higher education Archives - Greg D. Pillar, Ph.D.

Teaching to Ghosts: How Higher Ed’s Past Haunts Us—and What It Takes to Move On

gregpillar on May 9, 2025

Title Image: OpenAI. (2025). Vibrant campus scene with a haunted building and a diverse mix of students, faculty, and staff interacting. DALL·E. https://openai.com/dall-e

The Ghosts in the Classroom

A professor sits down to design a syllabus. He—or she—imagines a student who is 18-19 years old, lives on campus, attends class full time, and has long afternoons to read, reflect, and write. The course is built around that student—the one we used to picture when we talked about “college.”

There are students sitting in our classrooms who, by nearly every measure, are invisible. They show up—but not always at 8:00 a.m. and not always in person. They juggle coursework with caregiving, jobs, anxiety, trauma, or housing insecurity. Some are first-generation college students; others have stopped out and come back; many question whether they belong in the room at all. They are not who our systems were built for. And too often, they are treated as if they aren’t really there.

We have built an entire educational apparatus on a lingering myth: that today’s college student is academically prepared, economically secure, and fully devoted to full-time study, preferably in a residence hall surrounded by leafy quads. The problem is not that this student archetype never existed—it did, in pockets and privileged spaces. The problem is that we still organize our curriculum, advising, scheduling, and expectations around this idealized model while the real students before us live different, more complex realities (DeLaski, 2025; Selingo, 2025).

In reality, most college students today are navigating a landscape that looks nothing like the brochures. Nearly one-third have considered leaving their programs due to mental health, financial pressure, or lack of support (Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025). More than half of college students are employed while enrolled, and a significant number also serve as caregivers for siblings or elders (Goines, 2024). Many arrive underprepared—academically, emotionally, or logistically—not because they lack ability but because the system assumes a level of readiness that was never designed for them (ACT, 2023; Bookbinder, 2024).

And yet, our syllabi, our policies, and even our pedagogy often center expectations that belong to another era. We assign dense readings without accounting for digital reading habits or cognitive fatigue (Flaherty, 2024; Bookbinder, 2024). We demand synchronous attendance while students are working night shifts. We measure success by who fits the mold, not who grows beyond it. It’s not just that we are failing to serve these students—we’re haunting them with a version of college that serves only their ghosts.

If higher education is to be relevant—if it is to be just—it must confront this reality. We must meet students where they are, not where we wish they were. And that begins by seeing them clearly, not as ghosts in a traditional classroom fantasy, but as whole, capable, complex learners deserving of systems that believe in them.

The Myth of the “Traditional” Student

For decades, higher education has perpetuated a powerful illusion: the “traditional” student. This imagined learner is 18 to 22 years old, academically prepared, financially supported, attending full time, living on campus, and fully immersed in a four-year residential experience. That image still dominates campus brochures, administrative planning, and even faculty expectations. But it is largely a myth.

Today, only 26% of college students fit that profile—that is, students who are not only between the ages of 18 and 22 but who also attend full-time, live on campus, and are fully immersed in a four-year residential experience (DeLaski, 2025b; Hanover Research, 2025a). In terms of age alone, the student population is nearly split: 51.6% are age 20 or younger, while 48.4% are 21 or older. Notably, nearly 25% of students—3,956,430 individuals—are age 25 or older (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2025). These figures highlight just how far removed our imagined “traditional” student is from the demographic reality on today’s campuses. And even among those who do fall within the traditional age range, many are working while pursuing their education. In 2020, 40% of full-time undergraduate students were employed, underscoring the fact that even traditional-aged, full-time students must often balance school with work responsibilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022).

Demographic projections make it even clearer: the pipeline of traditional-aged students is shrinking. National forecasts show declining high school graduation rates over the next decade, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest (Lane, et. al., 2024). This means that clinging to outdated models isn’t just inaccurate—it’s unsustainable.

Most students are older, work while enrolled, commute to campus or learn online, and are often the first in their families to attend college. Many are returning adults, veterans, parents, or students managing chronic health or mental health conditions. And yet, our institutional architecture—from advising models to course schedules to financial aid policies—continues to center the traditional student as the norm.

This mismatch creates what Jeff Selingo (2025) calls a “design lag”: a gap between who students are and the systems intended to serve them. It also creates deep frustration for faculty, who often try to teach in environments designed around the wrong assumptions. As one professor observed, “We are designing for ghosts”—a poignant critique of how higher education often caters to an outdated student archetype (Chappell, Natanel, & Wren, 2021).

The results are predictable. Underprepared students are treated as if they are anomalies. Working learners are seen as disengaged. Students who can’t attend every synchronous session are flagged as unreliable. These assumptions not only fail to support today’s students—they actively alienate them (Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025; ACT, 2023).

We need to retire the myth. Not just in our messaging, but in our policies, pedagogies, and priorities. The modern student is not a deviation from the norm. They are the norm. And when we continue designing around outdated ideals, we send a clear signal: this place was not built for you.

Meet the New Majority: The Modern Learner

Today’s students are not anomalies or outliers. They are the new majority—and they are reshaping the fabric of higher education. These learners are more diverse, more digitally immersed, more economically stretched, and more purpose-driven than the traditional students our systems were designed to serve.

They prioritize flexibility and accessibility over legacy academic experiences defined by geographic location or institutional prestige. Instead of waiting for brochures, they evaluate institutions based on transparency, adaptability, and outcomes. Nearly 70% use AI tools like ChatGPT to research colleges, and they build personalized pathways informed by real-time information and real-world goals (EducationDynamics, 2025).

Balancing coursework with caregiving, job responsibilities, and family support is routine—not exceptional. Even those within the traditional age band are navigating competing pressures that once defined “nontraditional” status. What unites this student population is not age or format, but intent: they are seeking learning that fits their lives. Modular learning options, career-aligned credentials, and asynchronous access aren’t bonus features—they are the new baseline (Sallustio & Colbert, 2024; Hanover Research, 2025a).

Institutions that deliver short-term, stackable credentials connected to in-demand skills are not just innovating—they are surviving. These learners want to know how their education connects to careers, not only someday, but now. High-impact career services that integrate early and often, rather than waiting until senior year, are vital. Effective models build relationships with industry, empower faculty partnerships, and make employability a shared responsibility across the institution (Hanover Research, 2023).

Modern students are also clear-eyed about value. They don’t need platitudes about lifelong learning. They want to see return on investment through tangible opportunities, relevant coursework, and pathways to economic mobility. Messaging must move beyond romanticized campus experiences to a clear articulation of purpose, fit, and impact (Hanover, 2025b).

To retain this new majority, institutions must also recognize the risk of attrition—especially for those navigating instability or trauma. Targeted support strategies like early alert systems, proactive advising, and embedded academic coaching are not perks—they are survival infrastructure (Hanover Research, 2019).

This isn’t just about keeping students enrolled. It’s about honoring their time and trusting their goals. And that trust must extend to acknowledging that for some, a degree isn’t the only—or even best—path. High-quality, workforce-aligned credentials must be welcomed, not viewed as secondary options (Goines, 2024).

Kathleen DeLaski (2025b) calls this group “the new majority”—a diverse and growing student population too long treated as an exception. Designing for them means designing for everyone. It isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about raising relevance, deepening connection, and expanding access.

These students remain eager to learn, even as traditional systems often push them away. Survey data continue to show that interest in higher education remains strong, particularly among those seeking meaningful work, career growth, and personal fulfillment (Ray, 2025). Yet trust is fragile. Many students perceive a gap between what colleges promise and what they deliver—especially around value, affordability, and inclusion (Edge Research & HCM Strategists, 2024).

If we want to retain these learners—and truly serve them—we must rewire the student experience to reflect who they are. That means rethinking advising, communication, instructional design, support services, and faculty development to serve students whose time, attention, and trust must be earned anew.

Systems Built for Ghosts: Where Misalignment Happens

When our systems are built for students who no longer exist, misalignment isn’t just a policy problem—it becomes a daily obstacle. And for the modern learner, those obstacles accumulate fast.

Consider the curriculum. Many programs still assume a standard 15-credit-hour semester across four years, often locking students into rigid, sequential course paths that unravel with the slightest disruption. For students working 30 hours a week, raising children, or returning to college after time away, this structure makes success unnecessarily difficult (Laff & Carlson, 2022; EducationDynamics, 2025; Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025). “On time” becomes a myth; “full time” becomes a barrier.

These assumptions often extend into the classroom. Faculty regularly assign dense reading loads assuming students are prepared, focused, and experienced with long-form academic text. But research shows that many students—especially in open-access institutions—are struggling with foundational reading skills. Expectations for daily engagement with difficult texts, without scaffolding or digital support, can overwhelm even the most committed learners (Wolf Jr., 2025). This isn’t a question of rigor—it’s a question of readiness.

Advising models also fail to account for the complexity of students’ lives. Too often, advising is built around linear paths and static requirements, assuming a full-time residential student who proceeds through four years with few disruptions. But today’s learners need conversations that account for transfer credits, family responsibilities, career pivots, and mental health. Systems must adapt to the fluid nature of the student journey—or risk losing them altogether (Laff & Carlson, 2022).

Systems also overlook the fact that many students are entering college underprepared—not because of personal failure, but because of systemic gaps in K-12 education. One recent study found that over half of incoming students at many institutions are not ready for college-level coursework, yet we continue to teach as if they are (Butrymowicz, 2017). This readiness gap becomes an invisible barrier embedded into every policy that assumes prior preparation.

Policies around attendance, deadlines, and participation carry silent assumptions: that students are financially secure, trauma-free, and constantly connected. But many are navigating mental health struggles, caregiving roles, and unstable housing. Systems that don’t accommodate this aren’t neutral—they’re extractive. They punish students for not conforming to a model they were never meant to fit (Riddell, 2023; Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025; Flaherty, 2024).

Even support services like tutoring, mental health counseling, or career coaching are often hidden behind procedural barriers or limited hours. Technically available doesn’t mean functionally accessible. As outlined in The Connected College, these resources are often wrapped in an “invisibility cloak”—ineffective not by absence, but by poor design (Felix, 2021; Hanover Research, 2025).

In my own leadership experience, I’ve seen these gaps firsthand. A student working retail evenings missed a required synchronous online class. A caregiver missed advising deadlines due to unpredictable family obligations. A first-generation student struggled with assessments built around timed essays and fast recall—formats that rewarded familiarity over learning.

None of these students lacked ambition. They lacked alignment. This is the real systems problem higher education must confront. We are still designing for ghosts, and it’s the living learners in front of us who pay the price.

Why This Hurts Everyone: Equity, Engagement, and Belonging

Misalignment in higher education doesn’t just inconvenience students. It chips away at equity, erodes belonging, and breaks the trust that holds institutions together. When we teach to ghosts, we not only lose students—we lose the soul of our mission.

For students, the message is loud and clear: this place was not built for you. When systems consistently fail to see or support them, students internalize the dissonance. They feel unseen, undervalued, and unsupported. Nearly one-third have considered leaving their institution, citing stress, anxiety, financial pressures, and a lack of connection or support as leading reasons (Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025; Marken, 2025a; Marken, 2025b). The emotional toll of navigating institutions built around outdated expectations is real—and rising.

The pressure to perform within academic structures designed for a narrow archetype compounds the problem. Many students report feeling overwhelmed by dense, analog reading assignments, inflexible pacing, and assessments that privilege speed and recall over synthesis and application. Even some of the most elite, high-achieving students are struggling to engage with traditional college reading loads, suggesting that the issue is structural, not personal (Horowitch, 2024).

This disconnect is especially harmful for students from historically marginalized backgrounds. When first-generation students, students of color, or those managing trauma and caregiving responsibilities encounter rigid systems, they are more likely to disengage—not out of apathy, but exhaustion. The absence of flexible structures communicates that they were never the intended audience. This design-based exclusion becomes an equity issue in plain sight.

Faculty are not exempt from this erosion of connection. Many feel demoralized, caught between students’ complex needs and institutional systems that fail to adapt. The emotional weight of declining attendance, missed deadlines, and unspoken struggles often lands squarely on instructors, who feel unsupported and ineffective. As Riddell (2023) argues, coherence and care must be institutionalized—not improvised—if we hope to sustain the energy and purpose of educators. Despite skepticism about cost, the belief in higher education’s long-term value persists. Most students still see college as a worthwhile investment, even if they view tuition pricing as unfair—underscoring the tension between value and trust that institutions must navigate (Marken & Hrynowski, 2025).

There are solutions—but they require intentionality. Scalable, equity-minded practices like proactive advising, early alert systems, and relationship-rich engagement models can interrupt student attrition and restore connection when implemented as part of a broader commitment to student success (Hanover Research, 2019). These aren’t just strategies. They are signals of care, and they shape whether students and faculty feel seen.

If we want to retain trust, we must restore alignment—between values and actions, expectations and supports, systems and the humans they are supposed to serve.

Rewiring for the Real Student: What Needs to Change

The future of higher education will not be secured through slogans or marginal adjustments. If colleges and universities are to thrive—and, in some cases, survive—they must move from accommodating the modern learner to redesigning entirely around them. This is not a matter of preference. It’s a matter of institutional viability and educational justice.

To begin, institutions must embrace modular, flexible, stackable learning pathways. Today’s students need degrees and credentials that can bend with life—not break under it. Certificates should ladder into degrees. Degrees should be customizable. Skills should be portable. And learning must be available in formats that respect time, context, and learner agency (EducationDynamics, 2025; Sallustio & Colbert, 2024; Hanover Research, 2025).

Second, we must embed trauma-informed, relationship-rich practices into the very architecture of our institutions. This means rethinking course policies, advising structures, communication practices, and faculty development. It’s not enough to “add” support; we need to embed support as a design principle. My own work in trauma-informed leadership as well as that of Jessica Riddell has shown that when institutions lead with care, transparency, and shared agency, student engagement improves—and so does staff morale (Pillar, 2024; Riddell, 2023).

Third, we need to stop treating equity and belonging as supplemental initiatives. They are not programs. They are principles. Inclusive design must be baked into everything—from how syllabi are written, to how learning outcomes are assessed, to how feedback is delivered. As The Connected College makes clear, institutions that center empathy and belonging in their culture not only serve students better—they build resilience into their very foundation (Felix, 2021).

Fourth, institutional leaders must be bold enough to discontinue what no longer works. Some legacy programs, policies, and roles have outlived their relevance. We need courage to close outdated offerings, reallocate resources, and invest in interdisciplinary, career-connected programs that reflect current needs. This doesn’t mean abandoning tradition. It means honoring mission by updating methods.

One compelling example of this kind of bold redesign comes from Dr. Melik Peter Khoury, President of Unity Environmental University. Under his leadership, Unity transformed from a tuition-dependent college serving fewer than 500 students into a national institution serving nearly 10,000—without chasing prestige or abandoning mission. The transformation wasn’t cosmetic. It included a full overhaul of governance, curriculum, support structures, and faculty models—grounded in scalability, relevance, and student-centered design (Khoury, 2025). His approach makes clear that institutional reinvention isn’t about rebellion—it’s about responsibility. And it starts by refusing to replicate a system that no longer serves.

And finally, we need to rebuild trust. That begins with telling the truth—about who our students are, about what they need, and about what it will take to meet them. Trust grows when students see policies that reflect reality, hear language that honors their experiences, and encounter faculty and staff who are empowered to support them holistically.

This work is hard. But it is also hopeful. The ghost stories we tell ourselves—about what college used to be, or who deserves to be here—no longer serve us. What comes next must be built not on nostalgia, but on clarity, care, and courage.

Final Thoughts: Letting Go of Ghosts

Nothing I’ve written here is revolutionary. These ideas—the urgency to meet students where they are, the call to redesign outdated systems, the recognition of the modern learner—have been championed by many others, many of them with larger platforms, more influential audiences, and longer résumés. But that’s precisely why I’m adding my voice.

Because this message can’t be shared enough.

It bears repeating in every meeting, every convocation address, every policy review, every accreditation review, and every course redesign. As institutions grapple with enrollment declines, rising skepticism, financial strain, and even closures, the through line in many of their stories will be the same: they spent too long designing for a student who doesn’t exist anymore.

This article has made the case that higher education’s default systems—its curricula, policies, and assumptions—are no longer fit for purpose. We’ve seen how these misalignments compound barriers for today’s learners, demoralize educators, and undercut institutional trust. But we’ve also explored a path forward: one grounded in coherence, care, flexibility, and relevance.

The erosion of public trust in higher education is not accidental. In recent surveys, confidence in colleges and universities has reached historic lows, with fewer than half of Americans expressing strong faith in the sector (Jones, 2024). And yet, the desire for learning, growth, and opportunity remains high. People still believe in the promise—if not always the practice—of higher education.

This piece is just one contribution to a wider and growing conversation. Countless scholars, educators, and reformers have been urging change grounded in care, relevance, and equity (Pillar, 2024). What we need now is not more awareness—but more action.

The real student is here now. And they are watching to see whether we’re brave enough to see them.

Higher education doesn’t need more ghosts. It needs a reckoning—and the resolve to build what comes next

References

ACT. (2023). 2023 National ACT profile report. ACT. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2023-National-ACT-Profile-Report.pdf

Bookbinder, H. (2024). The average college student today. The Commonplace. https://hilariusbookbinder.substack.com/p/the-average-college-student-today

Butrymowicz, S. (2017, January 30). Most colleges enroll students who aren’t prepared for higher education. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/colleges-enroll-students-arent-prepared-higher-education/

Chappell, K., Natanel, K., & Wren, H. (2021). Letting the ghosts in: Re-designing HE teaching and learning through posthumanism. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(7–8), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1952563

DeLaski, K. (2025a, February 3). OPINION: It is time to expand the definition of college to include other high-quality pathways. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-we-must-acknowledge-that-students-are-asking-for-options-beyond-the-four-year-college-degree/

DeLaski, K. (2025b). Who needs college anymore? Imagining a future where degrees won’t matter. Harvard Education Press.

Edge Research & HCM Strategists. (2024, March 11). Student perceptions of American higher education. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. https://usprogram.gatesfoundation.org/news-and-insights/articles/student-perceptions-of-american-higher-education

EducationDynamics. (2025). Engaging the modern learner: 2025 report on the preferences and behaviors shaping higher ed. https://tinyurl.com/539upxm4

Felix, E. (2021). The connected college: Leadership Strategies for Student Success. ThriveU Press

Flaherty, C. (2024, March 15). Is this the end of reading? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/is-this-the-end-of-reading

Gallup & Lumina Foundation. (2025). The state of higher education 2025. https://www.gallup.com/analytics/644939/state-of-higher-education.aspx

Goines, D. (2024, December 2). OPINION: Schools can and should do more to help students prepare for career paths that don’t require a college degree. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-our-system-steers-most-students-toward-attending-college-but-it-is-not-realistic-or-even-desirable-for-everyone/

Hanover Research. (2025a). 2025 trends in higher education. Hanover Research.

Hanover Research. (2025b). Communicating the value of a college degree. Hanover Research.

Hanover Research. (2025c). Microcredential Trends 2025. Hanover Research.

Hanover Research. (2023). Benchmarking best-in-class career services. Hanover Research.

Hanover Research. (2019). Prevent student dropout toolkit. Hanover Research.

Horowitch, R. (2024, November). The elite college students who can’t read books. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/

Jones, J. M. (2024, July 8). U.S. confidence in higher education now closely divided. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/646880/confidence-higher-education-closely-divided.aspx

Khoury, M. P. (2025, May 9). I wasn’t meant to lead their system. I was meant to reimagine it. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-wasnt-meant-lead-system-reimagine-dr-melik-peter-khoury-0zale/?trackingId=fbeez7km13b%2FNp7h3ABJDw%3D%3D

Laff, N. S., & Carlson, S. (2022). Hacking college: Why the Major Doesn’t Matter – and What Really Does. Johns Hopkins University Press

Lane, P., Falkenstern, C., & Bransberger, P. (2024). Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. https://www.wiche.edu/knocking.

Marken, S. (2025a, May 1). One in three college students consider leaving program. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/659897/one-three-college-students-consider-leaving-program.aspx

Marken, S. (2025b, March 26). Mental health, stress top reasons students consider leaving. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/644645/mental-health-stress-top-reasons-students-consider-leaving.aspx

Marken, S., & Hrynowski, Z. (2025, February 15). College prices seen as unfair but worth the investment. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/657686/college-prices-seen-unfair-worth-investment.aspx

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Student employment (SSA indicator). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/ssa

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2025). Current term enrollment estimates – Spring 2025. https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-estimates/

Pillar, G. (2024). Beyond the critique: A nuanced approach to higher education reform for the modern learner. GregPillar.com. https://gregpillar.com/beyond-the-critique-a-nuanced-approach-to-higher-education-reform-for-the-modern-learner/

Pillar, G. (2024). Building resilient leadership in higher education: Merging trauma-informed practices with key presidential competencies. GregPillar.com. https://gregpillar.com/building-resilient-leadership-in-higher-education-merging-trauma-informed-practices-with-key-presidential-competencies/

Ray, J. (2025, May 7). Interest in higher education remains high. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/660134/interest-higher-education-remains-high.aspx

Riddell, J. (2023). Hope circuits: Rewiring Universities and Other Organizations for Human Flourishing. McGill-Queen’s University Press

Selingo, J. (2025). The state of higher education 2025, jeffselingo.com

Sallustio, J., and K. Colbert. (2024). Engaging the modern learner in higher education: Strategies for educators. https://evolllution.com/engaging-the-modern-learner-in-higher-education-strategies-for-educators

Wolf, F. A., Jr. (2025, January 17). Help college students read: Gen Z can’t make it through a book. Professors can help. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://jamesgmartin.center/2025/02/help-college-students-read/

Beyond the Tenure Track: How Generative Mentoring of Adjunct Faculty and Department Chairs Enhances Institutional Quality and Student Success

gregpillar on March 1, 2025

In higher education, mentorship is often regarded as a fundamental component of faculty development. However, traditional mentorship models tend to prioritize tenure-track faculty while neglecting adjunct instructors and department chairs. These two groups play crucial roles in institutional success but often lack the structural support necessary for professional growth.

Furthermore, traditional mentor-mentee models are often inconsistent and may not include structured check-ins or points of reflection on how well the relationship is progressing. Many of these mentoring arrangements, while well-intentioned, tend to fizzle out over time without a sustained framework to ensure longevity and effectiveness. This is not to say that successful mentorships do not exist—many flourish—but the inconsistency in traditional models presents a challenge that institutions must address.

Drawing on concepts from Hope Circuits (Riddell, 2024), this article explores how mentorship can be reframed as generativity, focusing on sustaining faculty development through systemic mentorship structures. By incorporating mentorship constellations (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023) and reverse mentoring (O’Connor et al., 2025), institutions can create faculty support systems that enhance professional resilience, institutional belonging, and student success. These models provide a structured framework that ensures persistent and consistent mentoring relationships, preventing mentorships from fading over time due to lack of structure or engagement.

The Institutional Gaps in Faculty Mentorship

The Problem with Faculty Development Models

Faculty development programs often cater primarily to tenure-track faculty, with adjunct instructors and department chairs receiving little to no structured support (Pillar, 2025; Faculty Focus, 2024; Pearson & Kirby, 2018). Without dedicated mentorship, these groups struggle to navigate institutional expectations, contributing to burnout and disengagement (Cain et al., 2024; Zarrow, 2013).

At smaller institutions, department chairs juggle administrative, instructional, and leadership responsibilities, yet many receive no formal training in mentorship or institutional leadership (Pillar, 2025). Similarly, adjunct faculty, despite comprising nearly 50% of the academic workforce (AFT, 2022), often find themselves excluded from professional development initiatives (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019). Addressing these disparities is critical for fostering institutional effectiveness and faculty retention.

Moreover, many traditional mentorship programs lack formal structures for ongoing evaluation and reflection, leading to relationships that gradually diminish in effectiveness. Without regular touchpoints, mentor-mentee relationships can drift apart, leaving mentees without continued guidance and mentors disengaged. Reverse mentoring and mentoring constellations provide structured avenues to embed accountability and sustained engagement into mentorship programs. By fostering mentorship as a continuous cycle of learning and growth, these models help maintain active and meaningful relationships rather than allowing them to fade over time.

The Overlooked Needs of Adjunct Faculty

Adjunct instructors play a significant role in student learning but often lack job security, access to resources, and inclusion in governance structures (Pillar, 2025). Studies show that institutions that integrate adjuncts into structured mentorship networks report improved faculty engagement, instructional effectiveness, and student outcomes (Pillar, 2025).

One approach to addressing these issues is mentorship constellations, in which adjuncts have access to multiple mentors who provide guidance in teaching, career advancement, and institutional navigation (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). Such models foster a sense of belonging and professional identity, countering the isolation many adjuncts experience. Additionally, research highlights the need for institutions to systematically integrate adjunct faculty into institutional governance and leadership pathways (Pillar, 2025). Ensuring that adjuncts have access to career progression through mentorship programs enhances their engagement and retention (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024).

For adjuncts teaching online—particularly those who are fully remote and physically distant from their institution—mentorship becomes even more critical. Studies indicate that online adjunct faculty often feel isolated and disconnected from institutional culture, which impacts their effectiveness and retention (Pearson & Kirby, 2018; Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Strong mentoring programs tailored for online adjuncts, such as virtual mentoring models and structured peer networks, provide a way to mitigate this isolation while enhancing teaching quality (Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Programs that include ongoing, interactive professional development and structured mentorship relationships have demonstrated success in retaining online adjuncts and improving student outcomes (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).

Riddell’s Hope Circuits (2024) provides a framework for enhancing adjunct mentoring by emphasizing systemic support structures that foster continuous engagement, professional identity formation, and institutional belonging. By integrating trauma-informed mentoring practices and emphasizing long-term faculty resilience, institutions can create sustainable, meaningful mentorship experiences for adjunct faculty regardless of their instructional modality.

The Hidden Labor of Department Chairs

Department chairs often serve as institutional linchpins, balancing faculty needs, administrative directives, and student concerns. Yet, their role is frequently under-supported, and, due to lack of guidance, mentoring, and/or training, a significant period of time may pass where chairs find themselves working harder, not smarter. Many chairs do not immediately recognize the operational efficiencies and collaboration opportunities available to them, which could streamline their workload and enhance their effectiveness (Pillar, 2025). Without clear mentorship structures, new chairs may struggle with unnecessary burdens, leading to stress and inefficiency.

Institutions must rethink how they support department chairs as both mentees and mentors. Reverse mentoring—where chairs learn from adjuncts and early-career faculty—can foster a collaborative culture and ensure chairs remain attuned to faculty and student needs (O’Connor et al., 2025; Cain et al., 2024). Reverse mentoring has also been shown to break down traditional hierarchies in academia and foster institutional learning at multiple levels (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024). Additionally, mentorship constellations can be particularly effective in providing guidance for chairs, especially in institutions where experienced faculty members have successfully navigated the role before (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). By establishing structured mentoring networks where former chairs provide insights into administrative efficiencies and leadership strategies, institutions can better equip new department heads for success.

Riddell’s Hope Circuits (2024) offers a model for fostering resilient leadership through structured mentorship. By integrating systems of peer learning, guided reflection, and institutional knowledge-sharing, department chairs can transition more smoothly into leadership roles while maintaining their effectiveness as both administrators and mentors to faculty. Institutions that intentionally cultivate mentorship ecosystems for department chairs will ultimately strengthen faculty governance, improve leadership sustainability, and create a culture of collaborative support.

Mentorship as Generativity – A New Approach

What is Generative Mentorship?

Generative mentorship moves beyond the traditional, hierarchical mentor-mentee relationship and shifts toward a reciprocal, growth-oriented model (Riddell, 2024). This approach fosters mentorship as a dynamic, evolving process, rather than a static, one-directional transfer of knowledge. Generativity in mentorship ensures that mentorship relationships remain sustained, meaningful, and adaptable, addressing the ever-changing needs of faculty members at various career stages.

By embedding mentorship in institutional structures, generative mentorship builds long-term resilience and faculty well-being (Riddell, 2024). Instead of relying on sporadic or informal interactions, a generative approach cultivates mentorship ecosystems where faculty members engage in ongoing reflection, knowledge exchange, and professional growth. This model also reinforces the value of mentorship across faculty ranks, ensuring that adjunct faculty, department chairs, and early-career academics receive equitable support in their professional journeys.

Rethinking Mentorship through Constellation and Reverse Models

Mentorship Constellations

Mentorship constellations emphasize that no single mentor can meet all of a faculty member’s professional and personal development needs. Instead of a one-to-one model, mentorship constellations create a network of mentors that faculty can rely on for different areas of growth (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). This approach is particularly beneficial for adjunct faculty, who often lack a clear institutional support system, and for department chairs, who face multifaceted leadership challenges.

By leveraging multiple mentors with diverse expertise, faculty members gain access to specialized knowledge, institutional insights, and cross-disciplinary perspectives (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024). These networks also provide social and emotional support, fostering a sense of belonging that is often lacking in academia. For adjunct faculty, this model helps bridge the disconnect they may feel from full-time faculty and institutional culture (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Studies have shown that institutions implementing mentorship constellations report higher faculty retention rates, improved teaching outcomes, and stronger interdisciplinary collaboration (Research Overview, 2024). Faculty who engage in mentorship networks also experience greater job satisfaction and professional fulfillment, as they are less isolated and better equipped to navigate institutional complexities (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024).

Reverse Mentoring

Reverse mentoring flips the traditional mentorship model by positioning early-career faculty or adjunct instructors as mentors to senior faculty or department chairs. This model facilitates intergenerational learning, ensuring that faculty at all levels stay informed about evolving student needs, technological advancements, and inclusive teaching strategies (O’Connor et al., 2025).

For department chairs, reverse mentoring can be transformational, as it provides fresh insights into faculty experiences, student engagement strategies, and institutional blind spots (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024). This model also fosters equitable knowledge exchange, challenging traditional hierarchies in academia and creating space for diverse voices in institutional decision-making.

Institutions that integrate reverse mentoring programs have observed improvements in faculty collaboration, leadership adaptability, and institutional responsiveness to emerging challenges (O’Conner et al., 2025; How Reverse Mentoring Helps Co-Create Institutional Knowledge, 2024). Reverse mentoring also contributes to higher faculty engagement and morale, as it validates the expertise of early-career faculty while encouraging senior faculty to remain adaptive and open to change (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024).

Institutional and Personal Impact

The impact of structured mentorship models extends beyond institutional outcomes to personal and professional faculty growth. At an institutional level, mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring contribute to:

Higher faculty retention by creating structured, sustained mentorship relationships that foster belonging and engagement (Pillar, 2025; Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).
Enhanced teaching and learning by facilitating cross-generational knowledge exchange and instructional innovation (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).
Stronger leadership pipelines by equipping department chairs and adjunct faculty with the guidance and skills they need to navigate their roles successfully (Riddell, 2024).
Increased faculty collaboration by fostering networks of shared expertise and interdisciplinary connections (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).

On a personal level, mentorship fosters professional confidence, leadership growth, and career satisfaction. Faculty members who participate in mentorship constellations experience:

Greater career clarity as they receive diverse perspectives and tailored professional guidance (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).
Reduced feelings of isolation, particularly for adjunct faculty and online educators who may otherwise feel disconnected from their institutions (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a: Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005).
Higher resilience and adaptability as mentorship relationships offer strategies for navigating career challenges and institutional demands (Riddell, 2024).
Stronger work-life balance, as faculty who have robust mentorship support report lower stress levels and greater career satisfaction (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024).

By integrating mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring models, institutions can ensure that faculty members not only thrive in their roles but also contribute meaningfully to institutional transformation and student success. The personal and institutional benefits of structured, generative mentorship models make a compelling case for higher education institutions to prioritize mentorship as a central pillar of faculty development.

Practical Strategies for Institutions

For mentorship programs to be effective, institutions must move beyond informal or ad-hoc approaches and develop structured, intentional mentorship frameworks. A well-designed mentorship program should be embedded within faculty development initiatives and aligned with institutional goals for faculty success, retention, and leadership development (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023).

A key component of intentional mentorship structures is ensuring broad participation across faculty ranks, including adjuncts, department chairs, and early-career faculty. Institutions that implement structured mentorship initiatives—such as faculty mentoring circles, formal mentor-mentee pairings, and ongoing professional development programs—see higher engagement and faculty satisfaction (Research Overview, 2024). Furthermore, institutions must provide administrative support and resources to sustain these mentorship programs, including incentives, mentorship training, and time allocation for faculty mentors (Pillar, 2025).

Incentivizing Mentorship Participation

Encouraging faculty to participate in mentorship requires institutions to recognize and reward mentorship contributions. Many faculty members, particularly adjuncts and department chairs, already manage heavy workloads, and adding mentorship responsibilities can seem burdensome without appropriate incentives (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).

Institutions can promote mentorship participation by offering course releases, stipends, or recognition in promotion and tenure processes (Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Additionally, mentorship engagement should be formally acknowledged in annual faculty evaluations, awards, and institutional leadership programs (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a). Structured mentorship pathways that offer clear career benefits, such as professional development funding or administrative leadership training, further enhance faculty engagement (Hope Circuits, Riddell, 2024).

Integrating Mentorship into Faculty Onboarding

Mentorship should be embedded into faculty onboarding processes to ensure new faculty—especially adjuncts and department chairs—receive structured guidance from the outset. Institutions that pair new faculty members with mentors early in their careers see higher retention rates and stronger professional engagement (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b). However, effective onboarding should not be a one-time event but rather a continuous developmental process throughout the academic year. New faculty need sustained support to adapt to institutional expectations, instructional challenges, and evolving student needs.

A comprehensive onboarding mentorship program includes orientation sessions, peer mentoring, and structured faculty development plans. While an initial orientation is valuable for introducing faculty to institutional policies and expectations, ongoing mentorship ensures that faculty continue to receive guidance as they encounter real-world challenges in their roles. Regular follow-up meetings, structured check-ins, and opportunities for professional development allow faculty to build confidence, refine their teaching and leadership skills, and integrate fully into the academic community.

Reverse mentoring can also play a key role in onboarding, allowing early-career faculty and adjuncts to share student-centered perspectives and emerging pedagogical innovations with senior faculty and administrators (O’Connor et al., 2025). Additionally, mentoring constellations provide multiple points of support for new faculty, ensuring they have access to a network of experienced colleagues who can offer diverse perspectives and expertise (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). By designing onboarding programs that extend beyond the first semester and into the full academic year, institutions foster an environment where new faculty feel supported, engaged, and prepared to succeed.

Expanding Professional Development for Adjuncts

Adjunct faculty often lack access to institutional resources and professional development opportunities, making targeted mentorship programs essential for their career success and institutional integration (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024). Strong mentorship initiatives help adjuncts develop effective teaching practices, engage in institutional governance, and explore career advancement opportunities (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Online adjuncts, in particular, face unique challenges related to institutional isolation and lack of engagement with full-time faculty. Virtual mentorship models, such as online mentoring communities, structured peer support, and interactive professional development workshops, have proven effective in improving online adjunct retention and engagement (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a; Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). By offering dedicated mentoring programs for online faculty, institutions ensure equitable professional development opportunities for all faculty members, regardless of instructional modality (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Building Sustainable Leadership Development for Chairs

Department chairs play a critical role in faculty leadership and institutional governance, yet many receive little formal preparation for their responsibilities. Structured mentorship programs for department chairs help them develop strategic leadership skills, operational efficiencies, and faculty support strategies (Pillar, 2025).

Mentorship constellations provide peer networks for department chairs, allowing them to learn from experienced leaders and gain insights into effective administrative practices (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). Reverse mentoring also plays a role in leadership development, as chairs benefit from early-career faculty perspectives on student engagement, emerging pedagogies, and institutional challenges (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024).

By incorporating mentorship into department chair training and leadership development programs, institutions strengthen faculty leadership pipelines and promote long-term institutional stability (Hope Circuits, Riddell, 2024).

Final Thoughts

Structured, generative mentorship is essential for faculty development, retention, and leadership sustainability. By embracing mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring, institutions can build dynamic faculty support networks that foster continuous learning, collaboration, and professional growth.

Mentorship programs should be intentional, incentivized, and embedded in faculty development initiatives, ensuring that adjuncts, department chairs, and early-career faculty receive the support and guidance necessary for long-term success (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023).

By prioritizing mentorship as a core institutional value, higher education institutions can create inclusive, engaged faculty communities that drive academic excellence and student success. The principles outlined in Hope Circuits (Riddell, 2024) underscore the need for systemic mentorship ecosystems that cultivate resilience, adaptability, and institutional belonging—ensuring that faculty at all levels thrive in an evolving academic landscape.

References

AFT. (2022). State of adjunct faculty in higher education. American Federation of Teachers.

Cain, L., Goldring, J., & Westall, A. (2024). Seeing behind the curtain: Reverse mentoring within the higher education landscape. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(5), 1267-1282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2129963

Defining Mentoring. (2024). Mentoring in meaningful relationships. Elon University. https://www.elon.edu/u/mentoring-relationships/ace-report/defining-mentoring/

Faculty Focus. (2024). An online mentoring model that works. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/an-online-mentoring-model-that-works/

Gibson, A., & O’Keefe, P. (2019). Faculty development and adjunct faculty success. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1569234

How Reverse Mentoring Helps Co-Create Institutional Knowledge. (2024). THE Campus: Learn, Share, Connect. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/how-reverse-mentoring-helps-cocreate-institutional-knowledge

Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts. (2024). Center for Engaged Learning. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/mentoring-constellations-in-global-contexts/

O’Connor, R., Barraclough, L., Gleadall, S., & Walker, L. (2025). Institutional reverse mentoring: Bridging the student/leadership gap. British Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 344-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2025.009475

OpenAI’s DALL-E. (2025). Conceptual illustration of Beyond the Tenure Track: How Generative Mentoring of Adjunct Faculty and Department Chairs Enhances Institutional Quality and Student Success [AI-generated image]. Retrieved from https://labs.openai.com

Pearson, M. J., & Kirby, E. G. (2018a). An online mentoring model that works. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/an-online-mentoring-model-that-works/

Pearson, M. J., & Kirby, E. G. (2018b). Best practices for training and retaining online adjunct faculty. Magna Publications. https:// www.facultyfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Best-Practices-for-Training-and-Retaining-Online-Adjunct-Faculty.pdf

Pillar, G. (2025). From margins to mainstream: Elevating adjunct faculty for academic excellence. Innovative Higher Education Professional.

Pillar, G. (2025). The unsung leaders: Navigating department chair responsibilities at smaller private institutions. Innovative Higher Education Professional.

Puzziferro-Schnitzer, M., & Kissinger, J. (2005). Supporting online adjunct faculty: A virtual mentoring program. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(2), 39-42. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i2.1785

Research Overview. (2024). Center for Engaged Learning. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/mentoring-matters/research-overview/

Riddell, J. (2024). Hope circuits: Rewiring academia for resilience and transformation. University Press.

Seeing Behind the Curtain. (2024). Reverse mentoring within the higher education landscape. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2129963

Vandermaas-Peeler, M., & Moore, J. L. (2023). Mentoring constellations in global contexts: A new framework for faculty development. Center for Engaged Learning.

Zarrow, S. E. (2018, August 23). How tenured and tenure-track faculty can support adjuncts (opinion). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

The Unsung Leaders: Navigating Department Chair Responsibilities at Smaller Private Institutions

gregpillar on February 7, 2025

I always appreciate reading pieces in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed about leadership and administration in higher education. However, one must always consider the institutional context of the author. Is the author writing from a large public research institution, a for-profit online university, a small private religious college, or an elite liberal arts institution? The institution can heavily influence the applicability and relevance of the points made in the article. However, these articles often reflect perspectives from institutions that differ significantly from those where I have worked. Kevin Dettmar’s recent Chronicle column, The Job Keeps Changing and I Can’t Keep Up, caught my attention because it addresses an issue that resonates with many department chairs: the increasing administrative burden of the role. While there are valuable insights in his piece, I found much of his experience did not align with my own or with what I have observed at my institutions. Some of his concerns about the growing administrative burden on chairs are well-founded, but the reality for smaller private institutions with modest budgets and endowments requires a more nuanced discussion. The challenges we face—limited staff support, resource constraints, and a need for chairs to take on multiple roles—differ significantly from those at wealthier institutions with greater financial flexibility.

To contextualize my perspective, I have served as a department chair for six years, a program director for two years (Honors Program), and an assistant/associate provost for eight years at two small private universities. Both institutions, with enrollments ranging from 1,700 to 3,200 students, are NCAA Division I schools with modest endowments. Unlike at Pomona College—where Dettmar works, and where the institution enjoys a $2.8 billion endowment—the financial and administrative structures of smaller private universities present different constraints and opportunities.

This article is not about institutional differences but rather about expanding the conversation on the role of department chairs and program directors in higher education. Specifically, I want to highlight the leadership strategies that can help chairs navigate their roles more effectively, drawing from my own experiences, existing literature, and new perspectives on leadership (Dettmar, 2025).

Department Chairs as Middle Managers and Leaders

Dettmar and others characterize the department chair as a middle management position, and I agree—but this is not a recent development. For at least the last two decades, chairs have operated as intermediaries between faculty and administration, tasked with leading their departments while also managing increasing administrative responsibilities (Dettmar, 2025). These responsibilities include:

Faculty Supervision and Development – Chairs oversee faculty recruitment, hiring of full-time and adjunct faculty, mentorship, evaluations, and professional development. They ensure faculty receive the necessary support while also upholding institutional and accreditation expectations. Additionally, chairs help faculty navigate promotion and tenure processes, guide new faculty members, and facilitate professional growth opportunities through workshops and conferences.
Assessment and Accreditation – One of the most time-consuming tasks, assessment requires chairs to ensure that faculty develop measurable learning outcomes, conduct assessments, and document results for accreditation bodies. This includes working with institutional research offices, maintaining updated documentation, and coordinating faculty to ensure compliance with regional accreditation standards.
Retention and Student Success Efforts – Chairs play a significant role in student retention by fostering strong advising structures and ensuring curricular alignment with students’ academic and career goals. Chairs also often handle student complaints, mentor struggling students, and work with student affairs to ensure students receive the support they need.
Curriculum Management and Innovation – Beyond maintaining course schedules, chairs must ensure that their department’s curriculum remains relevant, rigorous, and aligned with institutional priorities. This involves overseeing curriculum revisions, integrating new pedagogical methods, and working with industry experts to maintain up-to-date academic programs.
Recruitment and Enrollment Management – Many chairs now engage in outreach efforts to prospective students, participating in open houses, responding to inquiries, and working with admissions offices to promote their programs. Enrollment declines have made this task even more critical, requiring chairs to develop strategic recruitment plans and build partnerships with high schools and community colleges.
Budget Management – The extent of budget responsibilities varies widely by department. Some chairs oversee substantial budgets that require careful oversight of operational expenses, faculty salaries, lab materials, and department-specific initiatives. Others manage smaller budgets with limited discretionary funds, making financial planning even more critical. Regardless of the budget size, chairs must ensure that resources are allocated strategically to support student success and program sustainability. In today’s financial climate, where institutions are facing tightening budgets, every dollar must be used effectively. Chairs must make difficult decisions regarding which programs, events, and initiatives to fund—often prioritizing those that benefit the greatest number of students or have the highest impact on student learning outcomes. Additionally, chairs should engage in long-term financial planning, seeking alternative funding sources such as grants, external partnerships, or alumni contributions to supplement departmental needs. Effective budget management requires a combination of fiscal discipline, strategic investment, and advocacy for resources that align with both departmental and institutional priorities.
Unique Departmental/Disciplinary Demands – Some departments have specialized needs beyond standard academic management. Chairs in nursing and health sciences may oversee clinical placements, while STEM chairs must manage lab safety and equipment. Fine arts chairs may coordinate galleries and studio spaces. Each discipline carries its own set of logistical challenges requiring dedicated leadership and administrative oversight. Some chairs manage significant budgets that require careful financial oversight, while others oversee smaller budgets with limited discretionary funds. Chairs must navigate fiscal constraints, prioritize spending, and ensure that departmental resources align with institutional goals. They must navigate funding limitations while ensuring that their departments have adequate faculty, technology, and materials.

These are not extraneous tasks; they are core functions of a department chair. While administrative support varies by institution, many of these responsibilities fall squarely on the chair, making time management and delegation essential.

The Importance of Delegation: Empowering Faculty and Building Capacity

One key issue that often goes unaddressed is the underutilization of delegation. Many department chairs believe that effective leadership means taking on every task themselves. However, research and leadership studies suggest that the opposite is true—effective leaders know how to delegate strategically, empowering others while maintaining oversight (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). Delegation is not simply about offloading work but about developing faculty leadership capacity, distributing responsibilities equitably, and ensuring the long-term stability of the department (Pillar, 2024a). While some chairs believe they must handle every responsibility themselves, many of these tasks can—and should—be distributed across the department. Faculty observations, assessment activities, recruitment initiatives, and mentoring should not rest solely on the chair’s shoulders (Pillar, 2024a).

At both institutions where I worked, I observed that chairs who effectively delegated responsibilities were not only less overwhelmed but also cultivated stronger, more engaged departments. Garcia and Fisher (2023) emphasize that leadership in modern organizations, including higher education, must be collaborative rather than hierarchical. Delegation fosters an environment where faculty members feel ownership over department initiatives, creating a culture of shared responsibility and innovation. By involving faculty in key departmental functions, chairs can create a leadership pipeline, preparing faculty members for future administrative roles while strengthening institutional governance (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). For instance, having senior faculty conduct peer observations fosters a culture of continuous improvement and collegiality. Assigning faculty members to lead assessment efforts allows for more meaningful engagement in curricular decisions. When departments share recruitment responsibilities, it fosters a collective investment in student success.

The key is to establish clear expectations within the department and work with the Dean or Provost’s office to formalize these roles where necessary, whether through load releases, service expectations, or structured faculty development plans (Pillar, 2024b). Moreover, effective delegation does not mean relinquishing responsibility; it means creating structured processes where accountability remains intact. Leaders must ensure that those taking on delegated responsibilities have the resources, training, and support to succeed (Chu, 2023).

Another critical factor in successful delegation is recognizing the strengths and expertise of faculty members. Chairs should be intentional about assigning roles that align with faculty members’ skills and professional development goals. For instance, faculty with experience in accreditation processes may be well-suited to lead assessment initiatives, while those with strong community ties could contribute significantly to recruitment and outreach efforts (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Finally, Garcia and Fisher (2023) argue that in today’s evolving leadership landscape, chairs must move beyond transactional delegation—simply assigning tasks—and embrace transformational delegation. This approach involves mentoring faculty, fostering leadership development, and creating an adaptable departmental culture where faculty feel valued and invested in the long-term success of the institution. By implementing strategic delegation, chairs not only reduce their workload but also build stronger, more resilient departments prepared for the challenges of the future.

The New Leadership Model: Moving Beyond Best Practices

Garcia and Fisher’s The End of Leadership as We Know It (2023) challenges traditional leadership models, arguing that best practices are often outdated, too rigid, or unsuitable for evolving organizational landscapes. Their key argument—that successful leadership today requires adaptability, collaboration, and purpose-driven vision—directly applies to the challenges faced by department chairs (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Adapting to Change Rather Than Relying on “Best Practices”

Higher education is inherently complex, and what works for one institution may not work for another. Instead of following prescribed best practices, chairs should embrace a more agile leadership style that allows them to adjust strategies based on real-time feedback and shifting priorities (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Chairs must be able to navigate institutional changes, including fluctuating enrollment trends, shifting budgetary constraints, and evolving accreditation standards. Agility in leadership means anticipating challenges rather than reacting to them. Leaders in higher education must develop a mindset of continuous learning, seeking feedback from faculty, students, and stakeholders to refine departmental strategies. According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), leaders who embrace change effectively tend to foster stronger organizational resilience and improve team cohesion during times of uncertainty.

Leading with Purpose and Vision

A strong sense of purpose helps leaders navigate uncertainty. Chairs must align their leadership with both institutional missions and departmental goals, fostering faculty buy-in and student success (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Purpose-driven leadership is particularly important in the academic environment, where faculty and staff are deeply invested in the success of students and the intellectual rigor of their disciplines. Department chairs must articulate a compelling vision for their programs that resonates with both faculty and students. According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), effective leaders understand how to connect day-to-day responsibilities to a broader institutional purpose, which in turn strengthens morale and commitment within a department. Chairs should emphasize the long-term impact of their department’s work, ensuring that faculty see themselves as part of a mission-driven academic community rather than just a collection of individual contributors.

Collaborative Leadership and Shared Responsibility

Chairs should work to flatten traditional hierarchies by empowering faculty to take ownership of key departmental initiatives. Encouraging collaboration strengthens institutional buy-in and enhances overall effectiveness (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Shared governance is a hallmark of higher education, yet many department chairs still operate within outdated leadership models that centralize decision-making authority. The modern chair must facilitate an environment where faculty feel empowered to contribute to the strategic direction of the department. This requires creating opportunities for faculty to take on leadership roles within committees, research initiatives, and student mentorship programs. Garcia and Fisher (2023) argue that by distributing responsibility and fostering a collaborative culture, leaders create more innovative and adaptable organizations. Chairs who engage faculty in problem-solving and strategic planning cultivate stronger teams and ensure the long-term success of their departments.

Leading in the Digital Age

Technology is playing an increasingly central role in higher education, requiring chairs to develop digital literacy and lead in a tech-enhanced academic landscape (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). From online course development to data-driven decision-making, department chairs must ensure that faculty are equipped with the necessary tools and training to excel in a digital learning environment.

According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), successful leaders in the digital era prioritize technological integration and ensure that their teams are comfortable navigating digital platforms for instruction, assessment, and student engagement. Chairs should foster a culture of technological adaptability, providing professional development opportunities and encouraging faculty to experiment with new digital teaching tools.

Emotional Intelligence and Leadership in a Post-Pandemic Era

Garcia and Fisher (2023) emphasize that emotional intelligence is a critical skill for modern leaders, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher education has undergone significant disruptions, and department chairs must navigate faculty burnout, student mental health concerns, and shifting work expectations.

Chairs must develop strong interpersonal skills to support faculty through these transitions. This includes active listening, demonstrating empathy, and fostering an inclusive departmental culture. Leaders who recognize the emotional and psychological needs of their teams are better equipped to maintain morale and engagement during challenging times.

Final Thoughts: Rethinking Leadership Without Resistance

I deeply respect the significant time and effort required to develop and deliver excellent teaching, as well as the time needed for scholarship and service activities—including administrative tasks that faculty members take on as part of their broader professional responsibilities. Faculty time is the most valuable resource, and I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that faculty have the space and support necessary to focus on their core academic pursuits. However, taking an adversarial approach to addressing administrative burdens is not the most effective way forward.

This is something I’ve seen reflected in how institutions have evolved in their expectations of scholarship. Many institutions now recognize and accept the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) alongside traditional disciplinary research when evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion. This shift illustrates that institutions are capable of integrating responsibilities in a way that does not require faculty to find the nonexistent 25th and 26th hour of the day. Similarly, we must approach administrative and leadership responsibilities with a mindset of collaboration and efficiency, rather than resistance, to maximize time and resources.

Dettmar (2025) concludes his piece with a call for the “Rise of the Resistance”, arguing that department chairs must push back against increasing administrative burdens to reclaim their time for teaching and research. While I understand the frustration that leads to this sentiment, I strongly disagree that resistance is the best—or only—solution. Instead of resorting to adversarial approaches, we should focus on strategic adaptation, collaboration, and problem-solving to drive meaningful change.

The reality is that higher education is not a static entity; it is a constantly evolving landscape where institutions must balance financial constraints, accreditation requirements, and shifting student expectations. The role of department chairs is undeniably demanding, but solutions exist that do not require an us-versus-them mentality.

Exploring Untested and Underutilized Solutions Rather than engaging in resistance for resistance’s sake, department chairs can explore proactive strategies to alleviate administrative burdens. This might include:

Advocating for better workflow management tools or more efficient administrative processes.
Strengthening faculty governance structures to distribute responsibilities more equitably.
Working with administration to develop clear expectations for chairs, ensuring they are not simply absorbing new responsibilities without appropriate compensation or support.

Leadership Through Partnership, Not Opposition Instead of positioning administration as an adversary, chairs should seek to engage deans, provosts, and institutional leadership as partners in problem-solving. Change within academia rarely comes through outright resistance, but rather through incremental improvements and strategic negotiations (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). Chairs should approach leadership discussions with data-driven arguments that illustrate how their time is being consumed and offer collaborative solutions for improvement.
The Power of a Forward-Thinking Leadership Mindset The perspectives shared in The End of Leadership as We Know It (Garcia & Fisher, 2023) emphasize the importance of agility, innovation, and emotional intelligence in leadership. If chairs embrace these qualities, they can push for institutional changes without resorting to combative measures. Instead of resisting, they can adapt, strategize, and lead from within—reshaping their roles and influencing institutional policies in a way that benefits faculty, students, and the institution alike.

Empowering Chairs for Institutional Change

Don Chu (2023) argues that department chairs hold the key to real institutional transformation but are often underprepared and under-empowered. He highlights that the traditional bureaucratic model in higher education often separates policy creation at the administrative level from the faculty who must implement it. As a result, chairs become messengers rather than leaders, lacking the training, resources, and authority needed to drive meaningful change (Chu, 2023).

To professionalize and empower department chairs, Chu suggests:

Providing structured leadership training to ensure chairs are prepared for the multifaceted demands of their roles.
Granting greater decision-making authority to chairs in budget allocation, hiring, and curriculum development.
Offering longer-term leadership continuity so that chairs can lead sustained departmental progress.

By rethinking how institutions position their chairs, colleges can transform them from temporary placeholders to true academic leaders who bridge the gap between administration and faculty (Chu, 2023).

References

Chu, D. (2023). Chairs hold the key to higher ed’s success. Inside Higher Ed.

Dettmar, K. (2025). The job keeps changing and I can’t keep up. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Garcia, S., & Fisher, D. (2023). The end of leadership as we know it: What it takes to lead in today’s volatile and complex world. Wiley.

OpenAI’s DALL-E. (2025). Conceptual illustration of The Unsung Leaders: Navigating Department Chair Responsibilities at Smaller Private Institutions [AI-generated image]. Retrieved from https://labs.openai.com

Pillar, G. (2024a). Leading from the heart of higher education: Empowering mid-level leaders to drive transformation and student success.

Pillar, G. (2024b).Breaking Through the Middle Manager Paradox: Practical Approaches to Middle Leadership in Higher Education.

Degrees, Jobs, and Realities: Bridging the Gap for Recent Graduates

gregpillar on January 28, 2025

Finding a job after graduation is no easy task. As highlighted in the CNN article, “Degree in Hand, Jobs Out of Reach” (Jaramillo-Plata, 2025), many recent graduates struggle to secure employment despite their degrees, internships, and seemingly strong resumes. While this is a valid concern, attributing the problem primarily to the growing number of degree holders oversimplifies a deeply complex issue. The reality is that challenges faced by new graduates, particularly in 2024 when hiring slowed significantly for the first time in years, are shaped by a confluence of political, economic, and cultural factors. Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced understanding of the underlying causes and a collaborative approach to solutions.

Yes, as was reported by NACE (National Association of College and Employers) hiring of new graduates was expected to, and did decrease in 2024 (and seen below). A recent press release from the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) notes that hiring for the class of 2025 is projected to increase by 7.3% (NACE, 2025). However, this optimistic forecast is contingent on a variety of factors, including political stability, economic trends, and even global events. The 2024 slowdown in graduate hiring was likely influenced by inflation, post-pandemic economic shifts, and geopolitical instability. To suggest that competition among graduates alone accounts for these challenges ignores the broader systemic forces at play not to mention previous years of positive hiring behaviors.

Additionally, the CNN article implies that employer expectations have shifted suddenly, which is not entirely accurate. Employers’ growing demand for “durable skills”—such as critical thinking, communication, and emotional intelligence—has been a steady and persistent evolution. Generational differences between recent graduates and their supervisors exacerbate this mismatch. Older generations value traits such as resilience, punctuality, and long-term commitment, while younger workers prioritize flexibility, work-life balance, and purpose-driven careers. This divergence creates friction, and navigating this landscape often falls on the graduate. Additionally, as noted by the NACE 2025 Job Outlook Report (nace-2025-job-outlook-v1) most employers use skills-based hiring practices and are willing to hire graduates with majors that fall outside the realm of their industry thus supporting the argument that it isn’t necessarily the major that is critical in your undergraduate experience/degree, rather, what you are able to show case on a transcript and CV to support that degree.

This leads me to argue that if a recent graduate did not spend time in school developing essential skills and experiences and if their institution did not work to provide the necessary opportunities and supportive measures, then either they missed substantial opportunities or their institution failed them or both. Higher education institutions are indeed under scrutiny, and rightfully so. The stakes are high: universities must demonstrate that they can deliver not just intellectual growth but also career readiness.

Accountability in Higher Education: A Necessary Shift

Institutions of higher education are facing growing scrutiny to prove their value. This scrutiny is entirely justified. Colleges and universities must show that their missions extend beyond lofty ideals to encompass practical outcomes. They should prepare students not only for prosperous careers but also for noble, spiritually fulfilling lives as civically engaged and compassionate and contributing members of society.

Some critics argue that emphasizing career preparation undermines the liberal arts mission of higher education. I disagree. Preparing students for meaningful careers and maintaining a liberal arts focus are not mutually exclusive goals. A well-rounded education can—and should—include career readiness.

Investing in career development services, integrating internships into curricula, and building stronger employer partnerships are practical steps universities can take to address these concerns. Institutions like Northeastern University and Drexel University, with their successful co-op programs, offer models worth emulating or taking notes. For smaller schools, there are institutions that require internships across all majors or have required career prep courses either through general education or as a degree requirement. These programs seamlessly blend academic learning with real-world work experience, ensuring students are ready to hit the ground running after graduation.

Solutions for Universities: A Multi-Faceted Approach

There is no single solution to the challenges facing higher education. However, universities can take several actionable steps to address the concerns surrounding the immediate value of a four-year degree and its return on investment (ROI).

Career Development Investment: Robust career centers should be the norm, offering comprehensive services that go beyond resume reviews. These centers must provide mentorship programs, career fairs, networking opportunities, skill-building workshops, and individualized coaching.
Mandatory Internships: Requiring students to complete at least one internship before graduation ensures they gain real-world experience and begin building professional networks. Institutions should also help students find meaningful internship opportunities.
Career Development Curriculum: Embedding career preparation courses into graduation requirements ensures all students develop essential skills, such as communication, teamwork, and problem-solving. These courses can also cover professional etiquette and industry-specific knowledge.
Post-Graduation Employment Guarantees: Some institutions are experimenting with employment guarantees, where they commit to helping graduates secure jobs within a set timeframe or offer a benefit such as refund part of their tuition, provide a discount on graduate tuition, receive additional career coaching, direct assistance with internship placement, etc. . This bold approach signals confidence in the value of their degrees. If you look carefully, the schools that have these offers, do require students to put in effort during their time in school to build the necessary skills and due to their investment in career development their placement rate 6 months and 1 year post graduation is usually already in the low to mid 90% anyway!
Employer Relationship Development: Building strong partnerships with local and national employers can create pipelines for internships, co-ops, and entry-level roles. They can also help to invigorate curricula with case studies, projects, and real-world skill development. Universities should actively seek feedback from employers to better align curricula with industry needs.
First Destination Reporting: Transparent reporting of post-graduation outcomes builds trust with prospective students and their families. Schools should publicize data on employment rates, starting salaries, and graduate school placements.
Alumni Networking: Leveraging alumni networks can provide recent graduates with mentorship, advice, and job opportunities. Universities should create formal programs to connect current students with successful alumni.

Each of these initiatives requires significant investment and coordination, but they directly address criticisms about the relevance and value of higher education.

Diverse Perspectives: Where Responsibility Lies. A look at the Comment Section

The CNN article and specifically the comments section reveal a spectrum of viewpoints on who bears responsibility for the challenges recent graduates face. These can be grouped into several categories:

Responsibility of Universities

Many argue that universities prioritize profits or amenities over education, failing to adequately prepare students for the workforce. Critics suggest that institutions should be held accountable for job placement, with some proposing partial tuition refunds for graduates who remain unemployed. Others advocate for mandatory internships, better advisement on choosing employable majors, and greater transparency about career outcomes. While Universities have responsibility to bear, and yes, it doesn’t look good when a school misuses funds or opens what looks like a facility of luxury vs one of learning. Students still need to act and perform on the opportunities provided to them. The credit for effort argument is a whole separate article!

Responsibility of Students

Some commenters place the onus on students, arguing that they need to take greater initiative. I think these comments come from my fellow Generation X friends. As my bias and initial reaction agrees a lot with putting the responsibility here. This includes utilizing career center resources, seeking internships, and networking. Seeking out unique co-curricular opportunities, extra-curricular opportunities, and other changes to grow and build your CV/transcript to support your career dreams. Students who choose impractical majors and fail to develop essential skills are often criticized for their lack of foresight. Institutions can put safeguards on some programs by making their curriculum more multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary.

Responsibility of Employers

Employers also play a role in the job-market mismatch. Unrealistic expectations for entry-level hires, outsourcing, and automation are frequently cited as barriers to employment for recent graduates. Companies must invest more in training and mentorship to help bridge the gap between academia and the workforce.

Broader Social and Economic Issues

Systemic challenges, such as economic inequality, globalization, and the decline of manufacturing jobs, contribute to the difficulty graduates face. Automation and artificial intelligence are also seen as threats to traditional career paths, creating uncertainty about the future of work.

Misaligned Expectations

Unrealistic expectations from both students and their families exacerbate the issue. Higher education is often viewed as an investment, not a guarantee, and graduates may need to adjust their expectations, starting in entry-level positions or pivoting to adjacent fields.

Need for Specialized Programs

Work-integrated learning models, such as co-op programs, receive widespread praise for preparing students for the workforce. These programs provide not only practical experience but also confidence and clarity about career paths.

Final Thoughts: Bridging the Gap

The challenges facing new graduates require collaboration among universities, employers, and students. Higher education must evolve to align more closely with workforce needs while maintaining its commitment to intellectual growth and civic engagement. Employers must recognize their role in training and developing talent, rather than relying solely on perfectly “work-ready” hires. Finally, students must take ownership of their education and career preparation, leveraging every opportunity to build skills and networks.

Recommendations for Improvement

I am by no means an expert journalist. I’m an environmental chemist turned higher education administrator and now part-time blogger. I am finding some of the articles on mainstream media sites lacking some back journalistic rigor. To further strengthen this article, the following steps could have been taken:

Include Additional Data: Incorporate statistics from reputable sources, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics or NACE to provide context on graduate employment trends.
Highlight Successful Models: Explore case studies of universities with innovative programs and don’t just focus on the mega-schools.
Discuss Long-Term Trends: Analyze how factors like AI and automation are likely to reshape the job market in the coming decades.
Address Global Comparisons: Compare the U.S. higher education system and graduate outcomes to those in other countries.
Expand on Skills: Provide examples of “durable skills” and how they can be cultivated during college.

By weaving these elements into the article, it would offer a more comprehensive analysis and provide actionable insights for all stakeholders.

References

Jaramillo-Plata, N. (2025, January 26). Degree in hand, jobs out of reach: Why recent grads are struggling in a competitive market. CNN. https://www.cnn.com

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2025). Job Outlook 2025 nace-2025-job-outlook-v1

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

gregpillar on January 1, 2025

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.

Data-Informed Leadership in Higher Education: Challenges, Solutions, and Key Data Sources

gregpillar on August 27, 2024

In today’s rapidly evolving higher education landscape, data has become a critical tool for driving strategic decisions. Institutions that effectively leverage data have the advantage of making informed choices that directly impact student success, institutional growth, and operational efficiency. However, while data is undeniably important, it’s crucial to remember that data alone isn’t everything. A truly forward-thinking institution knows how to blend data-driven decisions with calculated risks and innovative thinking.

The Importance of Accurate and Accessible Data

In higher education, real-time access to accurate data is essential for making decisions that affect marketing, recruiting, enrollment, and advancement. For example, having up-to-date information on students in the enrollment pipeline allows institutions to tailor communication strategies, minimizing melt and ensuring smooth transitions for incoming students (Anft, 2023). Data, including market analysis, is also invaluable when determining whether to sunset or add new programs. Without reliable data, these decisions would be far more challenging and risk-laden.

However, the effectiveness of data relies heavily on its accessibility and quality. Challenges such as outdated data systems, poorly defined data protocols, and limited staff in institutional research offices can significantly hinder decision-making processes (Hampton, 2023). Additionally, messy datasets, “ghost” data points, and the absence of well-established data glossaries can lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Higher education leaders must address these issues by investing in updated platforms, training staff, and creating standardized data practices (EAB, 2022).

The Role of ERP and SIS Systems

To further enhance data accessibility and accuracy, institutions must ensure that their Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and Student Information Systems (SIS) are user-friendly and well-integrated. These systems (and CRM, SIS, LMS, HRMS, IAM, etc) are crucial for collecting, managing, and analyzing data across various functions of the institution. When these platforms are intuitive and easy to navigate, they empower faculty and staff to engage with data more effectively, leading to better-informed decisions.

Moreover, adequate training and resources are essential for maximizing the potential of ERP and SIS systems. Institutions should prioritize continuous professional development and support for faculty and staff to ensure they can fully utilize these systems. This includes offering regular training sessions, providing access to help desks or technical support teams, and fostering a culture of data literacy across the campus. By doing so, institutions can not only improve data collection and management but also enhance the overall effectiveness of their data-driven strategies.

The rise of data-driven cultures in academia highlights the shift toward using data analytics to enhance decision-making across multiple areas, from identifying at-risk students to optimizing resource allocation. Institutions increasingly leverage predictive analytics to pinpoint academic areas needing attention and implement timely interventions (NCES, 2023). Despite this progress, institutions often struggle with ensuring that data is consistent, high-quality, and accessible to decision-makers across all levels (EAB, 2022; Hampton, 2023).

The Roadblocks: Lack of Access and Unreliable Data

While the potential of data to transform decision-making in higher education is widely recognized, the reality is that many institutions face significant roadblocks due to a lack of easy access to key data and the prevalence of unreliable or poor-quality data. These challenges are particularly acute in smaller institutions and those with limited resources, where outdated data systems and insufficient staffing in key roles like Institutional Research (IR) and Information Technology (IT) exacerbate the problem (Hampton, 2023).

Impact on Operations, Growth, and Sustainability

A lack of reliable data access can severely disrupt the day-to-day operations of a college or university. Decisions on resource allocation, program development, and student support services often require timely and accurate data. When this data is not easily accessible or is of questionable quality, decision-making becomes delayed or misinformed, leading to suboptimal outcomes that can hinder institutional effectiveness and student success (Anft, 2023).

Moreover, the absence of reliable data can have long-term implications for institutional growth and sustainability. For instance, institutions that cannot accurately assess their financial health, student retention rates, or market positioning are at a higher risk of making strategic errors that could lead to financial instability or even closure. This is particularly concerning given the ongoing challenges in higher education, including declining enrollment in many regions and increased competition for students (EAB, 2022).

As highlighted in a recent EAB report, nearly 97% of college leaders agree that better data use is essential for making strategic decisions, yet only a fraction of institutions have fully centralized their data sources (EAB, 2022). This fragmentation not only limits the ability to make informed decisions but also hampers efforts to foster cross-departmental collaboration, which is critical for comprehensive institutional planning and growth.

In the current climate, where the higher education sector is facing unprecedented challenges, the ability to access and utilize high-quality data is not just a competitive advantage—it is a necessity for survival. Institutions that fail to address these data challenges risk falling behind, as they are less equipped to adapt to changing conditions, identify opportunities for innovation, or mitigate risks (NCEE, 2023).

Key Insights from Leadership Perspectives on Data Strategy

A recent survey of higher education leaders provided valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities surrounding data strategy (EAB, 2022). Here are some key findings:

Data’s Role in Enrollment and Retention: Leaders overwhelmingly view data as crucial for improving enrollment, retention, resource allocation, and student success. In fact, 99% of respondents indicated that retention is a top priority, followed closely by enrollment at 97%. These findings emphasize the critical nature of data analytics in sustaining key institutional functions.
Staffing Shortages and Training Gaps: The report highlights that 77% of institutions cite insufficient staffing as the biggest roadblock to effective data usage. Staffing issues are particularly acute in technical roles like Institutional Research (IR) and Information Technology (IT), where turnover and lack of training hinder progress. 32% of respondents said that institutional knowledge loss as a result of staff turnover is their most concerning data issue.
Access Disparities: Although executive leadership generally has reliable access to data, nearly half of respondents noted that faculty and staff face significant barriers in accessing reliable data. Smaller institutions are particularly challenged, with only 38% of faculty and 35% of staff at institutions with fewer than 5,000 students having easy access to reliable data. Based on data from IPEDS, in the Fall of 2022, there were 5,978 post-secondary institutions in the US, and of those, 5,006 had total student enrollment with 5,000 or fewer, representing 84% of the institutions. Thus, easy access to reliable institutional data is a major barrier and no doubt will be a contributing factor to the predicted ongoing school closure crisis.
Centralizing Data for Strategic Use: Only 9% of institutions have fully centralized their data in a warehouse, with the majority reporting that some systems remain siloed. This lack of integration limits comprehensive decision-making and hinders cross-departmental collaboration.
The Importance of Data Warehousing: While many institutions are actively building data warehouses, 25% of respondents have yet to fully integrate all campus data sources into a single repository. Institutions often underestimate the time and resources required to maintain a fully functional warehouse, resulting in incomplete data integration.
Investing in Technology: Investments in technology and software are a priority for many institutions, with 35% planning to increase their spending in this area over the next year. Upgrades are focused on student success platforms, learning management systems, and data warehouses.
The Impact of Failed Technology Implementations: One in three institutions reported that a recent technology implementation failed to impact key metrics, largely due to poor implementation or inadequate staff training. Leaders emphasized the importance of choosing the right vendors and ensuring sufficient buy-in across departments.
The Need for Data Governance: Nearly two-thirds of institutions indicated that improving data governance and access protocols is a high priority. Establishing clear data definitions and governance practices is seen as critical for enabling more effective data usage and decision-making.
Engaging Institutional Research: Despite the critical role of Institutional Research (IR), many institutions approach IR and Institutional Effectiveness (IE) departments transactionally, primarily for compliance reporting. Only 31% of leaders see IR as integral to strategic decision-making, missing an opportunity for deeper engagement with data professionals.
Choosing the Right Partners: Selecting the right vendor is crucial for successful technology implementation. Institutions benefit most when working with partners who understand the unique challenges of higher education. This includes prioritizing vendors with a track record of successful deployments in similar institutions.

Balancing Data with Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking

While data provides a strong foundation, it isn’t always sufficient when exploring new opportunities or differentiating your institution from others. Sometimes, especially in uncharted territory, direct data might be limited or nonexistent. In these cases, institutions may need to rely on indirect data or informed intuition to make bold, strategic moves. For example, when launching a unique program that hasn’t been tested in your market, the absence of direct supporting data doesn’t automatically mean the decision isn’t worth pursuing. Instead, entrepreneurial leaders use calculated risks, guided by whatever relevant data is available, to drive innovation (Anft, 2023).

As institutions strive to strike a balance between data-driven decisions and visionary leadership, it’s important to recognize that while data can reduce risk, it cannot entirely eliminate it. Data is a powerful tool for addressing persistent issues and driving digital transformation, but leaders must also consider the potential for innovation that lies beyond the numbers (Hampton, 2023). Collaborations with experts like AWS and institutions such as the University of Maryland–Baltimore County and Illinois Institute of Technology demonstrate how data can be harnessed to manage challenges across an institution’s lifecycle—from collection and analysis to strategic planning (EAB, 2022).

Making Sense of the Mess: Leveraging Trusted Data Sources

While data is powerful, the landscape of higher education is messy and constantly changing. The ability to sift through this complexity requires access to robust data sources that can offer clarity, even if momentarily. Below is a list of reliable data sources that can help provide insights into the current landscape and aid in navigating the challenges higher education institutions face. These sources range from government databases like NCES and IPEDS to specialized tools like the College Viability App and Higher Ed Data Stories. This data can only take staff, faculty, and administrators so far as the Achilles heel in all of this is clean, reliable, and accessible institutional data.

References

Anft, M. (2023). Becoming a data-driven institution: College leaders assess the value and challenges of using data to make strategic decisions. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://aws.amazon.com/education/higher-ed/

EAB. (2022). Leadership perspectives on higher education data strategy: Survey report. https://www.eab.com

Hampton, M. C. (2023). Data-driven decision-making in higher education: How REL work makes a difference. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Data-driven strategies in higher education. https://nces.ed.gov

Leading from the Heart of Higher Education: Empowering Mid-Level Leaders to Drive Transformation and Student Success

gregpillar on August 25, 2024

The following article was also published on the EdUp Experience blog on August 25, 2024.

In higher education, leadership is often associated with those in the highest ranks—presidents, vice presidents, provosts, and chancellors. However, much of the critical work occurs in the “middle”—positions held by associate provosts, assistant provosts, vice provosts, deans, associate deans, directors, and other mid-level administrators. These leaders play an essential role in the success of institutions, serving as the bridge between strategic vision and practical execution. In today’s rapidly evolving higher education landscape, leading from the middle has never been more vital yet challenging.

The Critical Role of Middle Leadership

Middle leaders occupy a unique space where they translate institutional strategies into actionable plans while navigating the complexities of day-to-day operations. Research underscores that these roles are crucial because they are the “interpreters and implementers of strategy,” ensuring alignment between senior leadership’s objectives and the needs of their teams (Stuart & Klinke, 2024). Middle leaders are often the steady force behind the continuity of institutional progress, ensuring the stability needed during times of change (Eddy, Mitchell, & Amey, 2016).

Middle leaders also hold significant responsibility in fostering institutional culture. Their influence extends across teams, making them vital in shaping a positive work environment. This is particularly important in the current higher education landscape, which is marked by significant challenges such as demographic shifts, declining enrollment, political pressures, and financial constraints (Stuart & Klinke, 2024). However, this role in fostering institutional culture can be increasingly more difficult depending on the culture and climate set, and projected by, senior leadership.

The "Middle Manager Paradox" in Higher Education

Middle leaders face a paradox: they bear substantial responsibility but often lack the authority of senior leaders. Their peer support group is often small and they must advocate for their teams while ensuring alignment with institutional priorities. This balancing act requires middle leaders to be both strategic and empathetic, capable of managing up, down, and across their organizations (Mautz, 2020). For example, they frequently lead efforts such as curriculum development, accreditation, and student success initiatives—tasks that require a nuanced understanding of both institutional goals and on-the-ground realities (Stone & Coussons-Read, 2011).

The leadership role of middle managers is often underappreciated despite their critical contribution to institutional success. As highlighted by Hargreaves (2024), these leaders are responsible for “managing change, resolving conflicts, and fostering collaboration” while being expected to maintain operational efficiency and staff morale. Additionally, in times of higher staff turnover or reductions, academic professionals in the middle often are given additional responsibilities with little acknowledgement or compensation, further adding stress and pressure.

Six Areas of Influence for Middle Leaders in Higher Education

Drawing on Mautz’s framework and other leadership studies, middle leaders in higher education can exert influence in several key areas:

Driving Vision and Purpose: Middle leaders are tasked with translating high-level strategic goals into tangible actions. At Queens University of Charlotte, for instance, when senior leadership provided resources to strategically enhance our Career Center so that it could better support university initiatives within our strategic framework, at the middle manager/leadership level decisions were made to restructure career services around fields or industries rather than majors. This allows career coaches to help students explore a broader range of opportunities across all majors, aligning their academic and co-curricular experiences with diverse career paths.
Managing Up, Across, and Down: Effective middle leaders must build strong relationships not only with their teams but also with senior leaders and peers across the institution. This requires strong communication skills and the ability to foster collaboration across departmental silos (Stone & Coussons-Read, 2011).
Navigating Uncertainty: Higher education is constantly changing due to external factors such as demographic shifts, political challenges, staff turnovers, and financial pressures. Middle leaders must be adaptable and resilient, guiding their teams through these shifts with clarity, resilience, and confidence (Sunderman & Orsini, 2023).
Cultivating High-Performing Teams: Building and maintaining a motivated and collaborative team is a core responsibility for middle leaders. They are often the ones who set the tone for the work environment, encouraging a culture of innovation, trust, and shared values. Remember, leadership isn’t about you. Leading (specially form the middle) requires checking your ego and self-ambition at the door and focusing on lifting up others. (Eddy, Mitchell, & Amey, 2016).
Communicating with Clarity: As the link between senior leadership and frontline staff, middle leaders are responsible for ensuring that institutional strategies are communicated clearly and effectively. This includes breaking down complex initiatives into actionable steps that are understandable and relevant to their teams (Stuart & Klinke, 2024).
Advancing Personal Leadership: Continuous professional development is essential for effective middle leadership. Leaders must remain committed to their own growth while mentoring others. Engaging in cross-institutional networks and leveraging external training programs can be valuable for enhancing leadership skills and broadening perspectives (Hargreaves, 2024).

Leading from the Middle in a Volatile Landscape

Today’s higher education environment is marked by unprecedented volatility. Institutions are navigating demographic shifts, declining enrollments, and increasing political scrutiny, all while facing financial pressures that lead to program closures, staff turnover and reductions, and even institutional mergers. In this context, middle leadership is more critical than ever.

Hargreaves (2024) and Stuart and Klinke (2024) emphasizes that middle leaders are uniquely positioned to guide institutions through these turbulent times. Their ability to connect the strategic with the operational makes them key players in ensuring institutional stability and adaptability. Furthermore, as Eddy, Mitchell and Arney (2016) along with Hargreaves (2024) argue, middle leaders must be equipped to manage conflict, make ethical decisions, and take calculated risks that align with the institution’s mission and values. However, institutions should leverage resources to support and prioritize mental health and holistic well-being due to the increased pressures and strain that result on all staff and faculty during these turbulent and challenging times.

Rethinking Support Structures for Middle Leaders

Despite the significant demands placed on middle leaders, there is often a lack of targeted support and professional development tailored to their unique needs. Research indicates that while some in-house programs exist, there is a scarcity of external leadership development opportunities specifically designed for those leading from the middle in higher education (Stone & Coussons-Read, 2011). Addressing this gap is crucial for ensuring that these leaders are well-prepared to meet the complex challenges they face.

One important step universities can take is to ensure that faculty development centers, even if primarily focused on teaching and learning, incorporate leadership training and programming. This is especially vital at smaller institutions where leaders often need to take on multiple roles, such as department chairs, program directors, or leads for various initiatives. Offering leadership development through these centers builds internal capacity and prepares faculty to step into leadership roles when needed. Additionally, the office of human resources is usually responsible for providing staff development and resources should be devoted to staff professional development opportunities on par with that of faculty. Although some of the dynamics and functions are different, key skill development in durable skills are common across both groups.

Additionally, universities should invest in utilizing external sources like the AALI Senior Leadership Academy, the CIC Workshop for Department and Division Chairs, or the ASHE Academic Leaders Workshop. These programs provide targeted training that is invaluable across disciplines and backgrounds, equipping future leaders with the skills and knowledge necessary for higher education administration.

Looking back on my own career, the professional development I received as a faculty member, department chair, director of an academic program (Honors), faculty fellow in our faculty development center, and faculty liaison to our advising office were instrumental in preparing me for leadership roles as an assistant and associate provost. These experiences provided practical leadership skills that could be applied across various contexts and roles, underscoring the importance of structured development opportunities for those leading from the middle. Looking to provide project based or time-based leadership opportunities for faculty and staff can significantly increase institutional leadership capabilities and capacity.

In summary, universities must be intentional in supporting the leadership development of their middle managers. By integrating leadership training into faculty development centers and staff professional development as well as investing in external professional development programs, institutions can create a stronger pipeline of leaders ready to take on complex challenges and drive success at all levels.

Leadership in Action: Guiding Strategy and Student Success from the Middle

Leading from the middle is about more than managing operations—it’s about creating lasting impact. Middle leaders in higher education are the linchpin that connects strategy with execution, ensuring that institutional goals are not just aspirational but achievable. As institutions continue to navigate an uncertain future, the role of middle leadership will be pivotal in driving innovation and sustaining organizational resilience.

However, what must never be forgotten in all the work that university leaders, middle managers, staff, and faculty do is the central purpose of higher education: serving students. At the heart of every strategic initiative and operational decision should be the goal of ensuring student success, retention, and ultimately graduation. Middle leaders play a critical role in creating environments that support students academically and personally, putting them on a trajectory toward fulfilling and meaningful lives. Whether through innovative curriculum design, student support services, or cross-departmental collaboration, the work of middle leaders directly impacts the student experience and their long-term success.

Leading from the middle is not just about balancing institutional priorities; it’s about ensuring that those priorities remain focused on students and their future. By keeping students at the center of their leadership, middle managers can ensure that every action taken ultimately contributes to helping students achieve their academic goals and prepare for rewarding careers and lives beyond graduation

References

Eddy, P. L., Mitchell, R. G., & Amey, M. J. (2016). Leading from the middle. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/leading-from-the-middle/

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

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

Stone, T., & Coussons-Read, M. (2011). Leading from the middle: A case-study approach to academic leadership for associate and assistant deans. American Council on Education.

Stuart, M., & Klinke, C. (2024). Leading from the middle: The importance of emerging leaders in higher education. Leading from the Middle Report., Minerva

Sunderman, H. M., & Orsini. J. (2023). Introduction to leading from the middle in higher education: Mentoring. Journal of Leadership Studies, 17(3), 40-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21869

The Role of Higher Education in Economic Mobility: A Focus on Community and Intergenerational Opportunity

gregpillar on August 24, 2024

Economic mobility, particularly intergenerational mobility, is a crucial component in addressing disparities in opportunity and improving the well-being of communities. Higher education institutions are often positioned as key vehicles for upward mobility, providing individuals with the skills and credentials needed to move up the economic ladder. However, recent research and local insights suggest that higher education’s role in supporting mobility goes beyond individual academic achievement; it also requires a commitment to fostering thriving communities where children can grow, learn, and develop the social capital necessary for long-term success.

About 10 years ago Charlotte found itself in an undesirable position due to a 2014 study that highlighted its ranking as one of the worst cities in the U.S. for economic mobility (50/50). According to that study, children born into poverty in Charlotte had only a 4-5% chance of climbing to the top income bracket, sparking concern among community leaders, educators, and policymakers. This sobering statistic led to a range of initiatives aimed at addressing systemic barriers to upward mobility. Now, a recent follow-up study led by the same researcher, Dr. Raj Chetty, provides updated data showing that Charlotte’s growth and various targeted efforts may be starting to pay off. In this post, I’ll explore the new findings that were presented by co-author Dr. Benjamin Goldman in their research, analyze what’s changed in Charlotte, and discuss the critical factors contributing to this improved outlook. While progress is being made, there are still challenges ahead that must be carefully navigated and a definite role for institutions of higher education in this work.

Understanding Intergenerational Mobility and Community Impact

Panel discussion following Dr. Benjamin Goldman’s presentation: “Changing Opportunity: Understanding The Data Behind The Latest Economic Mobility Study” hosted by UNC-Charlotte, Leading on Opportunity, and the Gambrel Foundation (Photo by Ashley Mahoney – Axios)

Research from Opportunity Insights shows that economic mobility in the U.S. is highly dependent on the environment in which children grow up. Stable neighborhoods, access to quality education, and strong community networks are significant predictors of whether children can surpass their parents’ economic status. Recent studies have shown mixed progress in this area: while racial gaps in economic mobility have narrowed by 27%, class gaps within racial groups—especially among White children—have widened significantly, reflecting growing income disparities. This underscores the importance of addressing systemic inequalities at both the individual and community levels.

At a recent forum hosted by the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and Leading on Opportunity, Benjamin Goldwater of Opportunity Insights highlighted the influence of community conditions on economic outcomes. According to Goldwater and the panel of experts, communities that invest in social infrastructure, such as strong schools, job opportunities, and health resources, create environments where children have a better chance of achieving upward mobility. Conversely, communities plagued by joblessness, segregation, and inadequate social services often trap families in cycles of poverty, even when education is accessible.

Dr. Goldman’s presentation and the related report noted the following key findings:

Reduction in Racial Gaps: The study found that the Black-white gap in upward economic mobility has shrunk by 27% since 2007. This reduction is driven mainly by improved outcomes for Black children born into low-income families, particularly in regions historically disadvantaged for Black Americans.
Growing Class Gaps Among White Americans: While racial gaps have narrowed, class gaps among white Americans have grown by 28%. White children from low-income families born in 1992 have worse economic outcomes compared to those born in 1978, while outcomes for white children from high-income families have improved.
Shifts in the Geography of Opportunity: Traditional regions of upward mobility, such as coastal cities, have seen a decline in economic opportunity for low-income white children, while improvements have been noted in areas like the Southeast and Midwest for Black children. For instance, Charlotte saw significant gains in mobility for Black children, reaching near national averages, while similar cities like Atlanta showed little change.
Role of Social Environments: The study emphasizes that the changes in economic mobility are closely tied to the communities where children grow up. Employment rates of parents in these communities, especially those of the same race and class, are strongly correlated with children’s outcomes.
Social Interactions as a Key Driver: The research highlights that social interactions and networks within communities play a crucial role in shaping economic mobility. For instance, children’s outcomes are most influenced by the employment status of parents within their immediate peer group.
Policy Implications: The findings suggest several strategies to improve economic opportunity, including focusing on youth development programs, targeting interventions at community levels rather than just neighborhoods, and investing in social capital alongside financial and human capital.

The report underscores the dynamic nature of economic opportunity, demonstrating that while some barriers can be overcome in a relatively short time, the persistence of challenges—especially those tied to class—calls for targeted and scalable policy solutions.

Higher Education’s Role in Supporting Community-Level Change

Given the importance of community in determining economic outcomes, higher education institutions must rethink their role in society. Universities can contribute to economic mobility not only by educating students but also by actively engaging with and supporting the communities around them. This involves several key strategies:

Embedding Community Engagement into Academic Programs: Universities can integrate service learning, community-based research, and internships that directly address local needs. These programs not only enrich the educational experience but also strengthen the social fabric of surrounding neighborhoods by building connections between students and local residents.
Providing Holistic Support for Students and Families: Economic mobility is closely tied to social support systems. Universities should offer resources like mentoring, mental health services, and career counseling that extend beyond academic guidance. By fostering a sense of community and belonging, institutions can help students from low-income backgrounds navigate challenges that might otherwise hinder their success.
Collaborating with Local Government and Nonprofits: Effective interventions require collaboration across sectors. Higher education institutions should partner with local governments, nonprofits, and businesses to address systemic barriers like transportation, housing, and healthcare. For instance, public transit initiatives in Charlotte have been highlighted as critical for connecting residents in underserved areas to job and educational opportunities.

What This Means for Charlotte.

Charlotte’s progress in economic mobility is a promising sign, moving from being ranked 50th to 38th in recent studies. However, much work remains to be done to ensure that all residents, especially those in historically marginalized communities, have the opportunity to thrive. My institution, Queens University of Charlotte, can play (and has played) a pivotal role by continuing to engage with local challenges and integrating/threading community impact into its academic mission.

Supporting Place-Based Initiatives: By expanding programs that address food insecurity and access to resources in underserved neighborhoods, Queens can contribute to reducing disparities in opportunity. Collaborating with local organizations to provide educational resources, health services, and social support in high-need areas can create more equitable conditions for all residents.
Building Bridges Between Students and the Community: Expanding initiatives like the “State of the Plate” report and food redistribution projects can deepen the university’s impact while providing students with hands-on learning experiences that cultivate civic responsibility and leadership.

A couple of examples of community based work that I was fortunate to have been involved with includes a partnership with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Food Policy Council.

“State of the Plate” Report and Food Insecurity Mapping: Students and faculty from Queens University of Charlotte played a crucial role in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Food Policy Council’s “2015 State of the Plate” report, which focused on addressing food insecurity and food deserts in the region. Queens students and faculty contributed by assisting with GIS mapping to identify areas with limited access to fresh food. Their involvement helped uncover disparities in food availability and laid the groundwork for targeted interventions to improve food access in underserved communities.
Honors Capstone Project on Food Redistribution: In an Honors capstone course, Queens students tackled the challenge of connecting surplus food from local farmers’ markets to people experiencing food insecurity. The project aimed to create a sustainable system where excess food could be redistributed while also providing compensation to farmers. By engaging students in real-world problem-solving, the university not only contributes to addressing local issues but also provides valuable experiential learning opportunities that enhance students’ understanding of community needs.

A Path Forward

Economic mobility is not solely about individual effort; it is deeply influenced by the collective conditions of communities. For higher education to be a true catalyst for intergenerational mobility, institutions must embrace a holistic approach that considers the broader social, economic, and infrastructural contexts. By investing in both their students and the communities they inhabit, universities like Queens University can make meaningful contributions toward closing gaps in opportunity and fostering lasting change within their community and beyond.

Citations

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Food Policy Council 2015 State of the Plate Report. [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EqoS4tEAKJDbhD4EN54LICkSjsZqzoiB/view].
Chetty, R., et. al. Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility, Working Paper 19844, January 2014. [https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/mobility_trends.pdf ]
Chetty, R., et al. Changing Opportunity: How Changes in Children’s Social Environments Have Increased Class Gaps and Reduced Racial Gaps in Economic Mobility. Opportunity Insights, July 2024. [https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ChangingOpportunity_Nontech.pdf]
Goldwater, B. (2024). Presentation at “Changing Opportunity: Understanding the Data Behind the Latest Economic Mobility Study” Forum. Hosted by UNC Charlotte and Leading on Opportunity, August 2024. Personal copy in possession of the author.
[https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ChangingOpportunity_Slides.pdf]
Mahoney, A. “Transportation Investment Key to Improving Economic Mobility in Charlotte, UNC Charlotte professor says.” Axios Charlotte, August 23, 2024. [https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2024/08/23/transportation-investment-improving-economic-mobility-charlotte].
Robins, K. “Charlotte is making progress on economic mobility, Harvard-based research group finds” The Charlotte Observer, July 26, 2024. [https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article290424434.html].
Sands., A. “Exclusive: Charlotte no longer 50th out of 50 for economic mobility, new Chetty study shows.” Axios Charlotte, July 25, 2024 [https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2024/07/25/charlotte-economic-mobility-ranking-chetty]

Navigating the New Academic Year: 10 Essential Tips for Academic Staff (and 3 Tips for Managing Burnout!)

gregpillar on August 12, 2024

As the 2024-2025 academic year approaches quickly, challenges abound for institutions, both internal and external, covering the gamut, including political, social, and financial. Having started my academic career as a faculty member and then moving to the administrative staff side several years ago, I know there are similar as well as unique challenges facing these populations in the current higher education landscape.

For non-teaching academic staff, the pressures and expectations are particularly complex, as they are tasked with supporting the academic mission while also navigating the shifting landscape of higher education. Whether you’re dealing with budget cuts, increased demands for student support, or the ongoing impacts of technological change, it’s clear that the upcoming year will require adaptability, resilience, and a forward-thinking approach.

To help you navigate these challenges and position yourself for career advancement, here are 10 essential tips, along with practical advice on how you can implement them at an individual, team, office, or institutional level:

1. Build Collaborative Relationships

Fostering connections with diverse stakeholders across your institution—such as faculty, students, administrators, and external partners—will help you create a more integrated and supportive environment. By breaking down silos and promoting collaboration, you not only enhance your ability to execute academic initiatives effectively but also position yourself as a connector who can bridge gaps between different departments. This skill is invaluable for career growth (within and outside academia), as it demonstrates your ability to lead cross-functional projects and influence institutional outcomes.

How to Implement:

Individually: Attend interdepartmental meetings and seek out opportunities to collaborate on projects with colleagues from different units.
With a Team or Office: Organize cross-departmental workshops or brainstorming sessions to generate ideas and solutions for common challenges.
At the Institutional Level: Propose and lead an initiative that involves multiple stakeholders, such as a task force focused on improving student retention.

2. Develop Cross-Functional Skills

In today’s dynamic higher education environment, acquiring a broad set of skills beyond your core responsibilities is crucial. Ever hear the saying (often attributed to William Shakespeare) “A jack of all trades is a master of none.”, well, the full quote is “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one”. Whether it’s project management, data analysis, or technological proficiency, these skills make you more versatile and better equipped to adapt to changing roles. Developing cross-functional expertise allows you to contribute effectively to interdisciplinary projects and positions you as a valuable asset for career advancement.

How to Implement:

Individually: Enroll in online courses or attend workshops to build skills in areas like data analysis, project management, or new technologies.
With a Team or Office: Encourage team members to share their expertise and mentor each other in developing new skills.
At the Institutional Level: Advocate for a professional development program that offers training in cross-functional skills relevant to the institution’s strategic goals.

3. Create Innovative Solutions

Innovation is key to addressing the complex challenges faced by higher education today. By thinking creatively and exploring unconventional approaches to problem-solving, you position yourself as a forward-thinker who can lead your institution through times of change. This proactive mindset not only helps you navigate the challenges of the upcoming year but also enhances your reputation as a leader and innovator, opening doors for future career opportunities. This can be challenging if you find yourself in a culture or climate that is not open to new ideas. Still, I would encourage you to find an outlet so that you can share your creative ideas and receive feedback, even if it is outside your organization.

How to Implement:

Individually: Experiment with new technologies or methodologies in your work and share your findings with colleagues.
With a Team or Office: Organize innovation sessions where team members can brainstorm and propose new solutions to existing challenges.
At the Institutional Level: Lead a pilot project that introduces innovative practices or technologies to address a specific institutional challenge.

4. Champion Data-Driven Decision-Making

Leveraging data for decision-making is essential in today’s data-rich environment. By advocating for the use of data analytics, research findings, and performance metrics, you can make more informed and strategic decisions. This approach not only positions you to better navigate the uncertainties of the upcoming year but also showcases your analytical skills and strategic thinking, which are critical for advancing to leadership roles. This may require obtaining a better understanding of your institutions ERP system and/or other platforms that house key institutional data. An invaluable skill is understanding where to find or how to access institutional data (as well as data from other institutions) that can be used to build convincing arguments that support ideas, policies, or decisions.

How to Implement:

Individually: Use data analytics tools to inform your daily work and decisions, and present data-driven insights in meetings. Even within your unit, figure out what kind of data you can access, collect, or view.
With a Team: Encourage the team to collect and analyze data relevant to their projects and use it to guide their decisions.
At the Institutional Level: Propose the adoption of data-driven practices in strategic planning and resource allocation across the institution.

5. Embrace Change Management

Change is inevitable in higher education, whether it’s due to organizational reforms, new technologies, or shifting student demographics and/or needs. By equipping yourself with change management skills, you can navigate these transitions effectively and help foster a positive culture of adaptability and resilience among your colleagues. Mastering change management not only helps you manage the challenges of the upcoming year but also prepares you for leadership roles that require managing complex transformations.

How to Implement:

Individually: Take a course in change management to develop your skills and apply these principles in your work (lots of free courses can be found online – some from well known universities and companies).
With a Team or Office: Lead your team through changes by communicating openly, setting clear expectations, and providing support during transitions.
At the Institutional Level: Participate in or lead change management initiatives that guide the institution through major transitions, such as technology implementations or policy changes.

6. Promote Professional Development

Encouraging continuous learning is vital for both personal and institutional growth. By organizing professional development opportunities, you not only enhance the skills and knowledge of staff members but also position yourself as a leader who is invested in the growth of others. Promoting professional development is a strategic move that can help you navigate the evolving demands of higher education while also positioning yourself for career advancement. Even if you have hit a ceiling at your current institution, position yourself for the next position somewhere else.

How to Implement:

Individually: Participate in workshops, conferences, and training sessions to enhance your skills and stay current with industry trends. Although few institutions have staff development centers, most have faculty development centers and most will welcome participation by staff. Additionally, talk with your HR office about professional development opportunities that they can provide or refer you to.
With a Team or Office: Organize regular professional development sessions where team members can learn new skills or share their expertise.
At the Institutional Level: Advocate for institutional support for professional development programs that align with strategic goals and individual career aspirations.

7. Enhance Organizational Efficiency

Streamlining processes, workflows, and communication channels within your department can lead to significant improvements in productivity and efficiency. By focusing on efficiency, you not only contribute to a more effective and agile work environment but also demonstrate your ability to optimize resources—a key skill for career advancement in times of financial constraints.

How to Implement:

Individually: Identify inefficiencies in your work processes and propose or implement small changes to improve productivity.
With a Team: Conduct a process review with your team to identify and eliminate bottlenecks and redundancies.
At the Institutional Level: Propose and lead an initiative to streamline institutional processes, such as digitizing paperwork or improving communication systems.

8. Lead Diversity Initiatives

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are critical components of a thriving workplace, and right now these initiatives are under fire in higher ed. By taking a proactive role in advancing DEI efforts, you help create a more inclusive and equitable environment. This leadership in DEI not only positions you to contribute positively to your institution’s culture but also enhances your qualifications for roles that require a commitment to social justice and community building.

How to Implement:

Individually: Educate yourself on DEI issues and implement inclusive practices in your daily work.
With a Team or Office: Encourage open discussions on diversity and inclusion within your team and identify areas for improvement.
At the Institutional Level: Lead or participate in DEI initiatives, such as creating inclusive hiring practices or organizing diversity training sessions.

9. Support Student Success

Supporting student success is at the heart of your institution’s mission. By collaborating with academic advisors, student services, and faculty, you can develop initiatives that enhance student retention, engagement, and achievement. Taking a holistic approach to student success not only helps you address the challenges of the upcoming year but also positions you as a key contributor to the institution’s primary goals, which is vital for career growth.

How to Implement:

Individually: Engage with students to understand their needs and advocate for resources that support their success.
With a Team or Office: Work with colleagues across departments to develop programs that address student needs holistically, from academic support to mental health services.
At the Institutional Level: Lead or participate in task forces or committees focused on improving student retention and success.

10. Engage in Community Outreach

Your expertise and resources can extend beyond the campus through community engagement activities. By participating in or leading outreach programs, you can promote educational access, social impact, and civic engagement. Engaging in community outreach not only benefits the wider community but also enhances your institution’s reputation and positions you as a leader who is committed to making a positive difference—qualities that are highly valued in leadership roles.

How to Implement:

Individually: Volunteer your time or expertise to local organizations or community projects that align with your institution’s mission.
With a Team or Office: Organize team participation in community events or develop a departmental outreach program.
At the Institutional Level: Lead or support institutional partnerships with local organizations to create sustainable community engagement initiatives.

Bonus Tips: Preventing Burnout and Maintaining Work-Life Balance

With schools downsizing and/or implementing hiring freezes due to financial constraints—whether from decreased enrollment, increased costs, or other factors—many staff members will find themselves taking on additional work for little or no additional compensation. In such an environment, maintaining a healthy work-life balance can seem particularly challenging. Recognizing that these tips may be hard to implement depending on your situation, I hope that academic staff who find themselves in these circumstances can navigate it in a healthy and productive manner. Here are three bonus tips to help you manage the added pressures and maintain a sense of balance:

1. Set Boundaries and Prioritize Tasks

Establishing clear boundaries between work and personal time is crucial for preventing burnout. By defining specific working hours and prioritizing tasks based on urgency and impact, you can manage your workload more effectively, reduce stress, and maintain a healthy balance between your professional and personal life. This ability to manage your time and energy wisely is essential for long-term career success. This is definitely an “easier said than done” task, but as someone who recently went through a major health challenge, it is critical for your overall health and wellness to set boundaries.

How to Implement:

Individually: Create a daily schedule that includes dedicated time for breaks and personal activities.
With a Team or Office: Encourage team members to respect each other’s work-life boundaries and model this behavior yourself.
At the Institutional Level: Advocate for policies that support work-life balance, such as flexible work hours or remote work options.

2. Practice Self-Care and Well-Being

Your physical, emotional, and mental well-being are essential to your effectiveness at work. Prioritizing self-care practices such as regular exercise, mindfulness meditation, adequate sleep, and healthy eating habits can help you stay resilient and manage work pressures more effectively. Taking care of your well-being not only ensures that you can perform at your best but also positions you as a leader who values health and balance.

How to Implement:

Individually: Incorporate self-care practices into your daily routine, such as a morning meditation or evening walk.
With a Team or Office: Organize wellness challenges or group activities that promote health and well-being among team members.
At the Institutional Level: Advocate for institutional support of wellness programs, such as on-site fitness classes or mental health resources.

3. Seek Support and Communicate Needs

Open communication about your workload, concerns, and well-being can lead to collaborative solutions and alleviate feelings of isolation. By reaching out to colleagues, supervisors, or support networks, you can find the support you need to manage stress and workload effectively. Demonstrating your ability to seek help and communicate openly is an important aspect of professional maturity and leadership.

How to Implement:

Individually: Don’t hesitate to ask for help or discuss your needs with a trusted colleague or supervisor.
With a Team or Office: Foster a team culture where members feel comfortable sharing their challenges and offering support to each other.
At the Institutional Level: Advocate for support systems within the institution, such as mentoring programs or peer support groups.

As we head into another academic year, remember that your contributions as academic staff are vital to the success of your institution. By following these tips and prioritizing your well-being, you’ll be well-equipped to face the challenges ahead and make a meaningful impact in the higher education landscape.

What tips have I left out? Would love to hear your thoughts below.

Rethinking the Path: Alternatives to College for High School Graduates

gregpillar on August 6, 2024

As an administrator and faculty member in higher education, it might seem unusual for me to write about alternatives to college. However, after years of experience, I’ve seen too many students jump headfirst into college due to pressure from friends, family, and others who insist it is the only acceptable next step after graduation. While college can be a fantastic opportunity for growth and development, it’s not always the best immediate environment for every student.

College is not for everyone right after high school. Don’t get me wrong—I strongly believe college should be accessible to everyone, and there should be a path for anyone who wants to pursue a college degree. It remains a highly desirable path to a fulfilling and meaningful life, but we must adjust our mindset about when is the right time for college.

Importantly, suggesting alternatives to college doesn’t mean colleges and universities can’t or shouldn’t be part of those alternatives. On the contrary, higher education institutions can and should lead efforts to instill a lifelong learning mindset.

With rising tuition costs, mounting student debt, and a competitive job landscape, many students and their families are considering alternative paths that offer practical experience, financial savings, and the opportunity to explore different career options. Recent insights from the American Opportunity Index and LinkedIn highlight various avenues high school graduates can explore before committing to a four-year college. Here’s a closer look at some viable alternatives and why delaying college might be the best choice for some students.

1. The Growing Appeal of Apprenticeships

One of the most promising alternatives to college is the rise of apprenticeships. These programs offer hands-on training in various fields, allowing students to earn while they learn. Apprenticeships are becoming increasingly popular in industries such as technology, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, and construction.

According to the American Opportunity Index, apprenticeships provide young people with valuable skills and real-world experience, making them highly attractive to employers. Companies like IBM and Siemens have established robust apprenticeship programs, offering pathways to well-paying jobs without the need for a college degree.

Benefits of Apprenticeships:

Practical Experience: Apprentices gain hands-on experience, working alongside professionals in their chosen fields.
Earn While You Learn: Unlike traditional college, apprenticeships offer a salary while gaining skills, reducing or eliminating student debt.
Industry Recognition: Apprenticeships often come with certifications or credentials recognized by industry leaders, enhancing employability.

Example Programs:

IBM’s New Collar Initiative: This program focuses on hiring employees based on skills rather than degrees, offering apprenticeships in cybersecurity, software engineering, and data analysis.
Siemens USA: Siemens offers apprenticeships in advanced manufacturing and engineering, providing a pathway to full-time employment with competitive salaries.

Additional Insight: According to a Forbes article, apprenticeships can be a valuable alternative to traditional college education, focusing on practical skills and industry demand. This approach aligns well with the current workforce’s need for skilled labor.

2. Trade Schools: A Fast Track to a Career

Trade schools, also known as vocational schools or technical colleges, are another viable alternative to a four-year degree. These institutions focus on teaching specific skills for particular careers, such as plumbing, electrical work, automotive technology, and culinary arts.

As noted in their LinkedIn article, the American Opportunity Index emphasizes that trade schools often lead to lucrative careers with strong job security. Many trades are experiencing shortages of skilled workers, leading to high demand and attractive salaries.

Benefits of Trade Schools:

Shorter Programs: Most trade school programs are shorter than traditional degrees, allowing students to enter the workforce quickly.
Cost-Effective: Trade schools are generally more affordable than four-year colleges, leading to less student debt.
High Demand: Many trades are in high demand, offering job security and competitive wages.

Examples of High-Demand Trades:

Electricians: With a growing need for electrical infrastructure, electricians are in high demand, with salaries averaging over $56,000 per year.
HVAC Technicians: The demand for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) technicians is rising as more buildings and homes require climate control systems.

Additional Insight: A CNBC article argues that increasing investment in trade schools and vocational education, rather than expanding four-year college programs, may be a more effective way to reduce income inequality in the U.S. Researchers suggest that vocational training better aligns with the needs of the manufacturing industry, which has seen a decline in jobs due to automation and outsourcing. While college degrees have traditionally been associated with higher incomes, the “college premium” is diminishing, especially for students burdened with debt. By improving vocational education, more workers could access stable, well-paying jobs, thereby narrowing the income gap. Germany’s education system is highlighted as a successful model where a focus on vocational training supports its manufacturing sector, suggesting that the U.S. could benefit from a similar approach.

3. Gap Years: Time for Exploration and Growth

Taking a gap year—a break between high school and college—has become increasingly popular among students seeking personal growth, travel, work experience, or volunteer opportunities. A gap year can provide valuable life experiences, helping students clarify their career goals and academic interests before committing to a college education.

Benefits of a Gap Year:

Personal Growth: A gap year offers the opportunity for self-discovery, allowing students to explore interests and passions.
Career Exploration: By working or volunteering in various fields, students can gain insights into potential career paths.
Improved Academic Performance: Studies suggest that students who take gap years often perform better academically when they eventually enroll in college.

Gap Year Resources:

AmeriCorps: Offers various volunteer programs in the U.S., providing hands-on experience in education, disaster response, and community development.
Workaway: A platform that connects travelers with hosts worldwide for cultural exchange and volunteer opportunities.

Additional Insight: According to U.S. News & World Report, taking a gap year can lead to personal growth and improved academic performance. By stepping back and reflecting on their goals, students can make more informed decisions about their future education and career paths.

4. Direct Entry into the Workforce

For some students, directly entering the workforce after high school can be a strategic move. Many industries offer entry-level positions with opportunities for advancement and on-the-job training. This path allows students to gain work experience, earn an income, and potentially receive employer-sponsored education benefits.

Benefits of Entering the Workforce:

Immediate Income: Starting a job right after high school provides financial independence and stability.
Career Advancement: Many companies offer training and development programs, allowing employees to advance without a degree.
Employer-Sponsored Education: Some employers offer tuition assistance or reimbursements for employees seeking further education.

Industries with Entry-Level Opportunities:

Retail and Customer Service: Companies like Amazon and Walmart offer career advancement programs for entry-level employees.
Technology and IT Support: Many tech companies hire high school graduates for roles in IT support and customer service, with opportunities for growth.

Why Delaying College Might Be the Right Choice

For some high school graduates, delaying college can offer significant benefits. Here are a few reasons why taking time before pursuing a degree might be the right decision:

Clarity and Focus:
Delaying college allows students to explore different interests, gain work experience, and better understand what they want to study. This clarity can lead to more informed decisions about their educational and career paths, potentially saving time and money in the long run.
Financial Savings:
College tuition continues to rise, leading to significant student debt. By working or exploring other options before college, students can save money, reduce their reliance on loans, and potentially receive employer-sponsored education benefits.
Skill Development:
Practical experience gained through work, apprenticeships, or volunteering can provide valuable skills that are often not taught in a traditional classroom setting. These skills can make students more attractive to employers and better prepared for their future careers.

The decision to go to college immediately after high school is not a one-size-fits-all solution. With various alternatives available, students have the opportunity to explore different paths that align with their interests, goals, and financial situations. Whether through apprenticeships, trade schools, gap years, or direct entry into the workforce, there are numerous ways for high school graduates to build successful and fulfilling careers. By considering these options, students can make informed decisions that set them on a path to success in today’s dynamic job market.

Here are three ideas colleges and universities can implement to better serve students who might delay going to college, based on the insights and trends discussed in the blog post:

1. Develop Flexible Learning Pathways and Stackable Credentials

Offer Modular Courses and Programs:
Colleges and universities can create flexible learning pathways that allow students to build their education over time. Offering stackable credentials, such as micro-credentials and certificates, enables students to acquire specific skills that can be applied in the workforce immediately. These credentials can later be combined into a full degree when the student decides to continue their education.

Benefits:

Accessibility: Students who aren’t ready to commit to a full degree program can still gain valuable skills and knowledge.
Career Advancement: Modular programs allow students to advance their careers by acquiring skills that meet immediate job market demands.
Lifelong Learning: Encourages a culture of lifelong learning, where students can return to education as needed to enhance their careers.

Implementation:

Collaborate with industries to identify skills in demand and design courses that meet those needs.
Develop online and hybrid courses to provide flexibility for students who may be working or have other commitments.
Ensure that credits earned through these programs can easily transfer into degree programs if students choose to pursue further education.

2. Strengthen Partnerships with Industries and Apprenticeship Programs

Collaborate with Businesses for On-the-Job Training:
By partnering with local businesses and industries, colleges can create apprenticeship and co-op programs that provide students with real-world experience while earning credit. These programs can be structured to allow students to work and study simultaneously, offering a practical and affordable way to pursue higher education.

Benefits:

Hands-On Experience: Students gain valuable work experience, making them more attractive to future employers.
Financial Support: Apprenticeships and co-op programs often come with a salary, reducing the financial burden of education.
Pathway to Employment: Strong industry partnerships can lead to job offers upon program completion.

Implementation:

Work with industry leaders to design apprenticeships that align with both educational and professional standards.
Offer students guidance and support in securing apprenticeship positions, including resume workshops and interview preparation.
Provide academic credit for apprenticeship participation, integrating practical experience into the student’s academic record.

3. Enhance Career Counseling and Support Services

Provide Robust Career Planning Resources:
Colleges can offer comprehensive career counseling services to help students identify their interests, strengths, and potential career paths before committing to a degree program. This includes workshops, seminars, and one-on-one counseling sessions tailored to students considering delaying college.

Benefits:

Informed Decision-Making: Students receive guidance on whether college is the right choice for them at that moment and what alternatives might be available.
Skill Assessment: Career services can help students identify skills they may already possess and suggest ways to build on them.
Personalized Guidance: Tailored support helps students develop a clear plan for their future, whether it includes college or other career paths.

Implementation:

Introduce career exploration programs that allow students to shadow professionals in various fields, gaining insight into different career options.
Host career fairs and networking events that connect students with potential employers and industry leaders.
Develop online resources and tools that offer career assessments and educational planning advice, accessible to students at any stage of their decision-making process.
Partner with K-12 systems, high school counselors and high school career services to better prepare students for post high school life and develop a life-long learning mindset.

By implementing these strategies, colleges and universities can become more responsive to the diverse needs of students who may choose to delay going to college. These approaches not only support students’ immediate career goals but also position institutions as valuable partners in lifelong learning and career development.

Citations

American Opportunity Index:
“Where the Jobs Are: The American Opportunity Index.”
Link: https://www.americanopportunityindex.org/insights/3
This article explores opportunities for high school graduates in various industries and highlights alternatives to a traditional college education.
LinkedIn:
“The Best Places for High School Graduates to Start Their Career.”
Link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/best-places-high-school-graduates-start-career-0cj5c/?trackingId=9hvZ8iR3TxG6NgWesejvxw%3D%3D
This article provides insights into industries and roles where high school graduates can find success without a college degree.
U.S. News & World Report:
“How a gap year prepares students for college.”
Link: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/reasons-to-consider-a-gap-year-before-college
This article defines a “gap year” and discusses the benefits, including personal growth, career exploration, and improved academic performance.
Forbes:
“The Future of Work Needs More Apprentices.”
Link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariaflynn/2023/11/14/the-future-of-work-needs-more-apprentices/
Forbes highlights why apprenticeships can be a valuable alternative to a traditional college education, focusing on practical skills and industry demand.
CNBC:
“Trade school, not 4-year college, is a better bet to solve the US income gap, researchers say”
Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/10/trade-school-not-4-year-college-can-solve-the-us-income-gap.html
CNBC discusses the growing appeal of trade schools and the benefits of pursuing a career in skilled trades.