thrown off course by the pandemic, the 2020 national conference of interested universities was delayed until 2022. The changes within FAN schools that occurred during that gap brought starts and stops to the new network but the desire to work collaboratively to apply the science of flourishing to the lives of college students remained strong among the group.

While still nascent, the Flourishing Academic Network is now finding its footing with plans for in-person convenings and ongoing collaboration among 20 or so members.  Some believe the current vulnerabilities within the sector may be an opening to include student flourishing as a primary goal of higher education, though not without disruption.

The FAN charter underlying the organization’s mission states, “We believe centering student wellbeing and flourishing, bridging the gap between student affairs and academics, and changing how higher education systems operate and are designed can establish new pathways for flourishing.”

The following is the first in a series of features on FAN member institutions.

The Renée Crown Wellness Institute:

The administrative backbone of the FAN is now at the Renée Crown Wellness Institute at the University of Colorado Boulder.  With a mission “to promote the wellness of young people and the systems and adults who support them through interdisciplinary research-practice partnerships,” the Institute is one of 12 research centers within the university.  It was founded in 2019 just months before the onset of the pandemic and while many organizations immediately shut down, the Crown Institute went to work providing resources that were in high demand. In the fall of 2020, undergraduate students within schools at CU Boulder were required to take a course, developed by the Crown Institute and its collaborators, called “Health, Society and Wellness in COVID-19 Times.” 

Designed by faculty members of diverse disciplines working collaboratively with undergraduate students, the course not only supported the CU Boulder community during stressful times, it put on display the methods and mission of a very different kind of university research institute. 

Some believe the current vulnerabilities within the higher ed sector may be an opening to include student flourishing as a primary goal, though not without disruption. 

Dr. Sona Dimidjian is the Director of the Crown Institute, and a professor in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience at CU Boulder. She has both a PhD in clinical psychology and master’s in social work and worked as a therapist with adolescents for many years. “Our research is really focused on action,” she said. “We are interested in changing systems in classrooms, in healthcare settings, in living rooms and dorm rooms because we want a bigger and faster change in young people’s lives.”

The term the Crown Institute uses to define its work is “interdisciplinary research-practice partnerships.” In this sense, the Crown Institute is less of a lab than it is a workshop where those for whom the research is intended (young people, parents, educators) are involved in solving real world problems. Collaborative design is informed and influenced by the expertise and experiences of community partners who work alongside the university researchers. Its intent is to disseminate and apply that research back into the community and on behalf of the partners who have been engaged.

“We believe that our research products are much more sustainable, meaningful, and equitable when the intended audiences of research are included in the design,” said Dr. Leah Peña Teeters, Outreach and Education Director for the Crown Institute and point person for the FAN at CU Boulder.

The Crown Institute has three research strands: children and young people; families and communities, educators and schools, all of which apply the same approach. Consider “Alma,” a peer-to-peer program for new and expectant mothers who are struggling with anxiety and depression. Moms and their peer mentors meet six to eight times utilizing peer support strategies that are informed by the science of behavioral activation. The Alma team developed the program collaboratively, grounded in Dimidjian’s many years of conducting research on the mental health of parents. In assessing their interventions, Crown Institute researchers have found a significant reduction in anxiety and depression, leading to the program’s expansion in other communities.

The children and young people research strand is at the center of the Institute’s work and its primary connection to the FAN.  Here, active initiatives like The Mindful Campus Program have broad appeal among Gen Z students who, as a cohort, continue to report significant mental health issues. Co-designed with undergraduate students, The Mindful Campus Program aims to increase access to mindfulness and compassion-based practices that have proven to support the mental health and wellness of students.  Other programs include the mind.body. voice. program, which promotes body acceptance, belonging, and leadership while reducing vulnerability to disordered eating among girls and young women in middle, high school, and college. Another program, The CU Well Brainstudy, examines how CU Boulder undergraduates experience wellness and cope with stress.

Each of these initiatives includes the deep participation of young people.  According to the Crown Institute, young people serve as both participants and designers of its work, providing vision and feedback to inform the iterative design of its programs and practices. The Crown Institute directs an Undergraduate Research Fellows Program where Psychology and Neuroscience students begin a three-year research journey at the start of their sophomore year, leading to independent research projects in their senior year.  Students, who are given a stipend to compensate for their time apprenticing and working in research labs, are matched with faculty and work closely with them as mentors.

“We are focused on training the next generation of researchers, scholars, and practitioners with the skill sets that really center wellbeing and flourishing across disciplines,” said Teeters. 

The Crown Institute is less of a lab than it is a workshop where those for whom the research is intended are involved in solving real world problems

Alison Ofori is a third-year integrated physiology major at CU Boulder.  She joined the mind. body.voice. project as a peer facilitator after one of her favorite professors suggested she would be a great addition to the team. As a pre-health student, she had always been interested in doing research but felt like working in a lab or a hospital fell a little flat. 

“When I heard about this opportunity, I was like ‘Yes! this is really different.  I get to work with real people.’”

Orofi is particularly energized by the work she is now doing with high school and middle school girls on external vs internal beliefs. 

“We have the girls come in and engage with our curriculum and we ask specifically tailored questions that help them connect with their mind and then what society may be telling them.  For example, we might ask ‘what do you think the perfect woman is?’  A lot of times they’ll answer first with everything society tells them. And then we’ll reframe the question and ask it based on what they think is suitable for them, not society, and we’ll get different answers.”

Orofi, who is the eldest of three sisters, says the work she has done with the Crown Institute has helped her evolve personally.

“I am very mindful now of how I speak to myself, how I talk to other people,” she said. “What Crown is trying to remind us about is that we all go through these struggles and it’s important to bring some conversation to that.”

Like many institutions within the FAN, the Crown Institute also focuses on the teaching of flourishing through specifically designed curricula.  Dimidjian teaches a course through the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience called Flourishing, Belonging, and Liberation that is anchored in the work of other institutions in the FAN as well as the Mindful Campus Program in the Crown Institute. Specifically, the course is an adaptation of The Art and Science of Human Flourishing course, adapted at the Crown Institute at CU with doctoral student, Caitlin McKimmy, and Professors Donna Meija and Natalie Avalos. It examines psychological science to explore, define, and apply the construct of human flourishing, defined as “an existence filled with wellness, purpose, connection, and justice.” 

Dimidjian says the feedback she receives from the students who take the course is consistently inspiring.  “I have had so many students say to me ‘I’ve never had another class like this in my entire time at college’ or ‘I’ve been waiting for a class like this.’ I had one student say to me ‘I can’t wait to come to this class. No matter how exhausted I may be from work and classes, I always feel rejuvenated.’” 

Dimidjian believes the FAN connections have been important to the design and offering of the flourishing course: “We rely on the expertise and generosity of our friends and colleagues in the FAN. It is exciting to share our learning about how to bring a focus on flourishing into all the facets of our campuses.”

The Crown Institute’s mindfulness work closely aligns with the FAN, which has strong roots in contemplative science. Teeters underscores that mindfulness is only part of the pathway to what she calls “the crosswalk between the inner and outer resources needed for flourishing.”

“We recognize that in human flourishing, we can support individuals with contemplative practices, and we also need the systems change work that supports the creation of more just systems in which to practice and thrive. The two go hand in hand and can be mutually informing.”

Teeters sees her coordinating role for FAN within the Crown Institute as a natural extension of her work in outreach and education. She hopes with more opportunities for interaction and scholarship, each institution will learn from one another and enhance their own work as a result.

“I think there’s a lot to be learned from what works and doesn’t across institutions and across settings and one of our hopes in the next iteration of FAN is to bring more youth and undergraduate voices to the direction and leadership of student flourishing.”

Dimidjian concurred.

“There are amazing colleges and universities represented in the FAN currently and deep dedication among all the individual members to the flourishing of students, staff and faculty on our campuses. This work is just at its beginning in many ways, and I think everyone is enthusiastic about the potential for moving from intention to action.”