More Resources Aren’t Enough 

Colleges and universities have invested significantly in expanding the wellbeing resources available to students — from mental health services and telehealth apps to basic needs programs, financial wellness, recreation, peer support, mindfulness workshops, and more. Yet many campuses continue to struggle with low student awareness and engagement, uneven utilization, and students who wait until they’re in crisis to seek help. As a result, students who may not need clinical care can end up in counseling when their needs may be better addressed elsewhere. That can strain clinical capacity and leave students feeling like the support doesn’t fit. 

When engagement in a wellbeing program is low, the instinct may be to eliminate it, add different programs, or run additional information campaigns. But whether a resource lands with students might have less to do with its existence and more to do with timing and relevance. The right information at the wrong moment will likely miss the students who could benefit most. The deeper problem may not be a lack of resources or information but rather the gap between what’s available and what feels personally relevant, timely, and clear to students. 

The right information at the wrong moment will likely miss the students who could benefit most.

Students are being asked to navigate increasingly complex support systems at the very moment they may be feeling stressed, disconnected, or unsure how to describe what they’re feeling. It’s incredibly difficult for a student (or anyone, really) to name what they need when they’re already feeling overwhelmed or burned out.

For example, a student may know they’re exhausted because they’re not sleeping well. But without an opportunity to reflect, they may not realize that financial stress or a lack of belonging is what’s keeping them awake. Without that clarity, they may focus only on sleep hygiene when the more helpful next step might be financial aid, a campus job, peer support, or a place to build connection.  A long list of resources presented at orientation will not help resolve that uncertainty. It just hands the burden of figuring it all out back to the student, at the exact moment they’re feeling overwhelmed. 

Starting Even Further Upstream

There’s a phrase from the advertising industry that says: “You can’t see the label when you’re inside the jar.” Some of us in the counseling world have borrowed this saying and applied it to our clinical work. When students are swirling around inside the jar, it’s hard for them to name what they need or see what might help. As counselors, we address this by asking the right questions, actively listening, and helping students take a step back, reflect, and untangle the factors that are keeping them stuck in the jar. This process builds agency and helps them put language to their needs and eventually act on them (i.e., climb out of the jar). 

What if we applied this same idea to all students, not just the ones who arrive at the counseling center? What if every student had the time and tools to define wellbeing for themselves, reflect on what feels most pressing, build language to ask for support, and take one meaningful next step? Giving all students this opportunity for upstream reflection and processing offers them clarity, language, and a relevant, manageable next step, helping turn awareness into meaningful action. 

The Limits of Information Delivery

Information about wellbeing topics and available resources is critical for students to have, but knowledge alone doesn’t necessarily help them recognize their own needs or feel ready to seek support. A lot of campuses teach students about topics such as stress, sleep, nutrition, financial wellness, and mental health in hopes that students will remember and apply it later when they need it. But “here’s what we have on campus to take care of your wellbeing” is hard for many students to act on when it’s not top of mind, especially when they’re buried in academic pressure, navigating relationships, or trying to figure out where they belong. Wellbeing also means different things to different students, shaped by their identity, values, and circumstances. A student supporting family back home may define wellbeing very differently than one focused on making new social connections on campus. Starting from an institution’s predetermined definition of wellbeing risks asking students to fit themselves into our framework instead of starting with theirs.

I would argue that a student’s insight does not come from the information or the resource; it’s the reflection that makes the resource personal and relevant. That’s the missing piece, and it’s a chance to build agency and wellbeing literacy before a student ever reaches crisis level.

What Shifting the Approach Looks Like

Side by side, this shift might look like the table below. It’s important to note that the left column isn’t wrong but rather provides necessary groundwork. The issue is that it stops at delivery, whereas the right column first helps lead students to clarity, action, and appropriate resource use.

Common institutional approaches
Upstream, student-centered approach
Tell students about all available resourcesFirst, help students identify what feels most important for their wellbeing now, then share resources that meet their priority
Teach general wellbeing topicsHelp students make personal meaning from that information
Give students a large resource directory
Offer a clear pathway from a named wellbeing priority to one manageable next step, which may include connecting to relevant resources
Treat engagement as a communications and awareness problemTreat engagement as an issue of student clarity, relevance, timing, literacy, and agency

Questions Worth Sitting With

A few questions for anyone considering their approach:

  • Are students simply receiving information, or are they being invited to define wellbeing on their own terms?
  • Are students given time, space, and tools to clarify their wellbeing priorities and needs before they reach overwhelm or crisis?
  • Are students being taught skills for taking clear, manageable action attached to their specific wellbeing priorities?
  • Do students have access to resource wayfinding tools and guidance when they’re not sure where to go for support?

The real barrier isn’t always a shortage of information or resources. Sometimes it’s the gap between a student’s overwhelm and their ability to name what’s actually going on for them, personally. Closing that gap begins even further upstream than most colleges and universities start, with the chance for students to reflect, gain clarity, and turn a vague feeling or daunting challenge into one clear next step. When that’s done well, a resource list stops being something students have to decode completely on their own and becomes something they recognize as relevant to them personally — guiding them to reach out for the help they genuinely need, exactly when it matters most for them.

Anush Hansen is the founder and chief product officer at WellSort. She formerly served as a mental health counselor and wellness educator at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences and the University of New Hampshire. Contact: anush@wellsort.com 

Building Authentic Community with Kristie Norwood 

Kristie Norwood, the counseling director at Hampton University, a historically Black college in Hampton, Virginia, is willing to sound like a broken record when it comes to what the growing number of students attending HBCUs need and want from their education: It’s all about belonging.

In the seven years since Norwood started at Hampton, following a decade-long clinical career working with veterans, she’s seen her home institution transform. Amid a trend of increasing enrollment across HBCUs nationally, Hampton’s surged 46 percent between 2022 and 2025 alone. 

With LearningWell, Norwood offers her perspective on why Black students today may be feeling drawn to Hampton and HBCUs widely, the mental health pressures they continue to grapple with on campus, and how her center is growing and innovating to meet the moment. 

Dr. Norwood is a mental health expert at the Steve Fund, a leading nonprofit dedicated to promoting the mental health and emotional wellbeing of young people, particularly those from underserved and under-resourced communities.  

LW: HBCUs widely, and Hampton in particular, are seeing upticks in enrollment. Has that shift been noticeable in your work, or did it surprise you?

KN: Our president, President Darrell K. Williams, came in about three years ago with this vision around having the number one student experience in America, and part of that vision encompasses mental health and wellbeing. I think that has really set the tone and really galvanized our team. Students coming across the country to college — they want a great education, but they also want other aspects that incorporate wellbeing. They want activities. They want a sense of community. They want to know that many of our students now have had some exposure to mental health care and that the support and resources are here. 

From a student mental health perspective, are there specific factors you think have made HBCUs, and Hampton, most appealing to students lately?  

At Hampton, there’s a really strong sense of community and belonging. For example, each of the classes has its own name, its own identity. There’s this friendly banter — or I would say really, it’s friendly pride — that happens between the classes. Students walk in with this sense of community. The alumni base is also incredible. So while I am not a Hamptonian, I have come to really appreciate and value the connection that students feel to the alumni base. 

“It doesn’t mean that you have to come to an HBCU, but I would offer for other institutions to think about, how are we creating that sense of belonging for Black students?”

There’s a sense that the sociopolitical climate in recent years — school bans on D.E.I., racial violence, discrimination — might be inspiring more interest in HBCUs. Does that align with what you’re seeing and hearing from students?

We do hear students talk about having been connected or grown up in predominantly white spaces and that, for them, it’s really important to seek out an environment where they feel a connection to parts of their culture or they’re around other students where aspects of Black culture are honored and an inherent part of the community experience.

The other piece we have to think about is the impact of the global pandemic. At that point, many of these students were transitioning to high school or in middle school — critical age periods. When you transition to high school, it’s a big transition. So if I didn’t get those typical transition or social skills at that point, now I’m getting them when I’m coming into college, but they might feel a little bit insurmountable. On top of that, during those times, we were witnessing the killings of Black people across the country. So all of those pieces play a role psychologically in belonging. Students may feel that they want to be somewhere where they feel connected and where aspects of heritage and culture are going to be shared — going to be valued. It doesn’t mean that you have to come to an HBCU to have that, but I would offer for other institutions to think about, how are we creating that sense of belonging for Black students?

Do you end up with many students in your office still searching for that sense of belonging?

I think it can be challenging for first-year students. We see many students who are looking for a sense of belonging or just trying to figure out some of those social skills. How do I make friends? How do I maintain these relationships along with workload, with student organizations? I think the other piece is that many of our students may be very connected to their families, so this is the first time they’re away from home. Geographically, there are no HBCUs, for example, in California. So we tend to draw a lot of students from there who desire to attend an HBCU, and then they’re far from home. I think some of those pieces cause students to come in looking for, how do I create belonging? Who am I in this new space without my parents or guardians here, and how do I feel comfortable in this space?

I wonder if you’ve found similarities between working with veterans and now Black college students post-pandemic, maybe especially given your expertise with P.T.S.D.?

For sure. I would say responses to stressors and trauma are definitely existent in both populations and very similar — but also just that transition. Some of the veterans I worked with, they weren’t necessarily fully diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, but that sense of transition was challenging. It was like, no one understands me, even the people closest to me. Sometimes that mirrors our college students, where it’s like, I don’t know if my family understands me. I don’t know if my faculty members understand me. I don’t know if anyone from high school understands me. They’re left feeling lost and then isolated, thinking it’s just them, and it can lead to a spiral. So not to sound like a broken record, but I really think that idea of belonging and an authentic community is so important.

Are there other key mental health needs among Black college students today that you’re seeing but maybe aren’t getting as much attention or aren’t as well understood?

I would say the pressure is a lot, and not just the pressure of being in college, but the pressure of navigating college and also balancing that with expectations. So many of our students are high performers, and many were the salutatorian or the valedictorian during high school. And so trying to navigate that with the questions of, who am I? And who does the world want me to be as a Black human? Who does my family want me to be? Who is safe enough for me to be authentically me? They’re trying to figure these things out as they’re 18 to 22 and their executive functioning, their brains, their frontal lobes are still developing. Those tend to be some parts of the transition that we normalize and help them navigate. 

I think, culturally, some of these messages go back many generations for Black persons, such as you have to continue working hard. Even if you’re suffering, continue to push through it. So I think now we’re working to shift those narratives to help young adults consider their wellbeing. And sometimes that means resting. Sometimes that means stepping back from clubs and organizations. Sometimes that means finding a mentor on campus. It’s about finding your way home to yourself, your health, and your needs. 

And with the increases in enrollment, have you been seeing many more students coming into the counseling center?

We have absolutely seen more students coming into the counseling center, but I would say, at least at Hampton, it’s partially due to enrollment, but there are other factors. We do a fair amount of outreach, and we have also established a bereavement services program and are partnering with New York Life Foundation to try to develop an evidence-based grief program. So I think that has driven students, when they experience a loss, to the counseling center, as well. 

We also have a peer counselor program. Right now, we have about 25 undergraduate student Peer Counselors. They are called counselors, but they’re not licensed clinicians. They’re not seeing heavy-laden mental health concerns, but they are available to provide support, and they’re a great voice. Research shows that when college students have a mental health challenge, they’re likely to report that to a peer first. So peers can be a conduit to help students get to the counseling center and get engaged with a clinician if that’s what they need.

Has it been difficult to keep up with the demand for services? Did the counseling staff also need to grow?

Yes. I was really excited when our new president came on board and added two clinicians to our center. So about three years ago we added an athletics mental health specialist, and then we added an L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ specialist as well. Our partnership with New York Life Foundation also allowed us to hire a bereavement support clinician, as well as a bereavement care manager. So those resources have been tremendously helpful. I think many of my colleagues in higher education, if not all, would say they still need more resources — not just in college counseling centers but in the community in general — but I will say that the resources that we have are really helpful in serving students.

Do you mean mental health resources for the wider Hampton community? 

Yes. At least in Virginia, there’s a shortage of mental health professionals. So the resources versus the demand makes it difficult to make sure that everyone is servicing folks in a timely manner.

Is it a challenge also to find clinicians within that shortage who can provide culturally sensitive care or are trained to work at an HBCU?

I think all accredited programs are expected to have a cultural competence component to them for graduate training, but taking one course is not enough. It’s also ensuring that clinicians engage in their own introspection of their values and biases, that they’re relatable, that they understand college populations, and then also understand some of the unique experiences that come with students who are drawn or enrolled at HBCUs.

Are there ways you’re hoping to expand counseling services?

I would say I have two ideas. Currently, we have SheCare wellness pods through a partnership with the Boris L. Henson Foundation and Kate Spade New York, where we’re able to offer yoga, art therapy, soundbath. It’s a great connection point for integrative wellness, but I would love to expand on that and to see us have not just an integrative wellness center, but a community and belonging-integrated wellness center that really has an intentional community component to it. I also would love to see us be able to have a component that helps service our students who are neurodivergent. That is a population we’re seeing more of in terms of trends. And so it’s important to have select spaces where those students can, again, feel a sense of community and feel a sense of belonging. 

We also share a backyard with the [Veterans Affairs] Medical Center, so my V.A. roots feel really drawn to how we could merge that center with the community and also be able to service veterans who are transitioning out or who just want or need a continued sense of belonging. 

Are there specific benefits that come to mind when you think about what the counseling centers at HBCUs are able to offer?

Many counseling centers actually put a cap on resources. So students may only be eligible for six sessions a year or 12 sessions a year. I have not chosen to move to that model. And part of that is because there’s such a big stigma that exists, particularly within the Black community, around just seeking help in general. And so if a student only gets six sessions, I might spend four of those just talking about the stigma and what it took for them to come into this space. 

I think we can be leaders in the field and in college counseling and talking about, how do you talk about that stigma? How do you eradicate that stigma? How do you normalize mental health? And then what are some of the unique challenges that this population may be experiencing, but maybe we’re not talking about? What are they seeing on social media that might be traumatic? For example, Nolan Wells, that case just came out with the grand jury’s findings. So here it’s a topic of conversation, but there might be other schools where a student might be struggling around that case. Are we creating voice for all of those pieces that students are actively experiencing?

Any other Hampton projects you want to highlight?

I’m really proud. We just hosted the Steve Fund’s 16th Young Growing and Rooted Conference. It was an all-day program, and it was the first time that they held it at an HBCU. So it was really beautiful to watch. We engaged in integrated wellness; we had breakout sessions, held healing circles, and our keynote speaker, Dr. Gina Duncan, an alumna of Hampton and Steve Fund expert, spoke about protective factors. I would love for us to continue programming with the Steve Fund, as well as with some of our other partners, to grow those spaces where we can have such dialogue and impact the campus and community.

You can reach LearningWell Reporter Mollie Ames at mames@learningwellmag.org with comments, ideas, or tips.

Posted in Q&A

Working and Learning 

At the University of Vermont last spring, a business undergraduate student took a hiatus from the classroom and stepped into a full-time job at BETA Technologies, an electric aviation company based near Burlington. The placement was part of the first cohort of a new co-op program at U.V.M.’s Grossman School of Business. At first, the student wasn’t confident, or even sure this was the kind of work he wanted to do. But over several months in financial planning and analysis at BETA, he began leading projects, making presentations, and eventually even training other employees. Now back at U.V.M. for his senior year, the placement was such a success that he continues to work 10 to 20 hours a week for the company.

UVM’s new program is one example of a larger rethinking of where workforce experience meets undergraduate education. Internships and co-ops are not new to higher ed. But today’s A.I.-disrupted workforce gives them new gravity. As employers increasingly look for evidence that applicants are work-ready — and as student families eye R.O.I. — more colleges are expanding internships, co-ops, and apprenticeships to show results with more direct on-ramps into careers. 

Some higher-education thinkers are imagining more fundamental changes, with aspirational models that envision students looping repeatedly between classrooms and the working world, making experiential learning part of the architecture of college rather than one of its offerings. 

Beyond the undergraduate years lies an even bigger question about lifelong learning. Will technological and workforce changes require workers to learn and relearn throughout increasingly long careers? If ongoing retraining is in the cards, should colleges be preparing students to move back and forth between work and ongoing education for life?

Shrinking the Experience Gap

The question of whether new graduates are adequately prepared to join the workforce has become more urgent as the entry-level labor market changes. A.I. can increasingly perform tasks once assigned to junior employees, while employers are asking new hires to arrive with skills — and experience — that previous generations would acquire on the job. 

Dan Hatch is a professor of web design and user experience at Utah Valley University who spent about 25 years in the field before entering academia. Yet for seven summers, he has returned to technology companies as a faculty “extern,” brushing up on industry skills and learning firsthand what his students will need to break into the field. This past summer, he went back with a particular question: How is A.I. changing what students will need to know and removing the entry-level work through which they traditionally gain experience?

Entry-level employees have traditionally gotten their start doing the kinds of basic tasks that allow them to accumulate experience and judgment. Now, Hatch told Inside Higher Ed, “A.I. can eat that stuff for breakfast.” The dilemma he sees is how students break into the business if some junior-level work disappears. 

“What if you could get the skills you needed and then seamlessly re-enter the workforce highway — if you could enter and exit as needed?”

The familiar complaint is that college graduates aren’t prepared for work, but the picture is more nuanced than that. In the National Association of Colleges and Employers’ Job Outlook 2026 survey, 71 percent of employers considered new graduates somewhat well prepared, but only 22 percent considered them very well prepared. Similarly, 42 percent said graduates’ skills were very closely aligned with their hiring needs, while 56 percent called them only partially aligned. Communication, professionalism, and critical thinking remained particular areas for improvement. But in teamwork and technology, students’ experience aligned well with employer expectations.

Ryan Craig, author of “Apprentice Nation,” sees a shift in expectations from the employer side. As managing director of Achieve Partners, he connects young adults with early-career apprenticeships in technology, healthcare, and other industries, and has a front-row seat on the experience gap. “Colleges are doing as good a job as they’ve ever done at equipping students with the cognitive skills and critical thinking skills and communication skills and durable skills,” Craig said. “The problem is that the goalposts have moved.”

Craig calls one of those changes “experience inflation:” Employers increasingly expect applicants for entry-level positions to arrive with relevant work experience. His preferred solution is paid apprenticeships, often as an alternative pathway to traditional higher education, and his firm invests in companies that build such pathways in fields that benefit from a staffing pipeline.

For colleges, that model presents a direct challenge to remain relevant. Could more of that on-the-job experience be built into higher education itself? And what should it look like? 

Putting Work Directly into the Degree

Cooperative education has been doing some version of work-integrated learning for more than a century. The University of Cincinnati pioneered co-op in 1906; Northeastern followed soon afterward, and Drexel and Rochester Institute of Technology developed major programs of their own. 

At established co-op universities, students can move repeatedly between substantial stretches of academic study and professional work, and new programs suggest fresh interest in the structure. U.V.M.’s Grossman School sent its first business co-op students to employers in early 2026. The University at Albany’s Massry School of Business also launched a program this year, built around four-to-five-month paid, full-time placements during an academic semester, after which students return to classes. Rowan University in New Jersey is expanding engineering co-ops that can span six to nine months and earn academic credit. The scale varies dramatically, but the core idea is similar: Give students enough time in a workplace to move beyond observation and begin doing consequential work.

That distinction matters to Stephanie Meunier, director of the Grossman Co-op. U.V.M.’s optional placements run four to six months, rather than the eight or ten weeks typical of many summer internships. In that time, she said, students can get through onboarding, become independent, and take ownership of projects.

Yet U.V.M. also demonstrates how awkwardly substantial work experiences can fit inside a degree still structured primarily around semesters spent in classrooms. Grossman students currently receive a notation on their transcript but no academic credit for the co-op, despite stepping away from classes for the placement. Staying on a four-year path may require students to arrive with A.P. or dual-enrollment credits, carry heavier course loads, or take summer classes. Meunier wants that to change. Her longer-term goal is to integrate co-op into the curriculum and eventually make it a requirement of the business degree.

That raises a strategic question: If students are learning important things while working, how should colleges recognize that learning?

Connie Yowell, the executive director of Northeastern’s Center for the Future of Higher Education and Work, has spent much of her career examining that recognition. In earlier work on digital credentials and the learning network LRNG, she challenged a system in which, as she explained in a 2017 Education Week interview, “the only learning that counts is what happens in school.” Education, she said, instead needs to “allow learning to happen in a variety of places, and for it to count.”

Her work on digital badges — a proposed way to document skills learned outside traditional coursework — grew partly from that problem. If learning occurs at an employer or somewhere else outside a classroom, learners need ways to make what they know visible and portable. Imagine the scouting mindset for careers, minus the sash: This student has achieved this skill through this experience. It could also mean redesigning the relationship between education and work, rather than simply adding a better internship program to a conventional degree.

The Cloverleaf University

Michelle Weise, author of “Long Life Learning: Preparing for Jobs That Don’t Even Exist Yet,” has spent much of her career studying the intersection of postsecondary education and work. Her fundamental question is how an education system built largely around learning first and working afterward can serve people facing repeated job and career transitions over much longer working lives. 

“When I wrote the book, I was struck by the idea of needing to learn for changing jobs going on indefinitely. Early boomers were having 12 job changes by the time they retired. So with all of these technological advancements, we could easily imagine having to do 20 or 30,” Weise said. “How in the world are we going to somehow keep up with this many transitions over a lifetime? We need the university to adjust to this with a new approach. What if you could get the skills you needed and then seamlessly re-enter the workforce highway — if you could enter and exit as needed?”

She has developed those ideas into a model she calls the Cloverleaf University. A learner leaves the workforce on an exit ramp into education, gains knowledge or skills, and then takes an on-ramp back into work. Later, the learner may exit again. Repeated over time, those looping ramps begin to resemble a highway cloverleaf, or a series of them. 

For undergraduates, the concept could mean multiple loops between school and work rather than one transition at graduation or one summer internship near the end of college. Students might study, spend substantial time working, and then return to school with a better understanding of what they know and don’t know, and go out again.

Weise’s Cloverleaf idea is broader than an expanded co-op program. It combines several strands of her thinking: work-based experiences; interdisciplinary learning, organized around complex real-world problems; and a university capable of serving learners not only at 18 or 22 but repeatedly across their working lives.

One reason work experiences matter, she argues, is that they develop something difficult to acquire from instruction alone: practical judgment. With A.I. increasingly capable of performing some technical and entry-level tasks, Weise worries about what happens if young workers lose opportunities to develop judgment by doing the kinds of work beginners have traditionally done. She invokes the Aristotelian concept of phronesis: practical wisdom, or the ability to weigh competing considerations and decide what to do when a problem doesn’t have a tidy answer. That involves technical knowledge but also what are sometimes called soft skills — what Weise prefers to call human skills — developed in the real world and given expansive context by looping in and out of a liberal education. 

“It’s not simply about the technical skills,” Weise said. Students confronting a real problem have to weigh different kinds of information and consider the second-, third- and fourth-order consequences of their decisions. “All of that is the liberal arts. It’s just that it’s in context of a real problem to be solved.”

Opening the Loop

More than a decade ago, designers at Stanford University asked a question that Weise found inspiring: Why should a university education be consumed all at once in sequential classes on campus? In 2013 and 2014, amid the growth of online learning as a disrupter of residential-based education, a Stanford d.school team spent a year imagining possible futures for the university, called Stanford 2025. 

Kelly Schmutte, now the director of undergraduate studies in design at Stanford’s d.school, worked on Stanford 2025 and said the resulting project was intentionally speculative, creating models designed to be thought-provoking — not literally implemented. 

“The project suggested that it would be much more effective to have these periods of learning on campus interspersed with loops of learning that happens out in the world, whether doing research or apprenticing or working,” Schmutte said. “Those perspectives and experiences inform how you approach your education and make you more intentional.”

One proposal was called Open Loop University. Instead of four consecutive undergraduate years followed by graduation, Open Loop imagined students receiving six years of access to Stanford residential learning that could be distributed over a much longer period. Students might study, leave for work or research, return, leave again — and potentially reserve some of that university experience for much later in life.

Schmutte still sees value in that movement. There is value, she said, in “getting off the track and out of your bubble and comfort zone.” Being in a different environment, among different people and ways of working, can “wake up” students, she said, helping them bring better questions back to their education. A loop can focus a student more sharply on an existing interest — or send that student somewhere unexpected.

Another part of Open Loop seems more relevant than ever: lifelong learning. When the concept was developed, its designers could not have anticipated today’s generative A.I. boom. Now, Schmutte said, she can imagine the value of saving a year or two of one’s educational allotment for one’s 50s or 60s, when the technology — and what a worker needs to know — could look dramatically different. Being able to dip back into one’s educational pool would be especially useful at critical junctures of personal flux and industry change. 

Who Builds the Ramps, and When Do You Hang the Degree?

It is easy to draw loops on a diagram. It is considerably harder and more disruptive to redesign a university around them. U.V.M.’s modest new co-op program already encounters questions involving credits, housing, scheduling, and degree completion. A Cloverleaf or Open Loop model would challenge assumptions embedded much more deeply in accreditation, financial aid, university finances, and academic departments, not to mention the question of when, exactly, one’s “education” is considered “earned.”

Existing apprenticeships offer opportunities from diverse arrangements, including many well outside of university degree programs. The number of registered apprenticeships grew by 65 percent between 2014 and 2024, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, to nearly 680,000, but expanding them requires infrastructure that can be expensive and labor-intensive. Employers must provide training and supervision; learners may need advising and other support; and intermediaries are often needed to connect employers, programs, and students. 

Then there is a surprisingly basic problem: What happens if a loop works too well? If a student leaves college for a work experience, fits in effectively, and is offered a good job, what draws that student back to campus to finish the degree? A desirable job on the table now is quite a bird in the hand. At Roger Williams University, for example, the well-connected degree program in Construction Management proves so effective at linking students with workforce experiences that the school boasts a nearly 100 percent graduate employment track record. One administrator at the school jokes that their challenge is luring students back on campus and completion after a lucrative junior summer spent in the field.

For Stanford’s Schmutte, the onus is on colleges to make what happens on campus compelling enough to merit the return. Universities need to help students recognize that they are acquiring more than “discrete pockets of knowledge,” she said. They are acquiring broader capacities and ways of thinking that can transfer across many kinds of work.

Weise responds to the question a bit differently. Perhaps students don’t always need to return immediately. “Why do we need them to get it all on the front end of their work lives?” she asked. A young person might leave, work for several years, and discover both what they like and the ceiling imposed by what they don’t yet know. That moment — recognizing the gap between what you can do and what you want to do — could itself become the reason to return to education. But that only works if returning is worth it.

“The only incentive for someone to come back is to really believe that that learning experience has the signal power that an employer wants,” Weise said. Universities cannot design these systems alone. Employers have to walk the talk that they value the additional learning and allow people to learn without sacrificing income and stature. “There also has to be an implicit promise on the part of employers that if you leave and get ‘trained up,’ they’re going to value that and be open to hiring people who’ve been out of the workforce to pursue that.”

The complexity helps explain why century-old co-op programs aren’t ubiquitous. They also put today’s smaller experiments in perspective. What they demonstrate is that repeated crossing of the boundary between academic and professional life can become part of the structure of a degree. But it requires sophisticated, savvy planning, employer buy-in, and university willingness to step away from the traditional, established way of doing things. 

When it works, it can be revolutionary. “A higher education institution might have a separate arm that is functioning as an intermediary with the employer, saying, ‘What is the unmet need in your company? Let’s backward map from there to what you need, and I’m going to build you that talent pipeline to be able to do your work,’” Weise said. “This has been going on for a long time. It’s just not been very nimble and requires a different way of thinking about partnering with employers, and employers have to have skin in the game.”

Mirroring the Real World

What these models share is an increasing open-mindedness to seeking work experiences early and often, a resourcefulness of where to turn for ongoing learning, and resilience to pivot when things don’t go as planned. This is perhaps a key part of the experiential learning that can be foundational in higher education. U.V.M.’s Meunier believes a meaningful co-op doesn’t have to end with a career commitment to be successful. “One of the biggest learning outcomes could be finding out what you don’t want to do, and what a great way to do it within your academic setting,” she said. “You have the safety of returning to your degree and then trying out something else.” 

In the big picture, a successful work experience is one that allows a student to communicate professionally, exercise judgment, solve problems, and demonstrate how they have used those abilities in the field under the tutelage of a real-world employer. 

For undergraduates like U.V.M.’s student at BETA Technologies, that has already happened on a small scale. When he graduates, he won’t have to convince a prospective employer that he might be able to do that kind of work. To some extent, he already has.

A Course for Healthy Minds

As a first-year student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Lamont Johnson decided to take a chance on a class called The Art and Science of Human Flourishing. He thought the elective might be an interesting, if not particularly relevant, addition to his coursework in the Wisconsin School of Business. Now in his senior year, Johnson credits the class with providing the scaffolding he needed to make it through college. 

“I was an 18-year-old kid who had just arrived on a campus of 50,000 students,” he said. “The skills I gained in that class helped me navigate every aspect of college life over these past years including creating and fostering relationships with my peers, my professors, even the co-workers at my internship.” 

The Art and Science of Human Flourishing (A.S.H.F) is an interdisciplinary, credit-bearing course that combines science, philosophy, contemplative practices, and experiential learning to teach students how to flourish. It was developed at U.W.’s Center for Healthy Minds, a neuroscience research center that is world-renowned for its examination of wellbeing. The course grew out of the work of the center’s founder, Richard Davidson, and John Dunne, along with colleagues David Germano of the University of Virginia and Robert Roeser and Mark Greenberg, who were at the University of Pennsylvania. (Roeser is now at Emory University.)

The scientists and scholars developed the course in the mid-2010s in response to the rising rates of mental health issues students were reporting and colleges and universities were struggling to treat. The theory was that by bringing evidence and practices on the concept of flourishing directly to the students, all would benefit, including those that had either preventable or typical problems. 

What began as an antidote to a national mental health problem has become somewhat of a phenomenon in teaching and learning. The course at U.W. was launched as a pilot in 2017 with around 50 students and has grown into a lecture-style class with a cap of 300. But it’s not just the students who are clamoring to participate. Faculty from throughout the university, and throughout the country, have consistently reached out to the center hoping to learn how to teach it. 

What began as an antidote to a national mental health problem has become somewhat of a phenomenon in teaching and learning.

After four years of hosting in-person “train-the-trainer” workshops, the Center for Healthy Minds has recently made the course available on edX, an online learning platform that provides university-level courses and programs. The 14-week course called The Art and Science of Human Flourishing: Essentials for Educators mirrors the student-facing curriculum in an effort to give educators anywhere a digital front-row seat to how transformative the program can be. The course’s growth from laboratory to universal learning platform reflects the fact that when high demand meets good science, anything is possible. 

“What they were doing in Madison was really quite extraordinary,” said Kate Mondloch, a professor of art history at the University of Oregon. 

Scaling flourishing

The A.S.H.F. course at U.W. may have remained limited to a small, curious cohort had it not been for Susan Huber. In 2019, Huber was hired by the Center for Healthy Minds to be the program manager for what was then the pilot version. Her job was to bring the course through the campus process that would allow it to become permanent. By 2020, it was offered by design to first-year students as a credit-bearing elective. 

Huber said the A.S.H.F. course’s enduring appeal is the science and evidence-based practices within — what its architects call the psychological wellbeing framework. The acronym is A.C.I.P. — awareness, connection, insight and purpose — reflecting the four, core dimensions of human flourishing the center determined can be cultivated. 

“It’s really an academic approach to supporting student mental health so students can understand the science behind their own wellbeing,” Huber said. 

The course itself is a combination of didactic and procedural learning — both listening to lectures and participating in experiential exercises. These include meditative and contemplative practices, journal writing, and activities like “the values exercise,” where students narrow down a list of 100 or so values until they choose the one or ones that most resonate for them. 

In participating in the activity, Nicholas Shashko, now a senior at U.W., chose integrity. “I learned something about myself in that 10-minute exercise,” he said. “When I figured out my value, it changed how I acted the rest of that first year — who I made friends with, the clubs I wanted to join. It shaped my whole college experience, and I don’t think I can say that about a lot of courses.” 

Shashko, and Lamont Johnson, are student ambassadors at the Center for Healthy Minds and work with Huber and others in promoting the course on campus and beyond. Anecdotes directly from students on how they were impacted by the course may be the best qualitative evidence the center can provide. Student testimonial videos are included in the new edX course, not so much to pitch the program but to illustrate the different ways it influences students’ development. 

Both Shashko and Johnson said they appreciated the fact that instructors established early on that flourishing would mean something different for every student who participated. “It is not like they say, ‘Here’s what flourishing is — go do this,’” Shashko said. “It is more of a guide for you to find your own definition, to find your own place on campus. They give you the tools and the skills to discover your own community.” 

Johnson recalled how during one lesson on resilience, the instructor introduced a new term, “transilience,” which means a state of becoming or moving forward. “He told us we need to recognize that not everyone comes from a background of flourishing and that many people have significant roadblocks. I was struck by that because it showed me they were looking at this from an equity perspective.” 

Johnson, who is African American, had come to U.W. from a high school with fewer resources and less rigorous curricula, adding a layer of both emotional and academic challenges. “There were times when I felt as though I didn’t belong here,” he said. “The course really helped me navigate all of that, and here I am a senior. I never thought I would make it.” 

Asked whether he thinks of A.S.H.F. as a mental health course, Shashko said, “I generally don’t use the word mental health in describing it because it’s meant to be about flourishing, which is more about finding yourself. But when you go through that process, you gain a lot of skills that might prevent mental health problems.” 

“That research report showed that you could teach this course at three different institutions with different instructors, and the results were consistent. After that, things really started to explode.”

While the students might not identify the program as a mental health intervention, research conducted on the course provides evidence of its efficacy in that realm. A 2022 multi-university study published in Mindfulness showed that A.S.H.F. participants reported improved mental health, flourishing, attention, social-emotional skills, and pro-social attitudes compared to the control group. 

“That research report showed that you could teach this course at three different institutions with different instructors, and the results were consistent,” Huber said. “After that, things really started to explode.” 

By 2023, Huber and her team were bombarded with requests from schools throughout the country hoping to bring the course to their campuses. They decided early on not to make an online version of the student-facing course so as not to restrict its community-building element. Instead, they chose to scale the faculty training — first by opening it up to anyone who could come to U.W.–Madison to take the faculty workshop, and then, this year, by making it available on edX. 

After four years of experimentation at U.W. and other schools, Huber and her team are confident the course is universally adaptable. Faculty can either teach A.S.H.F. as is or incorporate its elements into existing courses, as many faculty have done. Katie Pavek, a professor of nursing at U.W., took the faculty workshop to learn how to help her students adjust to the stressors of the profession — something she, as a nurse, had been challenged with. 

“Because it is based on science and had been developed at the Center for Healthy Minds, I was immediately sold,” she said. “They gave us tangible tools and resources to take back to our classrooms and adapt to our own disciplines.” Pavek took the building blocks — the modules, units and concepts — and developed a course called U-Flourish designed specifically for health sciences students. 

Like Pavek, University of Oregon’s Kate Mondloch participated in the faculty workshop to understand how to support her students who she observed to be increasingly despondent, particularly after the pandemic. Mondloch then decided to teach A.S.H.F. as a first-year elective satisfying the Introduction to the Liberal Arts requirement. Where A.S.H.F. is held in a large lecture hall at U.W., Mondloch teaches it as a small seminar of 20 or so students. 

“I really know my students well,” she said. “They are really hungry to talk about issues that matter, like how to be human in today’s world.”

Huber sees The Art and Science of Human Flourishing: Essentials for Educators edX course as a critical juncture in the center’s effort to help students anywhere thrive in an increasingly complex world. But the choice to offer it online, and the year-long effort it took to develop that option, did not come easily, particularly for advocates of human interaction and community connection. 

Huber’s response was to make the course as true to the actual experience of students and faculty as possible. “We have seven or eight modules, and we essentially mirror the student-facing course with topics like what does it mean to be part of a community — giving them examples, live events with experts, and lots of opportunity to talk with instructors and each other.” 

Elizabeth Morse, the director of interprofessional flourishing and an associate professor of nursing at Belmont University in Nashville, has just finished the course’s first offering. She said she was struck by how interpersonal and authentic it felt. 

“It was like we got back-stage passes to everything they had done, including what worked well and what didn’t,” she said. “We got to experience the content through multiple different faculty and student perspectives and were repeatedly encouraged to infuse our own voice, perspective, and experience to the students in our unique contexts — to keep it authentic and impactful for students. This was empowering.”

In explaining what she liked most about the course, Morse identified a benefit even its original designers may not have anticipated. “The community that emerged through this course was unexpectedly impactful. Engaging with creative and dedicated educators from across the country reminded me why I entered academic healthcare in the first place. The experience brought fresh energy, inspiration, and purpose to my work in healthcare education ”

You can reach LearningWell Editor Marjorie Malpiede at mmalpiede@learningwellmag.org with comments, ideas, or tips.

Analog U 

The video opens to a young woman stepping into an elevator, head down to her phone. “This is Cory,” an invisible narrator tells us. Cory is a college student who’s been trying to cut down on her screen time. But she’s about to face the ultimate test of resistance: an elevator ride on campus with a stranger. Can she stay strong? 

As another student enters, Cory slowly slips her phone into her back pocket. Her eyes go wide as the doors slide closed. “Don’t just stand there in silence, Cory,” the narrator encourages her. “Do hard things!” After a bit more prompting, our heroine finds her nerve and asks her new companion about the matcha tea she’s sipping. Within seconds, the two are bonding over café recommendations and their mutually dwindling caffeine budgets. They’re giggling, as they walk out of the elevator in the same direction. “Wait, are you also in Econ 101?” Cory asks. Meanwhile, the image fades, and text appears: “NYU IRL. Less phone, more friends.”

NYU IRL is the university-wide campaign New York University announced in January to promote time spent “in real life,” as opposed to online. In addition to masterminding Cory’s skit, which appeared on the university Instagram on September 9, NYU IRL encompasses a range of other educational resources and device-free spaces and programming. The driving concept is that everyone on campus could benefit from some help establishing a healthier relationship with their devices — that we’ve all been Cory in the proverbial (and literal) elevator, itching to look down at our phone rather than engage with the world around us, especially other people.

With the new school year has come announcements of several colleges and universities starting similar initiatives to help students log off and look up. Harvard and Boston University are distributing special pouches in which students can lock their phones away for device-free socializing. The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill is organizing cohorts to implement a screen time-limiting tool and meet regularly throughout the semester to discuss the experience. Cornell kicked off a weeklong effort to decrease tech use campus-wide. 

We appear to be universally bugged, disturbed, by the sense that our devices became our favorite shield from uncomfortable interaction and, in the process, we’re depriving ourselves of the necessary experiences of life.

At N.Y.U., the approach has managed to differentiate itself as one of the first and most sprawling. The directive comes from the top, with President Linda Mills and Counselor to the President Kristie Patten, and reaches all three global campuses: New York, Shanghai, and Abu Dhabi. “We realized as the largest private university, with the real global reach, that we could do something very focused and at broad scale,” Patten said. Now six months in, and with programming continuing to pick up, NYU IRL seems primed to lead the charge of colleges eager to find out whether students can indeed feel better, phone-free. 

Doomed to scroll?

The “why” of all this analog enthusiasm may seem obvious. We’re not just seeing it at universities, after all. It’s on display in cafes with no-laptop policies, restaurants and concerts asking visitors to check their phones at the door, and state-enforced phone bans at schools nationwide. We appear to be universally bugged, disturbed, by the sense that our devices became our favorite shield from uncomfortable interaction and, in the process, we’re depriving ourselves of the necessary experiences of life. We’re so familiar with the doom of the scroll that we rarely talk about the one without the other. It’s just, we can’t seem to stop.

Recent lawsuits and ongoing anti-tech movements give credence to these concerns, particularly for young people. Last month, Meta agreed in a settlement to pay up to $17 billion after a consortium of states alleged the tech giant promoted its apps to children despite knowing the platforms were addictive and potentially harmful. Thousands of other cases accusing social media companies of similar wrongdoing are in progress. Attention activism has emerged as an explicit fight to reclaim humanity from the grips of a trillion-dollar industry profiting off the commodification of our attention.   

One of the most well-known experts to address the social-emotional injury of tech for youth is, not coincidentally, a professor at N.Y.U. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist, wrote the 2024 best-seller “The Anxious Generation,” which links the dawn of the smartphone to the rampant mental health issues now affecting young people. Childhood, he contends, has been “rewired” since its shift from being play-based to phone-based. Specifically, it has forced children to confront what he calls the “four foundational harms:” social deprivation, sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, and addiction. 

It’s worth noting that not everyone is convinced by Haidt’s pitch. A common critique of his argument is that it is based on a questionable analysis of the data. Other scientists suggest the dual escalation of smartphone use and mental health problems indicate correlation, but not causation. In fact, a dossier of studies has shown “no, small, or mixed” results as to how or whether tech and social media impact wellbeing. A combination of other factors may also be at play, among them exposure to violence, discrimination, financial concerns, and social isolation.

But whether tech is the central culprit in the so-called youth mental health crisis, many young people do seem compelled to distance themselves from their phones, and report relief when they do. At N.Y.U., it was students, some of whom were inspired by a class with Professor Haidt, who reduced their screen time and then approached administrators about finding a way to help others do the same. “They just named numerous benefits to this that they really felt that the greater N.Y.U. community could benefit from,” Kristie Patten, the counselor to the president, said of the students in a focus group she led. 

The initiative that has since become NYU IRL continues to be “led by and for students,” Patten said. And as it came together, the guiding question was how to increase the scope and engage people from every corner of campus. A partnership with the Center for Teaching and Learning developed to create resources and learning communities for faculty on limiting tech in the classroom. A designated device-free space, called the NEST, was built out in the Greenwich Village student center, The Kimmel Center for University Life. Similar spaces emerged in Shanghai and Abu-Dhabi. A calendar of device-free events and programming advertises meditation sessions and crafting of all kinds. 

On a cold day in April, more than 200 N.Y.U. students turned out for an outdoor dinner event, Around the Longest Table, in which they sat for a phone-free meal around a single, 0.1-mile-long table, stretched down a street in Manhattan. This September, as part of N.Y.U. Welcome week, Patten said around 1,300 first-years attended a student-organized dance party where they were asked to cover their phone screens and cameras with stickers. In less than two weeks, the N.Y.U. Phone Breakup Challenge will begin, encouraging students to reset their relationships with their phones over 30 days of assignments and incentives designed by Catherine Price, a colleague of Jonathan Haidt and the author of “How to Break Up with Your Phone.” 

In the end, for the wellbeing professionals, the goal may be less about the success of specific activities or initiatives and more about whether, over time, healthier tech habits become part of the wider campus culture.

Hundreds are showing up to these phone-free events, but there’s reason to believe the NYU IRL marketing team still has their job cut out for them. Students on the street outside the Kimmel Center, where the device-free NEST lives, recently expressed mixed awareness of the IRL campaign. Some said they had heard about it broadly, but not about the NEST, or vice versa. One was familiar with both, and another neither. No one had actually spent time in the NEST, though several were interested. A sophomore commented wistfully on how people used to connect more in person when she was growing up. A recent graduate said she didn’t make friends easily and figured the NEST could have been helpful when she was a new student. Another underclassman was intrigued by the option but felt she had too much else on her plate to reasonably go. 

It is possible that, as with most activities, the already-converted are showing up, while those on the margins remain difficult to reach. Carrie Landa, the executive director of Student Wellbeing at Boston University, said she has heard from students that they are eager for device-free spaces — but they’re conflicted, too. They appreciate how their phones connect them with friends and peers and worry that being too offline may cause them to miss out. Landa is taking these mixed feelings into account as she promotes her own device-free effort, BU Unplugged, using Yondr pouches that students slip their phones into and can only unlock with a specific magnetic key. “Creating messaging for something like this is hard,” she said, “because we want to acknowledge the loss while also acknowledging and reminding students of the gain.”

The task being asked of these students isn’t simple. After all, if it were, Patten said, we’d all have changed our ways by now. Zoe Ragouzeos, N.Y.U.’s vice president for student mental health and wellbeing, said she imagines it will take time and experience for students to begin to truly shift their behaviors. So while N.Y.U. can continue gauging interest in IRL activities based on the number of attendees, tracking the impact on their tech use may be more complicated and drawn out. At this point, the primary measurement tool appears to be pre- and post-surveys on tech habits and attitudes that will bookend the school year and specific IRL activities, like the upcoming Phone Breakup Challenge.

In the end, for the wellbeing professionals, the goal may be less about the success of specific activities or initiatives and more about whether, over time, healthier tech habits become part of the wider campus culture. Ragouzeos said her intention when students angst over screen time or social media comparisons is to help them think about other (offline) activities they could do instead. Could they take a walk, meditate, exercise, eat, or sleep — find some other way to pass the time or de-stress that doesn’t involve their phone? To her, hearing an N.Y.U. student simply took a break from the library by getting fresh air rather than getting on the phone would be a triumph. 

Ragouzeos doesn’t need students to be able to pinpoint the exact moment or IRL experience that taught them a new skill or lesson, she said. “But that instinct to take a break in ways that don’t include checking out with the phone, to me, is going to be how we measure our success.”

You can reach LearningWell Reporter Mollie Ames at mames@learningwellmag.org with comments, ideas, or tips.

Transformative Education with Michele Murray

On this month’s episode of LearningWell Radio, Michele Murray, the new president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, discusses the benefits of its long-standing approach to education and where it is headed during a time of significant change in higher education.

Listen now on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

You can reach LearningWell Editor Marjorie Malpiede at mmalpiede@learningwellmag.org with comments, ideas, or tips.

Learning to Thrive 

At the opening ceremony of Emory University’s ADVANCE program, students are asked to write down two things: something they want to gain from the experience and something they want to leave behind. After taking what is called “a walk of intentionality” at the camp where the program is held, students dispose of thing two — literally, by throwing the paper away — while sharing thing one aloud with their peers. And thus begins their five-day adventure in learning to live purposefully. 

The ADVANCE program is part of the Emory Purpose Project, which, in turn, is a major component of Emory’s Student Flourishing Initiative, one of higher education’s most explicit efforts to graduate students who thrive personally as well as academically. At Emory, the initiative is as transparent about what it discourages as what it promotes. For a highly selective university where a significant portion of the students choose “pre-health” majors, the Student Flourishing Initiative encourages students to see their college experience as more than just a credentialing exercise. 

“The initiative was a recognition that college shouldn’t only be about gaining knowledge, but also gaining wisdom,” said Ira Bedzow, the executive director of the Emory Purpose Project and one of the original creators of the Student Flourishing Initiative. “This involves having an understanding of who you are, who you want to be, and how you can achieve those possible selves in a way where success is internally measured as opposed to being based on societal or external expectations.”

Launched in 2021 under then-President Gregory Fenves, the Student Flourishing Initiative became a university-wide imperative as well as the flagship effort of a capital campaign of the same name. Spearheaded by then-Provost Ravi Balakanda (now president of Ohio State University), it was a demonstration of Emory’s commitment to undergraduate education at a time when college students nationally were reporting high levels of mental health struggles. 

“A lot of students will engage with the Emory Purpose Project because they are starting to feel that itch of ‘Okay, I’m doing everything right, but this success doesn’t feel good.’”

Wellbeing remains a strong component of the initiative, but it was designed to be much broader than a response to mental health. In embedding flourishing into all facets of the university, including academics, Emory’s Student Flourishing Initiative is an ambitious experiment in institutional change and one that challenges many of higher education’s longstanding practices. Now in its fifth year under a new administration, leaders hope that the many individual gains that have been made within the initiative will compound to create lasting change. 

The flourishing foundation

According to Bedzow, the first task in launching the Student Flourishing Initiative was to describe and communicate what flourishing means at Emory and then make something with “top-down recognition” a “bottom-up creation.” 

“In order to get students to reflect on who they are becoming, we needed to understand how we are teaching,” he said. “What does the culture and the ethos on campus look like? How are students taking care of themselves –— mind, body, and soul? And how do we look at this from both inside and outside of the classroom?”

The initiative’s leadership team explored frameworks for flourishing, including from the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues at the University of Birmingham which describes flourishing as not simply feeling happy but fulfilling one’s potential. They arrived at four components of university life that would from then on include an intentional focus on flourishing. Together, they covered curricular and co-curricular elements such as academics, career development, experiential learning, and health and personal growth. They called them: The Academic Experience, Professional Pathways, Purpose and Meaning and Community and Well-Being. 

Within each of these umbrellas there are numerous efforts underway including student flourishing fellows who receive training in active listening, empathy, dialogue and relationship-building and act as campus ambassadors; and wellbeing coaches who provide non-clinical support on emotional and physical health. 

Student participants in ADVANCE get to know each other, and themselves. Photo courtesy of Ira Bedzow

The Purpose and Meaning pillar of the initiative provides its philosophical foundation and is best represented by the Emory Purpose Project. According to its web site, “the project encourages students to examine their beliefs, values, goals, identity, and motivations — and then connect those reflections to their academic, personal, and professional choices.” Bedzow said it calls on students to reframe purpose as a practice, not just an outcome.

Bedzow, who is an ethicist and teaches in the Goizueta Business School, helps students discover their “why,” getting them to explore the reasons behind their goals so that they might better align with who they are or who they want to be. It is in many ways a response to what he sees as misaligned or externally driven influences, in which feelings of inauthenticity can limit wellbeing.

“A lot of students will engage with the Emory Purpose Project because they are starting to feel that itch of ‘Okay, I’m doing everything right, but this success doesn’t feel good,’” he said. 

The ADVANCE program (named to be the opposite of a retreat) is the flagship initiative within the Emory Purpose Project. It is described as a chosen interruption for students to think of themselves beyond productivity, achievement, or future outcomes. The latter half of the five-day retreat includes “stories we tell ourselves,” which Bedzow described as a way to understand how we create or limit how we grow based on the identities we form. 

Some of the exercises may be a little unorthodox for students who are used to controlling their environments, but Bedzow said straying outside of their comfort zone is actually the point. The program’s demand reflects the fact that a fair number of students are willing to try. 

One component of the Student Flourishing Initiative that crosses the purpose and academic domains is the Purposeful Teaching Fellowship, a cohort of self-selecting faculty who are learning how to develop a course that promotes student flourishing. Bedzow said he and others turned to the Center for Faculty Development and Excellence to workshop the idea, hoping to create a “contagion of desire” for professors who see the value of student-centered learning. 

Coincidentally, one of the instructors, Liesl Wuest, who is the director of learning design and leadership at the Center, had already been thinking about how to design a course based on elements of flourishing. Her faculty partners included professionals from different departments within the university, including Wesley Longhofer, who is the center’s director and Emory’s assistant vice provost for faculty affairs. 

“We were really curious about how to design a course that supports student agency — that helps them build confidence and supports their wellbeing,” Longhofer said. 

In doing her research, Wuest developed the Purposeful Course Design Model that includes course alignment, design for learning, and design for flourishing. The design for flourishing branch is based on self-determination theory which is predicated on three principles: student autonomy, readiness, and competence. 

Now in its fourth semester, the fellowship is taught over six weeks, every Friday morning for two to three hours. While the fellows receive a stipend, Wuest believes their time is more of a commodity and a better indication of their commitment. Because the course guides faculty fellows in incorporating elements of self-determination theory into their existing courses, it was critical it be flexible enough to appeal to faculty of all disciplines. 

“Some classes have a lot of space to give students choice in what they read or how they participate or how they are assessed whereas others, like the professional schools, have a very tight curriculum,” Wuest said. “Supporting autonomy might look more like empathizing with students or being transparent about how decisions are made” 

Wuest described one class where a language instructor gave students ample opportunities to work together while she set high expectations and gave rigorous assignments. The focus group with students at the end of the course revealed some surprising perspectives. 

“A lot of the students said it was the hardest class they took at Emory, but because they felt like they were in it together, where there was no competition, it made a big difference in their learning experience,” she said. “What really came through was how they had made friends.”

While some of the programs within the Student Flourishing Initiative were new to Emory, others had either existed or were emerging alongside the initiative. One notable innovation was the Emory College Pathways Center, founded in 2022.

“The Student Flourishing Initiative took advantage of very organic grassroots efforts that were happening at the university that needed some coherence and infrastructure around them,” said Branden Grimmett, the inaugural vice provost and associate dean overseeing the Pathways Center. 

The Pathways Center is both a concept and a building predicated on making career development at Emory a student-centered, holistic experience. Its very existence speaks to the university’s effort to help students navigate the many components of their career readiness so they may focus on their education.

“One of the things we do here is reduce the navigational energy that students have to use by putting everything in one place — things like internships, undergraduate research, advising around pre-professional directions, thinking about post-graduate fellowships like Fulbright, Marshall and Rhodes,” Grimmett said. “It is all here, including funding for these opportunities.” 

“For me, education has never been transactional. It’s always been about who our students are becoming, not what they are doing.”

The Center is also curricular in that it offers practical courses on internships or how to conduct research. It is aligned with a required 13-week first-year seminar that helps students develop their college identities and to begin thinking about the world of work. All of this supports Emory’s experiential learning requirement that can be fulfilled through internships, research, study abroad, community-engaged learning, or the applied arts. 

The Pathways Center strives to humanize the student career journey, encouraging students to connect with alumni not just for networking purposes but to gain real-world wisdom. As part of the second-year Sophomore Summit, students from the Atlanta and Oxford campuses (45 minutes away from each other) spend 24 hours together at a camp site where they hear stories of resilience and overcoming obstacles. The experiences are shared by alumni just five years out of school, upper class students, and faculty. One professor talked of the responsibility of becoming a caregiver at 12 years old to an epileptic parent. Another spoke of the challenges of establishing herself in academia as a young Black woman. 

While not seeming so on the surface, these attempts at understanding faculty and classmates as people are all part of preparing for life after college, Grimmett said. He himself is a classically trained pianist and has been a producer on Broadway. He believes non-linear pathways are more effective in preparing students for the twists and turns of the real world. “For me, education has never been transactional,” he said. “It’s always been about who our students are becoming, not what they are doing.”

Five years into the initiative, leaders of different programs within it have collected some data on outcomes, though understanding if this grand experiment really worked is hard to know. The efforts within the Student Flourishing Initiative are meant to build on one another, creating a cumulative effect that is strong but subtle. Bedzow said even the students themselves may not recognize they are participating in something bigger. 

“If we made flourishing so explicit for students, then it becomes a shiny object as opposed to the waters they are swimming in,” he said. 

The question that remains is knowing if these efforts have grown deep enough roots to withstand leadership transitions or priority shifts. This is a particular dilemma in higher education where flashy campaigns can quickly fizzle out with new administrations. At Emory, many of the original leaders of the initiative have moved on to other positions or institutions, though the hope is their original work will continue to bear fruit. 

Asked if he sees or feels a difference on campus since the initiative was launched, Bedzow shared the following: “I wake up every day excited to meet with students, faculty, and staff because I experience firsthand how inspiring and motivating it can be to work intentionally toward creating environments in which people can thrive. Most of all, I am excited by students who are developing the language and practices they need to become the people they choose to be.”

You can reach LearningWell Editor Marjorie Malpiede at mmalpiede@learningwellmag.org with comments, ideas, or tips.

Don’t Silo Transfer Students. Bring Us into the Fold. 

When I received my admission letter to Georgetown, I was filled with a myriad of emotions and questions as I considered accepting the offer. Most stemmed from the same fear: How would I adapt to a new school environment as a junior transfer student? Reddit was filled with warnings — that it’s hard to find community, hard to catch up. I read every thread I could find before setting foot on campus, and they weren’t wrong, exactly. They just weren’t the whole story.

After arriving at Georgetown with my new identity — a “transfer” — I realized what I really wanted was to blend in. That meant somehow gaining, in a different way, the advantage of those first two years: the friend groups, the campus knowledge, the sense of already knowing how things worked. What I did not want was to be handed a separate track labeled “for transfers,” another thing to set me apart before I had even unpacked my dorm room. The real story, it turned out, was not that Georgetown lacked support for transfer students. It was that by treating us like any other incoming student, the school managed to cultivate a genuine sense of inclusion.

After arriving at Georgetown with my new identity — a “transfer” — I realized what I really wanted was to blend in.

It’s true that the logistics of transferring can be a nightmare. For me, it involved tedious tasks like credit audits that required digging up old syllabi or tracking down past professors. But that’s just the beginning. Once my credits were approved (not all, of course), I had to get acquainted with Georgetown’s core curriculum on my own. Figuring out the intricacies of my intended major meant scouring through a multitude of PDFs. How else would I have learned that finance electives are half-semester classes and some are only taught in the fall or spring, not both? Then came class registration, where I found that most of the courses, both inside and outside the business school, were already full, waitlists included. My schedule wasn’t what I wanted. Who willingly signs up for an 8:00 a.m. accounting class? 

Another big worry that manifested was the social gap. Although subtle, it was very present. First-years bond, partly because everyone is new at the same time. When they get to their second or third year, that sense of novelty tends to wear off. Transfers come into a class that has already built a year’s worth of shared experiences, whether in run-down freshman-year dorms or eating questionable food at the dining hall. I found people to be generally friendly, but the divide showed most clearly in Georgetown’s extracurricular club culture, where “recruiting” targets the first- and second-year classes.

Another big worry that manifested was the social gap. Although subtle, it was very present.

Thankfully, I was part of the Business Undergraduates Invested in Leadership Development (BUILD — note: Georgetown loves its abbreviations), a pre-orientation program at the McDonough School of Business open to incoming first-years and transfers alike. It was the first thing that made this all feel manageable. BUILD gave me something no Reddit thread could: an insider’s view of how the business school actually worked. Professors lectured on their own departments and the majors they offered, which is where my interest in international business first took shape. Days were filled with helpful workshops (like one on resume formatting, whose guidance I still use today) and site visits to companies like Deloitte and Boeing. It’s also where I learned about the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship, which I applied for and completed the following summer. 

Most importantly, at BUILD, I connected with new people, most of whom weren’t transfer students. I met not only incoming first-years but my mentor and coordinators in my own grade, all of whom were happy to talk about their own experiences and help out wherever they could. They took me out for coffee chats to learn more about clubs that interested me, and I got feedback on my applications from current members once recruiting season started. I wasn’t navigating these applications blind; walking into that process already knowing people who could talk me through it mattered more than I expected. The connections made that week stuck. Additional programming like intramural soccer kept me connected to the cohort (we lost in the playoffs… yet it’s one of my favorite memories from that fall semester).

Transfers make up a small share of BUILD’s cohort, but the program never made me feel like an afterthought. Part of that comes down to design choices most transfer-specific programming doesn’t make. Georgetown has a transfer community, too, with a council that hosts events connecting new transfers to each other. These spaces matter, but community with other transfers isn’t the same as being woven into the broader student body, and it’s not the thing most people struggle to find. 

What helped me most was BUILD’s mentor structure: two or three students per mentor, someone with enough bandwidth to actually answer questions or point me toward someone else who could. Compare that to new student orientation, which every transfer technically gets to attend. The ratio there is closer to two student volunteers for every fifteen new students, and the cohort isn’t a small group you get to know; it’s the entire incoming class. It’s no surprise that most transfers I knew skipped the bulk of it. BUILD, by contrast, caps its cohort at forty students and requires an application, so the people in the room actually want to be there. 

None of this was built with transfers specifically in mind. BUILD exists for anyone new to the business school, transfer or not, and that’s exactly what makes it work so well for us. The program isn’t solving “the transfer problem.” It’s just built well enough — small mentor ratios, a selective cohort, programming that runs all year instead of one week — that transfers benefit from the same design that helps everyone else. 

That’s the model worth copying: not a separate track designed “for transfers” but programs sized and structured so that anyone new, whatever kind of new, gets seen. I loved my BUILD experience so much that I came back the following year as a mentor.

Jorge Mendoza Castro graduated from Georgetown University in 2025. He studied finance and international business.

“Size Me Up,” PJ Bekkali

In this story, P.J. leans into the tactile metaphor of “who wears the pants” – exploring their inner swagger while also precariously navigating both gender and family constraints. P.J. bring us into a world where the circumstances of self-expression feel neither easy nor fully realized, reminding us of both the pain and the courage involved in tailoring an identity that fits.

This story was produced in partnership with the University of Connecticut Humanities Institute for their Story Slam centered on a university-wide theme of Connection and Disconnection.

A Handbook for Student Flourishing

College students are increasingly willing to talk about their mental health and wellbeing — but the adults in their world don’t always know what to do with that willingness. How can a college community better help students build relationships, recover from failure, take risks, and develop the skills to flourish long after graduation? 

Those questions are at the heart of the newly published “The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being in Higher Education,” co-edited at Purdue University by Beth McCuskey, the vice provost for student life, and Louis Tay, the William C. Byham Chair in Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Drawing on the work of more than 120 researchers and practitioners around the world, the handbook looks at wellbeing across the higher-ed ecosystem. LearningWell spoke with McCuskey and Tay just before the release of the handbook to discuss what today’s students need most and why wellbeing belongs at the center of a university education.

LW: What was the motivation for creating the handbook? What need is it filling in the higher education landscape, and why now?

LT: A big part of the motivation is to recognize that higher education institutions do not merely have the responsibility of educating students in terms of passing down knowledge and skills but also imparting skills for wellbeing and character development. This has, I think, been a classical way of really viewing education in the first place — it’s really the whole person. Also it answers the call for the Okanagan Charter, where really the focus has been on making sure that health and wellbeing are central. There really hasn’t been a resource that consolidates all that we know in terms of research and also practice. So we felt like this was really timely and important to do.

BM: At Purdue, like a lot of campuses for probably a good 10 years ago now, we initially tried to solve the problem by ramping up our mental health services staff on campus. But it became crystal clear that we needed to look beyond that. It really became a campus-wide initiative to look at wellbeing more holistically.

In student life, which I oversee, we were asking, how do we build our services holistically so that we’re meeting a student where they are? Everybody has concerns or problems from time to time. Not every single concern or problem needs a therapeutic mental health intervention, but a student may need somebody to talk to. Maybe it’s study-skill development or something like that that’s underpinning the need.

We built out a programmatic model called Steps to Leaps, playing off the Neil Armstrong alumni connection to campus. It focuses on five areas: overall wellbeing, leadership development, impact, networks, and grit. Louis started working with Steps to Leaps from that research angle. He helped us think through things from that lens. Post-pandemic, he suggested maybe we should write something because I’m practitioner-based, he’s research-based, and so we can approach this from both angles. He had done some work with Oxford University Press before, so he had an editorial contact. About four years ago we pitched the concept, and it fit very neatly in their handbook model. 

LW: The handbook has an ambitious scope, with more than 120 contributors and 46 chapters. How did you decide what — and whom — to include?

BM: We started off with the backdrop of overall mental health and current issues and trends. There’s also a public-health approach to student development, and we talk about staff wellbeing, faculty wellbeing, and contingent faculty wellbeing. Then we look at integration and synthesis: How do we take the theories, the different research in different spaces, and apply it in the higher-ed setting? This includes everything from Covid impact to stress and coping, friendships and wellbeing.

Then we get into interventions and programs — programs that people have launched and research or outcomes for those. And then policy and program implementation: How have different campuses done this work? There’s an example of a first-year program, basic-needs work, the Okanagan Charter, and social-emotional wellbeing through campus housing. Then we have inclusive approaches and disciplinary and global perspectives. So it’s pretty broad.

LT: There are lots of different institutions that are doing amazing work here, and Beth and I are only doing a small slice. I think it’s really important to gather ideas and learn from the best. The fun part of being editors is we really get to read everything and learn from everyone. And of course we exchange ideas as well through that process.

LW: How does the handbook handle wellbeing, and is there such a thing as a baseline? What does “wellbeing” mean in this context?

BM: We’re defining wellbeing very basically. It is flourishing — human flourishing, helping people be their best. It’s broader than supporting the students because if our base is not well, we’re asking a lot of people to make things as well as possible for others. We’ve got to look at this as an ecosystem, and I think that’s what the book does. 

LW: How would you characterize where students are now compared with 10 years ago? What are some of the features of their state of wellbeing?

BM: We’re in a very different place, and I think we’re starting to see things evolving generationally. One of the key things we’ve been noticing is that over the past decade, more students are coming in presenting challenges related to wellbeing. Surveys show that more students have anxiety and depression, and fewer of them are flourishing.

Also starting about 10 or 12 years ago, we were seeing a whole shift in how students were approaching their education. We had seen students prior to that who wanted to experience a lot of different elements, maybe changing their major a lot, maybe even overcommitting — getting involved a lot of different places. About the mid-teens, we saw this huge commitment of students to, “This is the goal” — very goal-specific and ladder-like in their approach to how they were going to accomplish that goal, which was a very different mindset.

I think the pandemic did absolutely cause some concerns. We had the learning loss, and I believe the social learning loss. If you’re managing a residence hall, for example, you see this. People can’t have a conversation about dirty socks on the floor. How do you help people have those skills to address conflict, even tiny conflicts? That generation that came to campus right after the pandemic may have lost that skill-building in high school because of learning remotely. And then there’s the technology piece. The door is wide open here in terms of where this is going.

LT: They are digital natives, so a lot of interactions nowadays are filtered or mediated through technology. It’s not merely that most people are messaging rather than calling. Now we have A.I. in the mix, too. Youth are forming relationships with A.I. agents, and there are big companies actually working on that to address loneliness. But then it comes at a cost. Are young folks actually interacting with these A.I. agents and learning unhealthy patterns because it’s a frictionless relationship where you have zero obligation to the “person?”

At the same time, we know that social relationships are foundational for wellbeing. I think one of the significant challenges for a lot of students coming into college is being able to socialize well and relate to others and even tolerate disagreement.

A lot of students are aware and very authentic about where they’re at. They are very open to receiving help and receiving guidance. They come in with a lot of strengths. They also come in with some significant challenges because of how our world is.

LW: How does the handbook suggest colleges could think beyond counseling centers when they consider student wellbeing?

BM: Holistically, psychological services are an important element in how we support wellbeing, but there are a lot of other spaces, too. How is a campus a community? How do people find their people in that community? How do people get supported in that community? That is a huge part of the work, I believe.

LT: There is a critical need not only at Purdue but across different higher education institutions at different levels. A lot of students are coming in with significant needs. Often the ratio of a provider to the number of students is quite skewed. A lot of universities are struggling to find alternatives — peer support and now even A.I. support as almost a first response to help. I think we need to be very creative in those ways to really meet this growing need and demand and, at the same time, harness students’ own willingness to talk about these things.

“I don’t think we should see students merely as recipients but also as a wonderful resource to be able to help their fellow students.”

There are other types of formats where they’re coming together, and it’s not merely one-on-one. Again, one-on-one will never go away, but there are other ways that students can feel supported if they come as a group and support one another. There is research showing that those who are actually in the position to help others, fascinatingly, also grow more and are more resilient and have greater wellbeing. I don’t think we should see students merely as recipients but also as a wonderful resource to be able to help their fellow students.

LW: Resilience and learning from failure are recurring ideas in the handbook. Are institutions — or adults generally — doing enough to help students develop those skills?

BM: This is one of the elements of Steps to Leaps: helping students recognize that everybody fails. The most successful among us have failed. It’s much more about what you do when you fail. Not that you shouldn’t be sad or angry — that’s all normal. But how do you pick up from that? What do you incorporate in your own toolkit based on that failure?

Along with the failure element is this whole idea of a linear journey —helping students see that journeys are never linear. We can have the greatest intentions to make them so, and then life happens.

Sometimes alumni stories can be so incredibly powerful for students because they’re looking for their mentors and heroes. It’s so important that they hear somebody they’ve been admiring say, “Here’s how I screwed up this class,” or “Here’s what happened in my first job and what I learned from that that helped me be successful in my second.” Normalizing is a big part of it. And higher ed is such a great place for students to learn those skills because it’s a relatively safe place to fall on your face. There are lots of resources there to help you. We’re all works in progress, and our students are absolutely works in progress.

The worst thing we could do is encourage people never to take a risk. When you take risks — even calculated, educated, well-thought-out risks — sometimes it still doesn’t work. Nobody likes to fail, but you want to make sure there’s that learning piece. The looking back is sometimes the more profound learning.

LW: What do adults misunderstand about the wellbeing concerns young people express today?

LT: There is a lot of willingness among students to seek and receive help, and a lot of desire to talk about wellbeing. I think that can often be misconstrued as students having less ambition or being too privileged. But I think that it’s a healthy pushback against what we’re doing as a society, which is this relentless pursuit of success and more. The question is: Is that really the end goal of life? Just to have more money, more status? We see that on campus here and also in the themes in our book, as researchers and practitioners are noticing it as well. I think that’s something that would be helpful for adults to recognize and perhaps have a shift in how they think about these conversations.

BM: We’re all we’re works in progress, and we appreciate that our students are absolutely works in progress. How do we help them make the most of this environment and the resources in it as they’re experimenting? So much is grounded in having that social network. You know the people that have your back, who will hand you tissues as you’re sobbing, the people who can help you think through a problem. But a network isn’t just something you take from — you are giving to your network, and that’s partly why that’s so strong. A big part of what we’re trying to expand is how do you build these skills and mindset, and we know employers want those skills in our students.

LW: You had contributors from around the world. How did the global perspective influence your thinking about wellbeing?

BM: We know that different cultures experience things differently, but sometimes we can be so U.S.-centric in how we approach things. In our society, we tend to be more “me” focused, so here wellbeing is about me. I think in some cultures it’s about “we”— looking more at the collective mindset than the individual mindset. Having that written out helps put on the table that there are other approaches in the world. The context of wellbeing in Singapore, for example, is going to be very different than it is in the States, so we’re defining wellbeing very basically as flourishing, human flourishing. Helping people be their best, culture to culture, means different things, and we have to acknowledge that, too.

LT: I had thought that a lot of what we are talking about with wellbeing was perhaps a much more Western issue. However, reading some of these chapters from other countries made me realize that this is not just an issue in North America, but a global one. Somehow, all around the world, faculty and staff and students are experiencing significant challenges, and it’s something that we all need to confront.

At the same time, there are cultural differences, too. The approach to thinking about wellbeing here might be slightly different. There’s an increasing level of destigmatization, whereas in places like East Asia, it’s still very much stigmatized to seek mental health help. It’s a global phenomenon, and addressing it requires a much more culturally sensitive approach to helping students.

LW: Was there anything that surprised you as the handbook came together?

BM: I found the lens of the different disciplines interesting as you start unpacking it: how social science might take on certain things, versus someone approaching this from a public health lens, versus a practitioner running a housing organization on campus. Each one of these elements is a source of truth for the problem at large. It’s how we honor where people are in those processes and help facilitate that whole. If we’re talking about human flourishing, the book showed us that there’s still a lot of work to do to help people be their best.

LW: How do you envision the handbook being used, and by whom?

BM: We’re looking at this as multi-use. It can absolutely support the faculty side of things. The research can be used as a textbook in certain settings. But there are also practical application components to it, so we see colleagues in areas like mine deploying these ideas and having it as a resource. If I’m wanting to look at how I improve in this space, the handbook gives some good tips about how to look at what your needs are and how to build out a collaborative model. If I’m looking at it from my lens as the senior student affairs officer, I might use the book differently. If I’m a researcher, I may use the research elements as good places to get information about who’s doing what in this space. We would like to do some sort of a symposium, a place to convene and have a good dialogue on these topics with others.

LW: Was the handbook intended to be updated in future editions?

BM: Louis and I haven’t even talked about that yet! Just the A.I. influence alone — our book does not tackle A.I. one iota because we started four years ago. This last year has been the whole copy-editing process, and in just that time things continued to evolve quickly. From the mental health side of things, I think we’re still learning about A.I. in that space. Social media is one of the elements, and it’s not all bad, though sometimes people hang their hat on that. I suspect A.I. will be very similar, where there’s going to be parts that cause problems in the wellbeing space, and there will be parts that that support wellbeing growth and development. It’s just how we deploy it. Louis has a grant that’s doing some of that work right now. So absolutely, I think there’s an opportunity to take this and run with it.

Posted in Q&A