Category: Perspectives

Opinions leading to positive change.

More Reasons to Do the Right Thing

Posted on by Mollie Ames

In the following excerpt of his upcoming white paper, Richard Miller, president emeritus of Olin College for Engineering, lays out key traits and behaviors of “good character” that correlate with wellbeing. Teaching these qualities in the classroom, Miller suggests, may help all students thrive in life and career. How exactly to “teach” character, however, is less straightforward and will require research. The full paper, out next week, will include a full list of references to all research invoked.

There is ample evidence from multiple sources that an array of attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs correlate well with wellbeing in life, both for individuals and for societies. These include traits long associated with good character including gratitude, generosity toward others, forgiveness, humility, integrity, honesty and trustworthiness. While it may appear that these elelements of character have lost their preeiminece in a society so seemingly tolerant of their absence, the connection of personal and collective wellbeing to character may help re-establish it as something worth teaching and practicing. 

There are many questions here for higher education including whether character should be among the goals of transformational education approaches, which are strongly tied to outcomes such as belonging, agency, purpose and meaning. In many cases, the evidence on character and wellbeing comes from research in positive psychology, but other fields are also involved, including medicine, political science, economics, sociology, and public safety. While this evidence is largely from correlation and may not necessarily be causative, it indicates that there are many potential educational experiences within the character domain capable of producing enhancement to lifelong wellbeing.

However, this only intensifies the need for experimentation with different pedagogical approaches to determine if and how these characteristics may be successfully “taught” or inspired in student populations in ways that result in lasting wellbeing after the college experience. In general, this research will require diligent assessment with reliable metrics that are nationally normed. As we continue to track evidence of the impact of character on wellbeing, we do so within the context of it becoming dispensable at a time when it is most urgent. 

Considering Life Goals. A recent survey of millennials found that over 80% list becoming rich among their major life goals, and another 50% of those same millennials list becoming famous as another major life goal. Apparently, there is also a strong belief among college students today that becoming rich and famous will lead to a good life. This is not new.

But scientific evidence from the Harvard Study of Adult Development—one of the most comprehensive studies in history—indicates that people who invest in long-term relationships based on trust, respect, and compassion have the highest levels of wellbeing throughout life—independent of wealth, fame, or other measures of success. On the other hand, wealth and fame are actually orthogonal to happiness. They don’t make you happy or unhappy. However, the pursuit of those things at the expense of pursuing human connection makes people less happy and less healthy.

As a result, promoting early conversations with college students about what it means to create a “good life” with long-term wellbeing is likely an important preliminary step in developing learning experiences in higher education that result in improvements in long-term outcomes for alumni. Educating students about the difference between dedicating oneself to accumulating wealth and fame—or, on the other hand, seeking life-long wellbeing, which has more dimensions—may be an important step that we can take to improve long-term outcomes. Students can’t address a problem they aren’t aware of.  

Although there are several competent definitions of long-term wellbeing, the most accepted may be the one adopted by Gallup (after 80 years of research) that has been used in ranking the world’s happiest countries. It involves five dimensions: career, social, financial, physical, and community wellbeing. This longitudinal Gallup data provides the only available opportunity to explore the long-term impact of learning experiences we implement today. These are obtained by correlation studies with the Gallup data to extrapolate into future decades.  

However, when reviewing the evidence for character and ethics in promoting wellbeing, the lack of available longitudinal data in this area from the Gallup surveys requires that we broaden our review and consider evidence from multiple sources. This evidence is included in the current summary to illustrate what we know about good character and ethical behavior as it correlates with wellbeing.

Gratitude. Research strongly suggests that practicing gratitude is associated with improved wellbeing and mental health. Gratitude is linked to increased happiness, reduced stress, and better overall emotional wellbeing. 

Research indicates that gratitude improves wellbeing in several ways, including reducing stress and anxiety by lowering stress hormones like cortisol, leading to decreased anxiety and improved mood. Gratitude also can be shown to boost self-esteem and confidence by recognizing and appreciating the positive aspects of your life that can counteract negative self-talk and foster self-acceptance. Expressing gratitude further improves relationships by strengthening bonds and fostering positive interactions. Gratitude practices can promote relaxation and reduce worries, contributing to better sleep, while improving resilience. Finally, regularly expressing gratitude can shift your focus towards the good in your life, leading to increased happiness and contentment.

Altruism and Generosity. It is not difficult to find evidence for many elements that would be considered within “good character and ethical behavior” that correlate well with a good life—altruism and generosity, for example. Evidence shows that spending money on others promotes happiness. One widely cited study showed that spending money on others produced greater happiness than accumulating more money for oneself. In addition, it showed that participants who were randomly assigned to spend money on others experienced greater happiness than those who were assigned to spend money on themselves. Another larger, more recent study reached the same empirical conclusion based on a sample size of more than 5,000 participants. 

Extensive research on the science of generosity has been produced at the Greater Good Science Center at the University of California at Berkeley. The research conducted and monitored there further confirms the positive benefits of engagement in altruistic activity and generosity on health and wellbeing in several dimensions.  

Forgiveness. Research shows that forgiveness can promote wellbeing in several ways. For example, forgiveness can improve mental health by reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. It can also improve self-esteem and promote a sense of flourishing. In addition, forgiveness can improve physical health by lowering blood pressure, improving cholesterol levels, and reducing pain. It can also strengthen the immune system and improve heart health. Forgiveness can also lead to healthier relationships and can be a form of coping that helps alleviate perceptions of stress.

Forgiveness interventions can be effective in promoting mental wellbeing. For example, one study found that participants who completed a self-directed forgiveness intervention workbook saw improvements in their ability to forgive, as well as reductions in depression and anxiety symptoms. Interventions in forgiveness can involve letting go of anger, resentment, and negative past events; realizing that the best revenge is no revenge; living in the present and learning from the past; hoping and planning for the future; and acknowledging the wrongdoer as a moral agent who has failed but respecting the perpetrator’s perspective.

Humility. Humility involves acknowledging one’s limitations, accepting feedback, and being open to learning from others without excessive pride or arrogance. Research suggests that humility is strongly related to increased wellbeing and mental health, including lower rates of depression and anxiety. Humility helps buffer the effects of stress on wellbeing, leading to lower levels of stress and anxiety. Humble individuals are more likely to have a realistic understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, leading to greater self-awareness. 

Integrity. Though there are unlimited interpretations of the word, “integrity” is commonly accepted to refer to people who act with authenticity and honesty by speaking the truth; presenting themselves in a genuine way with sincerity; showing no pretense; and taking responsibility for their own feelings and actions. Research indicates that integrity promotes wellbeing by fostering trust, reducing stress, enhancing job satisfaction, facilitating healthy relationships, and fostering a positive organizational culture where employees can thrive. Furthermore, studies link “strong moral character” (i.e.,integrity) with reduced risk for depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease.

Honesty. Research and studies suggest that honesty significantly promotes wellbeing, both mental and physical. Honesty fosters trust and strong relationships. When you are honest, you build trust with others, leading to stronger relationships with friends, family, and colleagues. This trust is crucial for building healthy and supportive relationships, which are essential for wellbeing. Honesty reduces stress and anxiety, promotes self-esteem and self-acceptance, enhances mental and emotional wellbeing, improves physical health, and promotes openness and communication. However, there are situations in which being completely honest may result in hurting someone’s feelings, or in the case of speaking truth to power, might bring retribution.

Trustworthiness. Research indicates trustworthiness is strongly linked to improved wellbeing, both individually and within communities. Trust fosters a sense of safety and security, which is fundamental for mental and emotional wellbeing. When individuals trust others, they feel less anxious and more confident in their relationships and interactions. Trust promotes healthy relationships and social connections; contributes to better mental health outcomes; can improve physical health; is essential for building and maintaining healthy communities; and is particularly relevant in healthcare settings and in the workplace. In summary, trustworthiness contributes to a greater sense of security, belonging, and wellbeing, both for individuals and communities.

Influence on Community

Most of the evidence presented above is derived from studies of wellbeing in individuals that might result from attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs derived from good character and ethical behavior. However, there are similar correlations between these factors at the macro or societal level, too. Research shows that the social environment significantly impacts ethical behavior. Individuals are influenced by the norms, values, and expectations prevalent within their social circles, which can shape their perceptions of what is considered right or wrong. An illustration of the macro correlations is provided by comparing the list of the world’s happiest countries, determined by Gallup using their wellbeing index, with the list of the world’s most corrupt countries, as determined by the Corruption Perceptions Index published annually by Transparency International. It is striking that these rankings reveal an obvious inverse correlation across the globe between the happiest countries and the most corrupt countries. For example, Denmark and Finland are ranked at the top of the happiest countries by Gallup, and they are also ranked as the least corrupt countries in the independent ranking by Transparency International.

An Imperative for Higher Education

The evidence presented here makes clear that several elements of good character and ethical behavior are well correlated with enhanced health and wellbeing in both individuals and communities and society at large. These elements may therefore be considered candidates for introducing new learning experiences in higher education aimed at improving life-long wellbeing in college graduates. This opens the door to investigate faculty-driven innovations in higher education that are intended to promote the development of these characteristics in college graduates in hope that this will contribute to improved long-term outcomes for all enrolled students in the future.

The evidence presented here makes clear that several elements of good character and ethical behavior are well correlated with enhanced health and wellbeing in both individuals and communities and society at large.

However, much remains to be determined. While there clearly are many new possible learning experiences that promise to enhance wellbeing, the magnitude of the impact of each of these—both immediate and long-term—is, as yet, undetermined. Some may prove to be more effective than anything that we know about at this point, but many others are likely to prove insignificant in improving wellbeing later in life, depending on how they are defined, taught, and promoted. The only way to determine this is through experimentation and assessment. 

It is our hope that faculty at many institutions will take the lead in developing pilot projects and experiments to explore these issues and share their findings broadly so everyone may learn what works best. This includes not only experimentation with the core ideas behind the intervention but also the pedagogical process used to implement them at scale in a variety of academic institutions.

This will inevitably involve research and experimentation in pedagogical innovation. For example, it is not clear how to “teach” honesty and integrity so that these values and behaviors are internalized and treasured by all graduates for a lifetime. Assessment will play an indispensable role in guiding the process of developing these interventions to the point of demonstrated effectiveness. Only when effectiveness can be demonstrated by objective data shared with others can we be assured that programs are achieving their intended purpose. Ideally, the assessments will be based on nationally normed tools that correlate with long-term wellbeing, such as the longitudinal data developed by Gallup over decades of measurement in this area.

In making the case for the inclusion of character and ethics in higher education towards improved wellbeing, it would be careless not to state the context for which we make the argument. It is fair to say that each of the pillars we have explored here—including integrity, truth, humility, and altruism—are declining within the collective tissue of our society today. One example is the recent report of the decline of effectiveness of student honor codes at some of our best universities. The paucity of what character scholars call “moral exemplars” is particularly disturbing. The most effective defense against such erosion of character and ethics in society is provided by strong and consistent attention to character formation in the young. Higher education has an opportunity to help build character and instill ethical behavior in its students for the benefit of their long-term wellbeing and that of society overall.  

Influencers for Life 

Posted on by Mollie Ames

Ellise LaMotte, Tufts University’s Associate Provost for Student Success, knows how difficult college can be, particularly if you feel you don’t belong. Where she now works to connect all kinds of students with the support they need to succeed, she once felt utterly alone as a Black woman in a predominantly White, male field.   

LaMotte says the early setbacks she experienced as a first-year engineering student only made her more determined to make it in technology, business, and academia. After graduating from Northeastern University with an engineering degree, she spent years in telecommunications, earning a master’s and then a Ph.D., after working at Babson College. That led to a position at Olin College of Engineering, where she came full circle, realizing she had arrived at a position to make a difference in the STEM space for students, especially underrepresented ones. 

In this interview for LearningWell, LaMotte discusses what motivated her to continually move forward in school and life, starting with her desire to make her parents proud. 

LW: Has education always been important to you?

LaMotte: Growing up in my household, I honestly thought there was a law on the books requiring everyone to attend college. That stemmed from my dad. He had a great work ethic and expected us to have the same. Our only responsibility was to work hard on our education. He was determined to ensure that my brother and I attended college and were going to be successful and self-sufficient.  

So, my first motivation for attending college and pursuing advanced degrees was simple: to make my parents proud and to make sure I took advantage of their hard work.

As I grew older, I excelled in math and science—and, more importantly, I liked the subjects. The first time we dissected a cow’s heart, I was all in, and math was like a game I wanted to win. Everyone around me told me I could become an engineer and could make a lot of money. That advice led me to attend Northeastern University in Boston.

LW: What was that experience like?

LaMotte: It was very different. I grew up in Jamaica, Queens, New York, in a predominantly Black and brown neighborhood, and suddenly, I found myself in spaces where I was in the minority all day long—usually the only woman and the only black person. That change of environment started playing out in my head, reinforcing the messages I always heard: “You have to be twice as good. You have to work twice as hard.”

I was determined to succeed, but I didn’t know how. My freshman year was a disaster. I had never failed a class in my life, yet I failed physics. That alone was tough, but what made it worse was another physics professor, who was also my advisor, one day came over and asked me and the two other women in the class, “Why are you in my classroom?” Then, he flat-out told us, “You should go home to your moms and become nurses, or teachers.” Needless to say, I dropped the class.

LW: Wow. What got you through? 

LaMotte: First off, my self-determination was strong. Second, I joined a Black women’s engineering sorority, Sigma Beta Epsilon, Inc., and I saw that these women, who were not much older than me and who looked like me, were succeeding in engineering. This was another piece of my how-to-be-successful puzzle. I now had mentors who said to me, “You can do this.” Fast forward to today, and these women are my friends who have become family. Other puzzle pieces I discovered from the sorority members were how to study, how to use my time wisely, and how not to be afraid of faculty office hours. And with this encouragement, I got a lot braver. In every class, I sat in the “power” middle seat in the front row. I thought to myself, “If you are going to ignore me, then you are going to ignore me intentionally.” There was no doubt that my motivation in college and afterwards stemmed from the mantra, “I’m going to do this because you think I cannot.”

“I’m going to do this because you think I cannot.”

LW: What did you do after college?  

LaMotte: My first job out of college was with a telecommunications company, and compared to college, my experiences were similar. I was usually the only woman and only Black person in a management role. I supervised people who were older than me and who were mostly White men. One man said to me, “You are my granddaughter’s age. What can I learn from you?”  Another time, I was told to change my hairstyle from braids, which I did not, potentially costing me future advancement. Through it all, I learned a great deal during my years in telecommunication, and these lessons learned shaped me professionally. However, I ultimately found the corporate world unfulfilling. 

LW: How did you end up in academia? 

LaMotte: I moved out of the corporate world into the non-profit space, supporting women entrepreneurs as they grew their businesses. I enjoyed creating initiatives and programs that directly support the dreams of others. From there, I found my way into higher education. I was finishing my Ph.D. in Education when I got an opportunity to join Olin College of Engineering, working for the provost as the director of academic services. Olin is a very creative place, where I found community and found I could get involved in initiatives on campus supporting students. I thought this is what I was meant to do—to support students in STEM who are underrepresented so they can shine. Over time, I wanted to be more student-facing, and that was the impetus for my move to Tufts University. 

I would also like to add that I had many role models during my doctoral journey. My professors and in particular my dissertation chairperson Dr. Tara Parker were instrumental as I altered my motivation, from extrinsic to ones that were more intrinsic. I now set goals to satisfy my interests and passions, so I can focus on honing my skills to support students whether I am at work or in my community providing service.

So back to my Tufts University journey, my first role there as the Center for STEM Diversity director was a great experience and made me realize my goal was to provide support for a larger student population on campus. So that opportunity and others at Tufts grew into my current role as Associate Provost for Student Success, working directly with President Sunil Kamar, Vice President for Strategic Initiatives Marty Ray, and Vice Provost for Education Cigdem Talgar. In this role, I work collaboratively to develop initiatives and opportunities, so all Tufts students are succeeding and thriving, regardless of their backgrounds. We are always thinking and asking the question, “What programs or structures can we put in place to support students at varying levels so they can thrive?” 

LW: You’ve fulfilled so many of the goals that motivated you. I’m assuming you have made your family proud.

LaMotte: Oh yes. I mentioned my dad. He was my silent cheerleader, and my mother was my out-loud cheerleader. They were present for my college and graduate school graduations. My mom was present for my doctoral graduation. Even though my dad was not there physically, his spirit was, as he received a shout out from University of Massachusetts’ Chancellor Dr. J. Keith Motley during his welcome address. As for my own nuclear family, my daughter witnessed me working while attending school, and she has always been proud of me for my efforts. Thus, I believe I am a good role model for her. As for my husband, he supports me in whatever I want to accomplish, makes way for me to reach my goals, and says to me at every turn, “Just go for it.” So, I always do!

Leading with Wellbeing at NYU

Posted on by Mollie Ames

Rooted in New York City and distinguished by a global network of campuses across 15 other cities, New York University is a composite of the world itself. Its president, Linda G. Mills, is charged with leading this cosmopolitan learning community at a time when many of the world’s problems are reverberating on campus. A therapist by training who is also a lawyer, filmmaker, social scientist, and restorative justice champion, Mills draws from her own diverse background to center wellbeing amidst unrelenting change and uncertainty.  

Before becoming the school’s first woman and first Jewish president, Mills spent many years at NYU, building a mental health infrastructure that has become a national model. In this interview for LearningWell, she is joined by VP of Student Health, Mental Health and Wellbeing, Zoe Ragouzeos, to talk about why that is only one aspect of a larger strategy to make individual and collective wellbeing a part of every student’s experience. In the current climate, that means helping those who come to NYU with mostly homogeneous past experiences thrive in a pluralist society.

LW: How is the uncertainty in the political world today, including on college campuses, affecting the wellbeing of your community?

Mills: When I think about the rapid changes happening at the federal level and their impact on our students, I’m constantly thinking about both the individuals and the community as a whole. What I’m seeing is an undercurrent of anxiety—students feeling deeply unsettled by the sheer velocity of change, regardless of their political perspective.

For those already vulnerable from a mental health standpoint, this uncertainty only amplifies their struggles. But even those who are generally resilient are feeling weighed down, less steady, and often simply confused. And that leads to deeper questions: “How do I process this? Is this something I should bring to therapy?” For some, becoming engaged in a community to advocate for change is an outlet. But if those actions don’t bring a sense of emotional relief, what then? How do they manage that lingering distress?

This moment in time creates a real tension between meeting personal emotional needs and navigating the external events unfolding around us. Finding balance between the two is a challenge we all must confront.

LW: What do you most worry about in terms of how this is affecting people?

Mills: I worry about all of it. In times of intense change, people often struggle to find their footing. That uncertainty can cause them to neglect their own wellbeing—whether it’s their mental health, their academic work, or even just basic daily routines. Reading and concentration become difficult. Decisions feel overwhelming. And stress can lead to choices that may have lasting consequences.

“In times of intense change, people often struggle to find their footing. That uncertainty can cause them to neglect their own wellbeing.”

What I worry about most is students making impulsive decisions—choices that could derail their long-term goals—simply because they feel like they’re being swept up in a tidal wave of external events. What they often need most in these moments is to pause, reflect, and take a step back before reacting. But in times of stress, that’s not always easy to do.

LW: Hearing you talk, I am reminded that, among all of your many distinctions, you are a licensed clinical social worker. How has this influenced how you approach your presidency?

Mills: I think it has been really central. I feel like I need to be aware of the therapeutic and resilience elements of our students’ lives. My background in clinical social work means I don’t just see the importance of seeking support, whether that’s through therapy, group counseling, or student organizations. I think deeply about students’ inner lives and what this particular moment in history means for them.

I also recognize that my position is unique. I don’t know many university presidents who are trained therapists. That experience gives me a different lens. I approach my role with an acute awareness of the mental health challenges our students, faculty, and staff are facing. It informs how I communicate, how I think, and how we develop programs that support not just the community as a whole but the individuals who need specific interventions.

So, in many ways, I am always thinking in two directions: What does our student body need collectively, and what does each student need individually? And that approach fundamentally shapes the way we build our mental health and wellbeing initiatives here.

LW: You recently hosted a national convening of university presidents on student mental health and wellbeing. What were some of the common concerns and challenges you and your peers discussed?

Mills: Zoe and I have been working on these issues for nearly 20 years. We started with a focus on direct services, ensuring that students who needed one-on-one counseling could access it quickly and effectively. That remains a core priority.

But over time, a larger challenge has come into focus: Not everyone will seek out traditional mental health services. Some students avoid therapy for religious, cultural, or familial reasons. Others struggle with the stigma attached to mental health care. So, our work has expanded beyond simply serving the most vulnerable students. It’s about creating a culture of wellbeing that reaches everyone.

The question we’re asking now is: How do we support mental health in a way that meets students where they are? How do we tailor programs that resonate with different backgrounds and lived experiences? That was the heart of our discussion at the convening—exploring innovative approaches that make mental health support accessible and relevant to all students, not just those who walk into a counseling center. And I was truly inspired by the creative solutions my peers are already testing.

LW: What are some of the challenges to that shift in focus?

Mills: One of the biggest challenges is that college is an incredibly demanding time with competing priorities pulling students in different directions. They have academic goals, study abroad opportunities, research projects, career aspirations—all of which require time and energy. So how do we integrate wellbeing into their daily lives in a way that doesn’t feel like yet another obligation?

That’s where I think Zoe has done this brilliantly, weaving mental health and resilience into every part of the student experience. If college is meant to prepare students for life, then wellbeing has to be a fundamental part of that preparation.

Some students arrive with strong wellbeing skills. They’ve been working on this for years. But others come to us with no foundation in self-care or emotional resilience—sometimes even with deeply ingrained stigma around mental health. For them, we’re starting from scratch, or even from a deficit.

So where should this integration happen? In student affairs? In study abroad programs? In the classroom? Faculty are often surprised when we suggest that mental health belongs in academic spaces, but the reality is it’s already showing up there. When a student asks for an extension on an assignment or when they can’t finish a course due to a personal issue, those are mental health concerns manifesting in academic life. Universities need to recognize this and build systems that support students holistically.

LW: Zoe, from your perspective, how do you see this shift in thinking taking shape?  

Ragouzeos: Linda often spoke about “the student in the back of the calculus class”—the person who never raises their hand, who may never step forward to seek help. She instilled in us the importance of not just serving those who come to our counseling services but actively reaching those who won’t. And that philosophy, in many ways, is the foundation of the public health model we embrace today.

So, the real question becomes: How do we reach that student?  Because this work isn’t just about clinical services, though those are critically important. It’s about every touchpoint a student has within our institution. Whether it’s an interaction with a faculty member, a peer, the physical environment, or student services, what messages are they receiving? What are we doing to strengthen their ability to cope?

At its core, resilience is the challenge we must address. While this model was initially built to support our most vulnerable students, we now recognize that every student benefits from stronger coping and resilience skills, regardless of where they start. In fact, we see it as our responsibility. By the time a student leaves here, they should not only have gained academic knowledge and the ability to think critically but also a greater capacity to navigate life’s challenges. That’s part of our mission.

With that in mind, how do we, as an institution, ensure that every student—not just those who seek support—leaves us more resilient than when they arrived?

LW: What’s the most effective thing a university president can do to address mental health on campus?

Mills: Modeling and reinforcing.

I often say that to be an effective therapist, you have to have gone to therapy yourself. The same is true for leadership around mental health. We need to model the idea that seeking support isn’t a weakness. It’s a fundamental part of a productive, healthy life.

That means speaking about it openly, normalizing conversations around mental health, and ensuring that our institutional policies reflect those values. We have to create a culture where prioritizing wellbeing is not just accepted but expected.

LW: What are your thoughts on the current state of higher education? What kind of change do you think is needed, especially in light of public skepticism?

Mills: Despite definite concerns about higher education, people still deeply believe in its value. The sheer volume of applications to NYU—over 120,000 this year—tells us that. Higher education remains the single most important factor in setting individuals and families up for success.

But beyond academic and professional preparation, universities also have a broader responsibility. We need to cultivate critical thinking, civic engagement, and the ability to navigate diverse perspectives.

One of the most urgent gaps I see is in bridge-building. Many students arrive on campus from homogenous communities, whether in the U.S. or abroad, and are suddenly immersed in one of the most diverse environments they’ve ever encountered. That transition can be jarring, especially in today’s polarized world.

Social media and cancel culture have made it even harder to engage across differences. We need to teach students the skills to have difficult conversations, to coexist with people who think differently, and to build meaningful connections across divides.

Interestingly, our research shows that students who study abroad improve their ability to navigate cultural differences. So how do we bring that kind of growth into all aspects of university life? Just as we integrate mental health and resilience from day one, we need to be just as intentional about fostering cross-cultural understanding and communication.

LW: Zoe, do you have any thoughts on that?

Ragouzeos: Resilience isn’t just about personal coping. It’s also about how we engage with the world around us. When we truly listen to one another and appreciate differences, we become more adaptable, more open, and, ultimately, more resilient. The ability to navigate life’s challenges is deeply connected to our capacity for understanding perspectives beyond our own.

“Resilience isn’t just about personal coping. It’s also about how we engage with the world around us.”

This is one of the reasons why study abroad experiences can be so transformative. When students immerse themselves in a different culture, they naturally give themselves permission to accept differences in a way they might not at home. As visitors, they recognize that they are stepping into a world with different customs, perspectives, and ways of life, so they adjust. They observe, and they grow.

Yet, back home, that openness often fades. In familiar environments, people tend to default to expecting things to function as they always have within the norms of their own communities. This can create resistance to difference, rather than a willingness to embrace it.

So the question becomes: How do we cultivate that same openness and adaptability within our own communities? How do we encourage students to bring that study abroad mindset—one of curiosity, acceptance, and resilience—into their daily lives, even in places that feel familiar?

LW: Do you ever get asked about your own mental health? This is a tough time to be a college president, but I’m guessing there’s no support group for that.  

Mills: As a therapist by training, I think about my own mental health constantly. I believe that if I didn’t, I’d be failing my community. We all have to prioritize our wellbeing, especially in leadership roles where the pressures are relentless.

These are incredibly challenging times, and I have to be at my best to lead effectively. Some days are tougher than others, especially when events hit close to home, like my personal experiences with antisemitism. But those moments also deepen my understanding of resilience, making me a better advocate for our students. At the end of the day, I’m not just leading this community. I’m living these challenges alongside them.

Sometimes There’s a Wolf

Posted on by Mollie Ames

In his 2023 book, “Whatever it is, I’m against it,” Brian Rosenberg sums up higher education’s aversion to change. In making his case, the Macalester College president emeritus identifies institutional barriers, such as shared governance and insular cultures, that keep higher education from addressing uncomfortable truths, like a flawed economic model and plummeting public support. He warns that this head-in-the-sand strategy will leave higher education vulnerable to a political take-down, like the one it is currently experiencing. 

Now that external forces of change, led by the Trump administration, are threatening to upend higher education as we know it, Rosenberg is far from gloating. A visiting professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Rosenberg continues to advocate for strategies that will strengthen higher ed—those that will bend the cost curve, improve the student experience, and open up access for people who want to go to college but can’t afford it. He distinguishes this type of change from the unhelpful assaults on higher education he believes will have disastrous effects on the sector he both admires and admonishes. 

In this candid interview, Rosenberg explains how higher education got to where it is now and why this is not the time to stay neutral.  

LW: You have long advocated for change in higher education which, as you say, is very difficult to achieve. Do you think this point in time feels different?

Rosenberg: Higher education has been the most stable industry in the world for centuries. It hasn’t really needed to change in more than incremental ways, and there have been some good things about that. But when you go years and years without change because you don’t have to, you also fall into some really suboptimal practices, and sooner or later those are going to catch up with you. I think right now the pressures on higher education are so strong that incremental change just won’t do it anymore. People have been saying this for a long time, and it’s easy to think of someone like me as a boy crying wolf. But what I say to people all the time is, every once in a while, there’s a wolf. And I think we’re at that moment. 

LW: What would you say is driving the necessity for change?

Rosenberg: First, the economic model is unsustainable. The demographic trends are not on our side. And if it wasn’t clear to people a year ago, it certainly should be clear right now: people don’t like us. If there’s anything that the far left and the far right agree upon right now, it’s that they’re not particularly fans of higher education. They have different reasons, but what we’re seeing is that public discontent translates into public policy and that public policy has the potential to be extremely damaging to higher education, whether it’s an endowment tax or cuts to funding from the N.I.H. (National Institutes of Health) or limitations on what people can teach or services they can provide. 

If people liked us, it would be harder to implement those changes. But because the public regard for higher education has declined so much, we become a politically convenient punching bag, and that’s going to have real impact. If you combine economics, demographics, and public sentiment—you can throw in technology and artificial intelligence—I really do think we are at an inflection point now where same old, same old is just not going to cut it for the next five, 10, 20, 25 years.

LW: Let’s start with the economics of higher education. What needs to change there?

Rosenberg: When people say, change isn’t really necessary, the number that comes to mind for me is 56%—that is the average discount rate now at private colleges across the United States. Higher education in these places is  on sale for more than half off. If you walked into a store and you saw a sign that said everything is 60% off, you would assume it was a closeout sale.

That is the definition of an unsustainable model—when that discount is going up every year and every year you are marking down your product more and more. And sooner or later you’re going to get to 100% and be giving it away for free. So the need to bend the cost curve seems to me inarguable. We cannot continue on this economic trajectory. More people are deciding not to go to college because it’s too expensive, and more people who can afford it are still deciding not to pay it because it’s too expensive. In Boston for instance, the percentage of students in public schools who choose to go directly to college has dropped over the last decade from almost 70% to a little over 50%. In a high education state like Massachusetts, that’s staggering. 

LW: People tend to think of high tuition as the result of overspending or inefficiency. Is there truth to that? 

Rosenberg: The economic problem in higher education is not caused by climbing walls and lazy rivers, and it’s not caused by extravagant residence halls. Sure, at some institutions those are wasteful expenditures, but that’s not what is driving the increase in cost. What is driving the increase in cost overwhelmingly is personnel, which is about two-thirds of the budget. The majority of every college and university budget in the country goes toward paying people’s salaries and benefits because it has always been a very people-intensive industry. And the problem that higher education has faced is that the cost of hiring those people has gone up, but productivity hasn’t changed. It’s a fundamental economic problem called “cost disease,” where your costs of hiring people go up but you see no increased productivity.  Industries that have bent their cost curves have generally done it by increasing productivity. It’s easier to do in manufacturing than in service. If you look at things like the cost of producing an automobile adjusted for inflation, that’s actually gone down because you have so many fewer people. It’s so automated. But in higher ed, that’s not the case. 

The second largest cost driver is the physical plant. Institutions tend to have big, old physical plants that cost a fortune to maintain. They almost all have gigantic deferred maintenance budgets that they’re not really addressing. The only way to make it cheaper—and people don’t like to hear this, but it’s true—the only way to make it cheaper is to do it with fewer people and fewer buildings. And that’s very, very hard to accomplish in higher education because it’s not wastefulness as much as it is things that we prize. Things like student faculty contact are exactly the things that drive our costs. We haven’t found the right balance between doing things that we think are effective and doing things that we think are economically affordable. And so that’s the situation that the vast majority of colleges that are not places like Harvard find themselves in right now.

LW: What is at stake here if higher education does not change?

Rosenberg: I think what’s at stake is that you’re likely to see high quality higher education become a luxury good reserved for the few and much lower quality, less expensive higher education become something that most people experience. At one extreme, you have places like Harvard and Williams and they’re not going to go anywhere, but I think we run the risk of seeing a lot of very good, much less wealthy institutions go away and be replaced by institutions that are far less effective and consumer-focused. 

I’m someone who believes that essential public services are not best served when they are provided by for-profit entities because the profit motive and the motive of social good can come into conflict.  Worst case scenario is that higher education becomes taken over by for-profits and it stops being a public good and starts being a revenue source and a way to return money to shareholders. And I think that would be a disaster.

LW: The title of your book suggests you know something about resistance to change in higher education. You’ve lived it and studied it. What is your theory?

Rosenberg: If I had to boil it down to the simplest formulation, I’dborrow a phrase from Larry Bacow, who was the president at Tufts and then the president at Harvard for five years. He has said, “Virtually none of the internal actors within higher education have incentive to change it.” There’s certainly a lot of incentive for people outside of higher education—families who want to pay for college, students who want to attend college, states that want to educate more people. But inside higher education, if you think about the key actors, you have college presidents, and any college president who wants to keep their job knows that if you push for dramatic change, you’re likely looking at no-confidence votes and a short presidency.  If you want to keep your job as a college president, the easiest thing to do is not rock too many boats. Steer the boat, but don’t sharply change direction because you’re probably not going to survive. 

Boards of trustees certainly at private colleges are made up of alumni whose vision of the college is from the past more than it is the future. And so they hold on very tightly. And this is true of alumni in general. They hold on to the past version of the college that they experienced. Any college president you ask will tell you that any kind of change beyond what is very small is going to get pushback from alumni. If you’re a tenured faculty member and you have a job for life and your institution isn’t about to go under, why in the world would you change anything? You have a privilege that no other worker in the American workforce has, with the exception of federal judges. 

People often point to students, but when students push for change, it tends to be around things like political issues or better food in the dining hall. Most students don’t want the college that they enrolled in to go through disruptive change while they’re there. That’s not comfortable. The only people within the system who I think are incentivized to change it are the people who have no power to change it. I would say that’s staff, non-tenure track faculty and graduate students. They all know the system’s broken, but they have no power in the governance instruction. And so you have power located with people with no incentive to change, and you have incentive to change located with people who have no power. And that is a recipe for stasis. And of course then there are all these structural impediments like shared governance.

Anyone who studies change will tell you that two of the conditions that are necessary to change an organization are the right incentives and alignment, and you don’t have either in higher education. The desires and the priorities of a history department and the priorities of a college president are not necessarily going to be in any way aligned. And colleges, if you think of a metaphor, aren’t like highways. They’re like those bumper car rides that you used to go to at amusement parks, where everybody’s driving into each other and nobody goes anywhere because everybody’s driving in their own direction. That’s kind of the way decision-making at a college happens. We prioritize participation over outcomes. And that has a history that goes back more than half a century now, and it’s very hard to change when consensus and innovation don’t sit easily together because innovation by its very nature is disruptive and consensus by its very nature is not.

LW: What other things about higher ed do you think need to change that may or may not be related to the economic model but may be contributing to the decline in public sentiment or the questioning of its value?

Rosenberg: Higher education has tended to be extraordinarily insular. Just think about the typical college campus: it has sometimes literal walls between itself and the rest of the community, and it certainly has figurative walls. One of the things that needs to change is that higher education needs to start looking outward more and stop looking inward, asking itself, “What does society need?” People who teach at liberal arts colleges or research universities don’t like to hear this, but we need to be asking, “How can students get jobs?” This is for most people the largest investment they’re going to make other than maybe buying their house. Especially for first generation students, getting a job is not a luxury. It’s kind of a requirement.

I’m not saying that it all needs to be vocational, but are we teaching the right skills? Are we teaching the right competencies so that the people we are sending into the workforce are the people that employers want? Right now, the message back from employers is you’re not doing a very good job, that there’s not a great alignment between what we’re seeing in your graduates and what we want in our employees—things like creativity, being able to work in teams, resilience, adaptability. There are certain hard skills like being able to communicate well, work with numbers, work with data sets. I would describe it as a set of hard and soft skills that higher education has neglected in its focus on disciplinary expertise and on research. I mean, most college and university majors are still designed as if their graduates are going to become college professors, and that’s not what they’re doing. 

I also think about the method of instruction. There have been, at this point, countless studies that have shown that passive learning is not very effective. And yet higher education still relies very heavily on things like large lectures, when we know that students learn very little in that setting. You get a grade, you move out of the class, and then within a year, you don’t remember anything that you learned, whereas learning through doing—experiential learning—teaches you a lot more. And higher education has been incredibly slow to embrace the importance of learning-through-doing rather than learning-through-listening ,so I think the pedagogy could be improved as well. And that means that faculty members like me who were trained in a certain way have to rethink how they teach. And it’s hard to get people to do that. 

LW: Without those incentives, other than being a good person who cares about the post-graduate lives of your students, what is the motivation for professors to change their teaching? 

Rosenberg: I think the incentive is going to come from the bottom-up and not from the top-down. All of these schools now are facing incredible constraints and challenges, and you have a choice when you’re in that situation. For most schools, the incentive is survival. If you’re going to survive, then you’re going to have to offer something different than what you’re offering now. I have to believe that there are going to be some schools that take a look at a failing model and say, “All right, we have nothing to lose. We’re going to try something different.” My old AP biology teacher used to say that the nature of change is adapt, migrate or die, and migration is not a real option for colleges. But adapt or die is going to be, I think, the thing that sparks change In higher education. 

LW: You mentioned experiential learning, working in teams, some of the other high-impact practices that have proven to lead to things like wellbeing, fulfillment, and flourishing. These outcomes are also important to employers. Do you think embracing these kinds of experiences would help improve how people view higher ed?

Rosenberg: I think they would. And again, even if you look within very well-resourced institutions, there are departments that are struggling. Everybody points to the humanities. And so if you’re in a department where you’re just bleeding students, it seems to me you should be incentivized to look at what you’re doing and say, “All right, what can we do to make what we’re doing, what we’re teaching, more attractive to students?” And that would mean adopting some of those high-impact practices that we know work very well. 

We’re not talking about the French Revolution here. I think that there are things that could be done without completely blowing up the system that would begin to incorporate some of these high impact practices and conceivably could help bend the cost curve a little bit. For example, if you have more students doing group work, then maybe you don’t need quite as many TAs, or maybe you don’t need quite as many instructors because students are working in groups. So certainly, it could improve the quality, and it might actually even help with the cost.

LW: As you say, the wolf is at the door. Is there anything positive about what we are witnessing from the Trump administration in regards to changes in higher ed?  

Rosenberg: Is there anything positive here?  Sometimes it takes a major jolt to the system to change something for the better. If you’re in the habit of driving while intoxicated, and you get into an accident, and you narrowly escape with your life, maybe you say, “I’m not going to do that anymore.” And I would say higher education needs to start looking outward more and stop looking inward, asking itself, “What does society need?”

I don’t know what’s going to happen with this cut in indirect cost from the NIH, but if it stands, no university, even places like Harvard and MIT, is going to be immune. It’s certainly a message that if you don’t pay attention to the world outside the campus, sooner or later, that’s going to come back and bite you. And so if we get through this without complete disaster, maybe colleges and universities will rethink how they engage with the world beyond their campuses, do a better job of making the case for their value, and actually provide more value.  I think it’s waking people up to the fact that whether we like it or not, it’s not going to look the same in 10 years as it looks now. The question is: to what extent do we want that forced upon us? And to what extent do we want to try to have some control over that?

“The question is: to what extent do we want [change] forced upon us? And to what extent do we want to try to have some control over that?”

LW: What would you offer as suggestions to people like Vice President JD Vance who have called higher education the enemy?

Rosenberg: If in some alternative universe, someone like JD Vance were reasonable enough to actually listen to how to improve higher education, my response would be pretty simple and that is to double the Pell Grant—double the size. That is one tool that could make a major difference tomorrow. The Pell Grant has been stuck in the $6,000 to $7,000 range for decades. When it was first designed, it mostly covered the cost of college. Now, it doesn’t even come close, unless you’re talking about a community college. If you dramatically increased the Pell Grant, a) the money would be going to people who need it—lower income students and families—and b) it would make college much more accessible. I don’t believe everybody should go to college. What I believe is anyone who wants to go to college should be able to, shouldn’t be prevented by economics from not being able to. As with our infrastructure, we’ve neglected these kinds of investments because we’re so fixated in this country on low taxes.

I would also acknowledge that one major weakness is that higher education has become too ideologically uniform and that that’s not helping students. We need to figure out a way to make sure that people with all reasonable views can express them on college campuses without fear of reprisal or being shouted down. And that’s on colleges and universities. We haven’t done as good a job as we might have. That said, the answer to one form of censorship is not another form of censorship. And what we’re seeing now, in response to the soft power of students shouting down a speaker, is the hard power of the government telling you what you can and cannot teach and what you can and cannot do. That’s exactly the wrong thing. People like JD Vance and Musk talk about all the woke things that they’re rooting out. What we’re seeing now is that if you’re not on board with that particular ideology, then the law’s going to come after you. And that’s a lot scarier. 

You can say all you want about student protestors or about student demonstrators, but their power compared to the power of the state is minuscule. And right now, we’re seeing the enormous power of the state being brought to bear to shut down the open exchange of ideas on college campuses. And that is infinitely more dangerous than anything that’s come from within colleges. So I would acknowledge the failures, but I would also say that this prescription for correcting it is worse than the disease.

LW: I am guessing this is not the kind of change you talked about in your book.

Rosenberg: That Dear Colleague letter from the DOE, I’ve never seen anything like that come from any agency of any government in my entire life — state, local, federal. It read like an editorial in the New York Post. I mean, it was crazy—not just in terms of  its language, but its interpretation of the law was also just completely wacky. In some ways, it was directly inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, where Justice Roberts said, for example, that schools could use the students’ essays to make judgments about their life experiences. It went way beyond what was a fairly narrow ruling about affirmative action and admissions. I have yet to see a legal expert, right or left wing, that says this is actually supported by the law. There’s nothing about it that’s helpful. It’s just a standard playbook: overreach and scare people. And it’s a standard authoritarian playbook. What you get is a lot of what historians have called anticipatory obedience. People obey without you having to force them to do it because they’re scared. We’re seeing a lot of that right now. It’s a very effective way of exerting control when you can’t actually do what you’re threatening to do, but just the threat causes people to cower and to change what they’re doing. 

LW: Are you disappointed in the way that higher ed leadership has responded?

Rosenberg: The short answer is yes, I’m disappointed. But I do understand. I’m sympathetic to the notion that we should become more neutral. It’s probably true that higher education over the last decade has gotten too embroiled in political issues. I don’t think that’s entirely unreasonable because I think it coincided with the rise of Trump and so many actual or proposed policies that go against everything that higher education is supposed to stand for. That led higher education to get much more politically active and opened it up to a lot of these attacks.

“I believe that more leaders have an obligation to speak about what parts of the university we will not compromise on.”

I’m also sympathetic to the fear of reprisal. If you’re a college president and you’re dependent upon the legislature for funding, you don’t want to do harm to your institution. But having said all that, we need to have a different response. This goes back to something called the Kalven Report from the University of Chicago in 1967, which talks about institutional neutrality. It says the exception to that is when society or some segments of society propose or do things that threaten the mission of the university. In these instances, you have an obligation to speak—not an option, an obligation. And I really believe that we’re at that point now. I believe that more leaders have an obligation to speak about what parts of the university we will not compromise on and we will fight for and what things being done to our students in particular are unjust.  

I am sympathetic to the caution, but I’m also somewhat disappointed in it. I think that one of the things you learn when you’re in a schoolyard is if you keep getting punched in the nose by a bully, they’re going to keep punching you until you punch back. If you think that someone like Donald Trump or Elon Musk is going to stop punching you because you hide behind neutrality, you haven’t been paying attention. 

Invented Here

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

Sukhwant Jhaj, Vice Provost for Academic Innovation and Student Achievement at Arizona State University, spoke with Dana Humphrey, co-host of Invented Here, about ASU’s Work+ program, a bold and transformative initiative redefining how we think about student employment. Sukhwant shares how Work+ evolved, its impact, and the lessons he’s learned in bringing the initiative to where it is today. Learn more about the Work+ Collective here: https://theworkpluscollective.asu.edu/.

Influencers for Life

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

Maggie Messina graduated from the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in 2022. She works in Private Client Business Development at Cambridge Associates in Boston. Here is her response to the question: “What experience or person in college most influenced your development as a human being?”

College is a formative experience for all. It’s a time when you leave the safety of your hometown, the friends you’ve known forever, and all that is familiar to you. Amidst the unfamiliar faces and places, you begin to search for belonging. For me, during my first two years of college, an unexpected yet incredibly meaningful place of connection was the dining hall. 

At the heart of my dining hall experience was Derek, the welcoming presence at the swipe station. Derek wasn’t just the person who checked my student ID as I walked in—he became a constant source of positivity and encouragement during my transition to college life. As a freshman finding my footing, Derek always greeted me with an enthusiastic high five and hello. During the whirlwind of sorority rush week, he congratulated me when I got into my top-choice sorority, Tri Delta, even throwing his hands into a triangle to represent it everytime I walked through the doors wearing all my new merch. 

Derek wasn’t just the person who checked my student ID —he became a constant source of positivity and encouragement during my transition to college life. 

But it wasn’t just the celebratory moments that made Derek special—it was the way he showed up for me during the tough times. When I felt homesick or defeated by a bad grade, Derek was there with encouraging words and a hug that always made the day seem a little brighter. 

What I learned most from Derek is that kindness matters. Small gestures—like smiling and waving at someone as they pass, holding the door open for a stranger, or offering a pencil to your classmate when they forget—can have a ripple effect far beyond what we can see. Today, as a young professional, I strive to embody that same sense of kindness. It’s one of my current firm’s values, and I take pride in representing it every day. 

A Way Forward

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

There is finally some better news about student mental health: this year’s Healthy Minds Study shows for the second year in a row a drop in depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among college students. While the overall rates remain alarmingly high–more than a third of students say they struggle with mental health issues–this two-year decline suggests that increased pre- and post-Pandemic attention and support may be making a difference.

More robust services alone, however, will not solve the student mental health crisis. I’ve witnessed it up close, as a faculty member and administrator at Bennington College, and at a remove, as a higher education program officer at Endeavor Foundation. It is very real. A college is not a treatment center, nor can it reasonably provide everything that students and their families require as they grapple with a tangle of issues.

Colleges and universities must simultaneously reinvest in the most powerful educational contributions that college can make to fortify student mental health: helping students discover their purpose and see beyond themselves.

Finding purpose–once understood as a primary aim of college–has been steadily squeezed out by the gradual and insistent equating of education and career preparation. Intense pressure for return on an ever more costly investment has changed the face of U.S. higher education. The liberal arts, in particular, which emphasize discovery of self and the world, continue to strain under perceived lack of relevance to careers, despite plentiful evidence to the contrary. Unsurprisingly, the study of the humanities, the lifeblood of the liberal arts, is in precipitous decline.

Further, we are compelling youth to determine ever earlier what they will study. Uncertainty has become a proxy for the waste of time and money. But many teenagers do not know what they want to do and–crucially–have not had enough exposure to the possibilities to make such determinations. College is meant to foster this developmental process through exploration and the ignition of interests and passions. This discovery has long been advanced by the liberal arts as essential to well-being, in service of both the student and civic and social good.

A recent Gallup survey found that the happiness and satisfaction of Generation Z is directly linked to the belief that their life has significance. Yet, today, more and more students are making the choice of a major based on the salary that related jobs command, rather than freely choosing the fields they are most drawn to making their own. Across higher education, the number of bachelor’s degrees in computer and information sciences, engineering, health, and business has more than doubled over the past ten years.

the content of higher education is shrinking, and with it a primary pathway to finding well-being through fulfillment.

Declines in arts and humanities majors are leading, on a macro level, to consolidations and cuts of disciplines at all but the best resourced institutions. Concurrently, liberal arts-focused colleges are disappearing at a steady clip. Both dramatically and quietly, the content of higher education is shrinking, and with it a primary pathway to finding well-being through fulfillment.

The contraction of the liberal arts and humanities is also robbing students of opportunities to understand what it means to be human. While there is debate as to whether the youth mental health crisis can be directly attributed to social media addiction and technology use, there is also widespread acceptance that both have radically changed how young people know, experience, and respond to the world. A stunning portion of teen’s social interactions are mediated by tech companies, their time displaced in the repeating reels of Tiktok and Instagram. The development of broad perspective, something at the heart of the liberal arts and humanities, is critical to releasing them from this algorithm.

Students need the span of knowledge, breadth of understanding, and portals to past human experience that a liberal arts orientation offers, whether at a small college or a large university, both for themselves and for society. Such far-reaching intellectual anchoring nurtures the ability to wrestle with the large, open questions that frame our existence and situate ourselves within them, individually and collectively.

Disciplines such as literature, history, and the arts are sourced from the human condition itself and particularly suited to opening the mind to new ways of understanding it. At the same time, to combat social isolation, students need common curricular experiences and co-curricular opportunities for engagement, debate, and dialogue. They need to be able to locate their very different individual selves as part of something larger, together.

But general education, the vehicle for delivering common content, has lost its vitality over time, weakened, in part, by demands for greater career preparation. Even at liberal arts institutions, core curricula—rendered fraught by decades-long political and ideological debates about their makeup—now largely privilege individual choice over shared, common experiences. As a result, students have fewer bridges to each other through common historical and societal knowledge, when what they need are more and stronger ones. Recognizing the opportunity to rebuild their educational frameworks around understanding of our shared humanity is one of the most significant steps that colleges and universities can take to strengthen student mental health.

At Endeavor Foundation, we are supporting a project at eleven small liberal arts colleges to do exactly that through collaborative efforts. Together, these colleges are infusing the personal and intellectual discovery they catalyze with new forms of support and inquiry. They are introducing initiatives to help students metabolize stress and build resilience, as well as bolster their real-time connection to others and draw out purpose through their studies. And they are helping students identify, prepare for, and secure future work born of what matters to them.

There is no doubt that policy makers and educational leaders must address the skyrocketing cost of higher education. Students, most especially those from underrepresented backgrounds, can no longer be left with crippling debt or, worse, excluded from the very social mobility that college promises and–ultimately–delivers. At the same time, we must reset the narrative that career preparation is college’s main function and re-value students’ future mental health as an equally vital outcome.

Isabel Roche is the Executive Director for Special Programs in Higher Education for the Endeavor Foundation.

Invented Here

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

LearningWell Radio co-host Dana Humphrey talks to Dr. Joe Tranquillo, Associate Provost for Transformative Teaching and Learning and Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Bucknell University. Tranquillo is the driving force behind the Thrive Framework, which aims to fulfill the promise laid out in Bucknell’s strategic plan – “to educate individuals and, through that education, change people’s lives…. to offer students a transformative experiences that prepares them to thrive not only at Bucknell but throughout their lives.” The framework has been used to generate over 300 university-wide initiatives that enhance the student experience, addressing the ways students struggle – meeting their basic needs, enhancing their sense of belonging, improving access and use of resources and enabling holistic growth. This episode is part of LearningWell Radio’s series “Invented Here,” which spotlights innovative, transformational learning programs at colleges and universities across the country.

Listen now on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

The “weird” attack on higher education

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

Listen Here:

In a season filled with political one-uppmanship, the word “weird” has become a catch phrase for all things suspicious or “dodgie,” effectively putting a spotlight on views outside the mainstream. The highly politicized attacks on higher education might well fit into this same category, considering the fact that the many criticisms against colleges and universities are, indeed, bizarre and unsupported by the majority.

While the most aggressive denunciations of higher ed are catnip for the media and burrow into the public consciousness, many of these criticisms come from a vocal minority. Even some of the most politically charged topics, where one might suspect the arguments to have persuaded a larger share of the public, aren’t producing these outcomes. Consider the aggressive anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) stance that has gripped the attention of the media and the public: despite the buzz, banning programs that help students feel they belong on campus is incredibly unpopular. Only 27% of Americans, and less than half of Republicans, oppose DEI initiatives in colleges, according to a 2023 YouGov poll. The same goes for controlling what subjects students can learn in college, another pervasive yet unpopular battle cry. Only 33% support government regulation of public college professors’ classroom speech, according to a separate YouGov poll.

The reality is that most of our friends and neighbors still want their kids to go to college, where they hope they’ll grow personally and intellectually, finding a sense of identity, agency and purpose that sets them up to flourish throughout their lives. It’s time to embrace the fact that, despite its flaws and the genuine need for improvement (particularly in affordability), college remains a positive force for young people and society at large.

Also, in the realm of the “weird” is the notion that college exists solely for skills training and job placement, an idea that doesn’t align with the wants of students, their families, or employers. According to Pew Research Center, 73% of college graduates with two- or four-year degrees found their degree very or somewhat useful for both personal and intellectual growth. Additionally, 90% of employed adults emphasized the importance of interpersonal skills such as patience, compassion and getting along with people to their work – attributes cultivated by a well-rounded college experience that includes mentorships, teamwork, and applying what is learned in the classroom to real world problems. Monster’s Future of Work report highlights that employers value dependability, teamwork, flexibility, and problem-solving – skills often honed through a well-rounded education.

To reassert the value of the college experience and restore public trust, we must provide the type of higher education experience that people want.

Just as the idea that higher education should simply deliver skills is out of step with the American public, so too is the belief that college is no longer worth it. Polling shows that 75% of people believe there is a good return on investment in a college degree, and nearly 70% say a close family member needs at least an associate’s degree for financial security. In a 2024 Gallup-Lumina poll, 94% of adults said at least one type of postsecondary credential is “extremely valuable ” or “very valuable.” Moreover, research shows that higher education is linked to improved health and wellbeing, including reduced risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, anxiety, and depression. College graduates exercise more, drink less, and are more likely to seek preventive healthcare. They report higher levels of self-esteem and job satisfaction than high school graduates who do not go on to earn higher education degrees.

But just as the data show we cannot believe all of the anti-higher education rhetoric, we must not ignore that people are upset with the sector, and for valid reasons. We must address the affordability issue, a major driver of the anger and frustration directed at colleges and universities. And we must work harder to make a stronger case for the value of higher education on human development, workforce development, and society overall that can be embraced by Americans of all viewpoints. Forty-five percent of Americans believe colleges and universities have an overall negative impact on the country – this in spite of the data showing that college graduates are more likely to vote, volunteer, donate to charities, join community organizations, and participate in educational activities with their children than non-degree holders.

Rather, to reassert the value of the college experience and restore public trust, we must provide the type of higher education experience that people want: one that fosters personal and intellectual growth, offers a transformational experience, and lays the foundation for a lifetime of flourishing.

Dana Humphrey is the Associate Director of the Coalition for Transformational Education. The Coalition for Transformational Education is a group of leaders in higher education dedicated to evidence-based, learner-centered education that lays the foundation for wellbeing and work engagement throughout life. Through assessment, collaboration, and best practice-sharing with our member institutions, we strive to inspire the academy to prioritize lifelong wellbeing.

Dr. Estevan Garcia is at the Table

Posted on by Dana Humphrey

Given his background, Dr. Estevan Garcia might be considered an unusual member of a college president’s cabinet. But as Dartmouth’s new Chief Health and Wellness Officer, the physician and public health expert works directly with President Sian Beilock on an issue she has made a well-publicized priority in her first year in office – protecting the mental health of students, faculty and staff. Garcia, who is a pediatrician specializing in emergency medicine, came to Dartmouth from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health where he helped led the effort to address the behavioral health crisis in emergency departments during the pandemic.

It is now Garcia’s job to lead Beilock’s health and wellbeing agenda, most specifically through the implementation of the school’s comprehensive strategic mental health plan called the “Commitment to Care.”  The origins of the plan predate Garcia’s arrival and was informed by a collaboration with the Jed Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting emotional health and preventing suicide in young people. Beginning in 2020, the Dartmouth community lost several students, including by suicide, as the pandemic eclipsed college life.

Dr. Estevan Garcia

Four years later, the Jed Foundation featured Dartmouth as a success story in its impact report and Garcia is now focused on the longer term outcome data that will provide a more precise evaluation of their recent work.  He views the plan as a pathway to a wellness culture at Dartmouth that prioritizes self-care, community care and mental health innovation. With an increased staff and budget behind him, Garcia is addressing a number of wellbeing issues often associated with elite institutions, particularly ones like Dartmouth, located in remote areas with less community resources.  These include the stress of perfectionism among high-performing students and the lingering lack of belonging many students feel, particularly those with mental health issues and/or those with diverse identities. As the fall semester brings new and familiar challenges to students’ wellbeing, Dr. Garcia is ready and at the table.

LW: What was the thinking behind having a new position in this area reporting directly to President Beilock?

EG: I think her vision for the role was to elevate student mental health and wellness as a high priority but also to bring under one umbrella campus-wide health and wellbeing. Part of my portfolio is faculty and staff health and wellness so it was important to President Beilock to have that direct communication on all of the activities in this area across campus.

LW: How has your background in public health prepared you and/or motivated you to take on the position of Chief Health and Wellness officer at a college? 

EG: What brought me to this work came from what I saw in emergency departments during, and predating COVID, with adolescents and young adults in crisis. To me, that was really shocking.  When I started in the Department of Public Health {in Massachusetts} I partnered with the Mass Department of Mental Health through the community behavioral health programs, providing options that would divert the mental health crisis from emergency departments when appropriate.  I spent those two years heavily involved in the work we were doing to create an actual road map for behavioral health in Massachusetts. 

My background is in emergency medicine.  I useasthma as an example of the way we look at illness in the emergency department.  You would come to the emergency department after you had gone through your asthma action plan – “I’m a green, I’m a yellow, I’m a red,” — here’s how I step up my care so by the time you came to us, you had exhausted your plan.  Westarted to view behavioral health in the same way.  “I’m at home fighting with my parents, or “I’m depressed, I can’t leave my room” or “I’m in crisis, potentially I’m suicidal” – all of those scenarios have varying degrees of illness and severity.  Ifwe treated them all as emergencies, we would be failing our patientsand our ability to manage true crisis and emergencies.

LW: Do you have a similar strategy around health and wellbeing that you are utilizing at Dartmouth?

EG: When I first came here, it was important to explain to my colleagues what we mean by health and wellness because not everyone understands this. One of the things I did was develop a pyramid that shows the different degrees of mental health needs. The base of the pyramid is the 70% of the students we have here – very successful, high achieving – experiencing the stress that comes with that.  There’s another 20 to 25% who could use some clinical support.  The final piece at the top of the pyramid is the group of students who were most clinically concerning, potentially suicidal, and these are the student we need to act quickly to support and get into the appropriatesetting. 

The goal of this kind of structure is to understand that much of what we do is at the base – that 70% of our students need easy access to services and almost no barriers to the many wellness activities we should be providing across campus. The idea is that college is the right timeto experiment with wellness and to build your portfolio of activities and support strategieswhen you are successful – when you are at the base – so you can manage the challenges that will come your way.  You will be more prepared when you fail a test, or break up with your girlfriend, or have other challenges– all the things that challenge yourequilibrium andcould push you into crisis.

“College is the right timeto experiment with wellness and to build your portfolio of activities and support strategies when you are successful –- so you can manage the challenges that will come your way.”  

For the 20 to 25% in the middle, we have clinical  supports that help themmanage their illness, while also providing access to wellness activities.  With the smaller group, my job is to really help identify them as their situation evolves and get them the support that they need, and this can be a protective setting in a hospital if that’s necessary.  And it is really important that we don’t make them feel that they are alone.  You have to care enough about the students that require services outside of the college to partner with them – to give them time away, with support, and then bring them back with the appropriate accommodations. This is how I see my job.

LW: What have been some of your early priorities?

EG: President Beilock has recently completedher first year as presidentbut was very involved in the creation of the strategic plan for mental health and wellness before that. I would say the majority ofmy work since I came to Dartmouthhas been to implement that plan.  It has multipledeliverables and my job was to take that on and run with it, delivering on health and wellness as a priority for the president and for the campus.

Part of those deliverables involved new permanent staffpositions – across ourstudent health and wellness divisions.  It was really a huge investment by the college and we had to make sure those were the right positions and we were utilizing them in the right way.  

The Dartmouth community has faced several challenges since I arrived.  I think it is helpful to have a clinician at the table.  Health and wellness staff arenot enforcers, but supporters.  We arevery much there to support students, and help them engage in tough conversations. I think partnering with students has been one of the strongest game changers for me personally. I worked with them before as patients but now they are really partners to me in the work we are doing around health and wellness.

LW: What was the history behind the Commitment to Care plan?

EG: When Covid started, we (in reference to Dartmouth) were doing the best we could, but clearly it was very isolating on this campus and colleges across the country. It was not your normal college experience by far here and of course everywhere.  Beginningin 2020, we had several student deaths including bysuicide, and it was clear they needed to address what was happening.  In the summer of 2021, they brought the Jed Foundation in and that led to a major mental health review –  campus visits, survey data, all of that.  Additionally, the provost at the time set up a steering committee to work on an all-Dartmouth strategic plan on health and wellbeing from May 2023 to September 2023, that was the foundation of the Commitment to Care. It was across all campuses – undergrad, grad schools, professional schools. 

What makes it unique is that it is very stakeholder-driven, very student-driven and the result is this multi-year, campus-wide engagement with actual deliverables. What I found interesting when I first came to campus, folks would introduce themselves – students, staff, faculty – and they would say “I was on the committee for mental health” or “I was on the committee for health promotion.”

LW: What are the elements of the plan?  

There are five pillars to the plan which drive the many activities and initiatives that we are working on.  (From materials): Center wellbeing in all we do both inside and outside of academics; Create an inclusive community to foster mental health and well-being for students with diverse lived experiences; Equip students with the resources and skills to navigate both success and failure with strength and confidence; Proactively address mental illness to aid students in reaching their goals; Invest in innovative applications of evidence-based approaches to respond to changing environments and needs.

It is a very broad approach involving all aspects of the college.  Regarding the second pillar, we pride ourselves on attracting first generation students and students with diverse lived experiences, and it is important for us to center those lived experiences in what happens on campus, particularly here in rural New Hampshire. This includes how we address mental health and wellness and creating a sense of belonging.

President Beilock was clear that focusing on wellbeing is critical to a successfulacademic career. One of the key pillars for us is helping students navigate success and failure, this is number three.  There is an understanding that our students are incredibly driven. They are gifted and they are used to being at the top. They are not used to failure. But failure is part of succeeding and it is how you pick yourself up and move forward that is important.  We call it normalizing life.

Regarding wellness services, we have made significant gains here.  One of the first things I did was to move wellness to be a separate divisionwith a director reporting to me.  Our health services are really top notch and I wanted wellness to be on equal footing.  Additionally, we are arural community sometimes makingrecruitment difficult.  To better meet the needs of our students, we needed to find ways of extending and diversifying our services.  We partnered with a tele therapycompany, that gives us 24/7 behavioral health support for students and that made a big difference in accessibility when our team was not in the office.  We have several hundred students who have engaged with the service.  We have unlimited access to 30 minutes therapy slots any time of day or night and will beexpanding that to 50 minutes for those who need it.

The addition of the tele service didn’t lower our need for in-person services but it enabled other students to access therapy who might have been uncomfortable doing so before.  We know that a quarter of our students utilize our mental health services and that is similar across our student groups.  That is a significant point since historically, underrepresented students seek help less frequently. 

And the other piece – which I think is one of the harder ones – is thinking about data analysis and evidence-based approaches to make sure that what we are doing is impactful. This is really important because as we are delivering on a lot of these initiatives, we need to know what is helpful and not helpful and then redirect our time, energy and resources accordingly.

LW: You have said that some of your work is inside as well as outside the classroom.  What has been your experience there?

EG: There are a few tracks to this work, one involving academic policies and calendars that students have said would be meaningful to them in terms of reducing their stress levels over academics.  There’s also some interesting things faculty are doing in their classrooms by integrating mindfulness techniques in their academic disciplines including physiology and languages.   These are just some of the ways we are partnering with academic leadership, and I will say it does make a difference now that we are at the table.