Changing Higher Ed

Changing Higher Ed is dedicated to helping higher education leaders improve their institutions. We offer the latest in higher ed news and insights from top experts in higher education who share their perspectives on how you can grow your institution. Host Dr. Drumm McNaughton is a top higher education consultant, renowned leader, and pioneer in strategic management systems and leadership boards. He's one of a select group with executive leadership experience in academe, nonprofits, government, and business.

Pairing Liberal Arts with Tech Readiness: Five Institutional Decisions from Manhattan University 07/14/2026

Pairing Liberal Arts with Tech Readiness: Five Institutional Decisions from Manhattan University At Manhattan University, the case for the liberal arts is being made with outcomes, not nostalgia. Its graduates rank in the top 2% nationally for mid-career salaries, and The Wall Street Journal ranked the university 73rd in the country for graduate salaries, social mobility, and cost-effectiveness. The more useful story for institutional leaders sits underneath those numbers: a set of deliberate decisions about , technology preparation, faculty adoption, hiring, and alumni engagement. In this episode of the , speaks with , President of , about how the institution pairs a liberal arts core with universal technology preparation, on the premise that transferable skills hold even greater value when combined with technical fluency. Bonato explains how Manhattan houses its interdisciplinary programs in AI, cybersecurity, and data science outside any single college under the new ARCH Innovation Exchange; requires every first-year student to earn an IBM SkillsBuild digital badge in AI; funds faculty adoption through an institutional ChatGPT license, workshops, and peer champions rather than mandates; screens faculty and staff hires for comfort with AI as a tool; and treats the university’s alumni network as employment infrastructure, including the James Patterson-funded leadership development honors program. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, and board members weighing humanities cuts, planning AI integration, or looking for adoption strategies that work within shared governance rather than around it. Topics Covered • Why Bonato defines the liberal arts by their transferable skills: problem-solving, creative thinking, and persuasive writing and speaking • Housing interdisciplinary programs in AI, cybersecurity, and data science outside any single college to reduce the likelihood of ownership disputes • The ARCH Innovation Exchange (analytics, research, creativity, humanity) and its speaker series open to the surrounding community • The required IBM SkillsBuild AI course and digital badge for first-year students • Driving faculty adoption through demonstrated value, resources, and peer champions instead of presidential mandates • How hiring questions have shifted from comfort with online teaching to comfort with AI, for faculty and staff alike • Experiential learning, intern-to-hire pipelines, and the alumni network’s role in supplying opportunities Real-World Examples Discussed • ARCH’s inaugural speaker, a cardiologist and Manhattan engineering alumnus who leads AI at his hospital, framing AI as decision support with a human in the loop • An institutional ChatGPT license and training workshops so faculty and staff can adopt AI at no personal cost • The James Patterson Honors Program, a leadership development program seeded by the best-selling alumnus, which launched with more than 160 students • Board chair and American Express CEO Steve Squeri speaking directly with students about building a career Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leaders 1. Keep the liberal arts in every program, including technical ones; graduates without them are less prepared and less well-rounded for the working world 2. Build the capacity to pivot; the world is changing quickly, and "this is how we’ve always done it" will no longer hold 3. Presidents need a deliberate way to disengage and recharge, even if only through adequate sleep; the job can consume its holder This episode offers a practical look at how one institution operationalizes the pairing of liberal arts and workforce readiness through governance, partnerships, hiring, and culture, without waiting for the technology or the sector to stabilize. Read the transcript: #LiberalArts #WorkforceReadiness #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/42039425

Student Retention: Using AI to Spot Disengagement Before Dropout 07/07/2026

Student Retention: Using AI to Spot Disengagement Before Dropout Most retention systems flag struggling students through grades and attendance. By the time those indicators fire, many students are already halfway out the door. Elvee's survey of 1,050 U.S. college students shows why: 86% start college highly motivated, 42% come close to dropping out at some point, and only 17% of those who struggle ever request help. In this episode of the , speaks with , CEO of , whose work with U.S. colleges centers on reading behavioral data for early signals of student disengagement. Drawing on his background in commercial technology, Dar explains how patterns in study time, login frequency, and forum participation reveal disengagement before exam period and before failure reaches the gradebook. He and McNaughton examine why motivated students still leave, why institutions that wait for students to ask for help miss most of the students who need it, and why intervention without follow-up monitoring routinely fails. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, student success executives, enrollment executives, and board members looking to move retention from reactive support to proactive, early intervention. Topics Covered Why grades and attendance are lagging indicators that flag students too late What disengagement looks like in behavioral data, and why a single dip can be benign The help-seeking gap: 17% ask for help, 52% try to solve it alone first, 30% never reach out The top dropout drivers: balancing work and school (72%) and mental health or stress (71%) How the most successful institutions build a personalized bond from day one Scaling a dozen advisors across thousands of students through prioritization and automation Real-World Examples Discussed A freshman who skipped two exams under acute stress and recovered because the institution initiated contact Institutions that call students at term start to confirm they have books, Wi-Fi, and a computer Cambridge's bridge week for first-generation students and Yale's required freshman life-skills course The corporate benchmark: turnover above 10% triggers alarm in business, while higher ed absorbs far worse Three Key Takeaways for Leadership Build trust with students before they struggle; outreach in crisis only lands if a relationship already exists. Move from reactive to proactive; only 17% of struggling students will ask for help, so use behavioral signals to know when to reach out and monitor afterward to confirm the intervention worked. Make retention a strategic, measurable KPI from the top, and resource it with a real team. This episode offers a practical look at what becomes possible when institutions stop waiting for students to raise their hands and start reading the signals students are already sending. Read the transcript: #StudentSuccess #StudentRetention #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #AIforStudentRetention /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41851050

Higher Ed's Trust Problem Isn't a PR Problem: AAC&U's Trust Agenda 06/30/2026

Higher Ed's Trust Problem Isn't a PR Problem: AAC&U's Trust Agenda Half of college presidents worried about public trust are answering with a public relations campaign. According to the AAC&U report at the center of this episode, that is a reasonable instinct but the wrong one. Public confidence in colleges and universities has slid for more than a decade, and messaging alone will not turn it around. In this episode of the , speaks with , lead author of and he co-directs AAC&U’s Advancing Public Trust in Higher Education initiative, about why trust has eroded and what campus leaders can actually do about it. Their conversation moves past naming the crisis, which presidents and boards already feel, into the specifics: why the most prestigious institutions are the least trusted while community colleges and regional publics are the most, why distrust took root long before today's politics, and how the report's five recommendations translate into work a campus can start now. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, board members, and cabinet leaders weighing how to respond to declining confidence without defaulting to a PR campaign. Topics Covered Why public trust has fallen unevenly, and what the institution-type gap means for strategy The deeper roots of distrust, including the sense of distance between campuses and their communities Community engagement as the core of trust, and why it cannot live in a single office Inclusive excellence as a student success strategy, including the position of conservative students Defending academic freedom and university autonomy against government overreach Telling a clearer story that connects to shared values, and why PR alone falls short Accelerating internal innovation, from shared governance to AI literacy Three Key Takeaways for Leadership Connection is the thread through every recommendation: within a campus, across campuses, and with the community, society, and students. Reform, defense, and communication are not an either/or; institutions have to pursue all three at once. Higher education is a community asset, and it earns trust by being trustworthy and doing the work, not by asking for trust. The most durable change, Young argues, will not come from convening the sector's leaders to design a single fix. It will bubble up from individual campuses that innovate, with others adopting what works. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #PublicTrust #HigherEducationLeadership #ChangingHigherEdPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41835580

Why Research Funding Cuts Are a Strategic Risk, Not a Budget Problem 06/23/2026

Why Research Funding Cuts Are a Strategic Risk, Not a Budget Problem When the federal government freezes research funding, leaders tend to treat it as a budget problem: a number that was cut and might later be restored. The harder truth in this conversation is that much of the damage cannot be undone. Halted studies, shuttered labs, and departed early-career researchers do not simply resume when the money comes back. Research funding cuts are a strategic risk, not a line item. In this episode of the , speaks with , President and CEO of the and former chancellor of UC Berkeley. Dirks , reflecting on the protests that had put Berkeley at the center of national attention over controversial speakers on campus. He returns to discuss what the current research funding cuts are doing to American science, where AI fits in higher education, and the choices facing presidents and boards. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, and board members weighing how federal funding volatility, the loss of early-career research talent, and the rapid arrival of AI in the classroom should shape institutional strategy and . Topics Covered • Why frozen research funding cannot simply be switched back on, and what that means for biomedical studies, drug trials, and animal research • The damage to the early-career research pipeline, and why postdocs and graduate students are the most exposed • What current data shows about US scientists weighing whether to leave the country or the field • How the president’s role has shifted from pleasing every constituency to making hard, unpopular choices • Why bringing higher education’s costs down depends on faculty and administrators rebuilding trust Real-World Examples Discussed • Drug trials at Columbia that had to stop outright, ending years of work toward a potential cancer treatment that could not be restarted once funding returned • Animal research populations that universities could no longer afford to maintain, forcing some labs to shut down entirely • The mRNA vaccine effort spanning the University of Pennsylvania, Germany’s BioNTech, and scientists originally from Turkey • A National Postdoctoral Association survey Dirks worked on, and a January 2026 AAU brief quantifying how far the talent loss has progressed • The calculator’s arrival in the 1970s as a precedent for absorbing a disruptive new tool without banning it Three Key Takeaways for Leadership 1. Research funding cuts are a strategic risk, not a budget event. The damage to studies and to the people who run them often cannot be reversed once the money returns. 2. The early-career pipeline is where the loss compounds. Protecting graduate students, postdocs, and research associates is protecting the institution’s long-term research capacity. 3. Hard institutional decisions require trust. Cost discipline and AI adoption both depend on boards, presidents, and faculty working together rather than against each other. This episode offers presidents and boards a clear-eyed look at how funding shocks, talent loss, and AI are reshaping higher education, and why the institutions that plan for these pressures will weather them better than those that wait. #ResearchFunding #HigherEducation #HigherEdLeadership #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41689760

When AI Finds the Administrative Friction Higher Ed Leaders Miss 06/16/2026

When AI Finds the Administrative Friction Higher Ed Leaders Miss Most AI conversations in higher education focus on the academic side. The administrative side gets less attention and is producing the bigger near-term financial wins for institutions willing to govern the rollout. In this episode of the , speaks with , about how AI is being applied across enrollment and advancement at institutions including Empire State University, Florida Southwestern State College, and Boise State University. Drawing on his career across Blackboard, Instructure, Kaltura, and now Gravyty, Beck walks through the specific case studies behind administrative AI adoption: a reported 4% year-over-year retention gain at Empire State, 90% first-contact resolution of admissions inquiries at Florida Southwestern, and an 87% increase in donor volume at Boise State. He also explains where institutions go wrong, including bots that loop the way call-center bots loop and set-it-and-forget-it deployments that drift out of alignment within weeks. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, and enrollment and advancement leaders building the business case for administrative AI and the governance to back it. Topics Covered Why administrative AI is producing measurable financial gains while most institutions still treat AI as an academic policy question The retention math: how a 4% lift can translate into multi-million-dollar revenue protection at a mid-size institution How AI sorts and triages carries admissions volume that hiring cannot keep up with Why a poorly designed enrollment chatbot is worse than no chatbot at all How AI surfaces structural fragmentation across student-facing offices Advancement AI's real value: donor prioritization, not email generation What good governance and human-review cadence actually look like in practice Real-World Examples Discussed Empire State University: a 25% engagement lift and a 4% year-over-year retention gain after deploying AI virtual assistants across roughly eight departments Florida SouthWestern State College: 90% first-contact resolution of admissions inquiries and time to class registration cut in half Boise State University: an 87% increase in donor volume, a 50% increase in donor interaction and response, and $635,679 raised through an AI-assisted advancement channel A Missouri institution where an AI web crawler surfaced three different admissions deposit dates published on three active web pages A New York institution where more than 40% of questions coming into the financial aid office had nothing to do with financial aid Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership Move quickly, with an acceptable use policy on the books and defined institutional outcomes the AI work is supposed to drive Control what you can control while pulling stakeholders in, including the faculty committee model Iterate often on a recurring governance cadence, because the technology is changing month by month Institutions that do not use AI to improve administrative efficiency are incurring opportunity costs in every cycle. Read the transcript: #AdministrativeAI #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41654245

Inside CSU’s ChatGPT Edu Rollout Across 22 Universities 06/09/2026

Inside CSU’s ChatGPT Edu Rollout Across 22 Universities AI implementation in higher education is often framed as a technology question. California State University treated it as with technology as the catalyst, rolling out ChatGPT Edu to 22 universities in 18 months while running the largest AI survey ever conducted at a single university system. In this episode of the , speaks with , about how the system designed and executed its generative AI implementation and what the of 94,060 respondents reveals about AI adoption, faculty engagement, and student behavior. Drawing on her work co-leading the academic side of CSU's GenAI initiative, Kennedy explains the governance structure that made the rollout possible, the campus-level training infrastructure that scaled adoption across 22 universities, and the survey findings that pushed back on common assumptions about cheating, faculty resistance, and AI access gaps. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, boards, and CIOs evaluating how to move from AI policy discussions to systemwide implementation. Topics Covered: The sequencing model behind CSU's 18-month AI rollout Findings from the largest AI survey ever conducted at a single university system Why faculty are the only group reporting both positive and negative AI impact How CSU funded faculty-led innovation through the AI Educational Innovations Challenge The communication challenges of running AI implementation across 22 independent campuses What CSU plans next: hackathons, embedded credentials, and domain-specific tools Real-World Examples Discussed: The AI Educational Innovations Challenge received 417 faculty applications against an expected 50, with 63 funded at $3M ChatGPT Edu deployment across all 22 CSU campuses, now at 225,000 active accounts Student hackathons run with IBM Watson, AWS, NVIDIA, and Cal Poly partners across multiple disciplines Faculty-led podcasts (My Robot Teacher from Cal Maritime and Unfixed from Chico State) that built peer-to-peer training resources Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Sequencing matters more than budget or technology. Faculty resolution first, governance second, enterprise tool third, training and funded experimentation in parallel. Faculty carry more complexity than staff or students in AI implementation, and need different support, training cadence, and communication than other groups. Communication is a continuous operating discipline, not a launch campaign. The technology changes faster than any single training cycle. This episode offers a practical view of what large-scale AI implementation actually looks like in higher education, and why the institutions getting it right are treating it as change management work supported by technology rather than a technology rollout in search of governance. Read the transcript: #GenerativeAI #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41555135

AI in Higher Education: Bias, Procurement, and Human Oversight 06/02/2026

AI in Higher Education: Bias, Procurement, and Human Oversight At sixteen, with straight A's in math and science, Dr. Karen Panetta's school career assessment told her to sell makeup or be a cook. A male friend with lower scores got engineer or politician. No AI was involved. Just a rules-based system applying gender and biographical filters to two teenagers. That same logic now sits inside AI tools landing in admissions offices and HR systems across higher ed, with one critical difference: AI does not eliminate human bias, it removes the human accountability that used to make bias correctable. In this episode of the , speaks with , Dean of Graduate Education for the School of Engineering at Tufts University and an IEEE Fellow. Panetta lays out a procurement framework presidents and boards can use to evaluate AI tools before signing a contract. She and McNaughton work through the four questions most vendors cannot answer, why IRB principles already give higher ed a working framework for AI, and what happens to graduate research when students ask AI for a unique contribution and accept whatever comes back. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders making decisions about AI procurement, classroom adoption, and data governance who want a clear set of questions to ask before they buy and a clear standard for keeping humans accountable for the decisions AI tools are increasingly being asked to make. Topics Covered: The four procurement questions every higher ed leader should ask before signing an AI contract Why expert disagreement on ground truth limits what any AI tool trained on that judgment can do How IRB principles apply to AI deployments, and why every kind use of technology has a misuse case sitting next to it The risk of AI's interpretation of truth aging with the consensus Why faculty in English, history, and the arts are essential to AI policy What IEEE's 500,000 technical professionals are doing on AI standards that no single corporate vendor will do Real-World Examples Discussed: The career assessments that pointed a top math student toward cooking and a Navy veteran toward forest ranger work A cancer detection project where six doctors agreed on whether something was cancer but disagreed on every grade beyond that A conservation project where the same tracking data that helps park rangers could help poachers if security is weak Graduate admissions committees where different faculty weight credentials, projects, and volunteer work differently, and what gets lost when only one set of weights is encoded into an AI screen Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: AI does not create bias. It scales whatever bias is already in the institution's decision systems, at the speed and volume the institution chose to deploy. Every consequential decision needs a human in the loop who can explain the call out loud. Without that, the institution cannot defend the decisions it is making. The sticker price on the AI tool is not the story. The data behind it is, and most vendors cannot tell you what it is. This episode gives presidents, provosts, and boards a practical framework for AI procurement and governance, along with a clear answer to the trustee asking why the institution has not bought what everyone else is buying. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #AIinHigherEd #HigherEducationPodcast #AIGovernance #AIBias #HigherEducationLeadership /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41415795

AI-First Business Education: How Kogod Transformed Culture, Curriculum, and Faculty Adoption 05/26/2026

AI-First Business Education: How Kogod Transformed Culture, Curriculum, and Faculty Adoption Most business schools are still forming committees to figure out what to do about AI. Kogod School of Business at American University formed a committee, but far from the typical higher ed standards. Leadership gave it six weeks and a five-page limit, and used the recommendation to integrate AI into every department, major, and minor. Three years later, undergraduate enrollment is up 40%, applications are up 50%, and more than 90% of faculty are using AI in the classroom. In this episode of the , speaks with returning guests , Dean of the Kogod School of Business at American University, and , Professor of IT and Analytics and Associate Director of Kogod’s AI Institute, about how the school moved from a dean’s instinct that AI would be big to a fully embedded, faculty-driven transformation that has redefined how business education is taught, assessed, and experienced by students. Marchick and Virtu walk through how they navigated shared governance at speed, leaned into 14 core course coordinators to spread adoption like wildfire, and built a culture where faculty are making stuff up, trying things, and pivoting when something doesn’t work. Virtu explains how courses are being rebuilt from the ground up, with professors shifting from lecturers to coaches and students building real software for real clients. Marchick shares the enrollment and media results, including being named the first AI-first business school by Bloomberg Businessweek. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders trying to figure out how to move on AI without blowing up their governance structures or losing faculty trust. Kogod’s playbook worked within existing academic processes, and the results are measurable. Topics Covered: • How a conversation with a Google executive sparked the AI initiative before ChatGPT went mainstream • Why Marchick gave the faculty committee six weeks and a five-page limit instead of a two-year study • The top-down and bottom-up strategy that moved faculty adoption from a handful of volunteers to over 90% • How 14 core course coordinators became the tactical lever for culture change across the school • The shift from professors as lecturers to professors as coaches • How non-quantitative students are programming and building functioning apps using AI • Kogod’s scaffolded four-year curriculum: AI literacy in year one, domain-specific applications in year two, deep dives in years three and four, and a capstone that combines all three pillars • Why the school teaches what’s wrong with AI before teaching what’s right • The AI assessment problem no institution has solved yet • What’s next: domain-specific AI apps, student portfolios, and an AI minor for non-business students Real-World Examples Discussed: • Tommy White’s course with no readings and no textbook, where students use AI prompts to find their own materials and come to class with different sources on the same topic • Kelly Frias’s advertising class where students built a social media content tool and owner dashboard for a real college-apparel business with brand ambassadors at 75 campuses • Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, telling Marchick that the specific AI tool matters less than teaching students to feel comfortable experimenting and trying new things • A distinguished Kogod scholar describing AI as like having a PhD student for research productivity Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: 1. Culture first, training second, technology third. Faculty adoption spreads when leadership creates permission to experiment and fail, not when it purchases a platform. 2. Teach what’s wrong with AI before teaching what’s right. A human has to be in the loop at the beginning and at the end. AI can be a collaborator, a partner, an assistant, but it cannot be a substitute. 3. Don’t wait for the technology to stabilize. AI capabilities are changing in weeks. If you tried it two years ago and weren’t impressed, try it again. The updates in just the last few weeks represent really big strides. This episode offers a practical, replicable look at what happens when a business school treats AI integration as a culture change initiative and moves fast enough to stay ahead of the technology. Kogod’s transformation is relevant to any institution trying to figure out how to act on AI without waiting for a perfect plan. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/kogod-ai-first-business-school-enrollment-growth/ #AIinHigherEd #BusinessEducation #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #ChangingHigherEdPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41344420

Closing Higher Education’s AI Readiness Gap with Human-First Transformation 05/19/2026

Closing Higher Education’s AI Readiness Gap with Human-First Transformation AI adoption in higher education is moving faster than institutional change models were built to handle. Students are already using AI at high rates, while many institutions are still trying to decide where AI belongs, who should lead it, and how much change is required. In this episode of the , speaks with , serial entrepreneur and founder of , about why higher education’s traditional playbook will not work in the AI age. Drawing on her work with Fortune 500 companies and AI implementation, Barua explains why AI should be treated as institutional infrastructure, not an IT project. She discusses the growing gap between technology adoption and human readiness, why many AI pilots fail, and how institutions can move from slow, episodic transformation to shorter, people-centered reinvention cycles. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, CIOs, and senior leadership teams trying to prepare students, faculty, staff, and institutional systems for an AI-driven future. Topics Covered Why incremental change management cannot keep pace with AI How AI differs from previous technology disruptions like the internet and mobile Why AI should be treated as infrastructure across the institution What the AI readiness gap means for higher education leaders Why many AI pilots fail when organizations focus on tools instead of people How AI may reshape entry-level jobs and the graduate talent pipeline Why skills-based hiring is changing what students need from higher education How faculty roles may shift from content delivery to mentorship, ethics, and judgment Why liberal arts and human skills may become more valuable in the AI age How human-in-the-loop design can improve AI use in enrollment, advising, and student support Why AI literacy must become a core institutional capability Real-World Examples Discussed AI adoption among students far outpacing institutional readiness Corporate AI pilots failing because organizations did not prepare people to use the tools effectively Entry-level jobs shrinking or changing as AI takes over early-career tasks Employers moving toward skills-based hiring and project-specific teams AI tutors, teaching assistants, adaptive learning tools, and student support applications Enrollment chatbots that create frustration when they replace rather than support human interaction Human-in-the-loop workflows that know when to hand a student or prospect to a person Ethics in AI as a foundation for preparing graduates to use powerful tools responsibly Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership AI is an opportunity for reinvention, not an IT project. Institutions should treat AI as a strategic leadership issue that affects competitive position, culture, academic delivery, student support, and institutional agility. Students are already ahead of many institutions. Without governance, ethical guidelines, and structured leadership, AI use can become unmanaged shadow AI across the institution. The cost of waiting grows exponentially. AI is advancing week by week, and institutions that delay action will face a widening readiness gap that becomes harder and more expensive to close. This episode offers a direct look at why higher education cannot rely on its traditional pace of change in the AI age, and why institutional leaders must rethink what they offer that AI cannot replicate. Read the transcript: #AIinHigherEducation #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #WorkforceReadinessGap /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41312370

Scaling Higher Education: An Entrepreneurial Approach to a Consolidating Market 05/12/2026

Scaling Higher Education: An Entrepreneurial Approach to a Consolidating Market Scaling higher education is no longer a theoretical strategy. As the sector moves deeper into consolidation, institutional leaders need to confront whether their operating models, credential structures, partnerships, and delivery systems are built for the market ahead. In this episode of the , speaks with , about how an entrepreneurial mindset can help higher education respond to consolidation, AI disruption, and changing learner expectations. Drawing from his experience as co-founder of Jiffy Lube International and president of one of the nation’s leading entrepreneurship institutions, Spinelli explains why higher education’s anti-scale culture has become a strategic problem. He argues that demand for learning is growing, but the sector’s delivery model has not kept pace with what students, employers, and adult learners now need. The conversation covers how AI is changing the economics of small-unit, high-quality education, why credentials are likely to become more modular and measurable, and how and industry will shape the next era of higher education. Spinelli also outlines why strategy must be tied to action, accountability, and institutional values that do not shift with every market signal. This episode is especially relevant for presidents, boards, and senior leaders working through questions of scale, consolidation, strategic partnerships, AI-enabled learning, and long-term institutional relevance. Topics Covered Why higher education is showing classic signs of market consolidation How anti-scale thinking limits institutional durability and adaptability Why demand for learning is growing while delivery models lag behind How agentic AI changes the economics of small-unit education Why credentials may become smaller, more measurable, and more industry-aligned How strategic partnerships may extend beyond institutions into corporate and industry networks Why lifelong learner relationships may become a new revenue and relevance model How quarterly board-level strategic execution reviews keep institutions accountable Why liberal arts capabilities matter more in an AI-enabled environment Real-World Examples Discussed Jiffy Lube’s early growth model and what it taught Spinelli about scale Babson’s shift from entrepreneurship to entrepreneurial leadership Babson’s network of 45 or 46 partner schools building entrepreneurial leadership capacity A group of seven New England institutions exploring partnership models to save resources AI-supported teaching models that could allow one expert to reach far more learners The doctor, lawyer, educator relationship model for lifelong learning Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership Institutions need a crisp and understandable value proposition that clearly explains why they exist and what they believe. Mission and values must drive strategy so institutions can adapt their actions without abandoning their core purpose. Strategic plans must be actionable, measurable, and reviewed regularly by the board so they inform decisions instead of sitting unused. This episode offers a direct look at what higher education leaders need to confront as consolidation, AI, modular learning, and partnership-driven delivery reshape the sector. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #HigherEducationLeadership #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41261375

Why College Presidents Need a Coalition for Civic Preparedness 05/05/2026

Why College Presidents Need a Coalition for Civic Preparedness Civic preparedness in higher education can no longer be treated as an assumed byproduct of a college education. In this episode of the , speaks with , president of the , about how colleges and universities can rebuild the civic skills students need to navigate disagreement, evaluate credible information, and solve problems across difference. Drawing on his work with college presidents, faculty, employers, and Gen Z leaders, Vinnakota explains why higher education has drifted too far toward a private-good narrative focused almost entirely on jobs and individual outcomes. He makes the case that institutions must also reclaim their public-good responsibility by preparing students to participate productively in civic life. The conversation also explores a coalition of 135 college and university presidents working together to lower the political and institutional risk of leading civic preparedness work alone. Vinnakota explains why opt-in programming is not enough, why faculty need support to teach contentious issues, and why shared measurement is needed to move civic preparedness from rhetoric to campus-wide culture change. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, faculty leaders, and institutional teams working to strengthen civic learning, rebuild public trust, and prepare graduates for a more polarized and information-saturated world. Topics Covered: Why civic preparedness can no longer be assumed as a byproduct of college How higher education’s public-good mission has been crowded out by short-term job-focused framing Why presidents who lead civic preparedness alone often face stakeholder pushback How CP² lowers institutional risk through a coalition of 135 college and university presidents The three civic skills every graduate needs: productive conversation, credible information use, and collaborative problem-solving Why opt-in civic programming fails to reach most students How institutions are embedding civic skills into orientation, general education, curriculum, residential life, and campus culture Why faculty need training and peer support to teach contentious issues effectively How shared measurement helps institutions assess whether civic preparedness work is changing campus culture Why local trust remains one of higher education’s strongest strategic assets Real-World Examples Discussed: A diverse group of college presidents who identified the same public-good challenge across very different institutions The growth of CP² from 14 founding presidents to 135 institutional leaders Forty-two institutions moving from opt-in civic programming toward campus-wide culture change Faculty institutes that have trained more than 155 faculty members from over 60 institutions Campus-based faculty cohorts designed to build enough internal capacity for institution-wide change Shared measures tied to productive conversation, credible information, and collaborative problem-solving Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Civic preparedness should not be led in isolation. Presidents have more leverage when they work through coalitions, peer networks, and shared institutional practice. Local trust is one of higher education’s most durable assets. Colleges and universities can strengthen public legitimacy by engaging their surrounding communities through visible, substantive civic work. Student voice should be built into planning and governance. Students provide a different read on whether institutional efforts are producing real impact. This episode offers a practical look at how higher education can move civic preparedness from isolated programming to institution-wide practice, and why presidents, boards, faculty, and students all have a role in rebuilding the civic capacity colleges were once assumed to produce. Read the transcript: #CivicPreparedness #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #CollegePresidents #StudentSuccess /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/41062420

International Enrollment Strategy: Taking Higher Education to the World 04/28/2026

International Enrollment Strategy: Taking Higher Education to the World International student enrollment in the United States reached record highs in 2024–2025, followed by a sharp and uneven decline heading into 2025–2026. While top-tier institutions continue to attract global talent, regional and private institutions are facing growing pressure as visa restrictions, geopolitical dynamics, and shifting perceptions of the U.S. reshape the enrollment landscape. In this episode of the , speaks with Executive Director of UC Berkeley’s International House, about how institutions must rethink international enrollment strategy in response to these structural changes. Drawing on more than two decades of experience in international education, Carver explains why the traditional model of bringing students to U.S. campuses is no longer sufficient—and what institutions can do to remain competitive. This conversation explores how global competition, parental decision-making, and policy shifts are influencing enrollment patterns, and why institutions must begin thinking beyond geographic boundaries to sustain international engagement. Topics Covered: Why international enrollment declines are impacting institutions unevenly How global brand strength influences student decision-making Why undergraduate international enrollment is more vulnerable than graduate programs The role of parental perception in international student recruitment Why universities are exploring global delivery models and partnerships How foreign governments are funding international campus expansion The broader economic and workforce impact of international students Why institutional leadership must advocate for international students Real-World Examples Discussed: UC Berkeley increasing international enrollment despite broader national declines International House’s model of integrating students from over 80 nationalities Countries like Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia investing in global education hubs Students choosing Canada, the UK, and Australia over U.S. regional institutions The long-term impact of international students on innovation and workforce development Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Universities should maintain institutional neutrality and create environments where all viewpoints are welcome and can be examined through civil discourse. Institutional leaders must actively advocate for international students, clearly communicating their economic, academic, and societal contributions. Regional and smaller institutions should position themselves as safe, supportive environments that appeal to international students and their families. This episode provides a clear view into how international enrollment is being reshaped and what institutional leaders must do to adapt in a more competitive and constrained global environment. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #InternationalStudents #EnrollmentStrategy /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40950690

Higher Ed Technology Change Management and Digital Transformation 04/21/2026

Higher Ed Technology Change Management and Digital Transformation Higher education's track record with technology change is uneven for a reason, and the reason is rarely the technology. It is whether leadership treats that runs from planning through sustainment, or as a rollout activity bolted on at the end. In this episode of the podcast, speaks with , Chief Strategy Officer at , about why technology projects in higher education succeed or fail on the strength of leadership behavior rather than tooling. Drawing on 23 years working with universities, nonprofits, and foundations, including Stanford and UC Davis, Toguchi explains how the institutions producing durable digital transformation engineer trust, governance, and adoption into the project from day one. He shares why faculty resistance is empirically calibrated rather than culturally driven, why pilots should be sized for honest failure rather than confirmation of decisions already made, and why boards need to fund and govern transformation as an operating model rather than a discrete project. Throughout the conversation, McNaughton draws on his own consulting experience to surface common failure patterns, including the double-process trap that destroys trust by leaving legacy systems running alongside new ones. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, board members, CIOs, and senior leaders responsible for digital initiatives that span multiple departments and require sustained adoption across faculty, staff, and student-facing operations. Topics Covered: • Why change management belongs in the planning phase, not at rollout • The "trust as infrastructure" framework and how to design for it • Scalability versus departmental fiefdoms in institutional technology systems • Pilot design that allows departments to surface real problems and report honestly • The double-process trap and the discipline of hard end-of-life dates for legacy systems • How board governance choices shape every downstream failure pattern • Reframing technology ROI as reclaimed staff capacity in a non-expansionary funding environment Real-World Examples Discussed: • UC Davis disability center work that clarified workflow, saved staff time, increased compliance confidence, and produced documentation that gave leadership actionable data • A multi-campus STEM admissions program that preserved each campus's unique workflow while keeping the underlying data consistent for funders and program leadership • Two connected Stanford departments with shared faculty and joint ventures that consolidated systems and reduced the tool burden faculty were carrying • Faculty teaching across multiple sections who routinely navigate 10 to 15 different tools as a baseline workload Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: 1. Move change management to the front of the project lifecycle. The decisions that determine adoption are made during planning, not during launch communications. 2. Treat digital transformation as an operating model, not a project. Fund phase two before phase one ships and build governance reviews into the board's normal cadence. 3. Make trust the explicit design input. Faculty resistance is calibrated to past experience, and the way to change it is to give faculty a structural role in shaping the project, deliver visible reductions in their daily burden, and retire the legacy systems on a date everyone knows. This episode offers a practical framework for institutional leaders who want their next digital initiative to deliver durable adoption rather than another fragmented rollout that quietly settles into legacy mode. Read the transcript: #ChangeManagement #DigitalTransformation #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #ChangingHigherEdPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40905860

Building Workforce Readiness Through Real Startup Experience 04/14/2026

Building Workforce Readiness Through Real Startup Experience Most institutions offer experiential learning. Few deliver it. The gap between the claim and the outcome is structural, and closing it requires more than a better course design. In this episode of the , speaks with , a for-credit startup incubator operating at eight universities, about what it actually takes to produce the depth of learning that institutions advertise but rarely achieve. Drawing on his experience founding and selling a technology company to Walmart, leading the entrepreneur center at Brigham Young University, and building Sandbox across multiple institutions, Crittenden explains how credit consolidation, real stakes, and interdisciplinary structure create the conditions for genuine learning. He also addresses how an AI-powered oral examination system solves the assessment problem that has long undermined open-ended experiential programs, and how institutions can build a program like Sandbox without triggering a substantive accreditation review. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, and academic leaders looking to close the gap between what their experiential learning programs claim to deliver and what they actually produce. Topics Covered: • Why most experiential learning is too shallow to produce genuine workforce capability • How credit consolidation creates the structural conditions for deep learning • The role of real stakes in developing professional skills that assignment deadlines cannot • How to build an interdisciplinary program from existing approved coursework without a curriculum overhaul • Why conventional milestone-based assessment undermines open-ended experiential learning, and what Sandbox does instead • How to design a program that stays below the threshold for a substantive accreditation review Real-World Examples Discussed: • 18 Sandbox companies have received venture backing with a combined valuation exceeding $205 million • Sandbox graduates who do not start companies consistently rank among the most competitive entry-level technology hires in their regional ecosystems • The program has been replicated at eight universities by mapping to existing approved coursework, without triggering a substantive accreditation review at any institution Key Takeaway for Leadership: Universities already have the resources to build deep experiential learning programs. What is consistently absent is the leadership willing to pull them together: identifying faculty who want to work at the cutting edge, building the cross-departmental coalitions those faculty cannot form on their own, and absorbing the coordination costs personally. No new budget line required. What it takes is a leader willing to make the case, department by department, and follow through. This episode gives institutional leaders a practical model for building deep experiential learning programs within the structural and accreditation constraints most institutions already face. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #WorkforceDevelopment #StudentSuccess /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40804235

2026 Title IV Changes and How Higher Education Can Adapt to the OBBBA 04/07/2026

2026 Title IV Changes and How Higher Education Can Adapt to the OBBBA The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is changing higher education in ways many institutions still have not fully accounted for. Title IV loan limits change on July 1, 2026. Accreditation reform is next. Together, those developments are forcing institutions to confront graduate funding pressure, cost structure, program design, student demand, and the pace of institutional change. In this episode of the podcast, speaks with and one of three higher education representatives on the 2025 Negotiated Rulemaking RISE Committee, about how OB3 is changing higher education and what institutions need to do now to keep up. In part 2, the focus shifts from federal policy itself to the larger institutional consequences of those changes and the kind of leadership response they now require. Drawing on his experience in higher education operations, institutional leadership, marketing, and negotiated rulemaking, Vaughn explains why graduate education faces the greatest immediate disruption under the new law, why private lending will not solve every student access problem, and why accreditation reform must be part of any serious affordability discussion. He also outlines Alliant’s Project Evolve, a multi-part strategy designed to address funding access, innovation, differentiation, growth, and long-term sustainability. This episode is especially relevant for presidents, boards, cabinet leaders, enrollment leaders, and anyone responsible for strategic planning in a period when higher education can no longer afford to move slowly while the environment changes around it. Some of the Topics Covered: How the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is reshaping higher education beyond a typical policy cycle Why graduate and professional programs face the greatest immediate pressure What tighter loan limits mean for student access and private lending Why accreditation reform matters to cost, innovation, and program design How student expectations and employer demand are shifting at the same time as federal policy Why higher education’s resistance to change has become a strategic liability How Project Evolve is positioning Alliant to respond to permanent structural change Real-World Examples Discussed Alliant’s modeling of how many graduate students may not qualify for private loan replacement options The institution’s effort to expand private loan access while exploring additional funding approaches The need for institutions, accreditors, and the Department to work together if graduate education costs are going to come down New campus investments, including Alliant’s Sacramento campus and Phoenix nursing campus The long-term wind-down of three small branch campuses that no longer fit the future model Alliant’s decision to enter this period of uncertainty with zero debt and greater room to invest strategically Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership These changes are permanent. If institutions think a last-minute Hail Mary is coming, it is not. The structural federal changes Congress enacted and the Department responded to are here to stay. Do not underestimate your planning process. It is late, but it is not too late. Institutions that have not started changing to prepare for federal shifts, changing demand, and what the next generation of students wants can still begin now and make meaningful change. Plans matter, but execution matters more. Higher education has a habit of creating attractive strategic plans that sit on a shelf. Goals need to be measurable, and one person needs to own each goal so there is clear accountability and regular follow-up. This episode provides a practical look at how one university leader is preparing for permanent federal change while also addressing the deeper market and operational pressures reshaping higher education. For institutions that need to move from policy awareness to institutional action, this is a useful framework for what that work can look like. Read the article: #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #GraduateEducation #StrategicPlanning #EnrollmentStrategy /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40688305

Inside Neg Reg and the 2026 Higher Ed Changes 03/31/2026

Inside Neg Reg and the 2026 Higher Ed Changes Higher education has spent years hearing that affordability, student debt, and public skepticism are putting pressure on colleges and universities. What is different now is that those pressures are shaping federal action in ways that will directly affect Title IV funding, graduate program financing, accreditation reform, and institutional decision-making before July 1, 2026. In this episode of the , Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with and one of three higher education representatives on the 2025 , about what the latest Neg Reg signals for colleges and universities and why institutions that have not started preparing are already behind. Drawing on Vaughn’s firsthand experience in federal rulemaking and Dr. McNaughton’s strategic perspective on higher education leadership, this conversation examines why this round of Neg Reg is different from prior cycles, why the One Big Beautiful Bill changed the operating landscape, and why the next major pressure point is likely to be accreditation reform tied to cost and value. The discussion also explores what these changes mean for graduate programs, why institutions need to involve faculty early in redesign decisions, and how leaders should be thinking now about financing, delivery costs, and institutional relevance in a rapidly changing environment. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, CFOs, trustees, graduate enrollment leaders, and others responsible for institutional planning, financial sustainability, and academic strategy in a time of federal change. Topics Covered: Why this Neg Reg is different from prior negotiated rulemaking cycles How the One Big Beautiful Bill changed the Title IV and regulatory landscape Why student debt is the political driver, but cost of delivery is the deeper issue Why the accreditation Neg Reg is likely to focus on cost, value, and specialty accreditors How graduate and professional programs may be affected by financing gaps Why institutions should be modeling risk and redesigning programs before July 2026 Why faculty and program leaders need to be involved early in institutional response How AI is shifting from a compliance concern to a program quality and workforce issue Real-World Examples Discussed How Alliant began tracking Title IV changes before the bill passed and started preparing early Why some graduate programs may face private lending gaps with no strong historical baseline Examples of specialty accreditor requirements that can lock in delivery costs, including supervision expectations, program length, and student-to-faculty ratios The institutional challenge of lowering tuition when accreditation structures still drive high-cost delivery Why some institutions are still treating AI primarily as a containment issue instead of a graduate-readiness issue Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership Institutions should treat these federal changes as structural, not temporary, and plan accordingly. The real issue is not just tuition pricing. It is the cost of delivering programs under current academic and accreditation structures. Colleges and universities that start redesigning early, especially with faculty involved, will have more options than those that wait for the pressure to become financial damage. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #NegReg /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40560455

Aligning Education & Work: The 2026 Lumina-Gallup Employer Report 03/24/2026

AI Can Fill The Vessel. Can Colleges Still Light The Fire? 03/17/2026

AI Can Fill The Vessel. Can Colleges Still Light The Fire? AI in higher education is no longer just a technology issue. The larger question is whether colleges and universities will redesign learning so students develop judgment, critical thinking, and decision-making skills in a world where AI can already generate summaries, essays, and plausible answers on demand. In this episode of the , Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with about how higher education leaders can think more clearly and more strategically about AI. Hoang explains why AI should be used to augment human capability rather than replace it, and why educators matter even more in a world where AI can get students only part of the way. Drawing on examples from the classroom and across campus operations, Hoang outlines how colleges can move from AI independent to AI enabled and eventually toward AI native models of learning and work. He also explains why assignments, rethink pedagogy, and focus more intentionally on the development of domain expertise, reflection, and higher-order thinking. This episode is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, boards, CIOs, and academic leaders who need to make decisions about teaching, student support, workforce preparation, and institutional implementation in an AI-enabled environment. Topics Covered Why AI is forcing higher education to rethink what students should learn when AI can already do much of the visible academic work Why AI often produces a B-minus answer and why domain expertise still matters How the loss of routine entry-level work may weaken the apprenticeship path for graduates Why colleges need to redesign assignments around judgment, application, and reflection How faculty can use simulations, case studies, and human-AI collaboration in the classroom What AI independent, AI enabled, and AI native mean for institutional strategy How AI can support advising, counseling, and career services without replacing human connection Why AI adoption is as much a training, culture, and change-management issue as it is a technology issue Real-World Examples Discussed A marketing course at Point Loma where students build an AI assistant from their own class notes and use it in case studies and simulations A writing program at Pikes Peak State College where students compare their own writing with AI-generated writing and reflect on the differences A reimagined history assignment that uses role-based simulation instead of a traditional reading-and-essay model Institutional examples that show how colleges can move toward more applied, AI-enabled, and AI-native learning environments Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leaders Leaders need to know where their institution currently sits on the AI continuum, from AI independent to AI enabled to AI native. AI adoption is as much a training and human resource issue as it is a technology issue, so institutions need to invest in people as much as platforms. A culture of innovation, experimentation, and collaborative implementation will outperform a purely top-down rollout. This episode offers a practical framework for higher education leaders who want to move beyond AI policy and think more seriously about how learning, assessment, student support, and institutional strategy need to change when AI can already do much of the lower-level work. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/ai-in-higher-education-teaching-human-judgement/ #HigherEducation #ArtificialIntelligence #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40424625

Students Are Acting Like Consumers. Higher Ed Needs to Catch Up 03/11/2026

Students Are Acting Like Consumers. Higher Ed Needs to Catch Up Jeff Dinski helped start Cold Pizza at ESPN, the morning show that eventually became First Take. On a daily show, ratings are everything. You either produce something people want to watch, or you do not last. He carried that discipline into edtech, and it is the lens through which he looks at higher education: are you really giving students what they need, or are you producing what is convenient for you? In this episode of the podcast, and Jeff Dinski, Chief Strategy and Corporate Development Officer at , the largest edtech company in the world serving roughly half of all U.S. colleges and universities, dig into the structural forces behind higher education's confidence crisis, what Workforce Pell Grants will actually change, and what institutional strategy has to look like from here. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents and boards who want a clear-eyed, outside-in read on what students are demanding, where the federal policy environment is heading, and which institutions are best positioned to adapt. Topics Covered: • Why the confidence crisis has bipartisan roots and why neither political party has done higher education any favors • Why student pathways are becoming individualized and what that means for program design and delivery • Real examples of institutions where undergraduates do actual corporate work, not fetch-coffee internships, as part of their degree programs • What Workforce Pell Grants will fund for the first time and which institutions are best positioned to benefit • Why the DBA vs. research PhD distinction matters for building workforce-aligned faculty pipelines • The Silicon Valley master's program model: tenured faculty for foundational content, industry adjuncts for advanced applied coursework • Why smaller private institutions face the steepest challenges and what community colleges are doing right • Two strategic tenets every president and board should act on now Real-World Examples Discussed: • Programs where freshmen through seniors do real corporate job functions as part of their degree requirements • A Silicon Valley master's program that deliberately splits teaching between tenured faculty and cutting-edge industry practitioners • Business schools' long-standing use of practitioners alongside academics as a model the broader curriculum can adopt • Ellucian's Journey platform, built to help institutions launch and scale non-degree and continuing education programs Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: 1. Experiment with non-degree courses now. Workforce Pell Grants will fund new program types at scale and institutions with existing capacity will be first to benefit. 2. Find workforce partners you trust. Aligning curriculum with employer needs requires real relationships with real hiring managers, not assumptions about market demand. 3. Create conditions for faculty innovation. The early adopters already exist at most institutions. Find them, support them, and let their demonstrated impact bring others along. This episode offers a practical, outside-in perspective on the structural choices facing higher education and a concrete framework for how institutions can respond before circumstances force their hand. Read the transcript: #StudentSuccess #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #WorkforceDevelopment #EdTech /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40388480

SACSCOC Updates: Substantive Change, Standards, and Outcomes Transparency 03/03/2026

SACSCOC Updates: Substantive Change, Standards, and Outcomes Transparency is often treated as a compliance cycle, but SACSCOC is signaling a faster-moving, more transparent operating posture that will affect how institutions plan change, document quality, and explain outcomes to the public. In this episode of the , speaks with , President of the , about substantive change reforms, standards revision planning, outcomes transparency, and what institutional leaders should be watching right now. Topics Covered Substantive change reforms approved in December, including eliminating more than half of existing categories, shifting others to presidential review, and reducing approval times to as little as one week Why SACSCOC is emphasizing student benefit as a decision lens for institutional change The vice president liaison model and how it supports institutional navigation of SACSCOC processes The planned three-member rapid response team concept and when it may be used Law or Lore and why written requirements versus institutional assumptions can create unnecessary friction Standards revision planning, including public drafts and how feedback is incorporated The dynamic public-facing dashboard planned for spring and what it may make more visible Torch Awards and how outcomes signals relate to public trust and accountability Workforce alignment, affordability pressure, and the pathways from high school through postsecondary to careers Credit transfer as a public trust issue and why it is often perceived as a money grab Serving working adults as a design requirement, not an add-on Real-World Examples Discussed Georgia film-industry growth and the need to stand up new majors and degrees quickly Gwinnett Tech’s advising approach that helps students sequence coursework to earn certificates along the way Workforce shifts such as autonomous trucking pilots and how programs could expand beyond a single credential to broader skills Three Key Takeaways for Higher Ed Leadership Faster change pathways increase the value of disciplined internal governance and clean documentation of readiness. Student benefit and measurable outcomes are becoming a more visible way institutions will need to justify change and demonstrate quality. Transparency tools and outcomes signaling will influence how stakeholders judge institutional credibility, affordability, and workforce relevance. Read the transcript #Accreditation #SACSCOC #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40260880

How University Presidents Lead with Moral Courage Under Political Pressure 02/24/2026

How University Presidents Lead with Moral Courage Under Political Pressure Higher education’s public trust problem is not something presidents can fix with better messaging. In this conversation, President describes a structural squeeze on institutional independence that shows up as academic freedom fights, curriculum mandates, and growing skepticism about higher education’s value. In episode 300 of the , speaks with Dr. Pasquerella about why liberal education is often misunderstood, why academic freedom is inseparable from institutional autonomy, and why presidents and boards need to treat this moment as a governance and mission issue, not a temporary political cycle. Pasquerella explains how these pressures tend to escalate incrementally, why institutions lost control of the public narrative, and what it takes to rebuild credibility through community anchoring, transparency, and a renewed public-good case for higher education. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders navigating legislative interference, polarized stakeholder environments, and the operational consequences of eroding trust. Topics Discussed Why academic freedom and institutional autonomy erode incrementally What Supreme Court precedent signals about academic freedom and university self-governance Why liberal education is about intellectual freedom, not partisan ideology How higher education lost the public narrative and why marketing is not the solution Moral distress and moral injury in the presidency under coercive mandates Belonging uncertainty, cognitive bandwidth, and the institutional impact of student wellbeing Community anchoring as the practical path to rebuilding trust How institutions can reimagine learning without abandoning rigor Real-World Examples Discussed Legislative interference that dictates curriculum and constrains shared governance. The closure of a college as a community-level loss, not only an institutional event. How belonging signals show up later as persistence, completion, and learning outcomes. Why transparency about tradeoffs affects institutional credibility How community advisory input can keep programs aligned with civic and workforce needs. Three Key Takeaways for University Presidents and Boards Treat academic freedom and institutional independence as a board-level governance priority, because erosion is gradual and easy to normalize. Rebuild trust through consistent community presence and usefulness, not positioning statements. Address belonging and wellbeing as institutional effectiveness variables, because belonging uncertainty reduces cognitive bandwidth and performance. Read the transcript and the accompanying post: #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #AcademicFreedom #PublicTrust #LiberalEducation /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40182250

FIRE on Campus Leadership and the Defense of Open Inquiry 02/17/2026

FIRE on Campus Leadership and the Defense of Open Inquiry Free speech on campus is not an abstract constitutional issue—it’s a governance challenge for presidents and boards. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton is joined by Dr. Sean Stevens, Chief Research Advisor at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), to examine the current state of campus free speech and what institutional leaders must do to protect open inquiry under increasing political and social pressure. Drawing on FIRE’s national research and campus speech databases, Stevens outlines the sharp rise in government-involved attempts to sanction speech, the growing prevalence of self-censorship among faculty and students, and the structural pressures reshaping intellectual life on U.S. campuses. The conversation moves beyond partisan framing and focuses on leadership responsibility: preserving disciplined pluralism, reinforcing institutional neutrality, and ensuring that students graduate prepared to engage competing ideas with rigor and intellectual humility. Some of the key topics covered in this episode include: The increase in campus speech sanction attempts involving government actors Faculty and student self-censorship trends and what the data reveals Why exposure to competing perspectives is an educational obligation Institutional neutrality as protection for viewpoint diversity The distinction between protected speech and prudent speech in the social media era Practical steps presidents and boards can take to strengthen expressive rights policies Three Takeaways for University Presidents and Boards: Defend expressive rights consistently—even when doing so is politically uncomfortable. Leadership credibility depends on principled application. Recognize that sustained political and social pressure can narrow intellectual culture—and counter that contraction intentionally. Preserve disciplined pluralism as a core academic value. Students must be able to hear, analyze, and argue competing perspectives without fear. This episode provides a strategic lens for higher education leaders navigating campus speech controversies while protecting the fundamental mission of scholarship and inquiry. Listen now or read the transcript: #HigherEducation #FreeSpeech #CampusLeadership #AcademicFreedom #BoardGovernance #ChangingHigherEdPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40097230

Stop-Outs, Transfers, and ROI: The Data Already Exists and You're Not Using It 02/10/2026

Stop-Outs, Transfers, and ROI: The Data Already Exists and You're Not Using It Higher education is under mounting pressure to prove its value. But the data institutions need to respond already exists — most are just not using it strategically. In this episode of the , speaks with , about how the Clearinghouse's cross-institutional data can help college presidents and boards navigate the accountability, affordability, and workforce alignment challenges reshaping higher education. Drawing on a career in financial services, fraud analytics, cybersecurity, and operational transformation, Amissi brings an outsider's perspective to higher ed — one grounded in measurable outcomes and data-driven decision-making. She and Dr. McNaughton explore why institutions must embrace non-linear student pathways, improve credit mobility, strengthen employer partnerships, and lead with transparency to maintain public trust and institutional viability. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders grappling with how to demonstrate return on investment, serve the growing stop-out population, and align programs with workforce needs in a rapidly shifting political and economic landscape. Topics Covered: The National Student Clearinghouse's role beyond compliance reporting — as a strategic benchmarking and analytics resource Why 42 million adults with some college and no credential represent both a challenge and an opportunity How credit mobility and articulation agreements affect enrollment competitiveness The Workforce Pell negotiated rulemaking process and its implications for program design Why workforce alignment should be an "and," not an "or" alongside liberal education How the FAFSA will now warn students about institutions with poor earnings-to-cost outcomes The rising Higher Education Price Index and its compounding effect on institutional costs Real-World Examples Discussed: Franklin University's articulation agreements with over 1,400 institutions, enabling five-minute credit evaluations for transfer students Paul Quinn College's work-integrated model partnering students with Southwest Airlines and other employers Tennessee's statewide talent pipeline that maps graduate competencies directly to employer needs Microsoft's partnership with Miami-Dade College community colleges to build cybersecurity workforce programs Oregon's systemwide credit transfer framework as a model for state-level interoperability Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Transparency is a survival strategy — proactively share graduation rates, employment outcomes, and student debt data to build trust and stay ahead of regulatory mandates. Align programs with workforce needs through employer partnerships, stackable credentials, and continuous program assessment to demonstrate measurable ROI. Demonstrate real impact — show students, families, and stakeholders the tangible outcomes of your institutional strategies. Bonus Takeaway from Dr. McNaughton: Embrace diverse and non-linear student pathways. The traditional four-year linear journey is no longer the norm — institutions must design systems that serve students from all walks of life and keep the focus on student outcomes. This episode offers a data-grounded look at why higher education's most urgent challenges — cost, accountability, and public trust — require leaders who are willing to use the information already at their disposal to drive strategic change. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #HigherEdROI #HigherEducationPodcast #StudentSuccess #WorkforceAlignment /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/40025960

Agile Change Management for Today's Higher Education Leaders 02/03/2026

Agile Change Management for Today's Higher Education Leaders Agile change management in higher education is no longer optional. Institutions are navigating continuous disruption from AI, shifting student expectations, workforce pressures, and internal cultural resistance. The challenge leaders face is not how to implement change once, but how to build the institutional ability to adapt continuously. In this episode of the , speaks with , an immersive learning company focused on adult learning, about why higher education must move from traditional change models to an agile, iterative approach to leadership, teaching, and institutional strategy. Drawing on her experience in both higher education and entrepreneurial environments, Janssen explains why institutions struggle when they treat change as a project rather than an operating condition. McNaughton and Janssen outline how agile thinking, faculty adaptation, and a willingness to experiment have become essential leadership capabilities for presidents, boards, and faculty alike. Some of the Topics Covered: · Why traditional change management models no longer match today’s environment · How agile, iterative approaches help institutions adapt faster than governance cycles · Why AI is exposing weaknesses in traditional teaching and assessment methods · The role of faculty culture as both a barrier and a solution to meaningful change · Why preparing students for uncertainty requires faculty to be comfortable with it · How institutions risk becoming the “yellow cab” in a world expecting “Uber-level” responsiveness Real-World Examples Discussed: · How AI forces faculty to redesign assignments and assessment methods · Why student evaluations often measure the wrong outcomes · How other industries were disrupted by ignoring customer expectations · Examples of leaders who prioritize faculty development and innovation Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership 1. Institutions must change how they think about change before they can change behaviors. 2. Faculty partnership and professional development are essential to institutional adaptability. 3. The greatest risk to higher education is waiting to see what others will do. This episode offers higher education leaders a practical framework for understanding why many institutional struggles stem not from isolated issues, but from an outdated approach to change itself. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #ChangeManagement #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/39947010

Using Entrepreneurship to Redesign the College Operating Model 01/27/2026

Using Entrepreneurship to Redesign the College Operating Model In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Jeff Meade, Founding Director of the Every Quinnite is an Entrepreneur program at Paul Quinn College, about how the institution has embedded entrepreneurship into the operating model of the college itself. Rather than treating entrepreneurship as an elective or a business school track, Paul Quinn uses it as a structural solution to some of higher education’s biggest challenges: workforce readiness, student engagement, institutional costs, and student debt. As one of only eight federally recognized work colleges in the United States, Paul Quinn requires all resident freshmen and sophomores to work on campus in meaningful operational roles. By junior and senior year, students transition into paid positions with corporate partners such as Southwest Airlines and Goldman Sachs. At the same time, every freshman completes a required entrepreneurship course during summer bridge, and students begin building and pitching real venture ideas that can receive seed funding from the college. Jeff explains how this model allows the college to lower tuition by redesigning its business structure, how corporate partnerships create a true workforce pipeline rather than traditional internships, and how entrepreneurship is used to teach students to become entrepreneurs of their own lives. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders looking for practical ways to improve workforce readiness, reduce student debt, strengthen retention, and break down academic silos without adding new programs or increasing costs. Topics Covered: How the federal work college model changes both student engagement and institutional costs Why Paul Quinn lowered tuition by changing its operating model rather than increasing discounting How campus work transitions into paid corporate roles for juniors and seniors The required summer bridge entrepreneurship course for every freshman How student ventures are integrated into multiple academic disciplines The role of faculty leadership development through supervising student workers Why partnerships, both external and internal, are central to the model How a seed fund is designed to be self-sustaining through student venture revenue Real-World Examples Discussed: A student learning grant research and development by working directly in the entrepreneurship department Students working in enrollment management and representing the college at recruitment events Corporate partners sponsoring pitch competitions and hiring students into paid roles Students earning income that both offsets tuition and builds professional experience Freshmen pitching business ideas based on problems they see in their own communities Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Partner with other institutions, corporations, and entrepreneurs rather than trying to build everything internally Design entrepreneurship and experiential learning models to be self-sustaining, not cost centers Make entrepreneurship universal across the student body so it becomes part of the institutional DNA Dr. McNaughton’s Bonus Takeaway: Partnerships must exist internally across departments as well as externally to prevent silos and fully integrate the model This episode provides a clear example of how entrepreneurship can function as an institutional design strategy, not just a curricular offering. Read the transcript: #HigherEducation #StudentSuccess #WorkforceReadiness #Entrepreneurship /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/39867280

Reduce Student Debt Risk and Improve Employability with Distributed Practicum 01/20/2026

Reduce Student Debt Risk and Improve Employability with Distributed Practicum Workforce readiness, hands-on learning, and flexible credentialing are no longer peripheral conversations in higher education. They are central to how institutions are being judged on value, relevance, and outcomes. In this episode of , Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with , Provost and Chief Academic Officer at , about how applied, skills-based education can be delivered beyond traditional campuses without sacrificing rigor or quality. McNeely shares how SDI redesigned hands-on instruction for distributed learners by moving labs into students’ homes, rethinking assessment around demonstrated competence, and investing heavily in faculty training and support. The conversation explores what these approaches mean not just for trade and technical programs, but for institutions across higher education facing increasing pressure around cost, completion, and workforce alignment. This episode is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, and academic leaders evaluating how applied learning, credential flexibility, and faculty systems can evolve to meet today’s student realities. Topics Covered Why hands-on learning does not require centralized labs How lab kits, video-based assessment, and staged progression support skill development What it takes to train and support faculty in distributed, applied programs How simulation and practicum models expand access without lowering standards Why stackable credentials better align with real career movement The role of critical thinking and problem identification in applied education Three Key Takeaways for Presidents and Boards Learning should be assessed by demonstrated competence, not physical presence Faculty training and support systems are the primary drivers of instructional quality Flexible, stackable credentials reduce student risk while supporting long-term engagement Read the transcript or extended show summary: #HigherEducation #WorkforceDevelopment #AppliedLearning #HigherEdLeadership #ChangingHigherEd /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/39766960

Empathy in Higher Education Leadership Without Losing Your Edge 01/13/2026

Empathy in Higher Education Leadership Without Losing Your Edge Empathy is easy to talk about and harder to practice when the pressure is high. In higher education, leaders are often navigating conflict, fatigue, and urgency, which is exactly when empathy gets misread as weakness instead of treated as a leadership competency. In this episode of the , speaks with and founder of , about building empathy as a practical skill leaders can use without surrendering standards or authority. Parson breaks empathy down into usable behaviors, including perspective-taking, emotional self-management, and question framing that reduces defensiveness. The discussion also addresses “empathy light,” when leaders perform empathy for external outcomes instead of practicing it authentically, and why that approach erodes trust. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders who want stronger communication, better decision follow-through, and a in environments where people are stretched thin and reactions run hot. Some of the Topics Covered What empathy is as a competency and how it differs from sympathy Why empathy does not require agreement or abandoning standards How to reduce defensiveness through better questions and language choices Self-other distinction and why absorbing others’ emotions accelerates burnout Mindfulness and emotional literacy as leadership tools “Empathy lite” and how performative empathy undermines trust How leaders can develop empathy through practice, role play, and scenario rehearsal Real-World Examples Discussed Reframing accusatory “why” questions into curiosity-based questions that invite explanation The “waves” metaphor for managing constant emotions as a senior leader without burning out An executive’s post-meeting reset ritual to physically “shake off” emotional residue Using breath work or box breathing after emotionally charged interactions Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership Model empathy visibly so others understand what it looks like in your environment. Listen, demonstrate that you heard what was said, and reinforce it through action. Treat perspective-taking as a discipline by learning to see issues through multiple stakeholder lenses. Read the extended show summary or transcript: #HigherEducation #HigherEducationLeadership #EmpathyInEducation /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/39669115

The Case for a Chief Enrollment Management Officer in Higher Education 01/06/2026

The Case for a Chief Enrollment Management Officer in Higher Education In this episode of the , Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with , assistant dean of Extended Learning and director of the Emeritus Institute at Saddleback College, one of the nation’s highest-performing community colleges. The conversation focuses on why enrollment challenges persist even at strong institutions and how treating enrollment as a shared responsibility—rather than a system with clear executive ownership—creates fragmentation across admissions, student services, academics, and outcomes. Dr. Predoehl explains the Chief Enrollment Management Officer concept and why a cabinet-level role is increasingly necessary to align enrollment strategy with institutional mission, student success, and long-term viability. Drawing on experience across community colleges and four-year institutions, the discussion examines how enrollment, retention, completion, workforce alignment, and equity outcomes are shaped by leadership structure—not just tactics. Topics Covered: Why enrollment is a system, not a department How diffused responsibility undermines retention and completion The limits of presidential oversight without executive enrollment ownership How workforce alignment strengthens enrollment strategy Why open access increases the need for strategic focus The role faculty partnership plays in sustainable enrollment management Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leaders: Enrollment outcomes reflect system design, not individual office performance Retention, completion, and workforce alignment are core enrollment responsibilities Institutions risk long-term instability when enrollment lacks clear executive ownership This episode is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, enrollment leaders, and senior administrators looking beyond short-term fixes toward structural solutions to enrollment pressure. Read the transcript and extended show summary: #HigherEducation #EnrollmentManagement #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/39622650

How Stevens Tech Became One of the Strongest Transformation Stories in Higher Education 12/30/2025

How Stevens Tech Became One of the Strongest Transformation Stories in Higher Education Institutional transformation in higher education is often described in broad terms. At Stevens Institute of Technology, describes transformation in operational terms: disciplined strategic planning, academic realignment, and year-after-year execution systems that produced what Dr. Drumm McNaughton calls the Stevens Miracle. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Nariman Farvardin, President of Stevens Institute of Technology, about how Stevens achieved sustained success since he became president in 2011. Under Dr. Farvardin’s leadership, undergraduate applications increased 294%, enrollment grew approximately 75%, research funding increased 199%, and the university invested more than $500 million in campus improvements. Stevens also reports first-year retention approaching 96%, graduation rates near 90%, and approximately 97% of graduates employed or in graduate school within six months. Dr. Farvardin explains the institutional “secret sauce” behind those results: an inclusive strategic planning process that builds ownership across faculty, staff, students, administrators, and trustees, paired with execution discipline that keeps the plan active through regular progress reporting, annual written results, and objectives letters that tie leadership goals directly to strategic priorities. He also walks through Stevens’ academic realignment, including the SUCCESS curriculum, which ensures every student graduates with foundational exposure to five areas: artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, sustainability, and data science. The discussion also covers student support structures that reinforce student experience and outcomes, including the first-year experience model delivered in 45–47 sections annually, with faculty serving as coaches for small groups of students. Topics Covered How Stevens used inclusive strategic planning to build campus-wide ownership and momentum Why execution systems matter more than a polished strategic plan document How Stevens keeps the strategic plan active through regular updates, annual reports, and objectives letters What the SUCCESS curriculum is and why it represents academic realignment, not a one-off initiative The five technology areas every Stevens graduate is exposed to through SUCCESS How the first-year experience course operates at scale and why it supports retention How Stevens operationalized student-centered service so student issues are owned, not deflected Why transparency and shared responsibility improved faculty engagement with change How Stevens uses honesty about what did not work to keep planning credible What presidents and boards should focus on if they want transformation that holds over time Real-World Examples Discussed: A leadership execution model that breaks strategy into smaller goals, distributes them across divisions, and updates them annually through objectives letters A first-year experience structure delivered in 45–47 small sections (20–25 students each) with faculty serving as ongoing coaches A student support expectation that staff “own” the student’s problem until it is solved, instead of sending students office-to-office Three Key Takeaways for University Presidents and Boards A well-designed strategic plan paired with disciplined execution is essential, even when it requires difficult and unpopular decisions A strong, functional relationship between the president and the board is critical to sustaining momentum and leadership effectiveness Trust-based working relationships between leadership, faculty, and staff are required for long-term success and leadership sustainability Read the transcript or extended show summary: #HigherEducation #StrategicPlanning #UniversityLeadership #BoardGovernance #StudentSuccess /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/39466290

Higher Education 2026 Planning and Lessons Learned from 2025 Predictions 12/23/2025

Higher Education 2026 Planning and Lessons Learned from 2025 Predictions Higher education enters 2026 under conditions that are no longer hypothetical. In this 8th annual end-of-year episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton is joined by Tom Netting of TEN Government Strategies to review how the predictions made at the end of 2024 played out during the 2025 operating year and what those outcomes mean for institutional planning in 2026. Rather than offering speculative forecasts, this episode uses 2025 as a calibration year. When predictions materialize, they remove ambiguity. They clarify which pressures are structural, which risks persist, and which leadership assumptions are no longer defensible. For presidents, boards, and senior leadership teams preparing for 2026, this conversation provides a grounded planning context based on conditions already in motion. Topics Covered What 2025 confirmed about federal policy instability, accountability, cost pressure, enrollment volatility, and governance risk Why the Department of Education is likely to remain in place through 2026 and why its continued existence should not be mistaken for stability How redistribution of authority across federal agencies increases compliance complexity for institutions Where student loans are likely to move within the federal system and why institutions face growing exposure to borrower outcomes Why broad student debt forgiveness remains unlikely and what limited relief options may realistically emerge How accountability is shifting toward program-level scrutiny and the implications for academic realignment Why accreditation reform remains unsettled and why leaders should treat accreditation as a strategic risk factor Workforce Pell expansion, quality oversight challenges, and the risk of fraud and abuse in short-term credentials The growing role of states in accountability as federal capacity contracts Research funding as political leverage and the planning risk created by funding uncertainty Polarization as an operational challenge affecting enrollment, safety, governance, and public trust Technology, AI, cybersecurity, and NIST compliance as board-level responsibilities Enrollment, demographic decline, cost escalation, and financial pressure entering the 2026 planning cycle Mergers, closures, and structural collaboration as necessary adaptation strategies Key Planning Judgments for 2026 The Department of Education will persist but continue to shrink and fragment Student loans will move further away from the Department, increasing institutional exposure Accountability pressure will intensify, particularly at the program level Accreditation reform will remain unresolved beyond 2026 Workforce Pell will expand, bringing both opportunity and heightened oversight risk Research funding will remain politically vulnerable Cost pressure will continue to drive consolidation and closures Technology and cybersecurity will demand sustained leadership attention This episode is especially relevant for presidents and trustees navigating compressed decision timelines, thinner margins for error, and declining tolerance for ambiguity. The focus is not prediction for its own sake, but clarity about the forces institutions must plan around as they enter 2026. #HigherEducation #HigherEd2026StrategicPlanning #HigherEducationPodcast /episode/index/show/changinghighered/id/39512140

Changing Higher Ed

TOPICS