The Modern Learner and the Future of Higher Education: Five Key Predictions for 2025

gregpillar on January 1, 2025

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

With 2025 upon us, discussions about the future of higher education have reached a crescendo. Thought leaders, educators, and analysts have all offered their predictions about what the coming year holds for the sector. Among them, Derek Newton’s Five Education Predictions for 2025 stands out for its thoughtful exploration of key trends and challenges. Published recently in Forbes, Newton’s predictions provide a compelling framework to consider where higher education might be headed.

Rather than simply offering my own predictions, I’ve chosen to respond to Newton’s. While there is much in his analysis that I agree with, I also hold some different perspectives and see opportunities to adjust and expand upon his predictions. My approach is shaped by years of experience navigating the complexities of higher education, from academic operations to enrollment challenges, and from curriculum innovation to the integration of technology. These insights provide a lens through which I assess Newton’s predictions and offer my own nuanced take.

In the sections below, I dive into each of Newton’s five predictions, analyzing their implications and exploring where I align with or diverge from his views. Each response includes a revised prediction that incorporates my perspective, aiming to enrich the conversation about the future of higher education in 2025 and beyond.

Prediction 1: The College Closure Apocalypse Will Not Arrive — Again

Newton’s Prediction
Newton argues that widespread college closures are unlikely in 2025. While a number of schools may close due to financial struggles or mismanagement, there is little evidence (at the moment) to suggest a systemic wave of closures is looming. Closures will likely involve smaller institutions—often religiously affiliated or niche-focused—that fail to address financial or operational mismanagement. Although 2024 saw a number of closures, as tracked by IPEDS, Higher Ed Dive, Inside HigherEd and others, the reality is that a substantial number of closures have occurred since 2016, with an uptick since 2020.

My Take & Revised Prediction: Institutional Crises Will Escalate, Even Without an Apocalypse.

I agree that the “college closure apocalypse” will not occur in 2025. However, Newton’s prediction understates the crises many individual institutions are facing. As Gary Stocker of College Viability has noted, there is a critical difference between the macro and micro views of higher education. While the macro-level data may show relative stability, at the micro level, many institutions are struggling with unsustainable financial models, outdated curricula and programs, demographic pressures, and operational inefficiencies. These challenges are compounded by shifting student expectations, declining public trust, and viable alternatives to pursuing a college education, all leading to valid questions surrounding the ROI of higher education.

As Jeff Selingo noted in a LinkedIn post and his newsletter NEXT, referring to recent data trends including data released by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, year-over-year enrollment of 18-year-old freshmen fell by 5% overall. Some interesting trends in the data show that the biggest enrollment declines were in “middle-market” colleges (schools whose acceptance rates put them in the competitive and very competitive markets), white students, and highly affluent students—heading off to college after high school is no longer the gold standard.

Enrollment trends are often used as a key predictor for institutional closures, but it’s important to recognize that turning around enrollment alone isn’t enough to save troubled schools. Enrollment declines, while impactful on the bottom line, are rarely the sole reason a school closes. Instead, how institutions respond to enrollment challenges, especially early on, plays a far greater role in determining their fate. Schools that act early, make bold changes to their operations and intentionally redesign their program portfolios to address modern challenges are far better positioned to weather crises. Ignoring these challenges or implementing surface-level changes without a clear, strategic focus will likely exacerbate their instability.

It’s not just about avoiding closure—it’s about long-term sustainability. While we may not see mass closures in 2025, the number of schools operating in various stages of crisis is likely to increase. With a new administration poised to introduce changes to federal policies and increased scrutiny on higher education’s value, institutions will need to adopt adaptive strategies, bold leadership, and calculated risk-taking to remain viable.

As I’ve noted in some of my posts this year, schools such as Unity Environmental, San Francisco Bay University, Fairleigh Dickinson University, and Lindenwood University are great examples of small to mid-size institutions that, through bold leadership, understanding the evolving landscape of higher education and the modern learner, and making calculated risks, have seen growth and success in an era where challenges, declines, and failures (without learning from them) are more common. Expect to see a fair amount of program closures and even new program announcements dominating social media, news outlets, and university websites over institution closures. Many of those will be in vain if they don’t come with changes in operations, including student support services, curriculum development, and pedagogical improvements. Institutions can no longer avoid the exercise of frequently revisiting how they understand and support the modern learner. It is also worth noting that the examples I’ve highlighted—Unity Environmental, San Francisco Bay University, Fairleigh Dickinson University, and Lindenwood University—do not include institutions like Arizona State, Southern New Hampshire, and Western Governors University. These very large institutions, with student populations exceeding 100,000, are in a class by themselves, leveraging scale and innovative practices to thrive in a way that smaller institutions cannot replicate.

Prediction 2: Higher Education Won’t Face a Major Enrollment Squeeze

Newton’s Prediction
Newton suggests that enrollment challenges will be less severe than anticipated. Improved retention rates, modest demographic declines, and a rebound in community college enrollments will mitigate significant enrollment drops across higher education.

My Take
Revised Prediction: The Enrollment Squeeze Will Deepen Without Bold Innovation and Focus on the Modern Learner.

Newton’s prediction connects closely with themes discussed in the first prediction, as enrollment changes are critical to understanding institutional stability. While retention improvements are encouraging, they will not counterbalance the challenges higher education faces. The demographic cliff—a decline in high school graduates—combined with eroding trust in higher education and skepticism about its value, will exacerbate enrollment pressures. For smaller private schools, increasing enrollment solely from the traditional population is becoming increasingly difficult. Nathan Grawe’s book Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education highlighted the demographic cliff, but it did not fully address the growing trend of students opting out of pursuing a four-year degree immediately after high school.

Once a student delays college, their return—if it happens at all—often comes with additional challenges such as full-time jobs, family responsibilities, or other commitments. These students are less likely to live on campus or attend daytime classes exclusively. Even those who do may still juggle full-time employment alongside their studies. This reality underscores the need for institutions to craft student services and program structures that better align with the needs of the modern learner.

If administrators and institutions focus on one thing in 2025, it should be adopting (or refining) a modern learner-centered approach. The modern learner, as defined by Education Dynamics, is a student whose buying behaviors and expectations have evolved significantly. Modern learners often juggle multiple responsibilities, including work, family, and school, while navigating financial pressures such as bills and debt. They demand rapid service, affordability, and accessibility from their institutions. Unlike traditional students, modern learners prioritize flexibility in course offerings, alternative term structures, and support services that accommodate their complex lives. As Joe Sallustio’s article, Engaging the Modern Learner in Higher Education: Strategies for Educators, argues, transitioning from a traditional student-centered paradigm to one that prioritizes the modern learner benefits students of all ages and backgrounds. 

Institutions like Unity Environmental provide an excellent example of this transformation. By focusing their decisions on meeting the needs of the modern learner, Unity Environmental has grown its enrollment from 500 to over 5,000. Their success under the leadership of Dr. Melik Khoury is a testament to how bold, intentional changes can drive growth and sustainability. For more on Unity’s innovative approach, see my review here.

Institutions must also reconsider traditional assumptions about program delivery to better serve the modern learner. For example, allowing on-campus students to enroll in online courses can improve accessibility without diminishing the campus experience. Yet, many smaller institutions resist such changes due to concerns about preserving the “campus feel.” While it’s not necessary to shift entirely to online programs, conversations about market demand and program adaptability are essential.  Are there programs that make sense to shift to online or provide more online options?  Are there strategic partnerships (which could be a whole other article) with other institutions to provide online flexibility while still offering (and having the capacity) to offer face-to-face options?

Moreover, institutions must recognize that more and more college students are grappling with mental health challenges. Addressing these issues requires more than expanding counseling services; it calls for a holistic approach that integrates mental health support into program structures and campus culture. This is particularly critical for modern learners, who often balance demanding schedules and complex life circumstances, amplifying their need for mental health resources.

By embracing a modern learner-focused approach, institutions can make notable improvements that attract and support students of all ages—traditional and nontraditional alike. Tailoring student services and program delivery to meet the diverse needs of modern learners not only enhances accessibility and engagement but also strengthens the overall competitiveness of the institution in an evolving educational landscape.

Without bold innovation and a focus on modern learners, enrollment pressures will deepen. Institutions that continue to double down on in-person, daytime-only courses designed exclusively for traditional students will find it increasingly difficult to remain competitive in an evolving landscape.

Prediction 3: The AI Revolution is On Hold

Newton’s Prediction
Newton predicts that the transformative potential of AI in education will remain largely unrealized in 2025. Limited adoption among educators, concerns about reliability, and skepticism about AI’s practical classroom applications will delay significant breakthroughs.

My Take
Revised Prediction: The AI Revolution is Slow, Not Stalled.

I partially agree with Newton’s perspective but would frame it differently. The AI revolution in education is progressing, albeit at a slower and more deliberate pace than many expected. This is not because the technology lacks potential but because its integration requires careful consideration. For example, AI has already disrupted academic integrity, raising critical questions about how we maintain ethical standards while embracing technological advancements.

AI’s impact goes beyond plagiarism detection or generative tools. From adaptive learning systems to predictive analytics for at-risk students, AI is enhancing personalization, improving operational efficiencies, and reshaping the way institutions support learners. While some thought leaders debate AI’s potential to disrupt education, I firmly believe that AI has the capacity to transform higher education on a scale akin to or even beyond the internet’s impact. It is certainly no Wikipedia—an early disruptor that ultimately found its place—but rather a foundational shift that will continue evolving and integrating into every aspect of education.

For instance, AI-powered tutoring systems can personalize learning by adapting to each student’s pace and style, fostering inclusivity and engagement. These tools provide instant feedback, enabling students to identify and address knowledge gaps in real time. Administratively, predictive analytics can help institutions identify at-risk students earlier, allowing for timely interventions that improve retention and success rates. Virtual simulations, another AI-driven innovation, can immerse students in realistic learning environments, providing hands-on experiences that traditional classrooms cannot replicate.

However, as my recent article on academic integrity explores, generative AI has also created significant challenges. Cases of AI-related academic dishonesty have risen sharply, prompting institutions to rethink assessment methods and ethical guidelines. While some faculty view AI as a threat to traditional education models, others see it as an opportunity to innovate and adapt. Clear policies and faculty training are critical for navigating this landscape, ensuring AI is used ethically and effectively to enhance learning rather than undermine it.

Institutions must also prepare students for an AI-driven workforce by integrating AI literacy into curricula. This includes teaching ethical considerations, addressing biases in AI systems, and providing practical applications that align with industry demands. For example, offering micro-credentials in AI proficiency can equip students with the skills.

Prediction 4: For-Profit Schools Will Rebound

Newton’s Prediction
Newton predicts a resurgence of for-profit schools, fueled by a shift in federal policy under the new administration. Rollbacks of regulations that tied federal funding to job outcomes and increased difficulty in discharging student loans are expected to attract investors back to the for-profit sector.

My Take
Revised Prediction: 2025 Will Be a Pivotal Year for Accreditation and Alternative Models.

Newton’s prediction of a rebound for for-profits connects closely with broader changes likely to emerge under the new administration. However, the real story extends beyond for-profits to how accreditation and regulatory frameworks will evolve under these changing conditions. While relaxed policies may benefit for-profits directly, the ripple effects on accreditation, innovation, and the higher education landscape will be significant.

The emergence of new accrediting bodies like the National Association for Academic Excellence (NAAE) is particularly noteworthy. As discussed in my recent guest co-hosting of an episode of the EdUp Experience – Accreditation Insights podcast with Laurie Shanderson and featuring Anthony Bieda of the NAAE, this organization exemplifies a forward-thinking approach to accreditation. The NAAE seeks to address gaps left by legacy accreditors, emphasizing responsiveness, relevance, and a commitment to maintaining rigorous yet adaptable quality standards. With legacy accreditors grappling with how to support true innovation while upholding high standards, the NAAE’s model represents an important shift in the accreditation landscape.

One of the major challenges for accreditation in 2025 will be how accreditors and institutions navigate major innovations while ensuring that quality standards remain relevant and robust. Traditional accrediting bodies often face criticism for being slow to adapt to institutional needs, particularly regarding innovative approaches such as three-year bachelor’s degrees, credit-for-prior learning, and competency-based education. The NAAE aims to meet this challenge head-on by emphasizing outcomes-based metrics and fostering collaboration rather than simply enforcing compliance. This approach is a departure from traditional models and could serve as a blueprint for modernizing accreditation across the board.

Another critical responsibility of accreditors is ensuring that institutions maintain financial stability and sustainability. However, by the time warnings and other actions are taken, it is often too late to avoid major impacts on students. A better system for monitoring institutional finances is urgently needed—one that identifies vulnerabilities earlier and allows for proactive interventions. This would protect students and uphold the integrity of higher education as a whole.

A continuing story in 2025 will likely be the balance between fostering innovation and maintaining quality. As institutions explore new delivery models and embrace technologies like AI, accreditors must adapt to ensure these developments benefit students while preserving academic rigor. The focus on outcomes—such as graduate employment rates, skill attainment, and student satisfaction—will become increasingly central to the accreditation process. The NAAE and other emerging accreditors are well-positioned to lead this shift, emphasizing measurable results over rigid adherence to outdated frameworks.

Institutions also face mounting pressure to align with accrediting bodies that support their innovative efforts. For example, schools aiming to implement three-year bachelor’s degrees or experiment with nontraditional course structures may seek accreditation partners capable of adapting quickly to these changes. As legacy accreditors reassess their approaches to remain competitive, 2025 could mark a turning point in how accreditation evolves to support innovation while maintaining high-quality standards.  Of course, with the new administration, depending on their actions and ability to make the proposed changes and disruptions to the Department of Education and the Higher Education landscape, all of this could go right out the door and change in a heartbeat!

In conclusion, while Newton’s focus on the resurgence of for-profits is valid, the larger transformation lies in how accreditation will evolve to meet the demands of modern higher education. The rise of alternative accreditors like the NAAE signals a shift toward more flexible, outcomes-focused models that prioritize innovation without compromising quality. This evolution will shape the future of higher education, impacting institutions across the spectrum—not just for-profits.

Prediction 5: High School Students Will Be Even Less Prepared for College

Newton’s Prediction
Newton argues that incoming students in 2025 will be less prepared for college, particularly in writing and critical thinking, due to their reliance on AI tools throughout high school.

My Take
Revised Prediction: College Readiness Will Require a Shift in Expectations and Strategies.

I agree to some extent with Newton’s prediction but believe it requires a broader perspective. To say college readiness is in decline is overly simplistic and pessimistic; rather it is evolving. Yes, I will concede that there are some skill gaps evident in today’s high school graduates and modern learners.  Institutions of higher education—whether community colleges, technical schools, or four-year institutions—have always faced an evolving landscape of student preparedness after high school. This challenge is nothing new, yet institutions often lag behind in adapting to these changes.

Whether it’s writing skills, reading comprehension, critical thinking, or a knowledge base, I have consistently seen faculty express frustration about perceived deficiencies in students entering college. However, this is a steady drumbeat of critique that has spanned decades. The reality is that preparedness, like learning itself, is dynamic. Students today may lack certain traditional skills, but they also bring unique strengths, such as digital fluency and adaptability, which reflect the demands of a modern world increasingly shaped by technology.

Incorporating a modern learner approach, institutions should look to adjust everything from support services to curriculum and pedagogical practices to better engage students. By fostering curiosity and a lifelong learning mindset, colleges can help students bridge gaps in skills while leveraging their inherent strengths. This requires a paradigm shift away from lamenting perceived deficiencies and toward actively addressing them.

It’s not just about academic skills. Many students enter college lacking emotional, social, or mental readiness for the challenges of post-secondary education. These gaps further emphasize the need for institutions to be prepared to serve learners of all ages—not just those fresh out of high school. While dual-enrollment programs have seen increased participation and may address some knowledge gaps, they often fall short of fully preparing students emotionally or equipping them with essential skills.

A quick search of recent articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, Higher Ed Dive, and The Hechinger Report reveals widespread concern over students’ readiness to engage with extensive reading, in-depth research, and long-form writing. These challenges are well-documented, yet institutions must take them as opportunities to rethink how they prepare students for such demands. This does not mean eliminating rigorous assignments but reimagining how to scaffold students’ progress toward mastery of these tasks.

Call me overly optimistic, but I firmly believe in higher education’s ability to provide transformative learning experiences no matter where a student is at in his learning journey. Through thoughtful adaptation and a commitment to meeting students where they are, colleges can not only address gaps in preparedness but also unlock the full potential of all learners—traditional and nontraditional alike. Readiness is no longer a static concept; it’s a dynamic and evolving process. Institutions and faculty have a choice: continue lamenting the lack of preparedness or rise to the challenge and help students succeed in an ever-changing world.

Final Thoughts

Newton’s predictions offer a compelling starting point for reflecting on the challenges and opportunities ahead for higher education. However, the future of the sector hinges on how well we understand and address the evolving needs of the modern learner. This paradigm is not just about accommodating changing student demographics but embracing a mindset of adaptability, inclusivity, and innovation.

As I step into my new role as Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs at Gardner-Webb University, my primary focus will be on adopting and deepening my understanding of the modern learner paradigm. Recognizing that the needs of modern learners are not static but dynamic—and often influenced by the specific institutional and social contexts—I aim to work collaboratively to ensure that we design educational experiences that truly meet students where they are.

The modern learner paradigm requires institutions to rethink traditional assumptions about program design, course delivery, and support services. It’s about creating pathways that resonate with learners of all ages and backgrounds, addressing not just academic gaps but also the emotional, social, and mental challenges many students face today. Whether through innovative use of technology, tailored student services, or reimagined curricula, institutions must foster an environment that supports curiosity, cultivates durable skills, and prepares students for an unpredictable future.

At the same time, addressing broader systemic challenges—such as the integration of AI, the evolution of accreditation, and the financial stability of institutions—is critical to advancing this vision. The thoughtful adoption of AI, for example, has the potential to enhance learning, streamline operations, and support ethical academic practices. Meanwhile, emerging accreditation models like those championed by the National Association for Academic Excellence underscore the importance of adaptability and outcomes-focused approaches that prioritize student success and institutional sustainability.

Ultimately, higher education’s ability to thrive in this transformative era will depend on its commitment to bold, student-centered strategies. This is not a time to lament changes in student readiness or to cling to outdated models of teaching and learning. Instead, it’s an opportunity to lead with vision, empathy, and a steadfast belief in the transformative power of education. By centering on the modern learner and continuously evolving to meet their needs, we can create a more inclusive, dynamic, and resilient higher education landscape that empowers all learners to succeed.

From Margins to Mainstream: Elevating Adjunct Faculty for Academic Excellence

gregpillar on December 15, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Adjunct faculty are a cornerstone of higher education, serving as the primary instructors for foundational courses and gateway subjects that shape the academic journeys of countless students. They bring diverse perspectives and invaluable expertise from professional fields, often enriching classroom experiences with real-world applications and up-to-date industry knowledge (Caruth & Caruth, 2013; Zarrow, 2018). This blend of academic rigor and practical insight makes adjuncts indispensable to the mission of colleges and universities, particularly in meeting the evolving demands of students and the workforce.

Despite their critical contributions, adjunct faculty frequently contend with systemic inequities that compromise their ability to thrive professionally. Low pay, often below a living wage, is compounded by a lack of access to essential benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans (American Federation of Teachers [AFT], 2020). Moreover, the absence of job security and their exclusion from institutional decision-making processes marginalize adjuncts, leaving them undervalued and disconnected from the academic community (AFT, 2022). Additionally, resources to improve their effectiveness and communication and guidance on key program, department, college or university norms and policies are often lacking.  These challenges not only diminish the professional satisfaction of adjuncts but also hinder the broader success of the institutions that rely so heavily on their labor.

Addressing these inequities is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic necessity. Institutions that invest in the well-being and professional development of adjunct faculty see tangible benefits, including improved student outcomes, greater faculty retention, and a stronger sense of institutional cohesion (Lyons, 2004; Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019). Conversely, neglecting the needs of adjuncts can lead to high turnover, lower morale, and diminished educational quality, ultimately compromising the institution’s mission.

This article offers a comprehensive guide for fostering equitable and sustainable academic environments that benefit both adjuncts and institutions. It outlines actionable strategies for addressing systemic challenges, highlights promising practices from leading institutions, and sets the stage for future discussions on how adjuncts and academic leaders can work collaboratively to achieve equity and excellence in higher education

Recognizing the Value of Adjunct Faculty

Adjunct faculty constitute nearly 50% of the academic workforce in higher education, making them an indispensable component of colleges and universities. They play a crucial role in delivering quality education, especially in community colleges and foundational courses that serve as stepping stones for students pursuing advanced degrees. As highlighted by Caruth and Caruth (2013) and AFT (2020), adjuncts’ flexibility allows institutions to adapt to shifting enrollment demands and provide education in diverse and specialized fields. Moreover, adjunct faculty often bring more recent and expansive real-world experience to their classrooms compared to full-time faculty. Their connections to current industry practices and professional networks enrich academic programs, giving students insights into the practical applications of theoretical knowledge. This contemporary expertise is especially valuable in fields like business, technology, and healthcare, where rapid advancements necessitate up-to-date knowledge (Caruth & Caruth, 2013; Zarrow, 2018).

Adjuncts also teach a significant proportion of high-demand gateway courses, ensuring that students gain essential skills and competencies needed to progress academically. These courses, often prerequisites for advanced study, are pivotal in shaping students’ academic trajectories. Adjuncts’ professional backgrounds not only enhance the quality of these courses but also make them more relatable and applicable for students (UNCC, 2015; Zitko & Schultz, 2020). This is particularly significant in promoting equitable access to higher education for underrepresented groups, as these foundational courses often serve as entry points for students who might otherwise face barriers to higher education.

Despite these critical contributions, adjunct faculty face systemic inequities that undermine their ability to thrive professionally. Many adjuncts earn less than $3,500 per course, with annual earnings often falling below $25,000, placing them at or near the poverty line (Flaherty, 2020; AFT, 2022). A significant number of adjuncts report relying on public assistance and struggle to access basic benefits like health insurance and retirement plans. Additionally, the lack of job security—with 75% of adjuncts lacking long-term contracts—fosters a precarious employment environment that hinders their professional stability (AFT, 2020; Caruth & Caruth, 2013). These inequities are compounded by limited institutional support, such as the absence of dedicated office spaces, inadequate access to teaching resources, and exclusion from professional development opportunities. These challenges not only affect adjuncts but also have a ripple effect on the quality of education provided to students.

Investing in adjunct faculty yields measurable benefits for institutions. Research indicates that equitable pay, access to professional development, and inclusion in governance improve faculty morale and retention, which in turn enhances student success rates (Lyons, 2004; Shine Stewart, 2016). Institutions that recognize and address the needs of adjunct faculty demonstrate a commitment to both ethical practices and strategic excellence. By fostering an environment where adjuncts feel valued and supported, colleges and universities can improve the overall quality of their academic offerings while promoting a more inclusive and equitable workplace (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019). Supporting adjuncts is not merely a moral obligation; it is a critical strategy for achieving institutional goals and fostering academic success at all levels.

Key Areas for Improved Support

Compensation and Benefits

Transparent and equitable compensation remains a cornerstone for addressing systemic inequities faced by adjunct faculty. Institutions should adopt clear pay scales that reflect the expertise and workload of adjuncts. Transparent pay policies reduce disparities between adjunct and full-time faculty while reinforcing institutional integrity (Halcrow & Olson, 2008). Programs like Montgomery College’s use of CARES Act funding for stipends during the pandemic exemplify the commitment to fairness and recognition of adjunct contributions (UNCC, 2015). Moreover, providing benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, and paid leave is essential for enhancing adjuncts’ professional stability and well-being (AFT, 2020; Shine Stewart, 2016). Recognizing adjunct excellence through performance-based bonuses, teaching awards, and professional development stipends fosters a sense of belonging and institutional appreciation (Bonaparte, 2022).

From the adjunct perspective, advocating for better compensation often requires collective efforts. Unionization and collective bargaining have proven effective in pushing for equitable pay and access to benefits (AFT, 2022). Adjuncts should also familiarize themselves with institutional pay scales and employment policies to negotiate effectively. Partnering with advocacy groups like the AFT empowers adjuncts to organize and advocate for systemic reforms (Flaherty, 2020). In addition, participating in regional adjunct networks can amplify their voices and facilitate knowledge sharing about best practices for advocacy.

Access to Resources

Access to institutional resources is vital for adjunct faculty to perform effectively and professionally. Many adjuncts report lacking dedicated office space, institutional email accounts, and access to technology, which hinders their ability to engage fully with their roles (AFT, 2020; Halcrow & Olson, 2008). Institutions can address this by creating adjunct resource centers equipped with workspace, computers, printers, and meeting areas for student consultations (McCullough, 2015). Rochester Institute of Technology’s efforts to provide institutional accounts and comprehensive IT support illustrate how equal access to resources enhances adjunct integration (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).

In addition to physical resources, institutions should promote adjuncts’ inclusion in department communications, granting them access to institutional updates, calendars, and professional development opportunities. Resource-sharing systems and collaborative tools, such as shared digital platforms for course materials, can further support adjuncts in bridging gaps caused by resource disparities.

For adjuncts, proactively requesting access to available facilities and tools—such as department-specific labs, libraries, or learning management systems—can mitigate challenges. Leveraging existing adjunct-specific facilities where available ensures they maximize institutional offerings to enhance their teaching and professional development (Shine Stewart, 2016).

Professional Development Opportunities

Ongoing professional development is critical for adjunct faculty to stay informed about pedagogical innovations, institutional policies, and advancements in their fields. Institutions should prioritize offering paid training programs that focus on teaching methods, instructional technology, and course design. Paid opportunities acknowledge adjuncts’ time and effort, reinforcing their value within the institution (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019). Programs like UNC Charlotte’s professional learning communities exemplify how mentorship and collaboration enhance adjunct engagement and effectiveness (McCullough, 2015).

Institutions should also create tailored development tracks for adjuncts teaching online or hybrid courses, addressing specific challenges such as fostering virtual student engagement and managing asynchronous learning environments (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019). Providing stipends or grants for external training programs further signals an institutional commitment to adjunct growth.

Adjuncts, in turn, should actively seek out professional development opportunities, whether offered by their institutions or through external organizations. Engaging with faculty peers through workshops, seminars, and learning communities fosters both resource sharing and professional camaraderie (Lyons, 2004; Shine Stewart, 2016). Adjuncts can also participate in subject-specific conferences to network with experts and enhance their academic profiles.

Mentorship and Networking

Mentorship and networking initiatives are invaluable for integrating adjuncts into the academic community. Formal mentorship programs connect adjuncts with experienced faculty who can provide guidance on navigating institutional systems, improving teaching practices, and accessing professional opportunities (Zarrow, 2018). Rochester Institute of Technology’s mentorship programs for online adjuncts highlight the benefits of pairing new instructors with seasoned mentors to address unique challenges (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).

Networking events foster relationships between adjuncts, full-time faculty, and administrators, creating a sense of community and shared purpose. Institutions should regularly organize workshops, panel discussions, and social gatherings to facilitate these connections. Networking not only enhances adjuncts’ visibility but also opens avenues for collaboration on academic initiatives, research projects, and interdisciplinary teaching.

Adjuncts should actively seek mentors and participate in networking opportunities to integrate into the academic culture. Building relationships with full-time faculty and administrators strengthens their professional presence and increases access to institutional resources and decision-making processes (Zarrow, 2018). Establishing peer support groups with other adjuncts can also provide valuable insights and mutual encouragement.

Involvement in Governance

Adjunct faculty are often excluded from institutional governance, despite teaching a majority of courses in some departments. This exclusion marginalizes adjuncts and limits their ability to influence policies affecting their work. Institutions should actively include adjuncts in faculty meetings, departmental committees, and curriculum planning sessions, recognizing their perspectives as integral to institutional success (Flaherty, 2020). Montana State University’s efforts to integrate adjuncts into governance structures—including positions on faculty senate and curriculum committees—demonstrate how inclusion fosters a more equitable academic environment (Caruth & Caruth, 2013).

Formalizing roles for adjunct representatives within governance bodies ensures that their voices are consistently heard. Providing stipends for these roles further acknowledges the value of adjunct participation in decision-making processes. Institutions should also establish clear pathways for adjuncts to contribute to long-term strategic planning, aligning their contributions with institutional goals.

Adjuncts can advocate for governance roles by volunteering for committees, attending open faculty meetings, and engaging in institutional initiatives. Active participation in governance enables adjuncts to influence policies that directly impact their working conditions while building stronger connections with their departments (Zarrow, 2018).

Ethical Considerations: Addressing Systemic Inequities

The “gig economy” model of adjunct employment raises significant ethical concerns, including inequitable compensation, job insecurity, and marginalization. Institutions must adopt a values-driven approach that prioritizes equity, transparency, and respect for adjunct contributions (AFT, 2022; Shine Stewart, 2016). Ensuring fair pay, access to resources, and inclusion in governance are not merely administrative decisions but ethical imperatives that reflect institutional commitment to justice.

Equity in compensation and benefits must be central to institutional policies, addressing disparities between adjunct and full-time faculty. Transparency in employment terms, evaluation criteria, and advancement opportunities fosters trust and accountability. Additionally, cultivating a culture of respect and inclusion ensures that adjuncts feel valued as integral members of the academic community.

Institutions should regularly evaluate their practices to identify and rectify inequities in adjunct employment. By addressing these systemic issues, colleges and universities can create environments where adjuncts can thrive professionally, benefiting both faculty and students. Advocacy groups like AFT provide valuable frameworks and resources for institutions seeking to implement equitable practices (AFT, 2020; Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).

What to Avoid When Supporting Adjunct Faculty

Lack of Awareness and Training in Institutional Policies

Adjuncts frequently encounter difficulties when they are hired on short notice without adequate preparation or guidance. This lack of onboarding can lead to confusion about institutional policies, teaching expectations, and available resources, ultimately impacting their effectiveness in the classroom (UNCC, 2015). Structured onboarding programs are essential to bridge this gap. Institutions should provide comprehensive orientations that not only outline policies but also include practical information, such as procedures for student accommodations, grading standards, and classroom management strategies. Providing adjuncts with a centralized onboarding manual or digital resource hub can serve as a long-term reference, further empowering them to navigate institutional complexities with confidence.

Beyond initial onboarding, continuous support is crucial. Institutions can implement follow-up sessions during the semester to address ongoing questions and provide updates on policy changes. For example, offering periodic workshops that delve deeper into institutional systems—such as student retention software, academic integrity procedures, or diversity initiatives—can enhance adjuncts’ ability to align with institutional goals. The lack of this proactive approach risks alienating adjuncts and undermining their contributions.

Minimal or Nonexistent Onboarding

When institutions fail to provide clear guidelines on course expectations and available resources, adjuncts may struggle to establish a productive rhythm in their teaching. Gibson and O’Keefe (2019) emphasize that thorough onboarding programs that include peer mentorship opportunities can help adjuncts acclimate more effectively. Peer mentorship, in particular, serves as a dual-purpose solution: it provides adjuncts with a trusted colleague who can answer questions and fosters a sense of community. New adjuncts paired with experienced mentors can gain valuable insights into the institution’s culture, student demographics, and best practices for navigating challenges.

Institutions should also consider tailoring onboarding sessions to adjuncts teaching online or hybrid courses. Virtual teaching often involves unique demands, such as mastering learning management systems (LMS) or engaging students in asynchronous environments. Institutions like Rochester Institute of Technology have successfully implemented targeted programs for online adjuncts, addressing these specific challenges while building digital teaching competencies (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).

Inadequate Communication

A persistent issue for adjunct faculty is their exclusion from regular departmental communications, which leaves them disconnected from vital updates, deadlines, and opportunities for professional development (Flaherty, 2020). Effective communication strategies are foundational for fostering inclusion. Institutions must prioritize integrating adjuncts into the flow of information through multiple channels, such as email lists, newsletters, and department meetings. Creating a designated adjunct liaison within each department can further ensure adjuncts receive timely updates and have a point of contact for addressing concerns.

Regularly inviting adjuncts to participate in department meetings and faculty events helps to bridge the communication gap and builds rapport among full-time and adjunct faculty. Additionally, providing adjuncts with access to shared calendars, academic planning tools, and institutional databases enables them to stay informed and aligned with departmental objectives.

Marginalization in Campus Culture

Adjuncts often report feeling excluded from campus events, faculty recognition programs, and decision-making processes. This marginalization contributes to a sense of invisibility, which can demoralize adjuncts and impact their professional engagement (Lyons, 2004). Encouraging adjuncts’ participation in faculty events—such as welcome receptions, professional development workshops, and campus-wide celebrations—is an important step toward fostering a culture of inclusion.

Institutions must also actively recognize the achievements of adjunct faculty. Establishing awards specifically for adjuncts, such as “Adjunct Teacher of the Year” or “Innovative Adjunct Educator,” demonstrates institutional appreciation for their contributions. Highlighting adjunct accomplishments in newsletters, social media, or institutional publications further elevates their visibility and status within the academic community.

Moreover, creating spaces where adjuncts can share their experiences and collaborate with full-time faculty can significantly improve campus culture. This might include faculty lounges, interdisciplinary teaching forums, or adjunct-focused networking events. Programs like Montana State University’s inclusion of adjuncts in faculty senate and curriculum committees exemplify how integrating adjuncts into governance can enhance their sense of belonging and agency (Caruth & Caruth, 2013; Flaherty, 2020).

Finally, it is essential for institutional leaders to model inclusive behaviors. Acknowledging adjunct contributions publicly during convocation ceremonies, annual reports, or strategic planning discussions reinforces their value and signals a commitment to equity. Leadership engagement is critical for setting the tone and ensuring that inclusivity extends across all levels of the institution.

Promising Practices and Case Studies

Montgomery College: Resource Centers and Professional Development

Montgomery College has established itself as a leader in adjunct support by creating resource centers specifically tailored to the needs of adjunct faculty. These centers are equipped with essential tools such as computers, printers, and private spaces for student consultations, ensuring adjuncts have a professional environment in which to prepare and conduct their work (UNCC, 2015). Additionally, Montgomery College utilized CARES Act funding during the pandemic to offer stipends for adjuncts who participated in professional development programs focused on transitioning to online teaching. These programs not only enhanced adjuncts’ technical skills but also improved their confidence in navigating digital platforms—a skillset that remains invaluable post-pandemic (Bonaparte, 2022).

The college’s ongoing investment in adjunct professional growth is evident through regular workshops and training sessions. These initiatives provide adjuncts with opportunities to stay current with pedagogical trends and institutional policies, reinforcing their value within the academic community. Montgomery College’s approach exemplifies how thoughtful resource allocation can address systemic inequities and foster an environment where adjuncts feel supported and empowered.

UNC Charlotte: Learning Communities and Mentorship

UNC Charlotte has implemented innovative learning communities designed to integrate adjunct faculty into the broader academic culture. These learning communities serve as collaborative spaces where adjuncts and full-time faculty share best practices, discuss pedagogical strategies, and develop meaningful professional relationships (UNCC, 2015). By creating opportunities for mentorship, the program reduces the isolation often experienced by adjuncts and enhances their engagement with institutional goals.

One notable feature of UNC Charlotte’s program is its emphasis on context-specific training. Adjuncts are provided with tailored guidance on navigating institutional policies, handling classroom management challenges, and accommodating diverse student needs. This targeted support enables adjuncts to address real-world teaching scenarios effectively, improving both their job satisfaction and student outcomes. Furthermore, the program’s scalability makes it a model for other institutions seeking to foster collaboration and mentorship among faculty.

American Federation of Teachers (AFT): Advocacy and Collective Bargaining

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has been instrumental in advocating for systemic changes to improve adjunct working conditions. Through collective bargaining and political activism, the AFT has successfully pushed for increased funding for adjunct pay, expanded access to health insurance, and greater job security (AFT, 2022). Legislative initiatives led by the AFT have also inspired broader national discussions about equity in higher education employment practices.

The AFT’s Adjunct Faculty Quality of Work/Life Report (2020) highlighted critical issues such as poverty-level wages, lack of benefits, and job instability faced by adjuncts. By using data-driven advocacy, the organization has encouraged institutions to adopt more inclusive policies and practices. For example, the AFT has supported adjunct unions in negotiating fair pay scales and access to professional development funds, illustrating the power of collective action in driving systemic reform (Zitko & Schultz, 2020).

Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT): Mentorship and Online Support

Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) has developed a mentorship program specifically designed for adjunct faculty teaching online courses. Recognizing the unique challenges associated with virtual education, RIT pairs new online adjuncts with experienced faculty mentors who provide guidance on course design, instructional technology, and fostering student engagement in digital environments (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019). This personalized support ensures that adjuncts feel equipped to succeed in the increasingly digital landscape of higher education.

Additionally, RIT offers targeted professional development sessions that focus on best practices for virtual instruction, such as creating interactive online discussions and managing asynchronous coursework. These sessions not only enhance adjuncts’ technical competencies but also reinforce their role as integral members of the academic community. RIT’s comprehensive approach to adjunct mentorship and training underscores the importance of institution-specific strategies in addressing adjunct needs.

Montana State University: Faculty Inclusion

Montana State University has demonstrated a strong commitment to integrating adjunct faculty into institutional governance and decision-making processes. By including adjuncts in faculty senate meetings, curriculum committees, and strategic planning initiatives, the university ensures that their perspectives are represented in key decisions (Caruth & Caruth, 2013; Flaherty, 2020). This inclusion fosters a sense of belonging among adjuncts and reinforces their role as valued contributors to the academic mission.

Montana State also recognizes adjunct excellence through awards such as “Adjunct Teacher of the Year,” which publicly acknowledges their contributions to student success and institutional goals. These efforts highlight the importance of creating formal pathways for adjunct recognition and participation, setting a benchmark for other institutions seeking to promote equity and inclusion.

Key Takeaways from Promising Practices

  • Dedicated Resources Matter: Providing adjuncts with access to resource centers equipped with professional tools and spaces enables them to perform their roles effectively and with dignity. Institutions like Montgomery College demonstrate how targeted investments in physical resources can enhance adjuncts’ professional environments and overall job satisfaction.
  • Professional Development Pays Off: Offering paid training opportunities not only enhances adjuncts’ teaching skills but also signals institutional respect for their time and expertise. Programs at Montgomery College and RIT illustrate the benefits of equipping adjuncts with tools to succeed in both traditional and virtual classrooms.
  • Inclusion Fosters Equity: Integrating adjuncts into governance and decision-making processes, as seen at Montana State University, builds a sense of shared purpose and equity within the academic community. Recognizing adjunct achievements through awards and public acknowledgments further reinforces their value.
  • Advocacy Drives Change: Union efforts, such as those led by the AFT, demonstrate the power of collective action in addressing structural inequities. Institutions can leverage these advocacy models to adopt more inclusive policies and practices that benefit adjuncts and the institution as a whole.

These promising practices and case studies illustrate that with intentional effort and thoughtful resource allocation, institutions can transform the adjunct experience, fostering an equitable and supportive academic environment for all faculty.

Final Thoughts

Adjunct faculty are integral to the success and sustainability of higher education. They are often the primary educators for foundational courses and gateway subjects that shape students’ academic trajectories, making their contributions indispensable to institutional missions. However, the persistent inequities faced by adjuncts—from inadequate compensation to limited inclusion in governance—not only harm individual faculty members but also hinder institutional effectiveness and student outcomes.

Addressing these inequities is both an ethical imperative and a strategic necessity. Ethical institutions recognize the humanity and professionalism of adjunct faculty by prioritizing equitable treatment, offering meaningful support, and creating pathways for professional growth. From a strategic perspective, investing in adjuncts’ professional and personal well-being leads to measurable benefits, including higher faculty retention, improved student success rates, and a more cohesive academic community.

Collaboration between institutions and adjuncts is essential to building an academic environment rooted in equity and excellence. Institutions must take proactive steps to address systemic barriers, such as adopting transparent pay scales, providing access to resources, and including adjuncts in governance. Simultaneously, adjuncts can strengthen their roles by advocating for better conditions, participating in professional development, and engaging with their peers to build supportive networks.

While this discussion has highlighted broad strategies for institutional reform, there is much more to explore. Future installments in this series will delve deeper into practical advice for adjunct faculty, from navigating contract negotiations to leveraging professional development opportunities. Additionally, upcoming discussions will provide institutions with actionable recommendations for integrating adjunct faculty more fully into the academic community, ensuring that they are not just participants but partners in shaping the future of higher education.

By working together, adjuncts and institutions can create a higher education landscape that values equity, celebrates excellence, and empowers all faculty members to thrive. This shared commitment is not only vital for individual success but also for the long-term strength and integrity of the academic enterprise.

References

American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (2020). An army of temps: AFT 2020 adjunct faculty quality of work/life report. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/2022/qualitylifereport_feb2022.pdf

American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (2022). Quality of life report: The precarious lives of adjunct faculty. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2023/Contingent_Faculty_Survey_2022_interactive.pdf

Bonaparte, R. (2022, March 31). Colleges must support adjuncts in order to support students (opinion). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2022/04/01/colleges-must-support-adjuncts-order-support-students-opinion

Brennan, J., & Magness, P. (2018). Are adjunct faculty exploited? Some grounds for skepticism. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3322-4

Caruth, G. D., & Caruth, D. L. (2013). Adjunct faculty: Who are these unsung heroes of academe? Current Issues in Education, 16(3). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1269

Flaherty, C. (2020, April 19). Barely Getting By: New report says many adjuncts make less than $3,500 per course and $25,000 per year. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/20/new-report-says-many-adjuncts-make-less-3500-course-and-25000-year

Focarile, T. (2024, January 19). I’m an adjunct: What do I need to know about teaching? Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/im-an-adjunct-what-do-i-need-to-know-about-teaching/

Gibson, A., & O’Keefe, L. (2019, November 1). Support for adjunct faculty is support for quality: Recognizing and supporting adjunct needs. Online Learning Consortium. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/support-for-adjunct-faculty-is-support-for-quality-recognizing-and-supporting-adjunct-needs/

Lyons, R. E. (2004). The seven habits of highly effective adjunct professors. Adapted from Success Strategies for Adjunct Faculty. Retrieved fromhttps://www.shsu.edu/faculty_staff/handbook-orientation/7-habits-of-highly-effective-adjunct-professors.html 

UNCC (2015, October 15). New learning community designed to support adjunct faculty. Inside UNC Charlotte. Retrieved from https://inside.charlotte.edu/news-features/2015-10-15/new-learning-community-designed-support-adjunct-faculty

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Characteristics of postsecondary faculty. The Condition of Education 2024. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe

Shine Stewart, M. (2016, July 20). How to improve the teaching conditions of adjunct faculty members (essay). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/07/21/how-improve-teaching-conditions-adjunct-faculty-members-essay

Spitalniak, L. (2023, November 6). Adjunct faculty face low pay, minimal administrative support, AFT finds. Higher Ed Dive. Retrieved fromhttps://www.highereddive.com/news/adjunct-faculty-face-low-pay-minimal-support-aft-finds/698945/.

Straumshein, C. (2015, February 4). The importance of adjunct faculty. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/

Zarrow, S. E. (2018, August 23). How tenured and tenure-track faculty can support adjuncts (opinion). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/08/24/how-tenured-and-tenure-track-faculty-can-support-adjuncts-opinion

Zitko, P. A., & Schultz, K. (2020). The adjunct model as an equity crisis in higher education: A qualitative inquiry into the lived experience of “part-time” community college faculty in Northern California. Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 8. Retrieved from https://journals.scholarsportal.info/details/education-leadership

Navigating Staffing Challenges in Higher Education: Thoughts on Retention, Support, and Resilience

gregpillar on November 10, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

With over 20 years of experience in higher education and more than 8 years overseeing university programs and academic operations, I’ve witnessed the unique challenges faced by different university units. I have directly provided leadership and guidance, leading hiring efforts in career development, academic success, the library, registrar, international education, institutional effectiveness, and academic community engagement. Though I am not an expert in each department, this background gives me a broad perspective on the staffing issues that impact higher education today.

Over the last several years, staffing challenges have intensified, with 84% of institutions now reporting difficulty filling essential staff roles, and 79% indicating that vacancies have surged (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). These widespread vacancies disrupt core functions and heighten pressures on departments already struggling with tight budgets and evolving workforce expectations. Institutions are finding it particularly difficult to recruit for positions in fields like IT, student support, and facilities management, where competition with private sector salaries and benefits is particularly strong (Herget, 2024; Brantley & Shomaker, 2021).

Economic and societal factors further complicate staffing retention, especially for smaller colleges and community colleges with limited resources. According to Querolo, Moran, and Patino (2023), many of these institutions face significant enrollment declines and budget cuts, which restrict their ability to offer competitive salaries or invest in retention strategies. Public institutions and rural colleges encounter added challenges, such as compensation limits and residency requirements, which restrict their applicant pools (Herget, 2024). The financial strain on these institutions not only affects their ability to recruit and retain talent but also compromises the quality of student services and academic support, as remaining staff struggle to meet increased demands with fewer resources.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also reshaped workforce expectations, accelerating a shift toward remote and hybrid work models. While the private sector has widely adopted flexible work options, higher education has been slower to adapt, leading many staff to seek roles in other industries that prioritize work-life balance. Surveys indicate that 74% of higher ed employees now prefer hybrid work arrangements, and institutions lagging in flexibility have seen elevated turnover rates (Deloitte, 2023; Herget, 2024). As a result, colleges and universities are increasingly under pressure to modernize their work policies to retain employees who are reevaluating their career expectations and priorities.

In addition to these external pressures, the faculty-staff divide within institutions remains a significant yet often overlooked factor in staff retention. Professional staff members—many of whom hold advanced degrees in fields such as instructional design, student affairs, and higher education leadership—often feel undervalued and excluded from decision-making processes, despite their critical contributions to institutional success. Unlike faculty, who benefit from tenure protections and greater autonomy, staff generally lack the same job security and recognition. This divide, as Dean Dad (2011) describes, fosters a sense of inequity and limits collaborative innovation, ultimately affecting morale and job satisfaction.

This article explores these multi-layered staffing challenges, examining the factors that drive staff turnover and burnout, as well as strategies for creating a more resilient and supportive workplace culture. By identifying both immediate solutions and long-term approaches, this article aims to provide a roadmap for institutions seeking to improve retention, bridge cultural divides, and adapt to evolving employee expectations within higher education.

The Current Landscape of Staff Turnover in Higher Education

The turnover crisis in higher education is impacted by a complex interplay of economic pressures, demographic shifts, and evolving workforce expectations. According to a survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education, 84% of institutions report challenges in filling staff and administrative roles, and 79% indicate that vacancies have increased substantially over recent years (Anft, 2021). Certain fields, such as IT, facilities, and student support, are experiencing acute shortages due to competition with private sector salaries and benefits (Herget, 2024; Hoover, 2022). A survey conducted in November 2021 revealed that nearly half of all institutions had vacancies in critical roles that remained unfilled for over six months, underscoring the severity of this issue (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021).

The economic pressures facing higher education contribute significantly to this turnover crisis. Rising inflation and stagnant salaries in higher education have created financial strain, particularly as the cost of living outpaces the salary adjustments many institutions can afford. As McClure (2024) highlights, many employees in education-support roles—those in administrative, custodial, or skilled trades—earn less than a living wage, adding further strain to already underpaid positions. This issue is compounded by outdated compensation practices, with many institutions neglecting to update salary ranges or adjust job classifications, leaving pay structures misaligned with employees’ roles and responsibilities. In departments like IT, EDUCAUSE (2024) notes that only 36% of teams feel they have sufficient resources to expand or retain positions, highlighting how budget constraints limit universities’ ability to compete with the private sector for talent.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic permanently altered workforce expectations, creating demand for flexibility, hybrid work arrangements, and mental health support. While the private sector has widely adopted these practices, higher education has been slower to adapt. According to Clark (2023), employees now prioritize roles offering work-life balance, which has become a critical factor in turnover. As a result, institutions unable to meet these expectations are witnessing an exodus of staff seeking greater flexibility in other industries (Herget, 2024).

Sector-specific turnover rates further illustrate the challenges faced by higher education. Critical roles in student support, financial aid, and IT are particularly hard-hit due to high demands, stagnant salaries, and limited budgets. These roles, though often viewed as supportive rather than central, are essential to student retention and satisfaction, yet are frequently under-resourced (Anft, 2021). As McClure (2024) discusses, institutions sometimes use flexible job titles as stop-gap measures in place of compensation adjustments, but these practices only add frustration for employees, who may be asked to fulfill multiple roles with no pay increase. This leads to increased workloads and burnout, which in turn contribute to higher turnover rates among staff in these departments, amplifying pressures on those who remain.

Geographical and institutional variations also complicate the staffing landscape. Public institutions and those in rural areas face particular challenges due to compensation limits and residency requirements that restrict applicant pools (Herget, 2024). In addition, rural institutions often lack a local talent pool and may struggle to attract out-of-state candidates, particularly younger professionals seeking vibrant urban locations. Combined with an aging workforce, with approximately 30% of higher ed employees over 55 years old, these factors signal an impending wave of retirements that will further strain resources (Kim, J. 2023; Brantley & Shomaker, 2021).

Specific challenges also impact departments like the registrar’s office, where vacancies and turnover have intensified. The November 2021 60-Second Survey Report from AACRAO highlights that 53% of registrar’s offices reported at least one vacancy, with 70% finding it “difficult” or “very difficult” to fill those positions (AACRAO, 2021). These statistics illustrate the unique pressures facing specialized roles in higher education, where departments essential to core operations struggle to attract qualified candidates amid tight budgets and increased workload demands.

Financial constraints across institutions, especially smaller colleges and community colleges, exacerbate these staffing issues. Enrollment declines have led to budget freezes and cuts that prevent institutions from offering competitive salaries or investing in retention strategies. Small colleges, for instance, are under increasing pressure to reduce costs, making it difficult to prioritize hiring and retention (Querolo, Moran, & Patino, 2023). This shortage has tangible effects on student experience: understaffed financial aid offices and student support departments struggle to keep up with demand, leading to delays in service and diminished student satisfaction, which ultimately affects retention (Hoover, 2022; AACRAO, 2021). These delays not only create obstacles for students but also impact their ability to maintain financial stability, thereby contributing to decreased enrollment and retention rates.

The Faculty-Staff Divide

One factor exacerbating the turnover crisis is the divide between faculty and professional staff, which influences morale and retention. From my experience, this divide often manifests in the perception of different roles and contributions. Professional staff—who frequently hold advanced degrees in fields such as instructional design, student affairs, and higher education leadership—are often excluded from decision-making processes. Although they play critical roles in shaping student experiences and supporting institutional goals, they are not consistently viewed as peers by faculty (Dean Dad, 2011). This can lead to feelings of undervaluation and lack of recognition, especially as professional staff tend to receive lower compensation and limited opportunities for career advancement. McClure (2024) notes that salary compression and outdated compensation structures compound frustrations among staff who observe significant pay disparities with faculty counterparts, reinforcing a sense of inequity in the workplace.

Cultural and structural differences reinforce this divide. Faculty enjoy greater autonomy and are viewed as central to the academic mission, often receiving higher pay and recognition. In contrast, professional staff face more rigid job structures, limited opportunities for career progression, and few merit-based raise opportunities (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021; McClure, 2024). This inequity can create friction, as faculty may view staff as support personnel rather than collaborative partners, thereby limiting the potential for cross-functional innovation and mutual support (Dean Dad, 2011). For example, professional staff in registrar’s offices and student support services often manage increasing responsibilities, such as data stewardship and student engagement initiatives, yet receive little to no additional compensation or acknowledgment for this “invisible labor” (Parks, 2023). This added burden contributes to burnout, which compounds retention issues as staff feel undervalued for their significant contributions.

Moreover, exclusion from shared governance and decision-making further deepens the faculty-staff divide. Professional staff are typically not included in institutional policy discussions, even though their insights could provide valuable perspectives on implementing programs that directly impact students. As McKenna (2022) and Ryder et al. (2023) observe, the lack of inclusion for staff in governance structures not only affects their morale but also limits institutional efficacy by creating policies without input from those who will implement them. This exclusion can lead to a disconnect between policy goals and practical outcomes, ultimately affecting the success of student-centered initiatives.

The divide also impacts institutional culture, weakening collaborative efforts that are essential to student success. When staff feel excluded or undervalued, it diminishes overall campus cohesion, leading to a fragmented workplace culture where collaboration across departments is hindered. According to Clark (2023) and Anft (2021), this lack of cohesion can reduce cross-functional innovation, which is vital for student retention and long-term institutional resilience. Addressing the divide by fostering inclusivity and recognition for staff contributions could create a stronger sense of unity, enhancing the collective mission of supporting students.

Finally, the presence of tenure protections for faculty further highlights this divide, as tenured professors enjoy significant job security unavailable to most professional staff. Staff members, in contrast, are often vulnerable to layoffs during budget cuts, restructuring, or other financial crises. This lack of job security among staff fosters a heightened sense of instability and can lead to high turnover rates, as staff members seek more stable roles in other industries (Herget, 2024). Acknowledging and addressing these disparities is essential for improving workplace culture, enhancing retention, and promoting a sense of unity across campus roles.

Challenges Contributing to High Staff Turnover

Several key challenges drive high staff turnover across higher education institutions, with non-competitive compensation as a primary factor. Higher education institutions, especially smaller public colleges, cannot compete with the private sector on salary and benefits, leading many employees to seek better-paying jobs elsewhere. CUPA-HR data reveal that 57% of higher education employees have considered leaving for higher-paying opportunities (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Furthermore, data from an AACRAO 60-second survey show that 64% of institutions cite salary limitations as a primary barrier to retention (AACRAO, 2021). This trend highlights the increasing difficulty colleges face in retaining staff within constrained budgets.

In addition to compensation, a lack of workplace flexibility is significantly influencing turnover. The private sector has widely embraced remote and hybrid work models, whereas higher education has been slower to adapt. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the demand for flexibility, with surveys indicating that 74% of higher ed employees now prefer hybrid work arrangements (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Institutions like Carnegie Mellon University have implemented hybrid models to retain talent; however, many critical roles in student services and support require an in-person presence, which continues to be a limiting factor in retaining staff (Deloitte, 2023). HigherEdJobs surveys indicate that many staff leave academia in search of better work-life balance and flexible scheduling options available in other sectors (Herget, 2024).

A significant challenge in attracting and retaining talent within academia is the appeal of private-sector roles, which often offer not only competitive compensation but also greater flexibility, career advancement, and work-life balance. According to Deloitte (2023) and McClure (2024), many higher education employees are increasingly drawn to industries that meet these evolving workplace expectations. This trend has led to a rise in staff leaving academia for non-academic roles, especially in fields like IT, student services, and administrative support, where private-sector positions frequently offer more attractive work conditions.

Additionally, as experienced professionals exit higher education, finding qualified applicants for critical positions becomes increasingly difficult, particularly in departments like the registrar’s office. From my perspective, the limited pipeline of new professionals entering higher education poses a serious recruitment challenge. Registrar roles, for example, now require specialized skills in data management, compliance, and digital credentialing that extend beyond traditional responsibilities (Pittinsky, 2019; Parks, 2023). However, many institutions lack targeted recruitment strategies to attract individuals from other industries who possess these transferrable skills. Hiring externally could bring in much-needed talent, yet it remains an underutilized approach in higher education recruitment (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021).

The skills gap in specialized roles has only widened as fewer professionals enter academia with the specific qualifications needed. Critical positions in the registrar’s office and student support services are increasingly hard to fill, with 70% of registrar offices reporting hiring difficulties due to the expanding technical and regulatory demands (AACRAO, 2021). Moreover, the same AACRAO 60-Second Survey Report reveals that since 2020, the registrar’s office has experienced a 26% reduction in staff size, intensifying workloads and increasing burnout among remaining staff members (AACRAO, 2021). This data underscores the strain created by staffing cuts and limited hiring, as remaining employees face heightened responsibilities in a high-stakes environment. Parks (2023) suggests that institutions could benefit from recruiting candidates from fields with robust data, compliance, and technology backgrounds, though this requires adopting new recruitment and onboarding strategies. Bridge programs to train external hires on academic policies and systems could facilitate their transition, enhancing retention and leveraging their skill sets in ways that benefit the institution (McKenna, 2022).

Institutions facing high turnover must also address the impact of role demands and limited growth opportunities on retention. Staff in specialized positions, such as those in registrar and student support roles, frequently manage increasing responsibilities without corresponding increases in support or compensation. This lack of advancement and recognition contributes to burnout and turnover (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). The frequent departures in these critical roles disrupt essential functions, diminishing both the quality of student services and operational stability (AACRAO, 2021). Without targeted efforts to improve compensation, expand recruitment efforts, and provide clear career paths, the turnover crisis in higher education is likely to persist.

Certain specialized roles, such as those in the registrar’s office, face unique turnover pressures due to an increase in responsibilities. Today’s registrars manage complex tasks involving data privacy, digital credentialing, and student pathways (Pittinsky, 2019; Parks, 2023). Overall, a survey conducted by AACRAO found that 70% of registrar offices report difficulty filling these positions due to the expanding technical and regulatory demands, which make these roles particularly challenging (AACRAO, 2021). This trend reflects a broader issue in higher education, where roles are becoming more demanding without corresponding increases in support or compensation.

Unit-Specific Challenges in Higher Education

While staffing shortages affect all of higher education, certain units face unique pressures that compound turnover.

  • Registrar’s Office: The registrar’s role has evolved dramatically, now encompassing data security, digital credentialing, and managing complex pathways for student progression and graduation. The registrar is also responsible for compliance with student data privacy regulations, such as FERPA. Today’s registrars manage complex tasks involving data privacy, digital credentialing, and student pathways, reflecting an increase in responsibilities that adds to the difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified staff (Pittinsky, 2019; Parks, 2023).

    According to AACRAO’s November 2021 60-Second Survey Report, registrar’s offices have faced a significant decrease in staff size since 2020, with a reported 26% reduction, which has intensified workloads for remaining staff and increased burnout (AACRAO, 2021). This reduction in staffing places additional burdens on current employees, who are required to manage essential functions with limited resources. Furthermore, 70% of registrar offices report difficulty filling these specialized roles, as expanding technical and regulatory demands necessitate highly specialized skills in compliance, data management, and digital credentialing (AACRAO, 2021). This heightened demand underscores the challenges of recruiting candidates with the right expertise, as registrar roles now require a complex blend of legal, technical, and academic knowledge. 

    This trend mirrors a broader issue in higher education, where roles are becoming more demanding without corresponding increases in support or compensation, creating unique turnover pressures within registrar offices. High turnover in these positions disrupts the consistency of student services and adds strain to remaining staff members who must balance increasing responsibilities. To address these challenges, institutions may need to consider recruiting individuals from outside higher education with transferrable skills in compliance, data management, and digital credentialing, as well as investing in professional development to help current staff adapt to evolving demands

  • IT Departments: IT teams face continuous staffing challenges as the demand for digital services grows, especially following the shift to online and hybrid learning. The EDUCAUSE survey found that only 36% of IT departments feel they have the resources to create new positions, and many lack the budget to compete with the private sector for highly sought-after IT talent (EDUCAUSE, 2024). Smaller institutions particularly struggle in this area, impacting digital infrastructure and overall institutional performance. Additionally, private-sector competition with higher salaries and more flexible work environments further strains IT departments’ ability to retain skilled professionals (McClure, 2024).
  • Student Financial Services: Financial aid offices are frequently understaffed, leading to delays in aid processing and impacting student retention. According to Hoover (2022), critical understaffing in these offices harms student satisfaction, as students face long wait times and delayed financial aid decisions. This is especially problematic for lower-income students who rely on timely financial support to continue their studies. Expanding self-service options could alleviate some workload, but implementing digital solutions requires both investment and IT support, adding to the strain on under-resourced institutions (Deloitte, 2023).

  • Student Success and Support Services: The demand for one-on-one support in advising and counseling has risen significantly, particularly as mental health concerns increase among college students. However, high caseloads and limited staffing in student success units lead to burnout, especially at community colleges, where these services are vital for supporting at-risk student populations (Basko, 2023). High turnover in these roles disrupts continuity of care, impacting student satisfaction and retention. Solutions such as peer-support programs, hiring additional support staff, and providing resilience training for counselors could reduce burnout and improve retention.

  • Library Services: University libraries have expanded their roles, providing academic resources, digital literacy programs, and collaborative spaces. Many librarians now offer workshops, manage digital resources, and assist with academic research, but staff shortages limit these services, exacerbated by budget cuts (Deloitte, 2023). Budget constraints have forced libraries to reduce service hours or limit programming, affecting their ability to support students effectively. Leveraging partnerships with academic departments and hiring graduate students as part-time support staff could help ease these pressures.
  • Institutional Research and Institutional Effectiveness: Institutional Research (IR) and Institutional Effectiveness (IE) play crucial roles in guiding data-driven decisions, supporting accreditation, and shaping strategic goals in higher education. These departments gather, analyze, and interpret data on institutional performance, helping to inform decisions on everything from resource allocation to academic programming (HelioCampus, 2024). However, significant challenges arise in implementing these practices effectively. According to Douglass and Chirikov (2020), many universities underutilize their data or face structural issues, such as siloed information across departments, which limits the ability to create comprehensive, institution-wide insights. This fragmentation hinders data accessibility, making it difficult to use analytics effectively across the institution.

    In recent years, IR and IE teams have increasingly taken on roles in quality assurance, compliance, and accreditation. They are vital in ensuring that institutions meet regulatory standards and maintain data integrity, which supports internal reviews and accreditation efforts (Morgan, 2024). These units also enhance decision-making by identifying student success trends, financial performance, and strategic opportunities. For instance, predictive analytics has emerged as a powerful tool for anticipating enrollment patterns and guiding long-term planning, allowing institutions to adapt proactively to shifting student demographics and financial challenges (Douglass & Chirikov, 2020).

    Despite their critical contributions, IR and IE departments face resource limitations and an ongoing need for staff skilled in advanced data analytics. Many universities struggle with budget constraints, which restrict their ability to invest in necessary tools and training. Moreover, complex data privacy regulations add further challenges, as IR teams must balance analytical needs with compliance requirements like FERPA in the U.S. and GDPR in Europe (Morgan, 2024). To maximize effectiveness, institutions could explore collaborative data-sharing models and cross-departmental integration efforts to strengthen IR and IE capabilities, enhance their ability to support strategic goals, and ultimately foster a data-informed campus culture (HelioCampus, 2024).

Cross-Unit Impacts of Staffing Shortages

Staffing shortages in units such as admissions, student financial services, and student life have far-reaching effects on other departments, particularly student support services and the registrar’s office. From my experience, this cross-departmental strain becomes acute when leadership lacks a holistic understanding of how each unit’s responsibilities are interconnected. When responsibilities shift from one division to another without stakeholder input, it can place undue stress on other units, deteriorating trust and workplace culture. For example, an understaffed financial aid office may delay aid distribution, placing added stress on student support staff who manage inquiries from frustrated students (Ryder et al., 2023). Additionally, delays in financial aid processing can disrupt enrollment timelines and cause a ripple effect, impacting academic departments, course scheduling, and ultimately, student retention (Hoover, 2022). Without adequate staffing across interconnected units, institutions risk creating bottlenecks that harm student satisfaction and retention.

The Role of Interdependencies Between Units

The impact of these shortages is compounded by the close interdependencies between departments. Registrar staff, for instance, rely on timely input from admissions and financial aid offices to process enrollments, verify student records, and ensure compliance with regulatory standards. When these feeder units are understaffed, it creates delays and additional workload for registrar staff, who must often reconcile incomplete or late data submissions (Parks, 2023). According to Douglass and Chirikov (2020), without a coordinated approach to staffing across departments, critical tasks like compliance reporting and accreditation processes are at risk, potentially jeopardizing the institution’s operational efficiency and compliance efforts.

Strain on Student Life and Support Services

The strain between Student Life and Student Support Services also demonstrates how staffing shortages can impact student satisfaction and institutional cohesion. Both units are tasked with enhancing student well-being and success, yet shortages in one area often place additional burdens on the other. For instance, when limited staffing in student life reduces mental health and wellness programming, students often turn to support services like counseling, accessibility, and academic support for assistance. This additional workload can overwhelm support services, particularly in high-demand areas like accessibility services, where specialists already manage large caseloads (Basko, 2023). When students face long wait times or reduced support, it negatively impacts their academic performance and campus experience, increasing the risk of attrition.

Prioritization Imbalances and Their Effects on Institutional Culture

Prioritizing certain departments, such as IT and academic affairs, over critical support areas like the registrar’s office, student life, and student services can weaken workplace culture and degrade service quality. McKenna (2022) and Brantley & Shomaker (2021) highlight that an imbalance in departmental investment not only affects morale but also fragments the institution’s mission. Under-resourced areas, especially in student support and financial aid, directly affect student experience, leading to lower satisfaction and retention. Ensuring balanced investment across departments is crucial for maintaining a cohesive and effective institutional structure that supports both student success and staff well-being.

Consequences for Institutional Research and Strategic Planning

Institutional Research (IR) and Institutional Effectiveness (IE) teams rely on timely, accurate data from admissions, financial services, and student life units to support strategic planning. Staffing shortages in these departments can lead to incomplete or delayed data submissions, forcing IR teams to spend additional time cleaning or reformatting data (Morgan, 2024). This impedes IR’s capacity to provide actionable insights, making it more challenging for institutions to make proactive, data-informed decisions that adapt to evolving student needs.

Accreditation, Compliance, and Technology Integration Risks

Shortages in departments like financial aid and registrar offices pose significant risks for compliance and accreditation. These units contribute critical data for accreditation standards, and understaffing can lead to errors or delays that compromise institutional reputation and funding (HelioCampus, 2024; AACRAO, 2021). From my experience, a loss of staff in Institutional Research (IR) can force other units—such as Institutional Effectiveness, IT, the Registrar, and Academic Affairs—to absorb IR responsibilities. This redistribution places a significant burden on these units, as their staff must quickly and extensively learn key IR functions to ensure timely reporting, including IPEDS submissions, meeting internal timelines for program reviews, administering course evaluations, and providing various internal data and reports to other offices. Such pressures can disrupt regular operations within these departments and intensify burnout, as existing staff are stretched thin to meet compliance requirements.

Additionally, IT shortages delay the implementation of digital tools and self-service portals essential for enhancing the student experience and improving departmental efficiency (EDUCAUSE, 2024). Outdated technology, exacerbated by IT understaffing, causes delays in accessing crucial services, affecting student satisfaction and retention.

Strategies for Building Resilience in Cross-Departmental Staffing

To address these complex challenges, institutions could benefit from cross-training staff to support high-need areas during peak times. For instance, registrar staff trained in admissions could assist during enrollment periods, while admissions personnel could support financial aid inquiries as needed. Clark (2023) notes that flexible, cross-departmental staffing models create a resilient workforce capable of managing fluctuating demands, thus reducing the overall impact of staffing shortages. This approach not only mitigates staffing gaps but also fosters a more collaborative workplace culture, strengthening morale and reducing turnover across departments.

Strategies for Reducing Burnout and Enhancing Retention

Addressing these complex challenges requires a multifaceted approach to alleviate burnout and improve retention. Below are several actionable strategies backed by research and data from multiple sources.

  1. Flexible Work Arrangements
    Providing flexible work options has become essential to staff retention in higher education. Data from CUPA-HR indicate that 74% of higher ed employees prefer hybrid models, suggesting that institutions offering flexibility can improve retention rates (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Flexible arrangements are especially valuable in IT departments, where remote work aligns with industry standards and helps retain specialized talent (EDUCAUSE, 2024). Additionally, flexible scheduling can benefit high-demand units such as financial aid and student support, where peak times often lead to high stress. Staggered shifts or compressed work weeks can provide relief during these periods and improve work-life balance.

    The AACRAO report further highlights the growing role of remote work in specific departments, with 63% of registrar offices now allowing remote work at least one day a week—a notable increase since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (AACRAO, 2021). This shift toward flexible work arrangements reflects broader workforce expectations and supports retention in roles that have historically been limited to on-site work. For registrar offices, remote work options are particularly valuable as they help to reduce burnout by giving employees a break from the physical office environment while allowing them to complete essential tasks from home.

    Implementing flexible work arrangements not only meets the evolving expectations of employees but also serves as a strategic advantage in retaining qualified staff in competitive fields. In high-demand areas, such as IT and registrar offices, where the complexity of tasks and regulatory demands have increased, flexibility offers a practical approach to balance workloads and support employee well-being. Institutions that adapt to these expectations may see lower turnover and improved staff morale, ultimately fostering a more resilient and engaged workforce across departments.

  2. Internal Talent Development Programs
    Internal development programs are critical for departments that face recruiting challenges. Registrar offices, for example, benefit from “grow-your-own” programs that train existing staff in the specialized skills needed for these roles (Pittinsky, 2019). These programs could include mentorship, job shadowing, and structured training sessions that allow junior employees to gain expertise from seasoned professionals. Additionally, expanding these programs to departments like Institutional Research and IT could help address skill gaps by building a workforce with the precise skills needed, reducing reliance on external hires.

    Programs tailored to recent graduates, particularly in areas like student life and enrollment, can also be highly effective. Institutions should recognize that these positions offer recent alumni valuable experience, serving as a stepping stone to further career growth, whether at the institution or elsewhere. By supporting these alumni in their professional journeys, institutions can build a reputation as an employer that prioritizes long-term professional growth, even beyond the institution. The Chronicle (Anft, 2021) notes that investing in internal growth fosters a sense of loyalty and institutional knowledge that is difficult to replicate with new hires.

  3. Culture of Care and Support
    Building a supportive campus culture that emphasizes transparent communication, trauma-informed leadership, and employee engagement is crucial for reducing turnover. Trauma-informed leadership recognizes the emotional and psychological impacts of trauma and stress on staff, helping leaders foster a culture of empathy, emotional safety, and responsiveness (Lynch, 2022). Trauma-informed practices encourage leaders to approach interactions with empathy and understanding, which can help reduce burnout by creating a supportive environment that acknowledges personal and professional challenges. These practices help institutions model a culture of respect and care, setting a positive tone that influences the broader workplace climate.

    Trauma-informed leaders also prioritize clear communication and openness in handling change, supporting teams with empathy while promoting psychological safety (Pillar, 2024). Initiatives such as regular check-ins, wellness resources, and promoting work-life balance through support systems can further enhance a culture of care. Building cross-departmental collaboration between student support services and student life fosters mutual support across departments, while campus-wide appreciation events, “employee well-being days,” and access to mental health resources contribute to a cohesive and supportive institutional environment.

  4. Professional Development and Succession Planning
    Investing in professional development and succession planning is essential as institutions prepare for an upcoming wave of retirements. The EDUCAUSE survey highlights that career advancement is a powerful retention tool, especially for roles like IT that require ongoing skill development (EDUCAUSE, 2024). Professional development programs should integrate agile and resilient strategies to prepare for turnover, acknowledging that factors like compensation and work flexibility may continue to drive retention challenges. An agile approach helps institutions anticipate transitions and build resilience, minimizing disruptions while still demonstrating a commitment to retaining talent. This proactive planning should not be seen as “giving up” on staff but rather as a strategy to manage inevitable transitions smoothly, reducing the strain on remaining staff.

    Long-term resilience also involves engaging staff in cross-departmental projects, which can improve job satisfaction by strengthening their sense of purpose and connection to the institution’s mission (McKenna, 2022). Offering opportunities for staff to participate in collaborative initiatives and work with colleagues across units fosters a more unified, mission-driven environment. Furthermore, creating clear pathways for employees to advance within the institution provides long-term stability and helps retain valuable institutional knowledge. Succession planning that emphasizes career pathways can empower staff, aligning their professional growth with institutional goals and enhancing their commitment to the organization over time (Douglass & Chirikov, 2020).

  5. Leveraging Non-Salary Benefits
    For institutions unable to compete on salary, leveraging benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, and mental health resources can enhance retention. A CUPA-HR survey revealed that 75% of employees are satisfied with these benefits, which can be emphasized as part of a competitive retention package (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Expanding wellness resources, including mental health services, childcare support, and fitness programs, can improve work-life balance and reduce burnout. HelioCampus (2024) suggests that benefits aligned with employee needs, such as tuition discounts for employees or their families, can foster long-term commitment, especially in education-focused institutions where the mission aligns with employees’ personal values.

  6. Enhanced Cross-Training and Collaborative Staffing Models
    Cross-training employees to assist in high-need areas during peak times or in response to staffing shortages can reduce burnout and support staff resilience. For instance, cross-training registrar staff in admissions functions could allow for more adaptable staffing during enrollment periods, while admissions staff trained in financial aid basics could help manage high volumes of inquiries. Institutions should develop agile and resilient cross-training programs that recognize the potential for turnover while aiming to reduce disruptions. According to Clark (2023), institutions implementing flexible, collaborative staffing models create a versatile workforce that can adapt to shifting needs. This approach not only mitigates gaps caused by turnover but also fosters a culture of collaboration and mutual support across departments, strengthening morale and reducing turnover.

  7. Recognition and Rewards Programs
    Recognizing and rewarding staff contributions can be an effective way to improve morale and retention. Developing programs that celebrate accomplishments, such as “Employee of the Month” or “Service Awards” for milestone years, shows appreciation for dedicated service. Personalizing rewards based on individual or department contributions, such as additional time off or professional development stipends, demonstrates a commitment to valuing staff. According to Herget (2024), institutions that prioritize recognition create a positive workplace culture that promotes long-term loyalty and job satisfaction.

Final Thoughts

The challenges of staff turnover and burnout in higher education are complex and multifaceted, requiring both immediate actions and long-term strategies. High turnover rates and the strain on staff impact not only operational efficiency but also the quality of support available to students. These challenges call for a broad, inclusive approach that addresses the root causes of burnout, such as workload imbalances, limited professional development, and lack of flexibility in work arrangements.

Budget constraints driven by factors like reduced enrollment and economic pressures present a difficult reality for institutions, which often face downsized staff and increased workloads as a result. Rising compliance demands and structural changes further compound these pressures, making it challenging to provide adequate support without substantial financial investment. Yet, institutions that recognize the real challenges staff face and actively work to mitigate them, even within tight budgets, will be better positioned to retain talent and foster a resilient workforce. Failing to address these forces will likely lead to greater instability, as staff shortages and burnout continue to strain resources in an already challenging environment.

By adopting strategies that prioritize flexibility, institutions can accommodate the diverse needs of staff, especially in high-demand units such as IT and student support, where hybrid work models and staggered schedules can alleviate stress (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021; EDUCAUSE, 2024). Trauma-informed leadership principles, which emphasize empathy, psychological safety, and responsive communication, play a critical role in creating a supportive and inclusive environment that acknowledges the personal and professional challenges staff may face (Lynch, 2022). This approach helps to cultivate a campus culture that values and respects the contributions of all employees, fostering greater trust and job satisfaction across departments.

Investing in professional development, internal talent pipelines, and succession planning can strengthen institutional resilience by equipping staff with the skills they need to advance and by preparing for inevitable transitions. Programs that focus on “grow-your-own” models, mentorship, and structured cross-training help address skill gaps and reduce reliance on external hires, while also reinforcing a sense of belonging and long-term loyalty among staff (Pittinsky, 2019; Anft, 2021). Furthermore, recognizing the need for agile and resilient succession planning prepares institutions to handle turnover while minimizing disruption and ensuring continuity in critical roles (Douglass & Chirikov, 2020).

Cross-departmental collaboration is another essential component in addressing the effects of staffing shortages. When departments work together on shared initiatives, it enhances job satisfaction by fostering a sense of purpose and alignment with the institution’s mission (McKenna, 2022). Collaborative efforts between departments like Student Life and Student Support Services, as well as between Institutional Research and IT, strengthen operational efficiency and reduce the siloed structures that often lead to bottlenecks.

Lastly, leveraging non-salary benefits such as mental health resources, tuition support, and flexible scheduling can provide added value, especially in institutions that cannot compete with private-sector salaries. These benefits address the holistic needs of employees, supporting their work-life balance and personal growth, which in turn can reduce burnout and improve retention (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021; HelioCampus, 2024).

Through these combined strategies—flexibility, trauma-informed practices, professional growth, and collaborative culture—colleges and universities can build a resilient workforce prepared for future challenges. A sustained focus on retention will not only enhance operational stability and student experience but also help institutions fulfill their mission of fostering academic and personal growth. By proactively supporting staff well-being and engagement, higher education institutions can create an environment where both employees and students thrive, even as they navigate financial and operational constraints that may persist for years to come.

References

AACRAO. (2021). Registrars’ Office Staffing Size and Primary Responsibilities. American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers.  Retrieved from: [https://www.aacrao.org/docs/default-source/research-docs/60-sec-surveys/nov-2021-60-second-survey-report-final.pdf?sfvrsn=5b65b30b_4]

Anft, M. (2021). The Staffing Crisis in Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Underwritten by Huron Consulting Group.

Basko, A. (2023, February 3). How to Close the Staffing Gap. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-close-the-staffing-gap]

Brantley, A., & Shomaker, R. (2021). Higher Education Workforce Challenges and Opportunities. College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. Retrieved from CUPA-HR.

Davis, M. (2022, November 28). How to Retain Your Best Staff Members. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-retain-your-best-staff-members]

Clark, C. (2023, April 6). How Universities Can Tackle the Current Talent Shortage. Deloitte Insights. Retrieved from: [https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/multimedia/podcasts/higher-education-staffing.html]

CourseLoop. (2022, January 17). The Plight of Registrars in Higher Education Institutions, is it all Doom and Gloom?. LinkedIn. Retrieved from [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plight-registrars-higher-education-institutions-all-doom-gloom-/ ]

Dean Dad. (2011, October 23). The Faculty-Staff Divide. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from [https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/faculty-staff-divide]

Douglass, J. A., & Chirikov, I. (2020, May 18). Refocusing institutional research on university needs. University World News. Retrieved from [https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200518114757175]

EDUCAUSE. (2024). The Challenges and Opportunities of Staffing in IT. Retrieved from: [https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/2024/the-it-leadership-workforce-in-higher-education-2024/the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-staffing]

Herget, A. (2024, January 2). Hiring Challenges Persist for Higher Ed. HigherEdJobs. Retrieved from: [https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=3758&Title=Hiring%20Challenges%20Persist%20for%20Higher%20Ed]  

HelioCampus. (2024). 3 challenges for institutional effectiveness in higher ed. HelioCampus. Retrieved from [https://www.heliocampus.com/resources/blogs/3-challenges-for-institutional-effectiveness-in-higher-ed]

Hoover, E. (2022, May 24). Financial-Aid Offices Are Short-Staffed — and Some Are ‘Drowning’ as a Result. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/financial-aid-offices-are-short-staffed-and-some-are-drowning-as-a-result]

Jussel, A. B., & Topitzes, D. (2022, December 5). How to Support Your Staff Beyond the Pandemic. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-support-your-staff-beyond-the-pandemic]

Kim, J. (2023, June 12). Future Labor Shortages and the University as a Workplace. Retrieved from: [https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/blogs/learning-innovation/2023/06/12/future-labor-shortages-and-university-workplace]

Lynch, J. (2022). Trauma-informed colleges begin with trauma-informed leaders. Higher Education Today.

Morgan, B. (2024, January 11). The role of institutional research in shaping higher education. Marshall University Institutional Research and Planning. Retrieved from [https://www.marshall.edu/irp/2024/01/11/roleofirinhe/ ]

McClure, K. R. (2024, March 21). Your pay is terrible? You’re not alone. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from [https://www.chronicle.com/article/your-pay-is-terrible-youre-not-alone?sra=true]

McKenna, D. (2022, September 29). Five Thoughts on the Future of the Higher Ed Registrar. The Evolllution. Retrieved from: [https://evolllution.com/managing-institution/operations_efficiency/five-thoughts-on-the-future-of-the-higher-ed-registrar#:~:text=Put%20simply%2C%20registrars%20need%20to,it%20is%20up%20to%20us.]

Pittinsky, M. (2019, September 9). The Evolving Role of the University Registrar. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: [https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/09/10/changing-role-registrar-could-increasingly-transform-higher-education-opinion]

Parks, R. (2023, January 18). Understanding the New Landscape of the Registrar’s Office. The EvoLLLution. Retrieved from: [https://evolllution.com/attracting-students/enrollment_strategies/understanding-the-new-landscape-of-the-registrars-office]

Pillar, G. (2024). Building Resilient Leadership in Higher Education: Merging Trauma-Informed Practices with Key Presidential Competencies. Retried from [https://gregpillar.com/building-resilient-leadership-in-higher-education-merging-trauma-informed-practices-with-key-presidential-competencies/]

Querolo, N., Moran, D., & Patino, M. (2023, December 13). The Economics of Small US Colleges are Faltering. Bloomberg. Retrieved from: [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-us-higher-education-analysis/]

Ryder, J. J., Gunsalus, C. K., Luckman, E. A., & Burbules, N. C. (2023, November 29). Transforming Challenged Academic Units. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: [https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/2023/11/29/transforming-dysfunctional-departments-and-other-campus-units]

A First Take on the 2024 National Student Clearinghouse Enrollment Data: Key Signals for the Future of Higher Education

gregpillar on October 27, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

The preliminary Fall 2024 enrollment data released by the National Student Clearinghouse offers crucial insights into the current state of higher education, particularly among private, four-year institutions, which make up over 36% (1,324 out of 3,639) of degree-granting colleges and universities with first-year undergraduates in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). These trends align with observations I—and others in the field—have made regarding the shifting landscape and the future of higher education, where demographic changes, financial accessibility, and evolving student priorities play pivotal roles.

In this article, I unpack these preliminary findings, exploring how declines in freshman enrollment, growth in non-traditional age students, rising popularity of certificate programs, and changing racial and economic demographics are reshaping the landscape. Additionally, we consider the broader implications of recent legal shifts affecting diversity in higher education, as well as persistent challenges facing lower-income students, particularly those dependent on Pell Grants. These observations highlight trends that I believe signal significant opportunities and challenges ahead, providing a framework for institutions to strategize around the evolving needs of modern learners and prepare for a more adaptive and inclusive future in higher education. I look forward to taking deeper looks and providing more in-depth analyses of these trends in future articles.

1. The Decline in Freshman Enrollment at 4-Year Private Institutions

Full-time Freshman enrollment at four-year private colleges has seen a notable 6.7% decrease this year, a decline driven by multiple interconnected factors that extend beyond any single cause (Kim, et. al., 2024).  This reduction aligns with the long-anticipated demographic cliff, which is already impacting smaller private colleges more significantly due to declining birth rates—particularly in the Midwest and Northeast. Enrollment shifts in public institutions also reflect this trend, with freshman enrollment there dropping by 8.6%, illustrating that these challenges are impacting the broader higher education landscape. Certain regions, like the South, may experience softer declines due to higher population growth, but enrollment trends across private institutions are broadly being tested.  It is worth noting the only real areas of increase is at community colleges and specifically part-time public 2-yr (2.2%) and part-time public primary associate degree granting baccalaureate institutions (PAB) (8.0%).

Figure 4.3 – Freshman Enrollment Changes by Sector and Enrollment Intensity: Shows percentage change in freshman enrollment by sector and enrollment intensity from Fall 2023 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024)

This demographic decline disproportionately affects traditional college-age students, particularly evident in the 5.8% drop in 18-year-old freshmen at four-year institutions, revealing that many high school graduates are increasingly opting out of enrolling directly in a four-year college post-graduation (Kim, et. al., 2024, Figure 4.1a). The Higher Ed Dive analysis highlights that freshman enrollment declines span across racial and ethnic groups, with first-year enrollment declining by 5% overall (Unglesbee, 2024). More notably, declines were particularly steep among White, Black, and Multiracial students—11.4%, 6.1%, and 6.6%, respectively—while Hispanic and Asian students experienced relatively smaller reductions. The demographic shifts highlighted by both the Clearinghouse report and Higher Ed Dive underscore the critical need for institutions to prioritize inclusive outreach and strategic support to maintain racial and ethnic diversity within incoming freshman classes (Kim, et. al., Figure 4.2b, 2024; Unglesbee, 2024).

Figure 4.1a – Freshman Enrollment Changes by Age: Shows percentage change in freshman enrollment by age from Fall 2023 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024)

Graph showing percentage change in freshman enrollment by race and ethnicity from Fall 2023 to Fall 202 2024 as noted in the article.

Figure 4.1b – Freshman Enrollment Changes by Race/Ethnicity: Shows percentage change in freshman enrollment by race and ethnicity from Fall 2023 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024)

Adding to these enrollment challenges is the delayed release of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which has presented barriers for lower-income students who rely heavily on financial aid planning to secure enrollment. This delay, combined with economic pressures, impacts institutions with higher concentrations of Pell Grant recipients particularly harshly, evidenced by a 10% freshman enrollment decline at such private institutions. In contrast, community colleges, often more accessible to lower-income students, reported a slight 1.2% increase in freshman enrollment. This disparity between private institutions and community colleges further supports the need for private colleges to address affordability and retention to stay competitive in a shifting landscape (Kim, et. al., Figure 4.2, 2024; Fink, 2024).

Figure 4.2 – Freshman Enrollment Changes by Share of Undergraduates with Pell Grants: Shows percentage change in freshman enrollment by share of undergraduates with Pell Grants from Fall 2022 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024)

The complexities of these enrollment shifts are visually represented in Figure 4.1b: Freshmen Enrollment Changes by Race/Ethnicity, which shows stark disparities. In 2024, white freshman enrollment at private institutions declined by 11.4%, while Black and Multiracial students saw declines of 6.1% and 6.6%, respectively. Hispanic and Asian students experienced smaller declines of 1.4% and 2.8%. These variances suggest the need for institutions to prioritize inclusive outreach and strategic support to attract a diverse applicant pool, particularly from underrepresented groups who are bearing the brunt of financial and demographic pressures (Unglesbee, 2024).

The increase in dual enrollment among high school students also impacts enrollment decisions, with approximately 2.5 million high school students participating in dual enrollment programs during the 2022–23 academic year, making up roughly 21% of community college enrollments (Fink, 2024). The appeal of dual enrollment lies in its cost-effectiveness, allowing students to earn college credits at reduced costs, if not for free, often leading them to choose community colleges over private four-year institutions (Unglesbee, 2024; Fink, 2024).

Finally, also contributing to these enrollment declines is growing public skepticism around higher education, with concerns over escalating tuition costs and questions about the return on investment (ROI). This skepticism, paired with rising interest in alternative pathways such as apprenticeships, certifications, and direct-to-workforce options, has made traditional college enrollment less attractive for some students. These trends underscore the critical need for private four-year institutions to adapt recruitment and retention strategies to navigate a complex and shifting educational landscape.

2. The Rise in Enrollment of Non-Traditional Age Students

While traditional freshman enrollment is declining, the Clearinghouse report shows a rise in enrollment among non-traditional age students at private four-year institutions, indicating a shifting demographic profile. Specifically, since 2022 enrollment for students aged 21 – 24 increased by 25.2%, aged 25 to 29 rose by 38.7%, and for those aged 30 or older, it increased by 29.1%, in sharp contrast to the declines seen in traditional freshman enrollment (Kim, et. al., 2024, Figure 4.1a). Part-time enrollment for this age group has also risen, highlighting the shift toward students managing multiple responsibilities alongside their studies and delaying the pursuit or completion of a degree (Kim, et. al., 2024; Spitalniak, 2024). This shift supports the trend of increasing demand among modern learners for adaptable, relevant, and skill-based education that fits their complex schedules and immediate workforce needs.

Figure that shows the enrollment trends by age as noted in the article.

Figure 4.1a: Freshman Enrollment Changes by Age Group, Fall 2022 to Fall 2024 – (Kim et. al., 2024). (Image also shown in previous section)

This demographic shift reflects the increasingly prominent “modern learner” concept as described by Sallustio and Colbert (2024). Modern learners prioritize programs offering quick and tangible returns on investment and often seek education that supports career advancement, upskilling, or reskilling. THe previously used “non-traditional” students are driving the rise in certificate and credential programs, as shown by a 4.8% growth in these enrollments this year, highlighting an increasing preference for shorter, career-aligned educational programs that align well with workforce demands (Kim, et. al., 2024). The Higher Ed Dive article corroborates this trend, emphasizing that the overall 3% growth in undergraduate enrollment is largely driven by returning and “non-traditional” students, further reinforcing the shifting focus from traditional four-year degrees to accessible, workforce-relevant credentials (Spitalniak, 2024; Sallustio & Colbert, 2024).

Institutions aiming to serve this demographic must adjust their educational delivery methods to accommodate the needs of students balancing work, family, and school. Research shows that flexible course scheduling, particularly through evening, weekend, and online or hybrid formats, is essential to supporting non-traditional students’ success. Notably, online enrollment pursuing online degrees at primarily online institutions (POI) grew by 13.3%, emphasizing the need for institutions to embrace adaptable learning formats to meet the demands of students with non-traditional schedules (Kim, et. al., 2024, Figure 4.3).  Even if an institution’s primary student demographic is the “traditional” 18-22-year-old student, embracing the “modern learner” approach will not only increase the accessibility of your programs for those with families and other time commitments, it will also better serve students in the 18-22-year-old demographic.

Furthermore, as Sallustio and Colbert (2024) argue, effectively supporting modern learners requires not only program flexibility but also recognition of the economic constraints that non-traditional students often face. Expanding scholarship opportunities, developing robust career services, and offering targeted mental health support can reduce the barriers these learners face in pursuing education. Through the integration of support mechanisms such as these, institutions can create an environment that encourages non-traditional learners to enroll and persist in higher education. By building adaptable, mission-driven strategies, private institutions can better position themselves to attract a broad spectrum of learners and meet the evolving needs of an increasingly diverse student population.

3. Growth in Certificate Programs and Stackable Credentials

One of the most striking trends in the 2024 data is the rapid growth in enrollment in certificate programs, reflecting a strong demand for skills-based, career-focused credentials that offer immediate value in the job market. In 2024, undergraduate certificate programs at private four-year colleges, fields such as Liberal Arts and Sciences saw a significant 21.9% increase, while Construction Trades grew by 13.6%, and Mechanic and Repair Technologies saw an increase of 13.0% (Kim et al., 2024, Figure 6.1a). These fields highlight the versatility and appeal of trade professions as well as foundational and interdisciplinary knowledge in meeting workforce needs.  Over a 2 year period (2022-2024) Liberal Arts and Sciences saw a striking 64.5% increase, Basic Skills had a significant 46.7% jump, and Multidisciplinary studies increased 29.4%.  

Figure 6.1a: Enrollment Changes in the Top Twenty Major Fields – Undergraduate Certificates (Fall 2022 – Fall 2024)

Similarly, graduate certificate programs experienced notable growth, particularly in high-demand areas. For example, in 2024 Engineering saw an impressive 19.6% growth in graduate certificate enrollment, followed by Public Administration, which rose by 14.9%, and Liberal Arts and Sciences, which grew by 12.2% (Kim et al., 2024, Figure 6.1b).  Between the years 2022 and 2024, similar to the undergraduate certificates, the largest areas of growth were Legal Professions and Studies (59.7%), Public Administration (26.1%), and Multidisciplinary Studies (22.9%)

These values indicate that providing smaller credentials with key skills often found and cultivated in the liberal arts provide significant value and may be an alternative route for how these institutions structure their programs to meet current and future workforce needs while still anchored in the Liberal Arts.    Interestingly, fields/areas where enrollment is declining in degree programs are the same fields/areas experiencing an increase in enrollment for certificates.  Thus, further showing the value of skills stemming from studies in the Liberal Arts and Sciences as beneficial and highly desired workforce skills.

Figure 6.1b: Enrollment Changes in the Top Twenty Major Fields – Graduate Certificates (Fall 2022 – Fall 2024) (Kim et. al., 2024).

This trend is particularly significant for the modern learner—often balancing work, family, and educational commitments—who may not have the flexibility or resources to commit to a full degree program. According to recent insights, certificate programs have become particularly appealing due to their shorter time commitment and immediate workforce applicability, allowing students to quickly gain specialized skills in fields like healthcare, business, and technology (Gurchiek, 2024). These programs align well with the needs of non-traditional learners, many of whom prioritize skill acquisition and career advancement over traditional degrees.

Stackable credentials have emerged as a flexible and pragmatic pathway, allowing students to earn meaningful qualifications in stages that can later be applied toward a degree. This pathway is particularly attractive in fields such as information technology, healthcare, and business administration, which lead in undergraduate and graduate certificate enrollments. This alignment with workforce demands reflects a growing focus among learners and institutions on adaptability, specialized skills, and direct career applicability.

By offering stackable credentials, private institutions can attract a wider array of learners—both those beginning their careers and those advancing or pivoting mid-career—while supporting the development of competencies that respond to labor market demands. The trend toward certificates highlights a broader evolution in higher education, where the focus is increasingly on skills acquisition and career progression over traditional, time-intensive degree paths.

Figures 6.1a and 6.1b from the National Student Clearinghouse report effectively illustrate the substantial enrollment growth in certificate programs relative to traditional degrees, emphasizing the appeal of these shorter, skills-oriented credentials. This shift underscores the modern learner’s preference for accessible, practical education pathways that align closely with professional goals.

4. The Impact on Racial Diversity and Demographic Shifts

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on affirmative action has introduced further challenges to maintaining racial diversity within private institutions, which typically boast a diverse student population. The 2024 National Student Clearinghouse data reveals nuanced shifts in racial and ethnic enrollment patterns, indicating a slight decrease in Black and Hispanic student enrollment in private four-year institutions. This decline aligns with broader trends following the affirmative action ruling, underscoring the need for institutions to rethink their recruitment strategies to sustain diversity (Kim, et. al., 2024, Figure 4.1b).

Figure 4.1b – Freshman Enrollment Changes by Race/Ethnicity: Shows percentage change in freshman enrollment by race and ethnicity from Fall 2023 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024)(Image also shown in previous section)

Adding to these challenges is the recent drop in traditional-age college students, making the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students even more essential for institutions aiming to maintain campus diversity. These demographic and legal shifts emphasize the need for targeted strategies that extend beyond conventional approaches. Data indicates that in the 2022–23 academic year, Black students made up only 8% of enrollments in high school dual enrollment programs—a pathway that often provides a stepping stone into higher education (Fink, 2024).

Notably, the Supreme Court’s decision appears to have had a pronounced effect at several elite institutions, where shifts in enrollment demographics have been observed. For example, Amherst College reported a sharp decline in Black first-year students, dropping from 11% of the freshman class last year to a mere 3% this year, while Hispanic student enrollment fell from 12% to 8% (Svrluga, 2024; Chao-Fong, 2024). At the same time, white students increased from 33% to 38% and Asian American students increased from 18 to 20%.  Similarly, Tufts University experienced a reduction in Black students in its freshman class from 7.3% to 4.7%, with a concurrent rise in white enrollment from 46.8% to 49.3% (Chao-Fong, 2024). These figures signal that some schools are encountering immediate, tangible impacts on diversity following the affirmative action ban.

As demographic shifts continue and traditional college-age populations decline, the need for innovative diversity strategies becomes more urgent. Beyond relying on traditional pipelines, schools may consider partnerships with community organizations, outreach to high schools in underrepresented areas, and scholarships aimed specifically at first-generation students. This approach could foster diverse pathways for non-traditional students, particularly those pursuing stackable credentials or certificates, who may increasingly represent campus diversity in the absence of affirmative action policies.

Looking ahead, this enrollment data might signal more long-term challenges in achieving racial and ethnic representation on campuses. The drop in diversity is especially concerning when combined with the ongoing demographic cliff, the rising costs of higher education, the delayed FAFSA rollout, and public concerns about the return on investment in a college degree. The convergence of these factors may disproportionately affect underrepresented students’ access to higher education, suggesting a growing urgency for colleges to adopt race-neutral but inclusion-oriented policies and practices to maintain diverse learning environments in the years to come (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2024).

5. Challenges for Lower-Income Students and Declines in Pell Grant Enrollment

Lower-income students continue to face significant barriers beyond just tuition costs, and the Fall 2024 enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse paints a sobering picture for Pell Grant recipients at four-year private institutions. Unlike previous years when Pell Grant enrollment held relatively steady, 2024 saw a sharp decline in these enrollments, with decreases of 10.7% for high-Pell institutions, 5.1% for medium-Pell, and 6.4% for low-Pell institutions (Kim et al., 2024, Figure 4.2b). These drops highlight how financial uncertainty, compounded by FAFSA processing delays, disproportionately impacts students who rely heavily on aid. The findings suggest that many Pell-eligible students faced additional hurdles in confirming their college plans this year, underscoring how crucial it is for institutions to address financial access challenges more proactively.

Figure 4.2 – Freshman Enrollment Changes by Share of Undergraduates with Pell Grants: Shows percentage change in freshman enrollment by share of undergraduates with Pell Grants from Fall 2022 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024) (Image also shown in previous section).

One of the driving forces behind these enrollment declines is the delay in processing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). For lower-income students, who often cannot finalize their plans without financial aid, such delays create substantial obstacles. The resulting uncertainty caused some Pell-eligible students to defer or forgo their enrollment, continuing a pattern observed in past years (Kim et al., 2024). When financial aid is delayed or uncertain, students from low-income backgrounds are left with few viable options, particularly at private institutions with higher tuition costs. This situation exacerbates existing challenges for first-time freshmen from lower-income families, making it increasingly difficult for them to access private four-year institutions.

The struggle for these students goes beyond just tuition. Many low-income students also contend with indirect costs, such as housing, transportation, and childcare, which can often be as burdensome as tuition itself. A recent analysis reveals that three-fourths of students from low-income backgrounds are working 20 hours or more per week to afford college (Unglesbee, 2024). This heavy reliance on part-time jobs, while necessary, can negatively impact academic performance and progress, as students balancing extensive work hours often face challenges in maintaining their grades and completing their studies on time. For many, juggling these work commitments can mean choosing between staying in school and meeting basic needs.

Institutions could respond by adopting support models tailored to the unique needs of low-income students. Emergency funds, on-campus employment, and affordable housing options are essential. However, innovative ideas like shorter academic terms, where students can focus on fewer classes at a time, or expanded evening and weekend support services could be particularly impactful. These adjustments would not only benefit lower-income students balancing work and school but would also align well with the broader needs of the “modern learner”—students of all backgrounds seeking more flexible, career-aligned education that fits within their busy lives (Sallustio & Colbert, 2024). By creating environments where students have more control over their schedules and can balance personal obligations with academic responsibilities, institutions can help all students thrive.

Moreover, offering these expanded support mechanisms across various schedules and formats helps institutions appeal to a diverse range of learners, not just Pell Grant recipients. Evening and weekend access to tutoring, advising, and career services, for example, would provide non-traditional and working students with the resources they need to succeed. In this way, private institutions can take meaningful steps to adapt to the modern learner model, ensuring that they serve the evolving needs of today’s students—many of whom are balancing significant responsibilities outside the classroom.

In addition, some colleges are experimenting with alternative financial aid models to support low-income students. Partnerships with local nonprofits or corporate sponsors can fill funding gaps and help cover essential indirect expenses such as transportation, textbooks, and childcare. By expanding financial support beyond tuition, institutions can create a more comprehensive approach to access and retention for Pell-eligible students, ensuring that these students not only enroll but also persist and complete their degrees.

6. Shifting Interests in Major Fields and the Growth of Multidisciplinary Studies

The 2024 data also sheds light on changing preferences across fields of study, marking a shift toward disciplines that offer clear career pathways and skill application. Interest in traditional fields like Social Sciences and English has seen continued declines, with Liberal Arts and Sciences dropping by 5.9% and English by 2.6%. In contrast, career-focused fields such as Engineering, Business, and Health Professions have shown notable increases, aligning with students’ and families’ growing emphasis on programs with direct return on investment (ROI) (Kim, et. al., 2024, Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1 – Enrollment Changes in the Top Twenty Major Fields – Bachelor’s: Shows percentage change in enrollment in the top twenty major fields (bachelor’s) from Fall 2022 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024) (Image also shown in previous section).

This trend is particularly evident among students at private four-year institutions. The data underscores the shifting priorities of students and families seeking educational paths with practical, measurable outcomes. For instance, Computer Science programs alone have seen a 3.3% increase in bachelor’s enrollments, while doctoral programs in the field rose by 8.2%. This increase reflects strong student interest in fields associated with high employability rates and competitive starting salaries. Similarly, Healthcare programs report significant enrollment growth, with associate programs increasing by 9.6%, highlighting the perceived stability and essential nature of healthcare-related careers. Undergraduate business programs also saw a 4.1% increase, showcasing sustained interest in fields that blend theoretical knowledge with practical application.  When factoring the data and trends over 2 years these trends are even more profound.

The shift toward career-focused education reflects a strong preference for programs with clear career paths and measurable outcomes. This trend puts pressure on traditional majors like the Humanities and Social Sciences to innovate and demonstrate their relevance to modern learners. Restructuring these programs to incorporate multidisciplinary elements could bridge the gap between traditional academic principles and the modern job market’s demands. Programs that blend Humanities with Data Analytics or Psychology with Health Sciences create versatile degrees, attracting students who seek applicable skills across multiple sectors.

Data from the Clearinghouse also shows a steady increase in enrollment in multidisciplinary programs, such as Environmental Studies, Data Science, and Public Policy, fields that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries and prepare students for roles requiring interdisciplinary knowledge (Kim, et. al., 2024, Figure 6.1). This growth underscores the appeal of degrees that allow students to gain a broader skill set applicable across diverse industries.

These interdisciplinary programs offer more than just a diverse academic experience—they provide essential flexibility for a dynamic job market where cross-functional expertise is highly valued. As today’s workforce increasingly demands adaptable skill sets, programs that combine high-growth fields with foundational disciplines are likely to resonate with modern learners and position them for success. Evolving traditional programs to incorporate in-demand skills, such as integrating Data Analysis within Social Sciences or Applied Psychology within Healthcare, would attract students and provide them with the critical adaptability required in an interconnected and rapidly changing workforce.

7. Emerging Institutional Models

The changing demographics and preferences of today’s students necessitate adaptive institutional models that cater to diverse educational needs. Community colleges, for instance, have seen a 4.6% increase in enrollment and an ever greater increase in enrollment by students with Pell Grants underscoring their appeal as cost-effective alternatives to traditional four-year institutions (Kim, et. al., Figure 3.1 and 3.4, 2024). Many of these colleges, those now known as primary associates bachelor awarding institutions (PAB), are expanding their offerings to include four-year degrees, which appeals to students looking for affordable paths to a bachelor’s degree without transferring to a more expensive institution (Kim, et., al., Figure 3.4). This trend not only reflects a shift toward accessible, cost-efficient education but also highlights community colleges’ expanding role as direct competitors to four-year institutions.

Figure 3.4 – Enrollment Changes by Sectors: Shows percentage change in enrollment by sector from Fall 2022 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024)

Figure 3.1 – Undergraduate Enrollment Changes by Share of Undergraduates with Pell Grants: Shows percentage change in undergraduate enrollment by share of undergraduates with Pell Grants from Fall 2022 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024)

Another emerging model is the rise in fully online education programs, which grew by 6.3% in 2024 and 13.6% between Fall 2022 – 2024, aligning with students’ preference for flexibility and accessibility (Kim, et. al., Figure 3.5, 2024). This growth is especially pertinent for students balancing education with other responsibilities, including work and family obligations. Private institutions offering robust online programs are positioning themselves well to attract a growing market of non-traditional students who value the adaptability of online learning over traditional in-person programs.

Figure 3.5 – Enrollment Changes at POIs, HSIs, and HBCUs: Shows percentage change in enrollment at POIs, HSIs, and HBCUs from Fall 2022 to Fall 2024. (Source, Kim., et al., 2024)

As previously noted, the enrollment data from the NSC report shows a 10.5% increase in Freshmen aged 21 to 24, 20.0% increase in Freshmen aged 25 to 29 and 9.8% increase in Freshmen aged 30 or older, further underscoring the need for institutions to adjust their offerings to better meet the needs of adult learners. These students, often attending school part-time, prioritize programs that allow for upskilling or reskilling to remain competitive in rapidly changing job markets. For private institutions to differentiate themselves, they must leverage their unique missions by emphasizing aspects like small class sizes, personalized learning experiences, or niche program offerings tailored to this demographic. By focusing on targeted services such as online offerings, evening classes, weekend offerings, and enhanced career services, private colleges can position themselves as appealing choices for modern learners beyond the traditional 18-22 age group.

In contrast, enrollment among traditional-age students (18, 19-20) declined by 5.8% and 8.6%, respectively, at private four-year institutions. This decrease reflects the broader demographic shifts and highlights the need for these institutions to expand their appeal to a more varied student body (Kim, et. al., 2024). Additionally, the rise in short-term credential programs, such as certificates, increased by 7.3% this year at private institutions. This trend points to students’ growing interest in education that offers immediate, practical applications and job market relevance.

In a competitive landscape with over 5,900 postsecondary institutions in the U.S., of which about 1,324 are private four-year colleges (NCES, 2022), a clear value proposition is essential for institutional survival. Institutions should consider innovative program structures, such as stackable credentials, that support lifelong learning and offer students flexible pathways to complete degrees over time.

Final Thoughts - Signals for Strategic Planning

The preliminary Fall 2024 enrollment data offer critical insights and potential early indicators that could shape the future of higher education if current trends persist. With the final dataset expected in January, institutions have an opportunity to begin adapting their strategies now to address the changing landscape of higher education. Key findings, such as the 7.3% increase in certificate program enrollments and although there is overall growth in undergraduate enrollment, the declines in freshmen enrollment of students aged 18-21 are telling (Kim, et. al., 2024). These trends, if sustained, could reshape the structure and offerings of private institutions, particularly those aiming to remain competitive in a marketplace increasingly geared toward non-traditional and modern learners.

One notable takeaway is the decline in traditional freshman enrollment, which dropped by 5.8% in 18 year old students and 8.6% in 19 to 20 year old students at private four-year institutions, reflecting a broader demographic shift due to declining birth rates and compounded by challenges such as the delayed FAFSA rollout. If this trend becomes a long-term reality, it could lead to smaller incoming classes each year, impacting not only tuition revenue but also long-term alumni engagement and institutional stability. This demographic shift emphasizes the need for colleges to prioritize recruiting non-traditional students and to strengthen retention strategies by offering support systems and flexibility tailored to modern learners.

As certificate enrollments rise as well as the average age of the typical student, it will also be essential for institutions to rethink traditional degree pathways and consider integrating more stackable credentials into their offerings. The data reveal that career-focused fields, such as healthcare, business, and multidisciplinary studies have shown significant growth, while humanities and social sciences continue to decline. This suggests that students are increasingly seeking educational paths with a clear return on investment (ROI), and institutions that adapt by offering multidisciplinary programs and job-market-aligned curricula are likely to see stronger enrollment numbers.

Additionally, shifts in the racial and economic composition of the student body highlight potential challenges and opportunities for diversity and inclusion strategies. The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action and the decrease in Pell Grant recipient numbers coupled with the increase in HSIs and HBCUs underscore a need for more proactive recruitment and retention efforts, especially among underrepresented and lower-income students. If these patterns hold, it could become essential for institutions to build partnerships with high schools, community organizations, and employers to maintain a diverse and inclusive campus.

While the January update will provide a fuller picture, these early data points should encourage institutions to start evaluating their strategic priorities now. By focusing on adaptive, mission-driven strategies and remaining responsive to these enrollment shifts, private institutions can better position themselves to meet the needs of an evolving student body and ensure relevance in a competitive landscape. Engaging in forward-looking planning that embraces flexibility, accessibility, and inclusivity will be crucial in navigating the uncertainties of the coming years, as the higher education sector adapts to the demands of the modern learner and the realities of an increasingly complex job market.

References

Barshay, J. (2024). How dual enrollment is changing the face of community colleges. FutureEd. Retrieved from https://www.future-ed.org/how-dual-enrollment-is-changing-the-face-of-community-colleges/

Chao-Fong, L. (2024, October 2). Elite US colleges see Black enrollment drop after affirmative action strike-down. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/30/black-college-student-enrollment-declines-affirmative-action-strike-down#:~:text=Elite%20US%20colleges%20see%20Black%20enrollment%20drop%20after%20affirmative%20action%20strike%2Ddown,-This%20article%20is&text=Enrollment%20for%20Black%20students%20fell,upend%20the%20nation’s%20academic%20landscape.

Fink, J. (2024). How Many Students Are Taking Dual Enrollment Courses in High School?  New National, State, and College-Level Data, Community College Research Center (CCRC). Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/easyblog/how-many-students-are-taking-dual-enrollment-courses-in-high-school-new-national-state-and-college-level-data.html

Kim, H., Cohen, J., Ibrahim, M., Randolph, B., Holsapple, M., and Shapiro, D (October 2024), Stay Informed Fall 2024, Herdon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center https://nscresearchcenter.org/stay-informed/

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/

Sallustio, J., & Colbert, L. (2024). Engaging the modern learner in higher education: Strategies for educators. The Evolllution: A Modern Campus Illumination, October 24, 2024.  Retrieved from: https://evolllution.com/engaging-the-modern-learner-in-higher-education-strategies-for-educators

Spitalniak, L. (2024, October 4). Undergraduate enrollment rises 3% despite drop in first-year students, early data shows. Higher Ed Dive. Retrieved from https://www.highereddive.com/news/undergraduate-enrollment-rises-3-percent-despite-drop-in-first-year-students/730629/

Svrluga, S. (2024, September 5). Black enrollment drops at UNC after ruling; other schools vary. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/09/05/diverse-college-enrollment-down-post-affirmative-action-ruling/

Unglesbee, B. (2024, September 29). Low-income students work more amid rising college costs, analysis finds. Higher Ed Dive. Retrieved from https://www.highereddive.com/news/lower-income-students-work-rising-college-cost-brookings/730835/

Navigating AI and Academic Integrity: Balancing Skepticism with Opportunity

gregpillar on October 22, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Right now, there’s no shortage of positions and views about AI in higher education. You can find articles either warning of the doom AI will bring or praising it as a monumental leap forward for learning, work, and our personal lives. I actually wrote an article sharing my own perspective on AI a few weeks ago, which I published and then promptly removed because I felt I wasn’t ready to firmly plant my flags on the topic. However, I’ve decided I will repost it in the near future (with some edits, of course, given how fast AI is evolving), but before that, I wanted to tackle a specific aspect of AI that has been front and center in my role: AI and academic integrity.

I’m no expert in AI, though I’m doing everything I can to learn about generative AI and its impact on education. As the individual responsible for overseeing the academic portion of our institution’s Honor Code, I’ve seen firsthand the influence of AI on academic integrity over the last two years. For our institution, we saw a 700% increase in AI-related academic dishonesty cases during the 2022-2023 academic year. This rise, from 2 cases in 2021-2022 to 16 in 2022-2023, was paired with a 55% drop in reported plagiarism cases (34 to 15). This could suggest that students are shifting away from traditional plagiarism and turning toward AI-generated content to complete assignments or instructors may be more focused on the possible use of AI and not as focused on plagiarism (Wily, 2024; NeJame et al., 2023). Regardless, these numbers likely underrepresent AI’s actual use, as proving AI-generated work is difficult and often hinges on student admissions of responsibility rather than concrete evidence (Wily, 2024).

Spoiler alert: I currently have an open mind when it comes to AI. I believe every institution must have active discussions about its ethical use and decide how to educate students on AI. I agree that there are valid and serious concerns when it comes to academic integrity, and what follows is my attempt to share my experience and perspective on just a small portion of this evolving issue.

AI’s Disruption of Academic Integrity

Generative AI has created a seismic shift in how we think about academic integrity. Similar to the initial reactions when institutions introduced online learning, Wikipedia, and broad access to the internet, faculty today are divided over the use of AI. When learning management systems (LMS) began to integrate APIs and automation, similar concerns emerged about reducing student effort and increasing cheating. However, as with these past innovations, we must focus on how to guide students in using AI appropriately, not in banning the tool altogether. Much like Wikipedia, which is now widely accepted as an introductory research tool despite initial skepticism, AI is likely to remain a fixture in education (Mowreader, 2023).

Recent research shows that AI tools like ChatGPT have blurred the lines of academic misconduct, causing institutions to rethink what constitutes cheating. Educators report a significant increase in academic dishonesty cases involving AI. Some studies show that 96% of instructors believe cheating has risen in the past year, compared to 72% in 2021 (Vanderbeek, 2024; White, 2023). Furthermore, the Wily Academic Integrity Report indicates that 45% of students are using AI to assist with writing assignments, while 55% of instructors remain reluctant to incorporate AI into their teaching practices (Wily, 2024).

Interestingly, this reluctance may stem from the challenges of balancing AI’s potential for enhancing learning with the risks to academic integrity. Faculty members are divided on whether AI represents a powerful learning tool or an existential threat to traditional education models. Some educators see AI as an inevitable part of the modern classroom, while others feel unprepared to manage its ethical implications. Faculty polarization is evident, with AI being seen either as a game-changer in pedagogy or a dangerous shortcut that encourages academic dishonesty (D’Agostino, 2023).

The challenge of detecting AI-generated content has made it difficult to fully understand the scope of its use. Several studies have highlighted the limitations of current AI detection tools. Reports show that AI-generated content can often evade detection through simple paraphrasing, reducing accuracy rates to as low as 33% (Sadasivan et al., 2024; Davalos & Yin, 2024). Additionally, 51% of students surveyed in another study said they would continue to use AI tools, even if explicitly prohibited (NeJame et al., 2023). These findings mirror the challenges we face at my institution, where we often rely on student admissions of responsibility once confronted, as definitive proof is hard to achieve with a “more likely than not” standard.

This uncertainty parallels the resistance faced during the early introduction of disruptive technologies like Wikipedia or API integrations in education. Back then, there were concerns about the erosion of traditional academic values. However, over time, we learned to incorporate these tools with proper guidelines. AI today is no different. It requires clear frameworks for ethical usage and thoughtful integration into teaching and learning processes, ensuring students understand its responsible use rather than viewing it as a shortcut.

Adding to this ongoing conversation, President Biden’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, issued on October 30, 2023, underscores the federal government’s recognition of AI’s profound impact. It outlines eight guiding principles, including promoting safety, equity, privacy, and responsible innovation in AI development (U.S. Department of Education, 2024). This executive action encourages institutions to prepare policies that embrace AI’s potential while ensuring its use aligns with ethical standards. As part of the Department of Education’s response, educational institutions are urged to provide clear guidelines for AI use and foster AI literacy among faculty and students alike. Such actions will help us weather the current ‘AI storm’ and develop a more balanced understanding of its role in education, while also preparing modern learners to effectively use AI in their future careers and everyday life.

The Biases and Limitations of AI Detectors

One of the most troubling aspects of AI detection tools is their inherent bias against non-native English writers. Studies reveal that 61.3% of essays written by non-native English speakers were misclassified as AI-generated, while native English essays were accurately classified in most cases (Liang et al., 2023). This bias has significant implications for academic fairness. Non-native speakers are often disadvantaged by these tools, which may inaccurately assess their work based on linguistic patterns rather than genuine misconduct (Wily, 2024). Additionally, AI detectors may flag formulaic writing styles used by students with specific learning disabilities, as demonstrated in Bloomberg’s coverage of a student falsely accused of cheating because of her structured writing and communicative style (Davalos & Yin, 2024).

There is also bias in how faculty identify possible AI use. Often, instructors rely on a hunch or the feeling that “this isn’t how the student writes,” which can introduce unintended bias against students for a variety of reasons. Whether it’s linguistic differences, learning styles, or preconceptions about the student, this kind of subjective judgment can further complicate the fair assessment of academic integrity (Liang et al., 2023; Spencer, 2024). Additionally, AI detection tools can be easily circumvented through paraphrasing or rewording AI-generated text, reducing their effectiveness in identifying AI content (Sadasivan et al., 2024). This is why it’s essential for faculty to engage in open conversations about AI use in their classrooms. Establishing clear guidelines around acceptable AI use can mitigate these biases and reduce unfair assessments (Mowreader, 2023).

The AI-U/1.0: A Student Guide to Navigating College in the Artificial Intelligence Era provides practical advice for students, warning them about the pitfalls of AI tools and emphasizing the importance of original work and citation. The guide also acknowledges that AI detection tools are not infallible and advises students to be transparent about their AI use when required by faculty (Ajjan et al., 2024). These resources are critical for establishing transparent policies and ensuring fairness, particularly for non-native speakers and students with neurodivergent conditions.

Rethinking Teaching, Learning, and Assessments

The rise of AI is pushing educators to reconsider traditional methods of assessment. Written essays, long the gold standard for evaluating critical thinking and communication skills, are now susceptible to AI manipulation. Research shows that 27% of students are using AI tools to help generate written content, leading to concerns about the erosion of critical thinking skills (NeJame et al., 2023). However, the actual use of AI is likely underreported by students, suggesting that the impact of AI on academic integrity may be more widespread than faculty realize (Wily, 2024).

This trend has sparked a movement toward alternative assessment methods that prioritize originality and deeper engagement with the material. Faculty members are experimenting with oral exams, project-based assessments, and in-person evaluations to discourage AI misuse and foster authentic learning (White, 2023; Colby, 2024; Chami, 2023). As AI technologies continue to evolve, the challenge of detecting AI-generated text becomes increasingly complex. A study by Sadasivan et al. (2024) highlights the limitations of current AI detectors, revealing that even sophisticated detection systems can be tricked by advanced paraphrasing tools, which complicates the task of identifying AI-generated text reliably (Sadasivan et al., 2024). This underscores the urgency of rethinking assessments to focus on student originality and active engagement rather than simply relying on traditional written outputs.

Despite these challenges, AI does not necessarily mark the end of written assessments. Rather, it signals the need for innovative approaches. For example, educators can reframe essay assignments to require deeper levels of engagement and personalization. Moving beyond generic or broad prompts, assignments can be more dynamic, integrating multiple stages like brainstorming, outlining, and drafting that encourage students to develop their ideas progressively. This structure not only reduces the temptation to misuse AI tools but also fosters a more authentic writing process, where students can learn to use AI for support in early stages without compromising the integrity of their final work.

Further, the use of AI in assignments can be normalized by explicitly integrating AI as part of the learning process. The AI-U/1.0 Student Guide encourages students to use AI for specific tasks like brainstorming and refining their ideas but cautions against relying on AI-generated content for final submissions. This approach promotes transparency and teaches students responsible AI usage, allowing them to engage with AI critically while ensuring academic integrity (Ajjan et al., 2024).

Recent reports also suggest that students view AI as a valuable tool for learning, not just for completing assignments. Wily (2024) found that 53% of students believe AI helps them understand complex topics more easily, while 36% fear being accused of cheating if they use AI for legitimate academic purposes. Such concerns highlight the need for clear guidelines and policies that help students navigate the ethical use of AI while fostering trust between students and instructors (Wily, 2024).

The ethical use of AI should also be accompanied by institutional efforts to redefine assessments. Some institutions are already experimenting with alternative assessment models, such as in-person oral exams, group projects, and real-world applications that demand critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity. These assessments are designed to make AI misuse difficult while enhancing the learning experience (Mowreader, 2023). Oral exams, for instance, offer a dynamic way to assess student understanding and originality, as they require real-time responses that AI tools cannot easily replicate.

Incorporating AI into the academic process while maintaining integrity also requires educating students on how AI works and the implications of its misuse. This can include transparency around how AI detectors function and their limitations. As Sadasivan et al. (2024) demonstrate, current AI detectors can be easily circumvented by advanced paraphrasing, making it difficult for educators to rely solely on these tools. Instead, institutions must focus on teaching students about responsible AI use and ensuring that assessments are designed to reflect genuine learning outcomes.

In conclusion, the rise of AI challenges traditional teaching, learning, and assessment paradigms. However, with thoughtful integration of AI into the learning process, alongside clear guidelines and innovative assessment strategies, educators can continue to promote academic integrity while embracing the benefits that AI offers.

Embracing AI While Addressing Academic Integrity

While AI poses challenges to academic integrity, it also offers profound opportunities to enhance learning and create more inclusive educational experiences. AI can help personalize education by tailoring learning experiences to students’ unique needs, leading to improved outcomes and more individualized instruction (Chami, 2023). In fact, 52% of students believe AI can effectively help them understand complex topics, especially when integrated into classroom instruction (Colby, 2024).

AI is already making strides in creating accessible learning environments, particularly for students with disabilities. By offering adaptive tools and feedback mechanisms, AI has the potential to fill gaps in traditional teaching, ensuring that all students, regardless of their needs, receive the support necessary for success (Spears, 2023; Ajjan et al., 2024). These tools, such as speech-to-text or adaptive tutoring systems, can provide personalized learning experiences that instructors may not be able to deliver on their own.

In addition to assisting students with disabilities, AI offers the opportunity to reshape how plagiarism and academic standards are viewed. Instead of reinforcing traditional academic boundaries, AI can be used to redefine what is considered creative and innovative work. By incorporating AI literacy into curricula, institutions can better prepare students for the AI-driven workforce, ensuring responsible and ethical use of these tools (Mitrano, 2024).

Institutions like Elon University have already embraced this concept through the AI-U/1.0 guide, which equips students with the knowledge and skills necessary to use AI effectively and ethically in both academic and professional settings. By treating AI as an educational tool rather than a threat, students can develop critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and technical skills that will serve them in their future careers (Ajjan et al., 2024; Chami, 2023).

Faculty, too, are seeing the potential of AI in education. By embracing AI’s role in enhancing learning, faculty can facilitate an open dialogue with students about its ethical use. This inclusive approach can help bridge the divide between those who see AI as a threat and those who view it as an essential learning tool (D’Agostino, 2023).

The Need for Institutional Policy and Faculty Development

It is clear that formalized institutional policies regarding AI use are urgently needed. Current data shows that only 3% of institutions have comprehensive AI policies in place, while 58% are in the process of developing them (NeJame et al., 2023). Without clear guidelines, students and faculty are left to navigate AI’s complexities without adequate support. As the Wily Report suggests, the key to maintaining academic integrity lies in providing clear expectations and fostering a culture of responsible AI use (Wily, 2024).

However, with the rapid integration of AI into everyday tools like Google Workspace and Microsoft Suite, traditional policy frameworks may already be outdated. Rather than focusing solely on creating rigid AI-specific policies, institutions might benefit from developing a broader, more flexible framework. This approach acknowledges that AI is now embedded in the tools we use daily, making it difficult to draw strict boundaries around its use (Justus & Janos, 2024).

For example, many institutions still treat AI as an external tool—something students consciously choose to use, such as ChatGPT or other standalone AI platforms. But as AI becomes seamlessly integrated into word processors, design software, and LMS platforms, it becomes harder to determine when a student is intentionally using AI or merely interacting with technology that incorporates it by default. In light of this, institutions should rethink their approach to AI policies, shifting toward adaptable frameworks that evolve with the technology. This would allow educators and students to work within an AI-driven environment while maintaining academic integrity (Justus & Janos, 2024).

Spencer and Ajjan et al. (2024) both highlight the importance of institutions taking proactive steps to train faculty on AI tools and their limitations. Faculty development is essential to ensure that educators are well-equipped to redesign their assessments and incorporate AI literacy into their teaching (Ajjan et al., 2024; White, 2023). The EDUCAUSE Review emphasizes that professional development programs must help faculty reimagine their courses to mitigate AI misuse while promoting its positive applications (White, 2023).

Furthermore, clear expectations for AI use must be established to prevent ambiguity. Faculty should be equipped not only to understand AI’s capabilities but also to craft assignments that allow students to use AI ethically while ensuring that their own academic work remains authentic (Mowreader, 2023). Providing educators with access to AI tools and professional development opportunities ensures that they are prepared to handle this evolving landscape.

By adopting a framework-based approach rather than relying solely on static policies, institutions can create an environment that supports responsible AI use and helps prepare students for a world where AI will be ubiquitous. This strategy allows for ongoing adaptation, ensuring that institutions remain agile in the face of rapid technological change (Justus & Janos, 2024).

Final Thoughts

As we move forward in this AI-driven world, it’s clear that AI is here to stay, and its role in education will only continue to grow. The key is not to fear it but to find ways to work with it—helping our students, educators, and institutions benefit from AI’s capabilities while protecting the core values of academic integrity.

AI offers incredible opportunities to personalize learning, assist students with unique needs, and open up new ways of teaching and learning. If we incorporate AI literacy into our courses, we’re not just preparing students for the future; we’re teaching them how to use these tools responsibly and ethically. AI can be a powerful partner in education, but only if we approach it thoughtfully, with clear boundaries and a strong ethical foundation.

At the same time, we can’t ignore the challenges. AI-generated content has blurred the lines of what’s considered academic dishonesty, and traditional assessments like essays or take-home exams are now vulnerable to misuse. The solution isn’t simply better detection tools—AI will keep evolving. Instead, we need to rethink how we assess students, focusing on assignments that encourage originality and deeper engagement, while being transparent about how AI can and can’t be used.

Faculty play a crucial role in this shift. With the right training and resources, educators can redesign their teaching to integrate AI in a way that supports learning without compromising integrity. This isn’t just about changing individual courses—it’s about building a culture of responsible AI use across institutions.

And institutions need to step up, too. The fact that only 3% of schools have clear AI policies in place (NeJame et al., 2023) highlights the urgency for developing guidelines that make sense in today’s world. Schools need to set clear expectations for both students and faculty, offering support and consequences where necessary, so that AI is seen as a tool for innovation, not a way to cut corners.

Ultimately, the future of AI in education will depend on how well we adapt. AI isn’t a threat to learning—it’s an opportunity to teach our students how to think critically, engage with technology responsibly, and prepare for the evolving workforce. But to do this right, we need to make sure that AI is used in ways that uphold our core values—integrity, fairness, and inclusion.

As we embrace AI, we must remain committed to these principles. By working together—through policies, faculty development, and ongoing conversations with students—we can make sure that AI enhances, rather than undermines, the integrity and excellence of higher education.

References

Ajjan, H., Akben, M., Alexander, B., Anderson, D. J., Book, C., et al. (2024). AI-U/1.0: A student guide to navigating college in the artificial intelligence era. Elon University. https://www.elon.edu/u/news/2024/08/19/student-guide-to-ai/

Chami, G. (2023, October 23). Artificial intelligence and academic integrity: Striking a balance. THE Campus. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com

Colby, E. (2024). AI has hurt academic integrity in college courses but can also enhance learning. Wiley. https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2024/AI-Has-Hurt-Academic-Integrity-in-College-Courses-but-Can-Also-Enhance-Learning-Say-Instructors-Students/default.aspx

D’Agostino, S. (2023, September 13). Why professors are polarized on AI. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/artificial-intelligence/2023/09/13/why-faculty-members-are-polarized-ai

Davalos, J., & Yin, L. (2024, October 18). Do AI detectors work? Students face false cheating accusations. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-18/do-ai-detectors-work-students-face-false-cheating-accusations

Justus, Z., & Janos, N. (2024, October 22). Your AI policy is already obsolete. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2024/10/22/your-ai-policy-already-obsolete-opinion

Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Pattern, 4(7), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779

Mitrano, T. (2024, January 16). Plagiarism, AI and higher education. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/blogs/law-policy-and-it/2024/01/16/plagiarism-ai-and-higher-education

Mowreader, A. (2023, September 28). Academic success tip: Establish guidelines for AI use. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/academic-life/2023/09/28/report-three-ways-address-generative-ai-college

NeJame, L., Bharadwaj, R., Shaw, C., & Fox, K. (2023, April 25). Generative AI in higher education: From fear to experimentation, embracing AI’s potential. Tyton Partners. Retrieved from https://tytonpartners.com/generative-ai-in-higher-education-from-fear-to-experimentation-embracing-ais-potential/

Sadasivan, V., Kumar, A., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, W., & Feizi, S. (2024). Can AI-generated text be reliably detected? University of Maryland. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.11156

Spears, A. (2023). AI as an ally: Enhancing education while upholding integrity. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/literacy-now/2024/10/01/ai-as-an-ally-enhancing-education-while-upholding-integrity

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2024). Designing for education with artificial intelligence: An essential guide for developers. U.S. Department of Education. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2024/07/Designing-for-Education-with-Artificial-Intelligence-An-Essential-Guide-for-Developers.pdf

White, J. (2023, November 6). Academic integrity in the age of AI. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/sponsored/2023/11/academic-integrity-in-the-age-of-ai

Wily. (2024). The Wily academic integrity report: Instructor and student experiences, attitudes, and the impact of AI. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network/education/instructors/teaching-strategies/the-latest-insights-into-academic-integrity-instructor-and-student-experiences-attitudes-and-the-impact-of-ai-2024-update

Beyond the Critique: A Nuanced Approach to Higher Education Reform for the Modern Learner

gregpillar on October 19, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

After reading F. Andrew Wolf Jr’s article, “Universities Are Doing Education Badly,” it’s clear that although some of the criticisms he raises hit the mark, there are others I do not fully agree with—whether it’s the foundation of the criticism itself or what specifically needs to be fixed. However, I do believe the solutions to all of them are far more nuanced than what is laid out in his article or what many may think. Having worked in higher education for over two decades, with more than 10 years in various administrative roles, I’ve seen firsthand the complexities universities face. While I agree with his call for better faculty preparation and the need for a curriculum revamp, there are key areas where my perspective diverges. This piece offers a more balanced take, focusing on the need to improve faculty training, emphasize lifelong learning, and make higher education more accessible to everyone.

Faculty Development and Training: Beyond Disciplinary Expertise

“College undergraduates spend time and money taking “general-education courses” under the guise that these will make their education, and therefore them, more “well-rounded.” Yet these courses offer only a superficial treatment of subjects that should have been mastered in high school. Given the testing results and dismal college-completion rate cited above, the only things that truly get “well-rounded” are the coffers into which student tuition money flows, amount to thousands of dollars’ worth of wasted time and effort” — Wolf (2024)

There is no doubt that teaching requires a distinct skill set that goes beyond disciplinary expertise. While universities often place a higher value on research, this leaves many faculty members unprepared to meet the diverse needs of their modern learners. The assumption that deep subject knowledge automatically translates to effective teaching is flawed (Berrett, 2012). Research and teaching demand different skill sets, and expertise in one doesn’t guarantee success in the other.

Recent data reveals that only one in five high school graduates is ready for college-level work (Manno, 2024). This underscores the critical need for faculty to be equipped with tools that support diverse modern learners with varying levels of academic readiness. Faculty need to adapt to the range of skills and preparedness that modern learners bring into the classroom, particularly as they face unique challenges.

Doctoral and master’s programs should focus on equipping future faculty with both research and teaching skills. Yet a study in agricultural disciplines found that 45% of graduate instructors had no formal teaching training, and only 23% received any training before they started teaching (Pillar, Karnok, & Thien, 2008). Faculty need structured pathways to develop these skills, but institutions must also provide ongoing professional development. It’s not enough to expect faculty to figure out how to teach while managing their research and service responsibilities.

The complexity of teaching is heightened by the increasing mental health challenges faced by today’s modern learners. Professors, particularly those on the tenure track, report feeling overwhelmed by the pressure to balance teaching, research, and service (Berrett, 2012). Universities must provide resources to support faculty in navigating these pressures. Addressing these needs means offering training in trauma-informed teaching and making mental health services for modern learners more accessible. Without better support for both faculty and modern learners, burnout and dropout rates will continue to rise.

Furthermore, Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) offer valuable resources for improving pedagogy but are often underutilized. These programs should be mandatory, tied to measurable outcomes like modern learner success and retention, and linked to faculty evaluations (Pillar et al., 2008). This shift would not only improve teaching but also reduce faculty burnout, creating a better learning environment for modern learners.

Re-envisioning the Curriculum: Lifelong Learning and Cultivating Curiosity as the New Educational Paradigm

“College is where students should start to specialize in a course of study, having already acquired general knowledge in K-12… General course requirements that essentially reiterate high-school learning.” — Wolf (2024)

While the call to reduce general education requirements might appeal to some, it oversimplifies the true value of general education. General education isn’t just about rehashing high school content. This point made by Wolf is one where I completely disagree. Although there may be some overlap, the depth of exploration and critical thinking required in college-level general education is far greater. More importantly, general education is about developing durable skills—problem-solving, collaboration, and adaptability—that are essential for lifelong learning.

The modern learner is likely to change jobs—and even careers—multiple times. Higher education should not only produce experts in a discipline but also foster intellectual curiosity and the capacity for continuous learning. General education builds the flexibility and problem-solving skills necessary to navigate a rapidly changing workforce. The current job market demands more than just expertise in a single field; it requires individuals who can adapt to various roles and challenges. This is why it’s concerning that so many students enter college without the necessary workplace skills such as communication, organization, and professionalism. This gap in preparation, largely a result of an education system too focused on standardized testing and theory, only adds to the need for universities to address these deficits in their curriculum (Greene, 2024).

Job tenures have shortened, with fewer people staying in the same role for decades. In fact, individuals are now more likely to switch jobs frequently, further emphasizing the need for higher education to cultivate agility and transferable skills (Fox, 2022). A well-rounded education that focuses on both specialization and broad, interdisciplinary knowledge is critical to preparing modern learners for these shifts.

Moreover, while some modern learners may see general education as redundant, it offers opportunities to deepen critical thinking and engage with new ideas beyond their chosen field. General education provides room for modern learners to explore subjects that may lead to interdisciplinary connections or even career shifts. This broader intellectual foundation is crucial in a world that demands versatility. However, it’s important to recognize that many students arrive at college underprepared for this level of academic engagement. The deficiencies in K-12 education, exacerbated by an overreliance on standardized testing, leave many students lacking the critical thinking and autonomy needed for higher education success. Addressing these gaps requires universities to be intentional in how they design and deliver general education (Greene, 2024).

However, as general education models evolve—focusing more on interdisciplinary learning, experiential learning, and using learning communities—transferability becomes a challenge. Many modern learners transfer between institutions or take breaks from their education, and when general education requirements aren’t aligned, it complicates their journey. This is why creating opportunities for credit for prior learning and competency-based education is essential. Flexible pathways that allow modern learners to earn micro-credentials, certificates, or badges as they progress toward a degree can help them stay engaged and prevent them from stopping out altogether.

The current system still heavily favors those who enter college straight from high school. While improvements have been made for non-traditional learners, the 40 million-plus individuals in the U.S. who have some college education but no degree remain at a significant disadvantage. If universities want to serve the modern learner, they must adapt by creating more flexible, learner-centered systems.

In considering the influence of education reformers like John Dewey, it’s worth reflecting on how progressive education movements have shaped general education. Dewey’s focus on experiential learning and the holistic development of modern learners has had a lasting impact on how we approach curriculum design (Lynd, 1953). This remains relevant today as we seek to create learning experiences that go beyond rote memorization and foster critical thinking and curiosity in the modern learner.

The Heart and Head of Education: A Holistic Approach

“When a society associates education almost solely with fact-based knowledge, methods, standards, grades, diplomas, and degrees, it runs the risk of producing what C.S. Lewis called ‘men without chests.’ Without a belief in, and the teaching of, universal moral laws, we fail to educate the heart and are left with ‘educated’ (not enlightened) people who behave instinctually in their own self-interest.” — Wolf (2024)

While it’s true that higher education shouldn’t focus only on data and facts, it’s a stretch to say that intellectual development and emotional growth can’t or don’t coexist. The idea that universities are producing well-informed but emotionally detached individuals doesn’t reflect the evolving reality of today’s campuses. In fact, many institutions are making concerted efforts to blend both intellectual and emotional education, aiming to develop well-rounded modern learners who not only think critically but also lead with empathy.

For example, universities are increasingly integrating emotional intelligence, leadership, and ethical reasoning into their curriculums. These initiatives address the reality that modern learners need more than just academic knowledge to succeed in a world where empathy and emotional intelligence are essential skills. Leadership development programs, conflict resolution courses, and mentorship initiatives are becoming more common, offering structured opportunities for students to develop these “soft skills.”

Experiential learning and co-curricular programs play a big role in ensuring that modern learners grow both intellectually and emotionally. Programs like internships, community service, and study abroad offer learners the chance to apply their academic knowledge to real-world scenarios, encouraging them to think critically about their values and ethical choices. These experiences cultivate a deeper sense of social responsibility and empathy, qualities that are increasingly valued in both personal and professional contexts (Berrett, 2012).

In addition to these initiatives, trauma-informed leadership and trauma-informed pedagogies are becoming vital in supporting modern learners. These practices ensure that education addresses not only intellectual development but also the emotional and psychological well-being of students. Trauma-informed leadership acknowledges the prevalence of trauma and stress in academic environments and fosters a culture where students feel safe, supported, and empowered to succeed. By emphasizing empathy, emotional safety, and resilience, these leadership practices directly contribute to the emotional development of modern learners, complementing their academic growth (Pillar et al., 2023).

Trauma can have lasting impacts on the modern learner’s ability to engage with their learning environments. Trauma-informed practices are essential for creating supportive educational experiences that recognize and mitigate these impacts. When leaders and educators are equipped with these practices, they help cultivate resilient, emotionally intelligent individuals who are better prepared to thrive both in and out of the classroom (Pillar, 2024).

Research backs up this shift. Studies show that students who participate in programs aimed at developing emotional intelligence—such as peer mentoring or service-learning projects—not only feel more satisfied with their college experience but also perform better academically. Emotional intelligence has been shown to improve resilience, relationships, and academic success. For example, emotional intelligence is strongly linked to self-efficacy, motivation, and resilience, which mediate the positive effects on both psychological well-being and academic performance (Shengyao et al., 2024). This suggests that by supporting both the intellectual and emotional sides of education, universities are actually preparing students for a more successful life after graduation.

Instead of seeing intellectual and emotional education as opposing forces, the goal should be to create a balanced approach that fosters both. By combining rigorous academic learning with emotional and ethical growth, we can ensure that modern learners graduate not only well-educated but also equipped with the empathy and ethical grounding to lead meaningful lives. This holistic model of education is critical for preparing students to thrive in today’s complex and interconnected world.

Improving Accessibility and Affordability: More than Just Financial Aid

“Given the testing results and dismal college-completion rate cited above, the only things that truly get ‘well-rounded’ are the coffers into which student tuition money flows, amounting to thousands of dollars’ worth of wasted time and effort.” — Wolf (2024)

Affordability remains one of the most significant barriers to higher education, especially for low-income modern learners. Pell Grant recipients, a proxy for low-income modern learners, often face graduation rates below 40% at many institutions, underscoring the inadequacy of support systems designed to help these modern learners persist and graduate (Kotlikoff, 2022). As Gary Stocker, host of the College Viability podcast and creator of the College Viability app pointedly described, institutions with graduation rates below 50% often function more like “tuition collection agencies” than true educational institutions, emphasizing the systemic failure to support modern learner success (Costa, 2022).

True accessibility, however, involves more than just lowering tuition costs—it means creating more flexible pathways that accommodate the needs of modern learners. Online education, which has often been viewed as inferior to in-person learning, can offer the flexibility that many modern learners—especially those balancing work, family obligations, or financial constraints—need. But simply offering online courses is not enough. Universities must ensure their online programs are rigorous, engaging, and designed to prepare modern learners for success in both academic and professional environments. This is crucial because when done poorly, online education can reinforce existing disparities rather than mitigate them (Wolf, 2024).

Additionally, universities must better prepare modern learners for the realities of online learning, offering training in time management, self-discipline, and digital literacy. For low-income and underrepresented modern learners, who may already face numerous barriers, online education can serve as a lifeline—providing access to education that may not otherwise be feasible. However, this option is only viable if institutions invest in ensuring the quality and accessibility of these programs. The Colleges Where Low-Income Students Get the Highest ROI report also stresses that while some private nonprofit institutions, such as Georgetown and Stanford, offer a high return on investment (ROI) for low-income modern learners, these institutions enroll relatively few Pell Grant recipients, limiting access for the broader low-income population (Carnevale, Cheah, & Van Der Werf, 2022). It is surprising the number of institutions whose student body are comprised of 20, 30 or even 40% Pell-Grant eligible students and their graduation rates are below 40%.  This disparity highlights that the institutions most capable of providing significant economic mobility are often the least accessible to the populations that could benefit most.

Furthermore, the decline in educational outcomes in K-12 systems, as evidenced by the historic lows in national math and reading scores, raises significant concerns about how prepared modern learners are for college (Sparks, 2022). These failures in K-12 education call for stronger interventions in higher education, particularly regarding accessibility and modern learner support for those already at a disadvantage when entering college. Higher education institutions must play an active role in bridging these gaps, offering stronger pathways for college readiness through dual enrollment, bridge programs, and intentional collaborations with K-12 systems.

Strengthening Student Support Systems: Preventing Costly Failures

“The United States has a daunting 39-percent college dropout rate. Under-preparedness is surely to blame in large part.” — Wolf (2024)

To address the high dropout rates in higher education, strengthening support systems for modern learners must be a top priority. While modern learners may not always be academically unprepared, they often lack the financial or personal resources to persist. For example, a recent survey found that 58% of stopped-out modern learners cited financial struggles as their primary reason for not returning to school, even though 90% felt confident in their academic skills, such as math and critical thinking (Spitalniak, 2024). This statistic demonstrates that financial challenges, rather than just academic unpreparedness, are a significant barrier to modern learner persistence and success.

Beyond addressing financial challenges, universities need to recognize that a key factor in improving retention is fostering a strong sense of belonging for modern learners. Research shows that modern learners who feel a genuine sense of belonging on campus are more likely to persist and complete their degrees. As Doyle (2023) highlights, providing non-academic support—such as a modern learner’s sense of belonging, feeling that at least one faculty or staff member cares about them, and a representation of their culture or identity on campus—significantly enhances retention. When these factors are taken into account, predictive models for modern learner retention improve, highlighting the importance of the social and emotional dimensions of modern learner success. Therefore, retention strategies must go beyond academic interventions to include efforts to build connections and a supportive campus culture for modern learners.

Universities must also offer wraparound services that address not only academic needs but also financial, personal, and mental health challenges. Comprehensive modern learner support systems—including academic coaching, career advising, mental health services, and peer mentoring—are critical in helping modern learners navigate the complexities of higher education. These services ensure that modern learners can manage the multitude of challenges they face, increasing their chances of staying enrolled and graduating.

Creating more flexible pathways for modern learners who may not succeed immediately is a powerful strategy to address high dropout and stop-out rates. By making it easier for modern learners to re-engage with their education, institutions can help foster a lifelong appreciation for learning. Providing opportunities for modern learners to earn micro-credentials, stackable credits, or pursue competency-based education that contributes directly to their degree offers them tangible milestones. These smaller achievements can keep modern learners motivated, even if they face challenges along the way.

For low-income modern learners, who are disproportionately affected by financial pressures and more likely to stop out, these flexible pathways are especially crucial. Rather than viewing their education as an all-or-nothing proposition, modern learners can build their progress incrementally. This approach helps maintain momentum, empowering them to continue working toward their degree while managing personal, financial, or academic hurdles.

Additionally, by offering re-entry programs without penalizing modern learners for past academic difficulties, institutions can eliminate the stigma often associated with returning to college after stopping out or even not going straight into college out of high school. This welcoming and normalized approach creates a more inclusive educational environment, encouraging modern learners to see their educational journey as flexible and adaptive, rather than rigid and unforgiving. In doing so, universities can promote a culture of lifelong learning, where modern learners are supported in returning to their studies, regardless of how long they’ve been away (or how long they delayed starting).

By fostering an environment where modern learners are met where they are—both academically and personally —universities can better serve modern learners, particularly those from marginalized or underrepresented backgrounds. Faculty must also adapt to this changing landscape, using teaching methods and course designs that acknowledge the diversity of experiences and academic readiness that modern learners bring to the classroom. In doing so, institutions will not only improve graduation rates but also ensure that modern learners leave with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in an increasingly competitive and unpredictable world.

Final Thoughts: A Call for a Balanced Reform

The challenges facing higher education today are significant and demand thoughtful, well-rounded solutions. While many of Wolf’s critiques hold weight, the issue(s) at hand and solutions require a more nuanced, multifaceted, and comprehensive understanding and approach. This certainly doesn’t mean that potential solutions have to be complex and in fact, I would argue they need to be as practical and straightforward as possible to navigate the change management needed for all involved. Universities must do a better job of preparing faculty to teach, re-envision their curricula to emphasize lifelong learning and curiosity, improve accessibility, and strengthen support systems for modern learners. These reforms are not quick fixes, but they are necessary if we are to truly serve the needs of modern learners and ensure their success in an ever-changing world.

Faculty development cannot remain solely focused on disciplinary expertise. It must also foster effective teaching skills and equip educators to meet the diverse needs of modern learners. Curricula need to evolve beyond a narrow focus on major-specific courses to emphasize the development of durable, transferable skills that promote intellectual curiosity and adaptability—traits essential for lifelong learning. Faculty at all levels of experience and expertise should make a serious commitment to developing their teaching skills throughout their careers, not just during the tenure-track period. As the needs, abilities, skills, and challenges of the modern learner evolve, so too must faculty adapt their teaching practices. Universities must put greater emphasis and resources into developing faculty teaching skills, while faculty themselves must take this responsibility seriously to ensure they are meeting the needs of the modern learner and creating more effective learning environments.

In addition to improving teaching and curriculum, universities must prioritize accessibility by creating more flexible pathways that meet modern learners where they are. Offering micro-credentials, stackable credits, and competency-based education can provide modern learners with the tools to progress at their own pace while recognizing and rewarding their achievements along the way. These strategies will be particularly impactful for low-income and non-traditional modern learners, for whom financial barriers and personal obligations often create challenges to degree completion.

Equally important is the need to strengthen modern learner support systems. A sense of belonging, as Jeff Doyle points out, is crucial for retention and modern learner success. Universities must address both academic and non-academic challenges by providing wraparound services that encompass mental health, career advising, financial counseling, and peer mentoring. Only by addressing the full spectrum of modern learner needs can we hope to reduce dropout rates and ensure that more modern learners succeed.

Ultimately, higher education must adapt to the realities of the modern world, balancing the need for academic rigor with the flexibility and support necessary to guide modern learners toward success. By implementing these reforms, universities can foster an environment where modern learners are not only prepared for their immediate futures but are equipped with the curiosity, resilience, and lifelong learning skills needed to thrive in an ever-changing global landscape.

References

Berrett, D. (2012, October 24). Today’s faculty: Stressed and focused on teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/todays-faculty-stressed-focused-on-teaching-and-undeterred-by-long-odds/

Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Van Der Werf, M. (2022). The Colleges Where Low-Income Students Get the Highest ROI. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/lowincome/ 

Costa, N. (2022). The deadweight loss of college general education requirements. Michigan Journal of Economics. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/04/19/the-deadweight-loss-of-college-general-education-requirements/ 

Doyle, J. (2023, November 28). The billion-dollar result from seeing student success in a new way. Deep Thoughts on Higher Ed. https://deepthoughtshed.com/2023/11/28/the-billion-dollar-result-from-seeing-student-success-in-a-new-way/

Fox, J. (2022, October 17). Haven’t worked at the same place for 10 years? Join the club. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-10-17/haven-t-worked-at-the-same-place-for-10-years-join-the-club?srnd=phx-economics-v2 

Greene, P. (2024). Neither College Nor Career Ready. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2024/10/02/neither-college-nor-career-ready/

Kotlikoff, L. J. (2022). ‘Don’t borrow for college,’ warns Harvard economist. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/dont-borrow-for-college-warns-harvard-trained-economist-why-he-says-its-a-waste-of-money.html

Ladany, N. (2024, September 24). Behind the curtain of higher education: Faculty aren’t trained. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasladany/2024/09/24/behind-the-curtain-of-higher-education-faculty-arent-trained/

Lynd, A. (1953). Who wants progressive education? The influence of John Dewey on the public schools. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1953/04/who-wants-progressive-education-the-influence-of-john-dewey-on-the-public-schools/640458/

Magnet, P. (2022). Western education has collapsed, and no one wants to admit it. Medium. https://medium.com/illumination/western-education-has-collapsed-and-no-one-wants-to-admit-it-f192e740a8bb

Manno, B. V. (2024). Are high school graduates ready for college? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brunomanno/2024/05/28/are-high-school-graduates-ready-for-college/

Pillar, G. D. (2024). Building Resilient Leadership in Higher Education: Merging Trauma-Informed Practices with Key Presidential Competencies. https://gregpillar.com/building-resilient-leadership-in-higher-education-merging-trauma-informed-practices-with-key-presidential-competencies/

Pillar, G. D., Karnok, K. J., & Thien, S. J. (2008). Perceptions, utilization, and training of graduate student teaching assistants in introductory soil science courses: Survey results. NACTA Journal, 52(3), 24-32.

Pillar, G., Rutstein-Riley, A., Meriwether, J., Lawler-Sagarin, K., Ayabe, J., Nimmo, S., Fallon, A. M., Hoover, C., & Boules, R. (2023). Trauma-informed leadership: From awareness to action. AALI Senior Leadership Academy.

Sayers, D. L. (2024). The lost tools of learning. Association of Classical Christian Schools. https://classicalchristian.org/the-lost-tools-of-learning-dorothy-sayers/

Shengyao, Y., Xuefen, L., Jenatabadi, H. S., Samsudin, N., & Ishak, Z. (2024). Emotional intelligence impact on academic achievement and psychological well-being among university students: The mediating role of positive psychological characteristics. BMC Psychology, 12(389). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01886-4

Sparks, S. D. (2022). Two decades of progress, nearly gone: National math, reading scores hit historic lows. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/two-decades-of-progress-nearly-gone-national-math-reading-scores-hit-historic-lows/2022/10

Spitalniak, L. (2024, October 16). Stopped-out students are confident in their academic skills—but financial concerns remain. Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/stopped-out-students-confident-academic-skills-financial-concerns-survey/653066/

Wolf, G. (2024). Universities are doing education badly. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2024/10/universities-are-doing-education-badly/

Ideas for Future Discussions and Writings

As I continue to explore the evolving landscape of higher education, several key areas deserve deeper attention. Below are a few ideas for future discussions and potential articles that build on the themes touched upon in this piece. If any of these resonate with you, or if you’d be interested in discussing or collaborating on an article, I’d love to hear from you.

  1. The Future of Faculty Development: Training Educators for a New Era This piece could delve into what a modernized faculty development program looks like in practice. How can universities better prepare educators to teach diverse, multi-generational, and often underprepared learners? What role should technology play in teacher training? The discussion could explore mandatory pedagogical development, the role of Centers for Teaching and Learning, and the importance of trauma-informed teaching practices.
  2. Beyond Major-Specific Learning: Building a Curriculum for Lifelong Adaptability Expanding on the idea of lifelong learning, this article could explore how universities can create curricula that balance deep disciplinary knowledge with broad, adaptable skills like problem-solving, communication, and digital literacy. It could examine real-world examples of institutions that have successfully integrated interdisciplinary studies and experiential learning into their programs and look at the long-term benefits for graduates.
  3. Addressing the Financial Barriers in Higher Education: Flexible Pathways and Micro-Credentials This discussion could take a deeper look into how financial barriers disproportionately affect low-income students and non-traditional learners. It would expand on the idea of creating flexible educational pathways, exploring case studies of institutions that have successfully implemented micro-credentials, competency-based education, and stackable credits to keep students engaged and help them return to education after stopping out.
  4. The Role of Belonging in Student Success: Moving Beyond Academic Metrics Building on Jeff Doyle’s insights into the importance of non-academic factors like belonging, this article could dive deeper into how universities can cultivate a sense of belonging to improve retention and graduation rates. It could explore the specific initiatives schools have implemented to enhance student engagement outside the classroom and how these contribute to measurable success outcomes.
  5. Improving Retention and Graduation Rates for Low-Income and Underrepresented Students This piece could focus on the systemic challenges that low-income and underrepresented students face in completing their degrees. It would explore the key interventions needed to address the financial, social, and academic barriers preventing these students from succeeding. Strategies like enhanced financial aid advising, mentorship programs, expanded support services, and initiatives that foster a sense of belonging could be examined in depth. The article could also highlight successful models from institutions that have significantly improved retention and graduation rates among these student populations.
  6. Reimagining the General Education Model: Preparing Modern Learners for a Dynamic Workforce This idea would explore the tension between traditional general education models and the needs of modern learners. Should general education be replaced with more career-focused, skills-based learning? How can universities maintain the value of a broad education while ensuring it’s relevant and practical for today’s rapidly changing job market? The article could provide examples of innovative general education programs that prepare students for real-world challenges.
  7. Bridging the Gap Between K-12 and Higher Education: Building Partnerships for Better College Preparedness An in-depth look at the critical role of K-12 partnerships in improving college readiness. This article could explore how dual enrollment, bridge programs, and collaborative efforts between universities and high schools can better prepare students for the academic rigor of higher education, especially for underserved and underrepresented populations. It could highlight successful programs that have made measurable impacts on college persistence and completion rates.

These topics not only build upon the current discussion but also open the door for fresh perspectives on how we can shape higher education to better meet the needs of all learners. I look forward to exploring these ideas further and encourage any collaborations that could bring these concepts to life.

Landing and Thriving at a Small Liberal Arts College: A Perspective from a Faculty Member turned Administrator.

gregpillar on October 18, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

After reading Jasinski and Anderson-Levy’s insightful article, I found myself reflecting on several of their key points, which resonate with my own experiences as both a faculty member and now an administrator. I wanted to add further thoughts and echo some of their perspectives based on my background. Having served on many faculty search committees, chaired a few, and as assistant/associate provost and interim dean, I’ve been involved in dozens of faculty searches, offering leadership and oversight throughout the process. These experiences have given me a unique understanding of what small liberal arts colleges prioritize when selecting new faculty members. In this article, I’ll share practical advice drawn from my background in hopes of further helping candidates stand out at small colleges, while reflecting on the key insights from What to Expect in Your First Year of Work at a Small College (Jasinski & Anderson-Levy, 2024) and Behind the Curtain of Higher Education: Faculty Aren’t Trained (Ladany, 2024).

Part 1: Succeeding in the Job Search

Tailoring Your Application: Cover Letters and CVs

Applying to small liberal arts colleges requires a different approach from research-focused universities. To stand out, you must tailor your materials to the institution’s specific priorities and values, with a particular focus on teaching and student engagement. Below are three key strategies to help you craft a compelling application.

Deep Dive into Mission Alignment

One of the most important elements of your application is showing how your values, teaching philosophy, and professional experience align with the institution’s mission and strategic goals. You don’t need to address every aspect of the mission or strategic plan, but if you notice any clear priorities or initiatives that align with your strengths, make sure to emphasize those.

For example, when I applied for my first faculty position, it was a new role split between two departments: chemistry and environmental science. In reviewing the institution’s strategic plan, I saw that expanding environmental sciences and sustainability was a key priority. I tailored my cover letter and CV not only to emphasize my disciplinary expertise but also to show how I could contribute to growing these new programs and campus-wide sustainability initiatives. This alignment with institutional goals helped (as I was later told) my application stand out. To separate yourself from what can often be a very competitive pool, make sure to find specific ways you can demonstrate how you will provide value beyond the general job description.

In your cover letter, also demonstrate that you’ve done your homework and understand the key responsibilities outlined in the position description. Many small colleges expect faculty to contribute to general education, honors programs, and even faculty-led international experiences. For instance, when I applied for a role with these components, I expressed genuine excitement about participating, even though I didn’t have direct experience in those areas at the time. By clearly addressing your potential contributions to high-priority areas, you show that you understand the institution’s goals and are prepared to contribute in meaningful ways.

For smaller and liberal arts institutions, it is critical to ensure that your cover letter and even your CV are student-centered. Your materials should always connect with how you can contribute to the student experience and ensure student success. Emphasizing your understanding of the institution’s mission to serve students and your ability to support student engagement both inside and outside the classroom will make your application stronger. By demonstrating this alignment, you show that you are focused on the holistic development of students and are ready to enhance their learning journey at the institution.

Emphasizing Fit Beyond Qualifications

In addition to meeting the basic qualifications, small liberal arts colleges are looking for candidates who will fit into their unique campus culture and contribute to the broader student experience. While larger universities may prioritize research output, smaller institutions often focus on student engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, and participation in programs such as general education or campus-wide initiatives.

In your cover letter, go beyond listing qualifications and demonstrate your understanding of the institution’s values. Show that you are enthusiastic about working in a close-knit academic community where teaching and mentorship are priorities. Mention specific ways you will engage with students outside of the classroom, whether through advising, participating in campus events, or leading student organizations. Also, if applicable, explain how you can contribute to interdisciplinary programs or collaborate with colleagues from other departments, which is often encouraged at smaller institutions.

For your CV, ensure that you highlight teaching experience over research, especially if teaching is the main focus of the institution. Many candidates from research-focused institutions struggle to emphasize their teaching experience effectively. Even small steps, like mentioning webinars, certificates, or other professional development in teaching, can make a difference.

While finishing my doctorate, I conducted a small study surveying graduate students (in my discipline of agronomy) across the country at doctoral-granting institutions to understand their perceptions of teaching and the training they received, if any, to teach. As I noted in my study, graduate students who received structured training in teaching were better prepared for their responsibilities, yet only 23% had such training before they began teaching (Pillar, Karnok, & Thien, 2008). This underscores the ongoing gap in training for teaching pedagogy, curricular design, and the science of learning, a gap that remains to this day. Graduate programs continue to place a greater emphasis on research over teaching, leaving graduates underprepared for the teaching-centered roles at smaller colleges. According to Nicholas Ladany (2024), most faculty members have never received formal training in teaching, relying instead on scholarly output as a measure of professional competence, which does not directly translate into effective teaching​. As Jasinski and Anderson-Levy (2024) point out, transitioning from a research-focused environment to a teaching-intensive one is challenging, especially when doctoral programs have not adequately prepared graduates for this shift​.

Moreover, although I have mentioned prioritizing teaching over scholarship multiple times, it’s important not to minimize or exclude research entirely. Research, creativity, and other forms of scholarship remain essential, particularly as they contribute to your development and can enhance your teaching. You must ensure that the balance of coverage and emphasis in your application aligns with the institution’s priorities. For example, at smaller institutions, you should showcase how your research can involve students, contribute to interdisciplinary programs, or enhance the overall student experience. Understanding how to manage the balance between teaching, research, and service is critical in aligning with the mission of small colleges.

This focus on fit shows the hiring committee that you not only meet the technical qualifications but also have the mindset and enthusiasm needed to thrive in their academic environment.

 

Using a Teaching Portfolio and Digital Portfolio

When applying to small colleges that prioritize teaching, including a teaching portfolio along with your CV can be a valuable addition. A teaching portfolio provides tangible evidence of your teaching effectiveness and can set you apart from candidates who focus solely on a list of courses taught and/or their research accomplishments.

In addition to traditional portfolios, creating a personal website or digital portfolio is becoming increasingly valuable. Since you will not be submitting a full portfolio in your application, having a personal website allows search committee members to explore relevant portions of your portfolio, particularly if they are interested in specific aspects of your teaching experience, such as student-first pedagogical practices or examples of inclusive teaching strategies. Mentioning a link to your online portfolio on your CV and strategically in your cover letter can make a difference, as search committee members are likely to review it.

Furthermore, in today’s educational environment, faculty are often expected to teach in various modalities—face-to-face, hybrid, and online. Be sure to highlight your experience and ability to teach across these different formats. If you’ve taught in online or hybrid settings, include that in your portfolio along with the specific platforms you’ve used, such as Canvas, Blackboard, or Moodle. If you haven’t had the opportunity to teach online, but you’ve undergone training or earned certifications in digital or online learning, make sure to mention this. Some institutions may require faculty to demonstrate proficiency in these areas before allowing them to teach online courses, so showcasing your preparedness for multiple modalities will strengthen your application.

Your portfolio might include syllabi from courses you’ve taught, examples of student work (with permission), course evaluations, and sample assignments or assessments. These materials help the search committee understand your teaching style and your ability to engage students. Additionally, if you’ve received any teaching awards, professional development certifications, or have experience with innovative teaching methods (e.g., experiential learning activities such as service learning, course-embedded research, or other unique/innovative teaching and learning approaches), be sure to include those in the portfolio as well.

A unique and modern way to share your digital portfolio or professional profiles is by incorporating QR codes. Including a QR code on your CV or cover letter can allow search committees to easily access your website, LinkedIn profile, or online portfolio. Personally, I included two QR codes on the cover page of my CV—one linking to my LinkedIn profile and the other to my personal website. This approach makes it simple for committees to engage with your materials, adding a creative and tech-savvy element to your application.

Although portfolios are not always required, they can be quite helpful in providing a holistic view of your approach to teaching. By offering digital access to your teaching philosophy and examples of your work, you make it easier for search committees to gain deeper insights into your qualifications, further differentiating you as a candidate. Although search committee members may be instructed to only review the material requested, there is typically no harm in providing links or directions to external materials in your CV and/or cover letter.

 

Navigating Institutional Culture (from an Applicant’s Perspective)

Small liberal arts colleges often have distinct institutional cultures that shape the faculty and student experience. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for candidates, especially those fresh out of their doctoral programs. Navigating this culture might feel daunting, particularly if you haven’t yet served on faculty committees or participated in shared governance.

One of the challenges when applying to an institution is that institutional culture cannot easily be pulled from a website or publicly available documents. This is often something you have to experience and learn over time. However, you can still demonstrate your appreciation for the importance of institutional culture by expressing your respect for the values that shape the institution and emphasizing your readiness to contribute to fostering a healthy campus climate. While you may not have direct experience in the institution’s governance or committees, focusing on your enthusiasm to learn and grow as a member of the academic community is key. In your application, highlight how you view your role not only as an educator but as a colleague who is committed to the broader institutional mission and the well-being of the campus community.

In your materials, acknowledge that you understand the importance of institutional culture and express your willingness to learn how the institution operates and shapes its community. Mentioning your obligation to contribute positively to that culture, particularly by fostering an inclusive, collaborative environment, can also stand out to search committees. You might reflect on experiences during your graduate studies when you successfully adapted to new academic or professional environments, showcasing your ability to integrate into the college’s culture and navigate its distinct community dynamics.

It’s also important to convey how you envision institutional culture shaping your growth as a colleague. Small colleges often emphasize strong faculty-student relationships, collaborative governance, and active participation in campus life. Highlight your readiness to engage with these elements and your openness to growing within the institution’s framework. This will show search committees that you are not only thinking about your individual role but also how you can contribute to and benefit from the broader community.

Fostering Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Your Teaching

Another crucial aspect to consider when applying to small liberal arts colleges is addressing how you would contribute to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), particularly through your teaching. DEI has become an increasingly prominent focus in higher education, and while it can be a sensitive topic at certain institutions, many private universities will expect candidates to align with their mission, vision, and values in this area. Demonstrating how you create an inclusive learning environment that welcomes and respects all forms of diversity is key to showing your commitment to the institution’s goals.

In your application, reflect on your efforts to provide a welcoming and equitable learning environment. Highlight your teaching philosophy and the specific classroom practices or curriculum designs you’ve employed to ensure all students feel valued and supported. For example, you might mention strategies you’ve used to accommodate diverse learners, incorporate varied perspectives into your course materials, or foster a classroom culture where every student’s voice is heard and respected. Research shows that inclusive teaching practices not only benefit underrepresented students but also enhance learning outcomes for all students by promoting a richer exchange of ideas (Nicholas, 2024).

Additionally, while some institutions may explicitly emphasize DEI in their mission, it’s still valuable to showcase your thoughtfulness around these issues even if the institution’s focus on DEI is less prominent. A well-rounded approach to DEI will demonstrate to search committees that you understand the importance of these efforts and are prepared to actively contribute to fostering an inclusive and supportive learning environment. This focus on DEI also ties into your broader role in supporting the institution’s mission of student success and community engagement, ensuring that all students have the opportunity to thrive both academically and personally.

By emphasizing your respect for institutional culture and your commitment to DEI, you demonstrate to the search committee that you are a thoughtful, engaged candidate who understands the importance of these elements in shaping a positive and productive academic environment.

 

The Role of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (for Job Seekers)

One of the key benefits of working at a small liberal arts college is the opportunity to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration. With smaller faculty sizes, cross-departmental teaching and research are often encouraged, allowing you to bring fresh perspectives to your work and enrich students’ learning experiences. For applicants, demonstrating a commitment to interdisciplinary work can significantly strengthen your application, particularly in institutions that value collaborative teaching and research.

In your cover letter and CV, highlight any experiences where you’ve worked across disciplines, even if those experiences come from your graduate studies. If you don’t have formal interdisciplinary experience, emphasize your openness to such collaborations and provide examples of how your research or teaching philosophy naturally lends itself to interdisciplinary work. For instance, I co-developed a general education course on global food systems, working with faculty from psychology, English, art, and history. This experience allowed me to use my disciplinary expertise while collaborating with colleagues from different fields, enhancing the overall student learning experience.

Interdisciplinary teaching is especially valuable at small colleges, where general education programs often rely on faculty from various departments to deliver cross-disciplinary content and student learning outcomes focus on durable skills. Engaging in such collaborations not only enriches your teaching but also helps integrate students into a holistic learning environment that values multiple perspectives.

Part 2: Thriving in Your First Few Years

Securing a faculty position at a small liberal arts college is just the beginning. Once you’ve been hired, the challenge becomes balancing your various responsibilities, building relationships, and contributing meaningfully to the institution. Unlike larger universities, small colleges often require faculty to take on multiple roles, from teaching and research to service and leadership, all within a close-knit campus community. Thriving in this environment requires adaptability, time management, and a proactive approach to professional development. In this section, I will share my perspective and discuss strategies for managing your workload, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and navigating the institutional culture that defines small colleges. By understanding the unique rewards and challenges of these roles, you can make a lasting impact on both your students and your institution while setting the stage for future career growth.

Balancing Teaching, Research, and Service

One of the hardest lessons to learn in a small college setting is how to balance the competing demands of teaching, research, and service. In my early years, I spent an inordinate amount of time preparing for classes—often 120% of the typical workweek. It was only later that I learned to balance these demands more effectively (and to take a different approach to how I prepared/updated my courses), particularly as scholarship expectations at my institution evolved.

Jasinski and Anderson-Levy (2024) encourage new faculty to embrace a “growth mindset” and to be patient with themselves as they find this balance. While this is solid advice, I’d add that having clear conversations with your department chair and mentors about expectations in your early years is essential. If teaching is the priority but research is required for tenure, structure your time accordingly, focusing on what will most contribute to your long-term success.

Efficient time management is essential, especially when juggling multiple roles in a smaller institution. However, it can be difficult, particularly if you’re on a tenure track or not yet tenured, to say “no” to requests. When I was on the tenure track, I said “yes” to almost everything, which only led to more requests coming my way. Although I found ways to manage it all, I definitely did not have a healthy work-life balance. In hindsight, I wish I had been more selective and intentional with the service opportunities and initiatives I took on. It’s important to develop your ability to say “no”—or, more politely, “no thank you”—when needed.  This is where having a few key colleagues, including your department chair/program director as support and mentors can be invaluable.  They can provide some cover in those cases and/or help you to navigate those conversations directly.

Additionally, engaging with your institution’s Center for Faculty Development—often called the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) or at my institution, the Center for the Advancement of Faculty Excellence (CAFE)—early and throughout your career is critical. These centers provide holistic faculty development resources beyond teaching, including support for research and service. Reflecting on your teaching through the lens of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and setting up a research agenda can help maintain a balance between teaching and scholarship.

As you progress in your career, it’s important to recognize that the balance between teaching, research, and service may shift from semester to semester. There may be times when you need to focus more on teaching, especially if you’re taking on new courses, while other semesters may provide more opportunities to dive deeper into your research or service commitments. I found that adjusting my focus each semester based on course familiarity and workload helped me stay on track while still progressing in my scholarly work.

Finally, collaboration plays a significant role in managing your workload at smaller institutions. Because faculty may be the only one in their discipline, interdisciplinary research projects can provide valuable support. I collaborated on several SoTL projects with colleagues across departments, which not only enhanced my research but also expanded my network within the institution. Collaborating across teaching and research creates a vibrant academic environment that benefits both your career and the institution.

Unique Rewards of Small Colleges

Working at a small liberal arts college offers unique advantages that go beyond what you might find at a larger research institution. These rewards often stem from the close-knit community and the opportunity for meaningful impact both inside and outside the classroom.

One of the most rewarding aspects is the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines. In my first five years, I worked with faculty from various departments through programs like general education, honors, and international education. These collaborations expanded my understanding of the student experience and helped prepare me for administrative roles. They also led to enriching research experiences, such as co-authoring Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) projects with colleagues from psychology, English, and history, which we presented at both teaching/learning conferences and a disciplinary conference in agriculture and environmental sciences.

The cultivation of strong relationships with faculty, staff, and students was absolutely essential when I took on my first major administrative role as Assistant Provost, after serving as department chair, program director, and faculty liaison/fellow. In these earlier roles, I learned the importance of fostering meaningful connections across campus, which became even more critical as I transitioned into administrative leadership. Because of the skills I developed during my time as faculty and the relationships I built, I was well-positioned to advance key initiatives, facilitate change, and achieve institutional goals. These experiences have made me much more prepared, not only in my current role but also in any future positions I may pursue, as relationship building is the foundation of effective leadership and institutional success.

Small colleges are dynamic environments where relationships with colleagues and students are deeply valued. Jasinski and Anderson-Levy (2024) note that relationships matter greatly in these settings, both inside and outside the classroom​(What to Expect in Your …). In my experience, this is especially true. By working closely with advising, career services, and other departments, I gained a holistic view of student success, which has been invaluable as I’ve transitioned into leadership roles.

Moreover, the close-knit nature of small colleges often provides early-career faculty with leadership opportunities they may not encounter at larger institutions. While roles like department chair or program director are more formal, small colleges offer numerous opportunities for leadership in less traditional roles, such as serving as a faculty fellow, task force chair, or faculty liaison. These positions allow faculty to shape curriculum, lead initiatives, and contribute to broader university operations, providing a path to future administrative roles.

Navigating Institutional Culture (as a New Faculty Member)

Once hired, building relationships with your colleagues and understanding the decision-making processes should be a priority, but navigating institutional culture goes beyond this. At small liberal arts colleges, understanding how governance and institutional politics work in practice can be crucial for long-term success. Attending faculty meetings, participating in campus-wide events, and observing how the institution operates will give you insights into its culture and governance structures.

For new faculty members, especially those coming from doctoral programs, shared governance and institutional politics can feel intimidating. You may not yet have experience serving on committees or participating in decision-making processes, but demonstrating a willingness to learn how the institution functions will set you apart. Start by taking on smaller roles in committee work or faculty governance, which will allow you to observe and learn from more experienced colleagues while gaining valuable insights into how decisions are made and how you can contribute meaningfully.

Over time, you will find opportunities to contribute in more significant ways, particularly if you remain open to learning the nuances of institutional culture. The relationships you build and the insights you gain will not only help you better navigate the institution but also open doors to leadership opportunities, helping to shape the trajectory of your career. This understanding of institutional operations, combined with the ability to integrate into the culture, can lead to meaningful growth both as a faculty member and as a future leader within the institution.

The Importance of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (for Early-Career Faculty)

Interdisciplinary collaboration isn’t limited to the classroom. It can also play a key role in your research. During my time working on SoTL (Scholarship of Teaching and Learning) projects, I co-authored papers with faculty from various disciplines, presenting our findings at both teaching/learning and disciplinary conferences. These collaborations added depth to my research and broadened the scope of my scholarship beyond my primary field. For those entering small colleges, this kind of collaboration can lead to unique and rewarding opportunities.

At larger institutions, interdisciplinary collaboration does occur, but I would argue that at small colleges and universities, it is not just beneficial—it’s essential. In order to thrive, advance, and feel fulfilled at a smaller institution, interdisciplinary collaboration becomes a requirement. While it’s possible to survive and even make it through tenure without participating in cross-departmental work, your long-term career advancement—and even your happiness in the position—will be severely impacted if you do not engage with colleagues across different fields. Small colleges often rely on faculty to contribute to programs beyond their primary discipline, and the ability to collaborate across departments enhances the richness of student learning and helps foster a more connected academic community.

Interdisciplinary collaboration helps expose students to a variety of perspectives, leading to a more well-rounded educational experience. Engaging in this work also opens doors to joint publications, presentations, and innovative teaching practices that not only enrich your research portfolio but also enhance your standing within the institution. The interdisciplinary nature of SoTL is one example, but these types of collaborations often extend into areas such as general education, honors programs, and faculty-led international experiences, all of which contribute to a vibrant academic environment. Fostering such connections will benefit both your career and the institution as a whole.

Moreover, while faculty collaboration across disciplines is essential, it is equally important to recognize and value the role of academic staff. In my experience, academic staff are some of the hardest-working individuals on campus, often playing crucial roles in student success and academic operations. Yet, I’ve observed too many instances where faculty do not give staff the respect or acknowledgment they deserve, possibly due to a misplaced sense of hierarchy or the lack of advanced degrees (e.g., PhDs). This is a mistake. Academic staff bring extensive expertise and experience that is vital to the functioning of any institution. Building strong, respectful relationships with staff is critical for any faculty member, especially at small colleges, where the lines between roles often blur and collaboration is essential. Ignoring the expertise of staff or failing to collaborate with them can severely limit your effectiveness as a faculty member and your ability to contribute to the broader mission of the institution.

In short, interdisciplinary collaboration—whether with fellow faculty or academic staff—is not just a path to success at small colleges; it is an integral part of thriving in such environments. Respecting and embracing the expertise of everyone in the institution, regardless of their role or title, is a crucial part of building a rewarding and impactful academic career.

Final Thoughts

Whether you are entering the job market or beginning your first faculty role at a small liberal arts college, the key to success lies in understanding the institution’s unique culture and aligning your goals with its mission. Preparing a tailored application that highlights your commitment to teaching and student engagement can set you apart from other candidates. Once hired, thriving in your role requires balancing teaching, research, and service, while also building meaningful relationships and contributing to the broader academic community. Small colleges offer immense opportunities for leadership, collaboration, and personal growth, making them an ideal setting for those who value close student interactions and cross-disciplinary work. By staying adaptable, seeking mentorship, and taking advantage of the many opportunities for involvement, you can create a fulfilling and impactful career in higher education.

References

Jasinski, L., & Anderson-Levy, L. (2024). What to expect in your first year of work at a small college. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Ladany, N. (2024). Behind the curtain of higher education: Faculty aren’t trained. Forbes.

Pillar, G. D., Karnok, K. J., & Thien, S. J. (2008). Perceptions, utilization, and training of graduate student teaching assistants in introductory soil science courses: Survey results. NACTA Journal, 52(3), 1-9.

Ideas for Future Discussions and Writings

  1. The Role of Technology in Small College Classrooms
    • One topic I’d like to explore further is the increasing role of technology in small college classrooms. While interdisciplinary collaboration and teaching are central, technology has the potential to transform how we create inclusive, interactive, and engaging learning environments. How can small colleges leverage tools like learning management systems (LMS), AI, virtual labs, and digital portfolios? In future discussions, I’d like to delve into how we can balance traditional pedagogical approaches with the benefits of these innovations, particularly for institutions that may not have the same resources as larger universities.
  2. Navigating Career Transitions in Higher Education
    • Many faculty members, including myself at times, have thought about transitioning into leadership or administrative roles over time, but there’s often little guidance on how to make these shifts successfully. I’d like to write about the challenges of moving from faculty positions into roles like department chair, dean, or assistant/associate provost. Developing the necessary skill sets early on is crucial for these transitions, and I’d like to share insights on how faculty can position themselves for these opportunities. I’ll also reflect on my own experiences navigating these transitions and the strategies that have worked for me.
  3. Work-Life Balance in Academic Careers
    • Finding a healthy work-life balance, especially at small colleges where faculty are expected to wear many hats, is a challenge I’ve faced myself and a topic I’d like to explore more deeply. It’s easy to take on too much, especially in teaching, research, and service roles, and burnout can creep in. I’d like to discuss strategies for managing time, protecting personal well-being, and setting boundaries. I could share my own lessons learned about saying “no” when necessary, along with tips on how to prioritize self-care in a demanding profession.
  4. Mentorship in Academia: Giving and Receiving Support
    • Mentorship has been a key part of my career, both as a mentee and as a mentor to others, and I think it’s an important area to explore. I’d like to discuss the dual roles of seeking mentorship while also giving back and supporting colleagues and students. This could include tips on how to find mentors, be a good mentor, and the role of peer mentoring in helping faculty succeed, particularly in smaller college environments where close professional relationships can have a lasting impact.
  5. Adapting to Changes in Higher Education Policy and Funding
    • The landscape of higher education is constantly changing, influenced by shifts in policy, funding, and accreditation requirements. I’ve seen how these changes can significantly impact small institutions, and I’d like to explore how faculty can adapt. From the effects of public policy changes to the ongoing challenges of institutional funding, this is a topic that deserves more attention. I’d like to write about how we can advocate for the value of liberal arts education while navigating these changes and what strategies faculty can use to engage in shared governance effectively.
  6. Exploring Non-Traditional and Administrative Careers
    • Throughout my career, I’ve seen many colleagues explore non-traditional academic careers or shift into administrative roles. I’d like to write about both of these paths, from positions like academic advising, instructional design, or higher education consulting to roles like Associate Dean, Dean, Assistant/Associate/Vice Provost, and Provost. For those looking for alternatives to traditional tenure-track roles, I could explore how these positions offer different challenges and rewards, and what skills are necessary to transition successfully. I also want to share insights from my own experiences in moving into administrative roles, including how to balance faculty duties with administrative responsibilities, and how interim positions or special projects can help faculty build a record of leadership and administrative experience. These career paths can offer fulfillment in different ways, and I’d like to help others understand the opportunities available and how to position themselves for success.
  7. Fostering International Collaboration and Exchange Programs
    • Global education and international collaborations have enriched my own teaching and research, and I’d like to delve deeper into how faculty at small colleges can foster these kinds of opportunities. Whether it’s building relationships with international institutions or leading faculty-led study abroad programs, these experiences can provide immense value to both students and faculty. I’d like to offer advice on how to incorporate global perspectives into the curriculum and explore the benefits of engaging in international collaboration.

The Enduring Strengths and Challenges of Centennial Institutions: Balancing Legacy, Change, and Innovation

gregpillar on October 12, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

In a world that increasingly prioritizes speed and short-term results, centennial institutions—those that have sustained their missions and operations for over a hundred years—stand as rare examples of resilience and longevity. These organizations, including many universities, are often lauded for their ability to remain steadfast through generations, adapting just enough to stay relevant while preserving their core values. However, as highlighted in a recent discussion with Alex Hill on the EdUp Provost podcast (Thuswaldner, 2024) and in his book Centennials: The 12 Habits of Great Enduring Organizations (Hill, 2023), these very qualities that contribute to their endurance can also act as barriers to necessary change. Insights from Whatever It Is, I’m Against It: Resistance to Change show how deeply entrenched traditions can both sustain and inhibit institutions (Rosenberg, 2021). Similarly, perspectives from Matt Alex’s commentary on Higher Education Nostalgia illuminate the challenge of clinging to the past while trying to innovate for the future (Alex, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c). As I discussed in my own article, Tradition to Transformation (Pillar, 2024a), and Bryan Alexander’s Academia Next (2020), offers a forward-looking perspective on how these institutions can navigate the challenges of the future, highlighting the importance of adaptability in a rapidly changing educational landscape.

My motivation for writing this article came from the combination of hearing the EdUp Provost podcast episode featuring Alex Hill, author of Centennials: The 12 Habits of Great Enduring Organizations, and his insights on centennial organizations, along with Matt Alex’s recent Higher Education Nostalgia series, which questions the future role of higher education in the age of AI, and the various recent discussions (in part from podcasts) and readings that led me to write my first article on this topic From Tradition to Transformation (Pillar, 2024). This comprehensive and broader discourse around change in higher education has inspired deeper reflection on how institutions can adapt (and perhaps how I can contribute) to remain relevant. Conversations and resources around the necessity of transformation in higher ed, from books to articles and podcasts, continue to captivate and inspire me to explore these ideas more fully in my writing.

Now, I have a bit of a habit—or perhaps you could call it a quirk—of reading multiple books at once. Yes, it’s a bit chaotic, but it often leads to interesting connections between ideas. As I dove into the books noted here (no, I haven’t finished all of them yet), I couldn’t help but notice a common thread: what has allowed institutions to thrive and survive for over a hundred years is often the very thing that makes it difficult for them to adapt in time to survive another century. It’s a bit like the old boiling frog story—though there’s a twist here.

For those unfamiliar with the analogy, the boiling frog story suggests that if a frog is placed in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately jump out. However, if the frog is placed in cool water that is gradually heated, it won’t perceive the danger and will remain in the pot until it’s too late, eventually boiling to death. The metaphor is often used to describe situations where slow, incremental changes go unnoticed until they culminate in disaster.  For example, Al Gore famously used this analogy when discussing our response to Climate Change’s effects in his well-known documentary, An Inconvenient Truth in 2006.

In the case of higher education, some dangers are indeed slow and subtle, quietly wearing away at institutions over time, like changes in student demographics or financial pressures that aren’t immediately apparent. Yet, unlike the frog in the story, not all risks in higher education are imperceptible. Some are glaringly obvious, such as technological advancements or shifting market demands. Still, even when leaders recognize the need for transformation, the tank-like structures and cultures these institutions have developed can make calculated risks and swift action nearly impossible.

The Paradox of Stability and Adaptation

Centennial institutions face a fundamental paradox: the very stability that has ensured their endurance can become a barrier to adapting in a world that demands constant change. This tension between preserving a long-standing mission and adapting to new realities is not unique to higher education but is especially pronounced within it (Hill, 2023; Rosenberg, 2021). Stability provides a sense of identity and continuity, which can be reassuring to students, alumni, and donors. However, this same focus on continuity can make it challenging for institutions to pivot when new educational models, technologies, or demographic shifts demand rapid adaptation.

Matt Alex (2024a, 2024b, 2024c) emphasizes that the accessibility of knowledge has shifted dramatically in recent years, with the advent of AI-powered tools like GPTs enabling students and professionals alike to access a wide array of information without the need for a traditional university setting. In his Higher Education Nostalgia series, Alex argues that this shift forces institutions to reconsider their role—not as the gatekeepers of knowledge, but as spaces that foster critical thinking, adaptability, and meaningful learning experiences. He notes, “The question is: If knowledge can be accessed at your fingertips via the internet and new AI-powered GPTs, what role does higher education play today?” This shift aligns with the challenge many centennial institutions face, where stability and tradition can hinder their ability to evolve in the face of technological advances.

George Leef’s analysis adds another layer to this discussion. He emphasizes that reforming colleges is a struggle precisely because they are designed to maintain their status quo (Leef, 2017). Leef points out that many college leaders are preoccupied with maintaining prestige and operational stability, focusing more on fundraising and external relationships than on academic reform. This focus on external appearances often overshadows the internal need for change, resulting in a system that is resistant to adapting its academic practices and structures (Leef, 2017; Alex, 2024b). Such inertia can be particularly detrimental when rapid changes are needed to address new challenges.

As Alex Hill (2023) notes, centennial institutions often have a deeply embedded sense of purpose—a “North Star” that guides their decisions. While this clarity of mission has been a strength, it can also foster an aversion to risk, making it difficult for these institutions to experiment with new approaches. Rosenberg (2021) similarly emphasizes that resistance to change within these organizations is not merely a structural issue but a cultural one, where tradition and historical practices are closely guarded. This cultural resistance can lead to a sense of complacency, where the success of past strategies blinds institutions to the need for innovation.

The Strength of Long-Term Vision and Stability

A key characteristic of centennial institutions is their commitment to a long-term purpose, or “North Star” (Hill, 2023). This approach allows them to stay anchored in their original mission, fostering deep-rooted stability and cultivating a reputation for reliability and trustworthiness. Such stability provides direction during uncertain times, but it can also result in a culture that resists change, where even beneficial adjustments are met with skepticism because they challenge established norms (Rosenberg, 2021).

This resistance is compounded by a tendency to cling to an idealized version of the past. Many within higher education view their institutions as fundamentally different from other organizations, leading to reluctance in adopting more efficient, business-like practices. This mindset creates a disconnect between the self-perception of higher education as unique and the realities of its operational needs (Alex, 2024a). Acknowledging the need to operate more like other industries, though difficult, is crucial for maintaining relevance. The urgency for such shifts is something I have highlighted in Tradition to Transformation, where I argued that many institutions are “over-built for stability rather than adaptability,” making it challenging to pivot in response to new demands (Pillar, 2024a).

Bryan Alexander adds that higher education must develop a forward-thinking mindset, not just responding to immediate changes but also anticipating future trends in technology, demographics, and pedagogy (Alexander, 2020). Without this kind of strategic foresight, institutions risk being unprepared for the disruptive changes reshaping education today. His work serves as a reminder that centennial institutions can leverage their traditions while staying adaptable to emerging trends.

The Hidden Challenges: Resistance to Change and the "Cult" of Tradition.

Despite the examples of innovative institutions, many centennial organizations struggle to adapt quickly to external pressures. They may excel at maintaining their identity, but this often comes at the cost of flexibility (Hill, 2023). While businesses tend to embrace short-term changes, often sacrificing long-term stability, centennial institutions risk stagnation when they resist change for too long.

The challenge is not just structural but also cultural. Resistance to change is often deeply rooted in a fear of losing the qualities that have sustained institutions for generations (Rosenberg, 2021). Often, faculty are resistant to change due to how it impacts them personally. Even if the change is better for students, the college, or the institution, they will resist it—especially when tenure is involved—if it threatens their position, authority, or perceived prestige. Institutions are wary of abandoning practices that have served them well in the past, even when these practices no longer align with current needs. This resistance becomes even more problematic when traditional notions of academic rigor are treated as the ultimate measure of preparedness, despite a growing disconnect between classroom challenges and real-world skills (Alex, 2024b).

The challenges facing many small colleges are particularly acute. John Drea (2024) outlines how these institutions struggle with demographic shifts, declining enrollment, and financial constraints, making their resistance to change even more precarious. Many of these schools find themselves “stuck” in old models that no longer serve current student needs, highlighting the urgent need for a reimagined approach to leadership and strategy.

Ricardo Azziz (2024) adds to this discussion by pointing out the structural fragility of the higher education sector, particularly in the U.S. He argues that the sector’s vulnerability is tied to a combination of high operational costs, reliance on tuition revenue, and resistance to rethinking long-standing traditions. This analysis reinforces the broader theme that stability, while beneficial, can also become a burden if it prevents necessary innovation.

Alan Mallach (2024) echoes these concerns, emphasizing that higher education is at a critical inflection point where traditional models are being challenged by financial pressures and changing student expectations. He suggests that institutions must adopt a mindset similar to that of challenger brands if they hope to survive in the increasingly competitive landscape (Fuster, 2024).

In my own experiences, I have observed how rigid structures can hinder the ability to respond to external pressures such as changing student demographics and financial challenges. Many campuses are built for stability rather than agility, making even small strategic adjustments feel monumental (Pillar, 2024a). Bryan Alexander underscores this point by advocating for adaptive structures that allow institutions to remain responsive to shifts in technology and student needs, fostering a culture that welcomes innovation rather than shying away from it (Alexander, 2020).

The Role of Disruption and Incremental Innovation

While centennial institutions are often slow to change, some have found ways to balance tradition with innovation. Institutions like the Royal College of Art have embraced community-based innovation, experimenting with small-scale changes and gradually integrating successful initiatives (Hill, 2023). This method aligns with the idea of making “incremental improvements” over time, which allows institutions to manage risks without drastic overhauls (Thuswaldner, 2024a). Incremental innovation provides a safer path for change, allowing institutions to adapt without fundamentally disrupting their core operations or values.

However, when is incremental change not enough? At what point must institutions recognize that more significant, transformative action is required? While incremental improvements have their place, there are moments when deeper shifts are necessary to ensure long-term sustainability and relevance. How can institutions identify these moments, and what strategies can they employ to overcome the resistance that so often limits change to small, gradual steps?

Yet, even small changes can face resistance. The fear of making the wrong decision can lead to “perpetual deliberation,” where institutions get stuck in discussions without concrete action (Rosenberg, 2021). This hesitation is often rooted in a culture that is slow to adapt, preferring the safety of gradual adjustments over the uncertainty of more radical change. This is further compounded by a reluctance to acknowledge the similarities between higher education and other industries, such as the use of data-driven strategies to attract students and improve services (Alex, 2024a). Despite these challenges, there is significant potential for institutions to learn from the successes of more innovative counterparts, such as newer models that embrace more aggressive innovation.

Unity Environmental University, under the leadership of Dr. Melik Peter Khoury, provides a notable example of an institution willing to embrace disruption while preserving its core mission. In my article Leading Change in Higher Education (Pillar, 2024b), I highlighted how Unity transitioned from a traditional residential model to a flexible hybrid approach, integrating distance learning without sacrificing its commitment to environmental sustainability. This case underscores the importance of balancing tradition with innovation—something centennial institutions must navigate to remain competitive.

In the same vein, my co-hosted podcast interview with President Stratsi Kulinski of NewU University also explored how newer institutions can leverage their clean slate to implement bold, innovative strategies without being bogged down by legacy structures (Sallustio & Pillar, 2024). Both Unity Environmental and NewU offer models for centennial institutions to study as they seek to innovate within their own unique constraints.

However, over-relying on incremental change as the sole strategy can pose significant risks to long-term viability. Incremental adjustments may help institutions stay afloat, but they often lack the transformative impact needed to address the deeper structural issues facing higher education today. As George Leef (2017) points out, many institutions have become adept at making surface-level adjustments without tackling the fundamental problems that limit their ability to adapt. Such strategies can result in stagnation rather than real progress, offering only temporary solutions to systemic challenges like declining enrollments and outdated pedagogical models. While incremental change is more palatable to risk-averse leadership, it may not provide the agility needed for transformative growth.

One practical approach to foster more impactful innovation while mitigating resistance is the creation of a dedicated division or branch for “Research & Development” or “Innovation.” This unit acts as a “sandbox” where new projects, programs, and ideas can be explored without the constraints of traditional institutional red tape. It allows centennial institutions to test new initiatives—whether related to curriculum, student services, or technological advancements—in a more flexible environment. Successful innovations can then be scaled up with greater ease, having already proven their value in a less restrictive setting (Pillar, 2024a). By adopting this structure, institutions can cultivate a “start-up” mentality that encourages creativity, quick iterations, and adaptability, all while preserving their core mission.  In order for this approach to actually work it makes a lot of assumptions and already I can think of a number of flaws with this approach.  However, you have to start somewhere!

This approach is supported by insights from Sara Schapiro, Executive Director of the Alliance for Learning & Innovation (Ally). In a recent EdUp Experience podcast episode, Schapiro highlighted the potential benefits of a more robust R&D infrastructure in education, drawing parallels to other sectors like agriculture and defense that have long embraced R&D investments to drive innovation. Schapiro emphasized that “creating a dedicated space for research and innovation, like a National Center for the Advanced Development in Education (NCAID), could catalyze the kinds of transformative changes that higher education so desperately needs” (Sallustio, 2024). This national-level vision mirrors what individual institutions could achieve by investing in their own R&D or innovation units, allowing them to pilot initiatives without the traditional barriers that often slow down progress.

By providing such a space, centennial institutions can better navigate the complexities of change, blending their historical strengths with a forward-thinking approach. This model ensures that innovation is not stifled by the weight of tradition, offering a pathway to meaningful transformation that respects the institution’s core values.

Bryan Alexander explores how institutions can leverage emerging technologies like artificial intelligence to create new models of education. This forward-thinking approach encourages higher education to use new tools not just for operational efficiency but as opportunities to reimagine how learning occurs (Alexander, 2020). True transformation requires a willingness to pilot bold ideas that may initially seem risky but have the potential to redefine the learning experience. As I’ve argued in Tradition to Transformation, adopting a “startup mentality” can be crucial for piloting new ideas and remaining relevant in a rapidly changing world (Pillar, 2024a).

While incremental improvements are valuable for maintaining stability and ensuring gradual progress, they must be balanced with opportunities for larger-scale innovation. Institutions that fail to push beyond incrementalism risk being left behind in a competitive landscape. By creating environments where both small-scale experiments and transformative projects can coexist, centennial institutions can better navigate the complexities of change, ensuring that they are not only sustainable but also positioned for meaningful growth and impact (Alex, 2024b). Alexander’s emphasis on strategic foresight serves as a reminder that preparing for changes before they become crises is essential for longevity in the higher education sector (Alexander, 2020).

Final Thoughts: The Path Forward for Centennial (and All) Institutions

Centennial institutions possess the qualities of resilience, tradition, and a deep-rooted mission that can serve as powerful anchors in times of change. However, as the higher education landscape evolves, these institutions must recognize that the very qualities that have sustained them through decades may now be slowing their progress. While the past century has been marked by stability, the next century demands adaptability and a willingness to experiment.

It’s clear that both centennial and newer institutions must address similar challenges: adapting to technological advancements, meeting the evolving needs of students, and sustaining financial viability. While newer institutions like NewU University have the advantage of starting from a clean slate—able to innovate without the weight of historical precedent—centennial institutions must find ways to integrate innovation without losing sight of their core values. As Bryan Alexander (2020) suggests, the future of higher education will require a proactive embrace of technological and pedagogical trends, with institutions needing to anticipate changes rather than simply react to them.

Practical Steps for the Path Forward

  • Create Dedicated Innovation Units: Establish separate units or divisions focused on innovation and research & development (R&D). These “sandbox” environments allow for experimentation with new ideas, whether they involve curriculum design, student services, or cutting-edge technology. By freeing these units from traditional bureaucratic processes, institutions can pilot programs more rapidly and with less risk. These innovation units should regularly collaborate with departments across the university, ensuring that the most successful initiatives are shared and scaled campus-wide. Such efforts mirror successful models in other sectors like tech or defense, where R&D departments drive continuous improvement (Sallustio & Schapiro, 2024).
  • Foster a Culture of Psychological Safety: Encourage open dialogue where faculty, staff, and students can voice ideas, concerns, and critiques without fear of retribution or judgment. Creating a culture of psychological safety is essential for fostering innovation, as people are more likely to propose bold or unconventional ideas in an environment where they feel supported. Leaders must actively solicit feedback and model transparency, providing avenues for experimentation, even when failure is a possibility. This culture will not only nurture innovation but also help retain and engage talent that seeks a dynamic, responsive work and learning environment.
  • Leverage Data-Driven Decision-Making: Utilize data analytics to inform every aspect of decision-making, from student recruitment and retention strategies to curriculum development and operational efficiencies. Data can highlight patterns and opportunities that might not be immediately visible, enabling institutions to make more informed choices about resource allocation, program growth, or downsizing. However, the use of data must go beyond simply tracking metrics; it should involve actionable insights that directly impact institutional strategy. By embedding data into the decision-making process, colleges and universities can stay agile and responsive to both internal and external pressures.
  • Implement Incremental Changes: Focus on small, manageable improvements that can be scaled over time, reducing resistance to change while building a track record of success. Incremental changes, such as revising curricula to reflect emerging trends or adopting new technologies in stages, can serve as proof-of-concept for larger transformations. This approach can help leadership and stakeholders build confidence in the change process, making it easier to implement more ambitious reforms down the line. For instance, rather than overhauling a degree program all at once, institutions could pilot new courses or modules and gradually expand successful initiatives.
  • Engage in Cross-Institutional Partnerships: Collaborate with both challenger brands and established institutions to share best practices, pool resources, and explore innovative models of education. Cross-institutional partnerships offer an opportunity to experiment with new ideas while benefiting from shared expertise and reduced costs. Such collaborations can also extend to international institutions, bringing in diverse perspectives and broadening the scope of innovation. In an era where the landscape of higher education is changing rapidly, these partnerships can be crucial for institutions looking to remain competitive and forward-thinking (Fuster, 2024).
  • Empower Change Agents: Identify and support individuals within the institution who are willing to champion new ideas and lead change efforts. These change agents should be given the authority and resources necessary to effect meaningful reform, acting as liaisons between departments and the leadership team. By fostering a network of empowered change agents, institutions can create a groundswell of support for transformation, ensuring that innovative ideas come from all levels of the organization. Leadership should recognize and reward these individuals, creating a ripple effect that inspires others to step forward as drivers of change.
  • Adopt a Flexible Strategic Framework: Develop strategic plans that allow for adaptability, revisiting and revising them regularly to ensure they remain relevant in a constantly shifting landscape. Flexibility in strategic planning is key to staying responsive to changing technologies, student needs, and market forces. Institutions should create mechanisms for periodically reviewing and adjusting their long-term goals, incorporating feedback from internal and external stakeholders. This practice not only keeps institutions aligned with current realities but also positions them to pivot quickly in the face of unexpected challenges.

As Matt Alex (2024c) eloquently states, “The challenge for higher education now is to evolve.” Colleges and universities must transition from being mere distributors of knowledge to becoming places that foster competency, experiences, and connections that cannot be easily replicated by online resources or AI tools. His insight—that higher education should focus on mentorship, real-world debates, and the sense of community formed through shared learning—aligns closely with my own views. I fully agree that if institutions remain nostalgic about what they were, they will miss the opportunity to reimagine what they could become.

Institutions must acknowledge that while knowledge is now a widely shared resource, the unique value of higher education lies in its ability to help students apply that knowledge, think critically, and engage in transformative experiences. The mentorship from experienced faculty, the debates in classrooms, and the late-night study sessions that build a sense of community are irreplaceable aspects of the college experience. As we move forward, it is crucial for colleges and universities to redefine their value in ways that go beyond merely dispensing information.

Echoing Matt Alex’s sentiments, higher education must shift its focus from guarding traditional models to fostering spaces for curiosity, adaptability, and meaningful engagement. For centennial institutions, the path ahead will require a delicate balance between preserving their core values and embracing the changes needed to remain relevant. Those that can successfully navigate this evolution will not only survive but thrive in a future where the only constant is change (Alex, 2024c; Pillar, 2024a).

Ideas for Future Discussion and Writings

While this article has explored the balance between tradition and innovation within centennial institutions, there are several related topics that, although relevant, were not fully addressed. These areas present opportunities for future exploration, either through my own work or in collaboration with others interested in diving deeper into the challenges and opportunities facing higher education. Here are a few ideas for future discussion and writing:

  1. The Role of AI and Automation in Higher Education
    This article touched on the potential of emerging technologies but did not fully explore how artificial intelligence (AI) and automation could transform various aspects of higher education, from administrative processes to curriculum design. A deeper dive could investigate how AI can be utilized in R&D units, personalizing student experiences, streamlining operations, or even developing predictive analytics for student success. Such analysis would address how centennial institutions can leverage these technologies without losing sight of their core missions.
  2. Balancing Tradition with Innovation: A ‘Heritage and Horizon’ Approach
    A key theme in this article is the tension between tradition and the need for innovation. However, a future piece could more specifically address strategies for balancing these elements—what I’d call a “heritage and horizon” model. This approach involves preserving the valuable traditions that define institutional identity while integrating forward-looking practices that respond to the needs of modern learners. Exploring case studies of institutions that have successfully navigated this balance could provide actionable insights for others.
  3. The Role of Leadership in Fostering Innovation and R&D
    Leadership plays a critical role in shaping institutional culture and facilitating change. While this article highlighted some leadership strategies, a more detailed exploration could delve into the specific ways leaders can create environments that support R&D efforts and innovation. This could include practical strategies for budget allocation, empowering change agents, and fostering a culture where risk-taking is encouraged. Examining successful leadership models from both higher education and other sectors could offer valuable lessons.
  4. Building Cross-Institutional Partnerships for Innovation
    The potential for collaboration between centennial institutions and challenger brands was briefly discussed, but the idea of building cross-institutional partnerships deserves further attention. How can established universities and newer, more agile institutions work together to tackle common challenges? Future writing could explore the benefits of such partnerships, such as sharing best practices, pooling resources for R&D projects, or co-developing programs that address emerging workforce needs. This topic could also consider international collaborations as a way to bring diverse perspectives into innovation efforts.
  5. The Policy Landscape and Its Impact on Higher Education Innovation
    Current policy and funding trends significantly shape the opportunities and limitations for institutional change. This article did not deeply explore how federal and state policies, accreditation standards, or shifts in research funding impact the ability of institutions to invest in R&D and innovate effectively. A future discussion could analyze the barriers and enablers that exist within the policy landscape and propose recommendations for policymakers, institutions, and advocacy groups to better support transformative change in higher education.
  6. A Blueprint for Establishing R&D Units in Higher Education
    While the concept of dedicated R&D units was discussed as a potential solution for fostering innovation, a more practical guide or “blueprint” could be developed in future writings. This blueprint could outline key steps such as identifying focus areas, building cross-functional teams, setting up pilot projects, and scaling successful initiatives. Including metrics for evaluating the success of R&D projects would provide institutions with a clear roadmap for how to structure these efforts and measure their impact.

These topics represent avenues for further exploration that could extend the ideas discussed here and provide new insights into how higher education can adapt to the challenges and opportunities of the future. I look forward to diving into these areas myself or collaborating with others who are passionate about driving meaningful change in higher education.

References

Alex, M. (2024a, October 7). Higher Ed Nostalgia | We are not Industry! (Part 1). LinkedIn.

Alex, M. (2024b, October 10). Higher Ed Nostalgia | Rigor! (Part 2). LinkedIn.

Alex, M. (2024c, October 12). Higher Ed Nostalgia | Knowledge (Part 3). LinkedIn.

Alexander, B. (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Azziz, R. (2024). Why is the higher education sector so fragile in the U.S.? Higher Ed Dive. [source link].

Drea, J. (2024). Many Small Colleges Are Struggling. Here’s What Leaders Need to Do. Harvard Business Publishing Education. [https://www.highereddive.com/news/merger-watch-us-fragile-higher-education/724471/].

Fuster, B. (2024, September 25). Had enough with the status quo? Heed the challenger brands. University Business. https://universitybusiness.com/had-enough-with-the-status-quo-heed-the-challenger-brands/

Hill, A. (2023). Centennials: The 12 habits of great enduring organizations. Penguin Press.

Leef, G. (2017, October 25). Why is it such a struggle to reform our colleges? The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2017/10/struggle-reform-colleges/

Mallach, A. (2024). Higher Education on the Edge. U.S. News Opinion. [https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-29/higher-education-on-the-edge].

Pillar, G. (2024a). Tradition to Transformation: The Need and Urgency in Navigating Change in Higher Education Institutions. Retrieved from https://gregpillar.com/tradition-to-transformation-the-need-and-urgency-in-navigating-change-in-higher-education-institutions/

Pillar, G. (2024b). Leading Change in Higher Education: A Case Study on Unity Environmental University’s Bold Approach to Modern Learning. [https://gregpillar.com/leading-change-in-higher-education-a-case-study-on-unity-environmental-universitys-bold-approach-to-modern-learning/].

Rosenberg, B. (2021). Whatever it is, I’m against it: Resistance to change. Princeton University Press.

Sallustio, J. (Host). (2024, September 17). Conversation with Sara Schapiro, Executive Director, Alliance for Learning & Innovation [Audio podcast]. EdUp Experience. Available at https://www.edupexperience.com

Sallustio, J., & Pillar, G. (Hosts). (2024, October 1). Conversation with Stratsi Kulinski, President, NewU University [Audio podcast]. EdUp Experience. Available at https://www.edupexperience.com

Thuswaldner, G. (Host). (2024, October 1). Habits of Centennial Organizations: A Conversation with Alex Hill [Audio podcast]. EdUp Experience. Available at https://www.edupexperience.com/p/edupprovost/.

Unity Environmental University. (2024). Testimonials: Graduates & Alumni Working in the Field. Retrieved from Unity Environmental University website.

Breaking Through the Middle Manager Paradox: Practical Approaches to Middle Leadership in Higher Education

gregpillar on October 5, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Middle leadership in higher education presents a unique blend of responsibility and constraint. Throughout my career—from faculty roles to positions as assistant and associate provost—I have witnessed firsthand the intricacies of leading from the middle. Middle leaders are often tasked with bridging the gap between strategic vision and practical execution, operating with significant responsibility but limited formal authority.

This delicate balancing act raises a critical question: How can middle leaders effectively drive transformation and student success when they often lack the formal power to make key decisions? In my article, Leading from the Heart of Higher Education: Empowering Mid-Level Leaders to Drive Transformation and Student Success, (published on The EdUp Experience), I explore this conundrum (Pillar, 2024a). Building on that foundation, this article delves deeper into the specific challenges middle leaders face—particularly the paradox of being accountable without authority—and provides strategies for navigating these difficulties when institutional structures create obstacles and when values begin to misalign with senior leadership.

The Middle Manager Paradox

One of the most pressing challenges that encapsulate this dilemma is the “middle manager paradox.” In higher education, middle leaders—such as assistant provosts, deans, and directors—are often held accountable for outcomes but lack the power to make the necessary decisions to achieve those outcomes effectively. This paradox is especially pronounced when senior leadership is reluctant to distribute authority, leaving middle leaders in a position where they must deliver results without adequate control over resources or policies.

I personally encountered this challenge during our institution’s recent transition from Division II to Division I athletics. We needed to strengthen our athletic compliance and certification functions within the Registrar’s office to meet new standards. Due to challenges in workload that had been added to the Registrar’s office without my approval or consultation from other divisions, and a specific personnel issue that couldn’t be openly discussed, I was responsible for ensuring the office met the increasing demands. However, I lacked the formal authority or autonomy to shift resources or workloads to better support the office. In meetings with athletic personnel, I found myself taking responsibility for delays and challenges despite not having the key decision-making power that would have allowed us to meet these needs more effectively.

Middle leaders must “manage up, down, and sideways,” requiring an understanding of the broader institutional context while navigating the challenges of team management (Mautz, 2020, p. 35). Building strong, influential relationships becomes crucial in these contexts. Leadership is less about hierarchical power and more about fostering mutual accountability among peers and superiors to drive shared success (Ferrazzi, 2020).

Middle leaders are uniquely positioned to connect the operational with the strategic, serving as the linchpin for real, impactful transformation. Their varied experiences can enrich institutional adaptability and resilience in the face of demographic shifts, financial pressures, and political challenges (Hargreaves, 2024; Jameson, 2019).

Power vs. Authority: Navigating Influence Without Formal Control

Managing power dynamics is one of the most challenging aspects of middle leadership. There is often a stark difference between authority—the formal power to make decisions—and influence—the ability to shape decisions and outcomes without official control. Middle leaders frequently operate in environments where they have significant responsibility but minimal formal authority, which requires them to focus on alternative methods of exerting influence.

Building Trust, Communication, and Credibility

Focusing on building influence through trust, communication, and credibility is essential when lacking direct authority (Lencioni, 2012). This strategy is especially crucial for all middle leaders, particularly for those who may not fit the traditional mold of leadership within their institutions. One of the most effective ways middle leaders can build trust is through consistent, transparent communication with peers and supervisors. Engaging in active listening, providing timely feedback, and ensuring that communications are clear and authentic help establish a leader as a trusted voice.

Another key aspect of credibility-building is effective conflict management. Leaders without formal authority often find themselves mediating between their teams and senior leadership, balancing conflicting priorities or perspectives. Handling these conflicts with diplomacy and fairness is a way to earn the respect of colleagues and strengthen influence.

The Role of Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence plays a significant role in navigating complex interpersonal dynamics, which is crucial for influencing without formal authority (Goleman, 1995, 2002). By leveraging emotional intelligence, middle leaders can build credibility, foster trust, and exert influence within their teams, peers, and senior leaders.

For example, self-awareness and self-regulation enable leaders to remain calm and composed under pressure, which enhances their ability to manage complex situations effectively. Empathy helps leaders connect with their teams, understanding the emotions and motivations of others, which in turn fosters stronger relationships. Social skills, such as conflict resolution and collaboration, are essential for building a cooperative team environment and aligning stakeholders.

Emotional intelligence also helps middle leaders navigate competing priorities. In situations where middle leaders must negotiate with senior leaders or advocate for their teams, emotional intelligence allows them to read the room, understand the underlying concerns, and tailor their approach to reach a resolution. This ability to manage interpersonal dynamics skillfully positions middle leaders as effective influencers, even in the absence of formal authority.

Understanding Institutional Culture and Political Savvy

Another critical component of navigating influence without formal control is a deep understanding of institutional culture. Middle leaders must be adept at reading and responding to the cultural norms of their institutions to increase their informal influence. Leaders who understand how decisions are made, who the key decision-makers are, and how power is distributed within the institution are better equipped to navigate the informal structures of power.

Political savvy, or the ability to read the “political landscape” of an organization, is also essential for middle leaders. This skill involves understanding the relationships between different stakeholders and knowing when and how to align with various power centers within the institution. Leaders with political savvy can effectively build coalitions, advocate for their teams, and influence decision-making processes without needing formal authority.

Institutional culture also plays a significant role in how influence is perceived and exerted. In some institutions, formal authority may carry more weight, while in others, informal networks of influence may be more powerful. Understanding these dynamics allows middle leaders to navigate power structures more effectively and position themselves as key contributors to institutional success.

Influence Through Mentorship and Sponsorship

One often-overlooked avenue for exerting influence without formal authority is through mentorship and sponsorship. Middle leaders can gain significant informal power by serving as mentors to colleagues and by sponsoring the success of others within the institution. By providing guidance, advice, and support to emerging leaders, middle leaders build networks of influence that extend beyond their immediate teams.

Mentorship allows middle leaders to shape the next generation of institutional leaders, which not only increases their influence but also enhances their credibility as thought leaders within their organizations. Sponsorship, or actively advocating for the promotion and success of others, can similarly build influence. When middle leaders help others succeed, they create reciprocal relationships where their influence grows as the careers of those they sponsor advance.

Sponsorship and mentorship are particularly effective strategies for building influence in academic settings, where formal hierarchies may be less rigid, but informal networks carry significant weight. By leveraging these relationships, middle leaders can extend their influence and foster a culture of mutual support and collaboration.

Co-Elevation and Collaborative Networks

Building influence through “co-elevation,” where middle leaders elevate their teams and peers by fostering mutual success, helps align stakeholders and create a network of collaborative support (Ferrazzi, 2020). By focusing on shared success rather than personal authority, middle leaders can strengthen the cohesion and alignment of their teams, even without formal decision-making power.

Through co-elevation, middle leaders can encourage cross-functional collaboration, where departments or teams work together towards common goals. This strategy helps middle leaders position themselves as key facilitators of collaboration and innovation within the institution. By understanding and embracing different perceptions of power, middle leaders can adapt their strategies to be more effective in diverse environments.

Empowering Underrepresented Middle Leaders

As a white male, I recognize that there are systemic challenges and biases facing middle leaders from underrepresented populations that I cannot truly and accurately represent from firsthand experience. I understand that these leaders encounter barriers and walls I have not faced, and I acknowledge that my perspective may be limited in fully capturing the depth of these experiences. However, in my position, I know these systemic issues exist, and I have a responsibility to work to help overcome those challenges. What I share in this section comes with the understanding that I cannot speak directly from my own experience, but from my observations and commitment to creating more equitable leadership environments.

Underrepresented middle leaders often bring unique perspectives that can enhance institutional goals, yet they may struggle to have their voices heard in environments lacking diversity. Systemic biases and discrimination can compound the middle manager paradox, making it harder for these leaders to navigate institutional dynamics (Flores Niemann et al., 2020; Bonner II et al., 2015).

Building Influence in Diverse Settings

For underrepresented middle leaders, building influence through specific strategies can help overcome systemic biases. One critical approach is building cross-functional alliances across departments, fostering networks of mutual support and collaboration. These alliances can amplify the voices of underrepresented leaders and create broader institutional impact. Additionally, mentorship and sponsorship programs specifically designed for underrepresented groups can serve as powerful tools for leadership development and career advancement. Mentorship allows emerging leaders to gain guidance from more experienced colleagues, while sponsorship—where senior leaders actively advocate for underrepresented leaders—can help these leaders gain visibility and access to new opportunities (Batista et al., 2018).

External support networks also play a significant role in empowering underrepresented middle leaders. Affinity groups and professional associations for diverse leaders provide underrepresented leaders with the opportunity to connect with peers outside their institutions, gain fresh perspectives, and engage in leadership development specific to their challenges (Longman & Madsen, 2014; Fitzgerald & White, 2013).

Navigating Intersectionality in Leadership Challenges

For underrepresented middle leaders, intersectionality—the interconnected nature of social identities like race, gender, and sexuality—often complicates the leadership journey. Leaders who identify with multiple marginalized identities, such as women of color or LGBTQ+ leaders, may experience compounded challenges. The middle manager paradox can be exacerbated when leaders must navigate not only the constraints of authority but also biases based on their intersecting identities (Flores Niemann et al., 2020).

For these leaders, culturally responsive leadership becomes even more critical. Strategies like adapting communication styles, recognizing cultural holidays, or acknowledging team members’ unique backgrounds can help build rapport and foster a more inclusive work environment (Stefani, 2020). These leaders must balance their additional challenges with the same pressures faced by all middle leaders, while their unique contributions are essential in shaping institutions that reflect and serve an increasingly diverse society.

The Role of Allies in Empowering Underrepresented Leaders

Allies—both peers and senior leaders—play a crucial role in empowering underrepresented middle leaders. Allies can advocate for these leaders, amplifying their voices and ensuring they are included in decision-making processes. Senior leaders can serve as sponsors, offering public support, recommending them for promotions, and ensuring that their contributions are visible at higher levels of the organization (Batista et al., 2018).

Building relationships with allies is an essential strategy for underrepresented leaders. By developing strong connections with individuals who understand their value and are willing to advocate on their behalf, these leaders can navigate institutional barriers more effectively. At the same time, institutions should encourage senior leaders to actively engage in sponsorship and allyship programs that create pathways for underrepresented leaders to thrive (Fitzgerald & White, 2013; Longman & Madsen, 2014).

Empowering underrepresented middle leaders requires a multi-faceted approach that includes institutional support, mentorship and sponsorship programs, culturally responsive leadership, and the involvement of committed allies. These strategies help dismantle systemic barriers and foster a leadership environment where all leaders can succeed

Leading with Empathy and Psychological Safety

Leading effectively from the middle requires empathy and a trauma-informed approach to leadership. Recognizing that team members may have different communication styles or expectations is essential for building strong relationships. Empathy in leadership is vital for creating trust and fostering collaboration across hierarchical divides (Ferrazzi, 2020).

In practice, I have coached direct reports on utilizing inclusive decision-making, particularly in situations where it may not be intuitive to seek other views. By encouraging them to involve team members in the decision-making process, we have seen improvements in morale and a stronger sense of belonging among staff. This simple yet significant step helps team members feel valued and heard, which enhances engagement and productivity.

Creating an environment of psychological safety is also critical for middle leaders. Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson, 1999). I have utilized active listening and open communication to ensure team members feel comfortable sharing their perspectives and experiences. When fostering psychological safety has been made paramount, I’ve seen team members more likely to voice concerns, contribute ideas openly, and provide opposing or contrasting views without fear of judgment or retaliation. Having been in positions where there was an absence or lack of psychological safety, I know firsthand how it can significantly increase stress and make one’s position difficult. As a leader, I believe you should never “trade in” the option of making it easier to get movement on an institutional change or advancing an initiative if it means compromising the psychological safety of those key people you need to help achieve those goals.

Leaders must ensure they do not over-promise. Nothing erodes trust faster than making promises you cannot keep (Lencioni, 2002, 2012). Middle leaders should be clear about what is within their control and manage expectations realistically while still offering support and guidance.

Maintaining boundaries is also crucial. While offering additional support can be helpful, it must be balanced to avoid overextending oneself or creating false expectations. Leadership from the middle requires a delicate balance between offering support and maintaining realistic limits (Mautz, 2020).

Fostering Innovation from the Middle

Middle leaders can champion innovation through grassroots efforts, pilot projects, or building alliances across departments. Innovation does not always require formal authority—middle leaders can drive significant change by fostering collaboration and creativity within their teams (Grant, 2013).

Strategies for fostering innovation include:

  • Initiate Pilot Projects: Starting small-scale initiatives demonstrates the value of new ideas without requiring significant resources or formal approval.
  • Build Cross-Departmental Alliances: Collaborating with peers in other departments creates a network of support that amplifies the impact of innovative efforts (Ferrazzi, 2020).
  • Encourage Creative Problem-Solving: Cultivating an environment where team members feel empowered to suggest new ideas enhances creativity (Brown, 2018).  This may entail brainstorming sessions or meetings that go across units or divisions.  Be mindful to be inclusive and not exclusive, though being creative in who you bring together (especially if it involves folks who wouldn’t normally have team meetings) can help with alliance-building and co-elevation efforts.

Leveraging the strengths of a diverse team allows middle leaders to drive innovation that reflects a wide range of experiences and ideas, leading to more effective solutions.

Building Resilience and Managing Burnout

The taxing nature of middle leadership roles can lead to stress and burnout. Building resilience and practicing self-care are essential for maintaining well-being and effectiveness as a leader. Resilience is not just about managing immediate stress but developing the mental and emotional agility to navigate future challenges. Leaders who foster resilience through continuous reflection and learning are better equipped to handle setbacks and use them as opportunities for growth.

Adopting a coaching mindset can also enhance personal development and resilience. This mindset encourages leaders to listen actively, ask probing questions, and support their teams in finding solutions, all while maintaining their own well-being (Bungay Stanier, 2016).

Strategies for Self-Care and Burnout Prevention

  • Mindfulness and Reflective Practices
    Incorporating mindfulness techniques or reflective journaling helps maintain perspective and reduces stress (Brown, 2010). Mindfulness encourages leaders to stay present, aware of their emotions, and make thoughtful decisions. Leaders who practice mindfulness are better equipped to manage stressful situations, making it easier to maintain a healthy work-life balance.
    Reflective practices, such as taking time at the end of each day to reflect on challenges, decisions, and emotions, offer leaders the opportunity to process experiences and learn from them. This reflective mindset fosters resilience by reinforcing positive coping mechanisms and promoting continuous growth.

  • Emotional Intelligence and Emotional Regulation
    Emotional intelligence (EQ) plays a critical role in managing burnout. By developing self-awareness and emotional regulation, leaders can recognize the early signs of burnout in themselves and their teams, helping them remain calm and focused during high-pressure situations (Goleman, 1995). Leaders who are self-aware are better able to identify their emotional triggers and address them proactively before stress escalates.

    Social awareness    , a key component of emotional intelligence, allows leaders to perceive and understand the emotions and dynamics of others. Leaders with strong social awareness can recognize when their team members are under stress, even if those team members have not openly communicated it. Empathy is closely tied to social awareness and enables leaders to connect with their teams on a deeper level, providing support where needed. Leaders with high EQ create a culture where team members feel comfortable sharing their concerns and seeking help without fear of judgment.

    Leaders who possess emotional regulation skills can manage their emotional responses in stressful situations, maintaining composure and acting as a stabilizing force for their teams. This emotional control is essential for middle leaders who must navigate multiple demands from both senior leadership and their teams. Leaders with strong EQ can foster a culture of well-being by encouraging open dialogue, regularly checking in with their team members, and demonstrating empathy.

  • Physical Well-Being and Self-Care
    Physical health is a critical, often overlooked, component of managing burnout. Regular physical activity, sufficient rest, and a balanced diet contribute to overall mental clarity and resilience. As someone who encountered a medical emergency this past January—an aortic dissection—that took me out of work for 2 ½ months, the need to prioritize physical well-being became very clear. Prior to my medical emergency, I had used physical exercise as a tool to prevent burnout and maintain my health. Since then, I have realized the importance of a holistic approach to well-being, integrating both physical and mental health strategies. This experience has reinforced the idea that resilience isn’t just mental or emotional but deeply connected to physical health.
    Taking care of one’s body through exercise, sleep, and nutrition directly impacts mental clarity and emotional resilience, which are vital for sustaining long-term leadership effectiveness.

  • Setting Boundaries
    Defining work-life boundaries ensures that personal time is protected. Leaders should set limits on after-hours communication, clearly demarcate work and rest periods, and delegate tasks when appropriate (Mautz, 2020). Maintaining healthy boundaries is essential to prevent burnout, as it allows leaders to recharge and return to their work with renewed focus. Leaders who model clear boundaries for themselves also encourage their teams to do the same, fostering a balanced and respectful workplace culture.

  • Time Management and Prioritization
    Effective time management is crucial for reducing the feeling of overwhelm and preventing burnout. Leaders can adopt techniques such as prioritizing high-impact tasks and delegating or deferring low-priority work. The Eisenhower Matrix, for example, helps leaders distinguish between urgent and important tasks, allowing them to focus on what truly matters. Time-blocking can also be used to allocate focused periods for high-concentration tasks, which improves productivity and reduces the cognitive load of constantly shifting priorities.

    By prioritizing tasks that have the most significant impact, leaders can avoid becoming bogged down by minor details and free up mental and emotional space for more strategic work.

  • Seek Support Networks
    Engaging with professional networks or peer groups provides validation and fresh perspectives on challenges faced. Mentorship and professional coaching offer additional avenues for support, especially for middle leaders navigating complex environments. Mentors provide guidance based on experience, helping middle leaders anticipate potential pitfalls and plan accordingly. Coaches, on the other hand, can offer tailored strategies for preventing burnout, helping leaders gain a broader perspective on their work and responsibilities (Bungay Stanier, 2016).

    These support networks are not only sources of advice but also communities where leaders can exchange experiences and build resilience through shared understanding.

  • Resilience Through Continuous Learning
    Leaders should view challenges as opportunities for personal development. Seeking feedback, reflecting on experiences, and fostering a growth mindset help middle leaders build resilience over time. This mindset enables them to approach setbacks with a constructive attitude, viewing difficulties as part of their leadership journey. Continuous learning allows leaders to adapt and evolve, enhancing their ability to cope with stress and build resilience over the long term.

    By integrating these strategies—mindfulness, emotional intelligence, physical well-being, setting boundaries, effective time management, and seeking support networks—middle leaders can enhance their resilience and manage burnout more effectively. Resilience is not a one-time achievement but a continuous process of adaptation, learning, and self-care, all of which are essential for thriving in demanding leadership roles.

Balancing Long-Term Vision with Immediate Challenges

Middle leaders often find themselves caught between immediate crises and the need for long-term strategic thinking. Balancing these demands is essential for driving meaningful change within institutions, especially in culturally diverse settings where differing values and expectations can influence priorities (Jameson, 2019).

Systems thinking and long-term vision are critical in creating adaptive, learning organizations (Senge, 1990). Leaders from underrepresented groups may offer unique insights into long-term planning, drawing from diverse cultural perspectives that value community and collective advancement (Minthorn & Chávez, 2015; Ching & Agbayani, 2012).

Maintaining a personal vision for leadership allows middle leaders to align their actions with broader institutional goals, even when day-to-day realities seem overwhelming. Embracing “confident humility” fosters a mindset of continuous learning and adaptability (Grant, 2021).

To carve out time for strategic initiatives, middle leaders can:

  • Schedule Dedicated Time for Strategic Thinking: Allocating regular blocks of time specifically for reflection and planning helps ensure that long-term goals are not overshadowed by immediate demands (Longman & Madsen, 2014).
  • Delegate and Empower Team Members: Delegating tasks and empowering team members fosters professional growth and frees up time for strategic priorities (Mautz, 2020; Stefani, 2020).
  • Align Daily Tasks with Strategic Objectives: Connecting day-to-day activities with long-term goals increases motivation and provides a sense of purpose for both the leader and the team (Enders et al., 2019).

Integrating international perspectives and culturally diverse approaches enhances strategic planning and better addresses the needs of a globalized educational environment (Jameson, 2019).

Navigating Change and Leading Through Uncertainty

Middle leaders often bear the brunt of institutional changes, such as budget cuts, restructuring, or policy shifts. Leading teams through uncertainty while maintaining morale is a significant challenge, further complicated when cultural differences influence how change is perceived and processed (Jameson, 2019).

Handling difficult conversations and managing anxiety within teams is essential for navigating change (Patterson et al., 2012). Leaders can facilitate open communication, which is crucial in these times.

Understanding how different cultures respond to change informs leadership strategies. By cultivating transcultural competence, middle leaders tailor their approaches to align with the diverse needs of their teams (Enders et al., 2019).

Strategies for navigating change include:

  • Transparent Communication: Keeping team members informed about changes and their potential impact builds trust and reduces uncertainty (Stefani, 2020).
  • Adaptability and Flexibility: Embracing adaptability as a core leadership trait is critical in a rapidly evolving educational landscape (Grant, 2021; Ching & Agbayani, 2012).
  • Empower Team Members: Involving team members in problem-solving and decision-making processes increases engagement and ownership of new strategies (Ferrazzi, 2020; Minthorn & Chávez, 2015).

Leading with cultural awareness and empathy enables middle leaders to guide their teams through uncertainty more effectively.

Navigating Career Progression and Personal Branding

Career progression for middle leaders can feel like navigating a labyrinth due to systemic barriers and limited recognition within their institutions. Developing a strong personal brand and seeking external validation are crucial steps in advancing one’s career.

Building a portfolio of externally recognized work, such as publications or conference presentations, showcases expertise and thought leadership. Networking with professional associations provides valuable opportunities for mentorship and career development (Longman & Madsen, 2014; Fitzgerald & White, 2013).

Leveraging external platforms enhances visibility and counteracts internal limitations on progression, boosting career prospects and building professional confidence and credibility.

Seeking lateral opportunities within the institution broadens experience and diversifies skill sets, positioning leaders for future advancement (Mautz, 2020). Emotional intelligence is key in developing external networks, forming meaningful relationships with professionals outside the immediate context (Goleman, 1995).

Key Competencies for Senior Leadership to Empower Middle Leaders

Senior leadership can significantly and negatively impact the effectiveness of middle leaders—often inadvertently—by not providing the necessary support or structures to allow them to flourish. A recent study that identified seven key competencies for university presidents (and could be extended to include senior leadership as a whole) highlights how senior leaders can directly ensure their core of middle leadership operates effectively and is empowered to meet institutional goals and the mission. These competencies are essential for helping middle leaders overcome barriers and achieve success in their roles (Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu, 2024).

To help middle leaders flourish, senior leadership must cultivate a set of key competencies that create an environment conducive to growth, innovation, and collaboration. These competencies are critical for removing obstacles middle leaders face, especially the tension between their responsibilities and limited formal authority. By fostering a supportive, empowering culture, senior leadership can enable middle managers to drive institutional success. The following competencies are crucial for senior leaders to master in this context:

  1. Trust-Building and Transparency

Senior leaders must foster an environment of trust by being transparent in their communication and decision-making processes. Trust is foundational for effective leadership at all levels and directly impacts middle leaders’ ability to take risks and innovate. As Burmicky, McClure, and Ryu (2024) highlight, trust-building is essential to leadership, with 96% of surveyed presidents considering it a core competency. Trust empowers middle leaders to act with confidence, knowing they have the backing of senior leadership, especially in challenging or politically sensitive situations.

  1. Delegation and Empowerment

A key aspect of supporting middle leaders is delegation. Senior leadership must empower middle leaders by delegating authority along with responsibility, allowing them to make decisions that align with their strategic goals. Delegation not only builds trust but also enables middle leaders to gain the practical experience necessary for higher-level roles. When senior leadership fails to delegate, it stifles the development of middle managers and limits their potential to contribute to institutional success (Sandler, 2024).

  1. Emotional Intelligence and Empathy

Emotional intelligence is essential for understanding and responding to the challenges middle leaders face. Leaders with high emotional intelligence are attuned to the emotional and psychological needs of their teams, fostering a culture of empathy and support. This competency is particularly important when middle leaders are managing teams under stress or dealing with institutional challenges such as budget cuts or restructuring (Goleman, 1995; Pillar, 2024). Senior leaders who demonstrate empathy create an environment where middle leaders feel valued and supported, allowing them to focus on driving innovation and achieving institutional goals.

  1. Mentorship and Professional Development

Providing opportunities for mentorship and professional development is another critical way senior leadership can empower middle leaders. By offering guidance, senior leaders help middle managers develop the skills and competencies necessary for higher leadership roles. Institutions benefit when middle leaders are well-prepared and confident in their ability to execute strategic visions (Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu, 2024). Senior leaders must actively foster pathways for middle leaders to engage in leadership development programs, ensuring they are equipped to navigate the complexities of higher education.

  1. Fostering Psychological Safety

Senior leadership must create an environment where middle leaders feel safe to voice their opinions, share ideas, and take risks without fear of negative repercussions. Psychological safety is foundational for innovation and problem-solving. Leaders who build this environment reduce stress and promote collaboration, enabling middle leaders to function at their highest potential (Edmondson, 1999; Brown, 2018).

Final Thoughts: Framing Middle Leadership as a Career-Defining Opportunity

Despite the challenges, middle leadership offers significant opportunities for personal and professional growth. Middle leaders have the chance to develop new skills, make meaningful impacts on students and colleagues, and drive transformation from within—even without formal authority. Their contributions are essential in creating adaptive, resilient, and equitable organizations (Hargreaves, 2024; Jameson, 2019).

Middle leadership allows for cultivating a wide array of leadership competencies, including emotional intelligence, strategic vision, adaptability, and influence without authority. These skills are valuable within the current institution and highly transferable to future roles and opportunities.

Author’s Note

This article is longer than most of my usual writings, largely because it became an outlet for frustrations I’ve been experiencing in my current position. As someone who self-identifies as a middle manager/leader (the “/” is intentional, as sometimes my role feels more like middle managing and other times more like middle leading), I have recently encountered more significant challenges and barriers than at any other point in my 10+ years of academic leadership—particularly when working upward in the organizational chart.

Lately, I’ve found my personal values increasingly out of alignment with what appear to be the values of my institution, or at least those of senior leadership. Without the psychological safety or platform to voice these concerns directly, writing has become my way of processing and expressing them. This platform, for now, is my outlet. That said, with recent conversations and meetings involving certain offices, I may soon be at a crossroads—either speaking more openly or moving on.

In using writing as an outlet, I have also taken this opportunity to dive more deeply into understanding how I can be a more effective leader, despite the barriers I face. Through research, study, and practice, I’ve sought to strengthen my leadership skills and improve the ways I support those around me. This process has pushed me to reflect on how I can help my team and colleagues succeed, even when I’m faced with obstacles that I can sometimes influence and, other times, cannot. It has been a journey of learning how to balance resilience with acceptance, and how to use the influence I do have to create positive outcomes wherever possible. These experiences have also motivated me to continue growing as a leader, despite the frustrations that arise when my values or goals don’t align with those at the top.

References

Batista, A. E., Collado, S. M., & Perez II, D. (Eds.). (2018). Latinx/a/os in higher education: Exploring identity, pathways, and success. NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Bonner II, F. A., Marbley, A. F., Tuitt, F., Robinson, P. A., Banda, R. M., & Hughes, R. L. (Eds.). (2015). Black faculty in the academy: Narratives for negotiating identity and achieving career success. Routledge.

Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you’re supposed to be and embrace who you are. Hazelden Publishing.

Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random House.

Bungay Stanier, M. (2016). The coaching habit: Say less, ask more & change the way you lead forever. Box of Crayons Press.

Burmicky, J., McClure, K. R., & Ryu, W. (2024) Competencies for the college presidency: A national study of effective leadership in higher education. Academic Search.

Ching, D., & Agbayani, A. (Eds.). (2012). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education: Research and perspectives on identity, leadership, and success. NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Enders, J., de Boer, H., & Wittrock, E. (Eds.). (2019). Leadership in higher education from a transcultural perspective. Springer.

Ferrazzi, K. (2020). Leading without authority: How the new power of co-elevation can break down silos, transform teams, and reinvent collaboration. Currency.

Fitzgerald, T., & White, E. M. (Eds.). (2013). Women leaders in higher education: Shattering the myths. Routledge.

Flores Niemann, Y., Gutiérrez y Muhs, G., & Gonzalez, C. G. (Eds.). (2020). Presumed incompetent II: Race, class, power, and resistance of women in academia. University Press of Colorado.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business School Press.

Grant, A. (2013). Give and take: Why helping others drives our success. Viking.

Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don’t know. Viking.

Hargreaves, A. (2024). Leadership from the middle: The beating heart of educational transformation. Teachers College Press.

Jameson, J. (Ed.). (2019). International perspectives on leadership in higher education: Critical thinking for global challenges. Routledge.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.

Lencioni, P. (2012). The advantage: Why organizational health trumps everything else in business. Jossey-Bass.

Longman, K. A., & Madsen, S. R. (Eds.). (2014). Women and leadership in higher education. Information Age Publishing.

Mautz, S. (2020). Leading from the middle: A playbook for managers who lead from the middle. Wiley.

Minthorn, R., & Chávez, A. F. (Eds.). (2015). Indigenous leadership in higher education. Routledge.

Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Pillar, G. (2024). Leading from the heart of higher education: Empowering mid-level leaders to drive transformation and student success. The EdUp Experience. https://www.edupexperience.com/blog/GregPillar/

Sandler, M. (2024). Why it’s arguably the toughest time ever to be a university president. Forbes.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Snyder, B. (2022, October 25). Middle leaders: Keeping perspective amid the daily challenges. National Association of Independent Schools. https://www.nais.org/learn/independent-ideas/october-2022/middle-leaders-keeping-perspective-amid-the-daily-challenges/

Stefani, L. (Ed.). (2020). Culturally responsive leadership in higher education: Promoting access, equity, and improvement. Routledge.

Tearing the Paper Ceiling: Rethinking Higher Education’s Role in Career Pathways

gregpillar on September 27, 2024

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Allow me to begin with an opinion that might make my fellow higher education professionals raise an eyebrow: a college degree isn’t the only ticket to a high-paying job. Now, before you think I’ve gone rogue, let me clarify—I’m not suggesting you can stroll into a six-figure salary without any skills or training. What I am saying is that there are alternative pathways to success that can propel you into a rewarding career, especially if you’re committed to lifelong learning. I still hold universities in high esteem and believe they play a significant role in personal and professional growth. But let’s face it—the era of the “traditional” four-year degree as the sole route to success and the “traditional” route to that credential is fading fast.

So it’s no surprise that I’m thrilled to witness the crumbling of the age-old notion that a bachelor’s degree is the golden ticket to success. Enter the term “Paper Ceiling”—a clever metaphor for the invisible barrier that blocks skilled workers without degrees from climbing the career ladder. According to Opportunity@Work, this Paper Ceiling holds back millions of STARs (that’s “Skilled Through Alternative Routes”) from landing higher-wage jobs. Astonishingly, STARs make up nearly 50% of the U.S. workforce but are sidelined from many opportunities simply because they lack a college diploma (Opportunity@Work, 2024).

Think about it: countless capable and experienced individuals are bumping their heads against this Paper Ceiling, not due to a lack of talent, but because they don’t have a framed piece of parchment on their wall. Popular creative executive and TikTok creator Tim Chiusano—who’s gained a national following for his sharp insights on work-life balance, navigating the corporate labyrinth, and envisioning the future of work—introduced me to this term. His content has inspired many (including me) to reimagine what career development can look like. With more companies waking up to the reality that skills often trump degrees, the stage is set for a transformative shift in how businesses and educational institutions prepare people for the workforce.

The Need for Alternative Pathways

As I discussed in my article, “Rethinking the Path: Alternatives to College for High School Graduates,” many students jump headfirst into college due in part to societal pressures without considering whether it’s the right choice for them, at the time. College is valuable and should be accessible, but it isn’t always the best immediate environment for every student, and alternatives such as apprenticeships, trade schools, and direct entry into the workforce offer practical, cost-effective routes toward career success (Pillar, 2024a). These alternatives (and normalizing them) can help to tear down the Paper Ceiling by providing viable, non-degree pathways to employment, while still positioning higher education as a key player in lifelong learning.

This aligns with the growing focus in higher education on career relevance, as discussed by Michael Horn and John Woods in a recent episode of the podcast  “The Future of Higher Education”. The University of Phoenix, for example, has adopted an innovative skills-mapping approach to align education with labor market needs. As Woods emphasized, the university has overhauled programs that didn’t align with job growth projections, focusing instead on skills that meet employer demands (Horn, 2024). This evolution is not just about eliminating degree programs with a negative return on investment (ROI) but ensuring that students leave with credentials that directly correspond to in-demand skills (Horn, 2024).

Furthermore, the Career Optimism Index, an annual survey conducted by the University of Phoenix, highlights the increasing tension between job market demands and the skills that employees bring to the table. According to this survey, both employers and workers feel a disconnect, where companies struggle to fill roles and workers feel under-prepared (Horn, 2024). This reinforces the need for alternative pathways that bridge the gap between education and employment.

A Shifting Mindset: No Longer College for All

As discussed by Eric Kelderman (2024), a shift in political rhetoric surrounding education is further fueling this transformation. The narrative that “college for all” is essential for success is being rethought. For example, former President Barack Obama, who once pushed for universal access to higher education, has now shifted his stance, acknowledging that a bachelor’s degree is not the only path to economic security. Recent Democratic policy proposals reflect this new outlook, focusing on reducing degree requirements for jobs and expanding opportunities for technical and vocational training (Kelderman, 2024; Weissman, 2024). Vice President Kamala Harris has echoed similar sentiments during her 2024 presidential campaign, emphasizing non-degree pathways to success. If elected, Harris’s stance signals a strong commitment to expanding access to well-paying jobs for all Americans, which aligns with Obama’s previous calls for broader, more inclusive education and training options (Weissman, 2024; “Harris Joins Calls for Nondegree Pathways,” 2024).

While I agree that not everyone should be pressured into attending college immediately after high school, I believe that what colleges offer should be accessible to all. College should remain a pathway open to everyone, but alternative routes—whether through apprenticeships, trade schools, or direct entry into the workforce—should be just as viable and accessible. As Woods discussed, one of the keys to making these pathways viable is the transparency of what students are learning and how those skills directly translate to job opportunities. The University of Phoenix has integrated AI tools to help match students’ skills to job opportunities as they progress through their programs, making it easier for students to advance their careers in real time (Horn, 2024).

The Rise of Skills-Based Hiring

Companies are increasingly shifting toward skills-based hiring, a trend that promises to dismantle the Paper Ceiling. Organizations like Opportunity@Work are advocating for hiring practices that prioritize skills over degrees, opening doors to millions of Americans who have been excluded from higher-paying roles (Opportunity@Work, 2024). Not only does this model create a more inclusive workforce, but it also aligns better with the needs of employers, who are struggling to fill jobs in industries requiring specialized technical skills.

Woods also highlighted that skills mapping and badging are playing a crucial role in this transformation. The University of Phoenix’s approach tracks skills from course content to assessment outcomes, ensuring that students graduate with a clear understanding of their top three skills. These badges not only signal competency to employers but also help students apply for jobs that align with their skill sets while they are still enrolled (Horn, 2024).

Higher Education’s Role in Tearing the Paper Ceiling

While it’s clear that the traditional degree model is being challenged, this doesn’t mean that higher education no longer has a role to play. On the contrary, colleges and universities must adapt by offering more flexible, stackable credentials that cater to lifelong learners. The development of micro-credentials and certification programs allows workers to upskill and reskill throughout their careers, without the time and financial commitment of a four-year degree. As I highlighted in “Rethinking the Path,” colleges and universities should lead efforts to foster a lifelong learning mindset, ensuring that education continues to support personal and professional development at every stage of life (Pillar, 2024a).

Embracing technological innovations is also crucial. The integration of AI-driven learning platforms, virtual classrooms, hybrid and remote learning modalities, and XR-enhanced learning environments can make education more accessible and personalized (Khoury, 2024). These advancements support the normalization of lifelong learning and allow institutions to meet learners where they are, both geographically and in terms of their life circumstances.

Moreover, universities must continue to align their curricula with market needs. This can be done through partnerships with industries to create apprenticeship and co-op programs, where students can earn while they learn. These experiential learning opportunities provide students with practical, real-world skills that directly translate to career success (Pillar, 2024a).

Finally, programs and institutions need to be “transfer friendly” and make alternative pathways to a college degree easier by reducing unnecessary barriers.  In some cases, these barriers are policy-based, due to a lack of services that meet this population’s unique needs, and due to curricular requirements that make it difficult to transfer in and apply a wide range of course credit and/or prior learning.  These three areas can be viewed as a 3 legged stool and not addressing even one of the 3 will not truly allow adult/non-traditional/some college-no credential population to be successful.  

Policy Implications and Recommendations

Policymakers, educational leaders, staff and faculty must collaborate to create more inclusive educational frameworks that recognize diverse pathways to success. In addition to skills-based hiring and vocational training, higher education institutions must adopt policies, services and curricula that are supportive of transfer students, non-traditional students, and adult learners. These groups often face unique challenges, and providing more flexibility is crucial to tearing down the Paper Ceiling.

  • Expand Apprenticeships and Vocational Training: By partnering with industries, colleges can offer more apprenticeship programs that give students hands-on experience in high-demand fields.
  • Support Skills-Based Hiring Initiatives: Encouraging companies to adopt skills-based hiring practices will allow workers without degrees to prove their competencies through certifications and work experience.
  • Promote Stackable Credentials: Higher education institutions should offer modular, stackable credentials that enable learners to accumulate certifications over time, eventually building toward a degree if they choose.  The ability to “dip” in and out of higher education as needed.
  • Increase Federal and State Support for Non-Degree Programs: Expand financial aid options and grant funding for students pursuing vocational and technical training.
  • Boost Public Awareness: Educational institutions and policymakers should actively promote the benefits of alternative career pathways, helping to change the cultural perception that a bachelor’s degree is the only measure of success.
  • Embrace Technological Innovations: Institutions should integrate AI-driven learning, virtual classrooms, hybrid and remote learning, and XR-enhanced environments to make education more accessible and personalized (Khoury, 2024).
  • Prior Learning Credit and Flexible Curriculum: Schools should expand policies that allow students to earn credit for prior learning through assessments or transfer credit. Courses and programs should be designed with the flexibility to accommodate the schedules of working adults, parents, and transfer students, ensuring they can balance education with other commitments.
  • Student Services for Adult Learners: Institutions must offer student support services that cater specifically to the needs of non-traditional and adult learners. These could include evening office hours, online advising, and childcare services on campus. Offering services off-hours and providing tailored advising and tutoring can help meet the diverse needs of adult learners and transfer students, ensuring they can fully engage with and benefit from their education.
  • Remove Barriers for Transfers and Adult Students: Policies and curricula should eliminate unnecessary or unintentional barriers for transfer and adult learners, such as rigid credit transfer rules or lengthy admission processes. Institutions need to streamline these systems to make higher education more accessible for students coming from diverse educational backgrounds and life experiences.

Final Thoughts: A Future Beyond the Paper Ceiling

As we look to the future, it’s clear that the path to career success will no longer be a one-size-fits-all model. The Paper Ceiling has limited too many talented workers for too long, but with innovations in education and shifts in hiring practices, we have the opportunity to create a more equitable and dynamic workforce while also making higher education and life-long learning opportunities more accessible. Higher education must evolve to support these changes, ensuring that everyone—regardless of degree status—has the opportunity to succeed.

By embracing technological advancements, such as AI-driven skills mapping, and reimagining educational pathways, institutions can play a pivotal role in tearing down the Paper Ceiling. Together, we can create a future where skills and competencies are the true measures of success, opening doors for all to achieve their full potential.

References

Blumenstyk, G. (2015). American higher education in crisis? What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.

Harris joins calls for nondegree pathways. (2024). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2024/09/18/harris-joins-calls-nondegree-pathways

Horn, M. (2024). The language of skills in degrees [Podcast episode]. The Future of Education. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMf1SEO_WYk

Kelderman, E. (2024). College for all? Not anymore. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/college-for-all-not-anymore

Khoury, M. (2024). Looking forward to 2030: The future of higher education [LinkedIn post on September 22nd, 2024]. LinkedIn.

Opportunity@Work. (2024). Tear the paper ceiling. Opportunity@Work. https://www.tearthepaperceiling.org/the-paper-ceiling

Pillar, G. (2024a). Rethinking the path: Alternatives to college for high school graduates. gregpillar.com.

Pillar, G. (2024b). The crisis of confidence: Understanding the decline in trust in American higher education. gregpillar.com.

A yellow outline illustration of a school building with a flag, flanked by trees on both sides, all enclosed within a rectangular border. Some white script text overlays the lower part of the image.

gpillar@gardner-webb.edu

© 2025 All Rights Reserved | Website Design by Matt Gerber Designs