ClimateChangeFork

Below are two cherry-picked opinions on President Trump’s attitude toward academia and academic research, one from the NYT and the other from Forbes:

Michelle Goldberg in the NYT: (Opinion | Trump Wants to Destroy All Academia, Not Just the Woke Parts – The New York Times):

“But there’s a lot of madness in the air these days. In December, Max Eden of the American Enterprise Institute published an article about how Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment chief executive whom Trump nominated to be secretary of education, could give the “college cartel” the “body slamming they deserve.” One of the first items on Eden’s list was capping the reimbursement of indirect research costs at 15 percent, exactly as the Trump team is trying to do. From there, Eden proposed that McMahon “should simply destroy Columbia University” — home, among other things, to one of the best medical schools in America — as a warning to other schools about the price of tolerating anti-Israel protest.

“Ultimately, however much some in the Trump administration want to gut American universities, Carey doesn’t think they’ll fully succeed. These are deeply rooted institutions, some older than the Republic itself, many with powerful constituencies. After four years of Trump, he said, “they’ll still be there, but they certainly could be weakened. The quality of their work could certainly be diminished in ways that will take time to recover from.” Their weakness could be an opportunity for others. Eden suggested that Trump take steps to make it easier to start schools like the anti-woke University of Austin, ‘and even newer ones that no one has dreamed up yet. Musk University?’ But why stop there? Trump University could be due for a comeback.”

David Rosowsky in Forbes: (The Role Of Research At Universities: Why It Matters):

“Universities engage in research as part of their missions around learning and discovery. This, in turn, contributes directly and indirectly to their primary mission of teaching. Universities and many colleges (the exception being those dedicated exclusively to undergraduate teaching) have as part of their mission the pursuit of scholarship. This can come in the form of fundamental or applied research (both are most common in the STEM fields, broadly defined), research-based scholarship or what often is called “scholarly activity” (most common in the social sciences and humanities), or creative activity (most common in the arts). Increasingly, these simple categorizations are being blurred, for all good reasons and to the good of the discovery of new knowledge and greater understanding of complex (transdisciplinary) challenges and the creation of increasingly interrelated fields needed to address them.

“It goes without saying that the advancement of knowledge (discovery, innovation, creation) is essential to any civilization. Our nation’s research universities represent some of the most concentrated communities of scholars, facilities, and collective expertise engaged in these activities. But more importantly, this is where higher education is delivered, where students develop breadth and depth of knowledge in foundational and advanced subjects, where the skills for knowledge acquisition and understanding (including contextualization, interpretation, and inference) are honed, and where students are educated, trained, and otherwise prepared for successful careers. Part of that training and preparation derives from exposure to faculty who are engaged at the leading-edge of their fields, through their research and scholarly work. The best faculty, the teacher-scholars, seamlessly weave their teaching and research efforts together, to their mutual benefit, and in a way that excites and engages their students. In this way, the next generation of scholars (academic or otherwise) is trained, research and discovery continue to advance intergenerationally, and the cycle is perpetuated.”

Not all research, pure or applied, is the prerogative of universities. There are many research institutions that do not do research for the benefit of students and industrial research, such as Bell Laboratories, that are responsible for some of the most outstanding research, not to mention Nobel Prize recipients, for achievements such as the semiconducting transistor. The other side of this coin is also true: not all universities are research universities. Two weeks ago (February 25^th), I discussed the research ranking of universities. In addition, research on various levels plays an important role in the earlier academic life of students in high schools and elementary schools. The new attacks on academic research will likely have direct impact on advanced degrees such as PhD and Masters degrees that are based on student’ research.

Here is how AI (through Google) discussed the role of research in students’ learning:

Research significantly impacts students by developing their critical thinking skills, enhancing problem-solving abilities, improving communication skills, fostering a deeper understanding of their field, and preparing them for further academic pursuits or professional careers by exposing them to the process of inquiry and knowledge creation; essentially, it allows students to actively engage with information and contribute to new knowledge rather than passively absorbing facts.

Key benefits of student research participation:

• • • Critical thinking:

Research encourages students to analyze information critically, evaluate evidence, and form informed opinions based on data, not just assumptions. 

• • • Problem-solving skills:

By designing research questions, collecting data, and interpreting results, students develop strong problem-solving skills applicable to various situations. 

• • • Communication skills:

Writing research papers and presenting findings to peers enhances students’ ability to communicate complex ideas clearly and effectively. 

• • • Deeper knowledge acquisition:

Engaging in research allows students to explore a subject in greater depth, gaining a nuanced understanding beyond basic textbook knowledge. 

• • • Research methodology skills:

Students learn how to design research studies, collect data, analyze results, and interpret findings using appropriate methodologies. 

• • • Career preparation:

Research experience is highly valued by employers, demonstrating a student’s ability to think critically, solve problems, and contribute to new knowledge. 

• • • Increased motivation and engagement:

When students actively participate in research, they often feel more invested in their learning, leading to increased motivation and engagement. 

• • • Exploration of interests:

Research provides opportunities for students to investigate areas of personal interest within their field, potentially sparking future research endeavors or career paths. 

Important considerations:

• • • Access to research opportunities:

Students need access to faculty mentors and research projects suitable for their level to fully benefit from research experiences. 

• • • Ethical considerations:

Students must be aware of ethical guidelines when conducting research, particularly when involving human subjects. 

• • • Time commitment:

Research can be time-intensive, requiring students to manage their workload effectively.

We live in a period in which the global penetration of digitization has revolutionized teaching and learning in a way that can only compare (in my opinion) to the mid-15^th century’s printing press. (See the August 13, 2024 blog.)

Here is how Britannica Kids describes the impact of the printing press on teaching and learning:

“Few single inventions have had such far-reaching consequences as the printing press, a machine by which images are transferred to paper by means of ink. It was invented in Europe in the mid-15th century, during the period known as the Renaissance. The printing press made possible the mass production of printed books and other texts. Before its invention, most books were copied out individually by hand, a time-consuming process. Books were rare and so expensive that only the very wealthy could afford them. There were no newspapers. The printing press allowed books and other texts to be produced quickly, accurately, less expensively, and in large numbers. It thus led to a revolution in communications.”

Computer science departments are the fastest growing departments in many universities and many of the details of how to use the new technologies are research intensive. In the ongoing attempts by various universities to change majors, the shift from purely disciplinary majors to bi-disciplinary majors in which computer science pairs with traditional disciplinary majors, plays an important role. The fast progress in the research achievements of these shifts could be likened to the fast shift that was forced on all of us with the emergence of Covid-19, when we had to quickly replace teaching and learning on campus with online activities.

The shift away from academic research is not yet global but it is quickly starting to have global impacts (from South China Morning Post):

“China’s top universities are aggressively recruiting Chinese undergraduates abroad to skip traditional academic pathways and enroll directly into PhD programs – as the US tightens funding for graduate studies and geopolitical tensions grow.

It is a move that analysts have said reflects Beijing’s push to lure young academics from the United States.”

Every American is now proud of the number of Americans that are winning Nobel prizes every year. The prizes are being viewed as the ultimate markers of American education excellence.

The disparity was not always there. Figure 1 shows the 20^th century shift in excellence from Europe to the US. The definition of the country’s contributions is not determined by the birth of the prize winners but by the frequency that the biography of the winners determines the institutions in which they were affiliated either as students or teachers. The excellence of the American research institutions were the attractive magnets.

Figure 1 (Source: National Bureau of Economic Research)

This sharp rise of the US in both research and Nobel Prizes can be quickly turned around and start to fall precipitously if we are not careful here.

Last week’s blog and its figures emphasized three main issues related to university research:

1. The US trails other countries in government funding for university research (The US ranks 28^th; the top 10 are all developed countries with GDPs much smaller than ours).
2. In terms of government subsidies for research, two agencies stand out: the NIH in terms of the resources it offers and the NSF in terms of its support for basic research. Recent changes in the government have impacted these agencies and are affecting basic research.
3. Support for research by the federal government is declining and there is increasing support for research from private businesses. The new government is bound to have major impacts on accelerating these trends.

The distinction between government support and business support needs some clarification. The figure in last week’s blog that shows this trend is titled “Funding sources for research and development in the US.” It is obvious that development plays a much more important role in business support than it does in government support. Another difference between government and business support is that government-supported research is more likely to be published on a platform that is open to anybody interested, whereas the results of business-supported research are more likely to be published either as patents or internal reports to safeguard from competitive eyes. In these two supporting modes, government-sponsored research is aimed at advancing public knowledge, while business-supported research is often targeted at enhancing corporate knowledge.

One important question often raised is why governments (and taxpayers) should pay for research. Trysh Travis from Time gives an opinion:

The new NIH guidance justified reducing the IDC [indirect costs] it would pay as a commonsense market reform: since private foundations pay a lower percentage of universities’ IDC, the federal rate must be padded. Meanwhile, Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s manifesto for a second Trump administration, argued that IDC actually paid for “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts” on university campuses.

But both claims ignore the real reasons the federal government embraced this complex method of funding scientific research during the Cold War and oblivious to how it has evolved. Paying for IDC was a way to build and maintain a free and uniquely American way of doing science—and it has proved deeply successful for three-quarters of a century.

Three weeks ago (February 11^th), my blog was focused on the administration’s anti-DEI  campaign in universities. Now the anti-DEI measures are extending to research, almost guaranteeing  that social study or interdisciplinary research, such as that focused on climate change, will be seriously discouraged:

Federally funded scientific research has become the latest target of the diversity antagonists now in control of Congress and the White House.

Earlier this month, Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas released a database of “questionable” university research projects—funded by the National Science Foundation to the tune of $2.04 billion—that he accused of pushing “a far-left ideology” by promoting diversity, equity and inclusion and advancing “neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda,” according to a news release from his office.

Cruz, who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, called for “significant scrutiny” of the 3,400-plus projects listed in the database, which contain terminology he said are related to concepts of status, social justice, gender, race and environmental justice.

The cuts in research overhead that I discussed in last week’s blog are now forcing colleges to cut graduate programs; this will have a direct impact on the availability of professional manpower for related fields in the near future:

Several colleges and universities are pausing admissions to some graduate programs, reducing class sizes or rescinding offers to students in an effort to cut costs amid uncertainty in federal funding.

The disruption to graduate school admissions is the latest cost-cutting move for colleges. After the National Institutes of Health proposed cutting reimbursements for costs related to research, several colleges and universities said they would pause hiring and cut spending, Inside Higher Ed previously reported. (A federal judge has blocked the NIH plan from taking effect for now.)

These dynamics are bound to have a direct impact on US higher education’s global ranking:

This month, Global Citizen Solutions released its first-ever Global Education Report naming the top destinations for higher education. The 10 countries were ranked based on factors like university prestige, quality of life, visa options, and post-graduation opportunities.

The Global Citizen Solutions report shows that international higher education is growing, Laura Madrid, research lead in the Global Intelligence Unit at GCS, tells CNBC Make It. According to their findings, there should be 10 million students studying abroad by 2030.

“You have more instability and instability in general leads to the movement of families,” she says. “People look for places where they feel safer, and they can experience different contexts.”

The report evaluated over 72 countries, using five key sub-indexes:

1. Higher education systems

2. Quality of life

3. Higher education costs

4. Career prospects

5. Innovation and business friendliness

Some examples of these increases in the vulnerabilities of US higher education and the field of science are described in a recent Nature article:

After a month of repeated threats to US science funding, many early-career researchers such as Autrey are fearing for their careers. These scientists are especially vulnerable: graduate students, postdocs and scientists who are just starting their own laboratories are the researchers most likely to be living pay cheque to pay cheque, most reliant on federal grants for their income and least likely to have job security. Some are considering changing jobs, leaving the country or abandoning research altogether.

“Disruption and uncertainty are the enemy of science,” says Donna Ginther, an economist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. And when disruption and uncertainty strike, she adds, “the people who lose their jobs are students and postdocs”.

If that happens now, science in the United States could undergo its own generational shift, she says: “Early-career scientists are the future.”

Details of some of these issues in NIH, the largest grant-generating agency, are described in the two articles below:

NYT: Trump Cuts Target Next Generation of Scientists and Public Health Leaders

The notices came all weekend, landing in the inboxes of federal scientists, doctors and public health professionals: Your work is no longer needed.

At the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s premier biomedical research agency, an estimated 1,200 employees — including promising young investigators slated for larger roles — have been dismissed.

At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two prestigious training programs were gutted: one that embeds recent public health graduates in local health departments and another to cultivate the next generation of Ph.D. laboratory scientists. But the agency’s Epidemic Intelligence Service — the “disease detectives” who track outbreaks around the world — has apparently been spared, perhaps because of an uproar among alumni after a majority of its members were told on Friday that they would be let go.

President Trump’s plan to shrink the size of the federal work force dealt blows to thousands of civil servants in the past few days. But the cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services — coming on the heels of the coronavirus pandemic, the worst public health crisis in a century — have been especially jarring. Experts say the firings threaten to leave the country exposed to further shortages of health workers, putting Americans at risk if another crisis erupts.

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Trump Wants to Cut Billions in Research Spending. Here’s How Much It Might Cost Your University.

A memo released late on Friday announced that the National Institutes of Health would limit indirect-cost funding to 15 percent, approximately half of the average rate it previously offered.

Twenty-two states sued the NIH over its new overhead-funding cap and requested a federal judge issue an injunction against the new policy, saying that “work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt” because of the move, which was set to take effect on Monday. A judge in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts on Monday night temporarily blocked implementation of the policy in those 22 states.

As mentioned before, the NSF is one of the main agencies providing grants for basic research. Such research is the foundation of any long-term research; it is also, by its nature, a lot riskier than more applied research. Such research is judged more by the questions posed in its proposals than the answers expected in the publication results. However, even for such research, instructions for merit review are summarized in the following way:

Reviewers evaluate the proposal using the two National Science Board-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. These criteria cover both the quality of the research and the project’s potential impact on society. Program solicitations may also contain additional review criteria.

The potential impact on society is one of two criteria (in addition to extending the known science) that determine support for proposals.

The two articles below summarize what is now happening at the NSF:

NPR: National Science Foundation fires roughly 10% of its workforce

The National Science Foundation fired 168 employees on Tuesday. According to an NSF spokesperson, the firings are to ensure compliance with President Trump’s executive order aimed at reducing the federal workforce in the name of efficiency.

Prior to the firings, about 1,700 staff worked at NSF, managing their $9 billion federal budget that funds research on everything from astrophysics to civil engineering. Staff were called to an emergency meeting at 10 a.m. ET, held on Zoom and in person, where they were told by Micah Cheatham, NSF’s chief management officer, that they’d be terminated by the end of the day, without severance. According to sources who were present, NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, who ordered the firings, did not attend the meeting.

The Chronicle of Higher Education: The Rise (and Fall?) of the National Science Foundation

For most of the past century, the United States has been the global leader in scientific discovery. In just the last five years, American scientists have won more Nobel Prizes than the rest of the world combined. But we weren’t always leaders in scientific advancement. It wasn’t until the 1950 establishment of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the largest funding source for basic research in the country, that America became a powerhouse of modernization.

Under the Trump administration, the same system that boosted the United States to scientific dominance is being recklessly dismantled. In the past few weeks, the newly created Department of Government Efficiency has ordered the NSF to reduce its staff by 25-50 percent to meet strict new budget targets. They have already fired 168 workers. Even more alarming, the administration is considering slashing the NSF’s $9-billion budget to just $3-4 billion, jeopardizing funding for thousands of scientists and their research. Beyond budget cuts, political interference is reshaping the NSF’s priorities. A recent executive order from President Trump mandates a review of all funded projects for flagged terms associated with DEI initiatives such as “gender,” “ethnicity” and “systemic.” Any projects containing these words must be modified to comply with the order or risk losing funding. Not only does this policy effectively roll back critical diversity initiatives, it will make research into important topics like health care much more difficult to fund.

Because many scientists conduct their work at universities, these policies are a profound threat to higher education. Many of the technologies and medical breakthroughs we rely on today — from computers to Viagra — were first developed within university research labs. American universities’ renowned science programs attract the brightest minds from around the world. In fact, 43 percent of America’s STEM work force was born in other countries. This is due both to the quality of education in our university system and the groundbreaking scientific advancements made within these institutions — made possible in large part by the National Science Foundation.

​One immediate impact is an attempt to restrict research by non-tenured faculty. This is bound to have a destructive impact on the future of every research university:

The University will no longer allow non-tenure-track faculty to pay for personal research expenses using “professional development” funding, according to an Office of the University Provost memo obtained by the Maroon. The Office of the University Provost announced the change to the faculty College Council on February 25 and has already communicated the updated guidelines to instructional faculty in several divisions.

The next blog will focus on the impact of all these changes on the students.

A little more than a year ago, my wife and I retired from our university jobs (November 21, 2023). Our retirement took place in the middle of some critical transitions in higher education throughout the US. One element of these transitions is driven by declining enrollment, which is rooted in part in declining fertility (see the January 7, 2025 blog). The declining fertility is a global situation that already impacts almost all developed countries and is starting to penetrate developing countries.

A month ago, the Trump administration was inaugurated in the US. In a short time, the new administration added new concerns to educational institutions that seem to have a much more immediate impact than the fertility decline. Previous blogs have focused on the role of the advocated changes in the DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) policies at various universities (February 11, 2025). The next three blogs will be focused on research in colleges and universities. This blog will focus on the broad aspects of funding for research. Next week’s blog will focus on the impacts of the new policies on some major funding organizations, while the third blog on the topic will focus on the importance of research in teaching higher education. Throughout the 13 years that I have been writing this blog, I have associated research with attempts to secure the future of the next generations. So, productive research means collective work to better the lives of the next generations. Very little has been written on the importance of research in academia in preparing our students for productive life after school. I hope to rectify this oversight in the third blog in this series.

Figure 1 shows that the US is lagging (compared to its wealth) in our government’s funding of university research.

Figure 1 – List of countries that spend the most on research universities (Source: Statista via World Economic Forum)

Figures 2 and 3 (from Wikipedia) show the distribution of agencies that fund federal support for research and the declining role that the federal government is playing in supporting research.

Figure 2

Figure 3

The expectation is that with the inauguration of the new administration, federal support for university research will further decrease at an accelerated rate but that it will not be applied uniformly. Here is what Nature wrote about the expected trend:

The incoming US president is expected to gut support for research on the environment and infectious diseases, but could buoy work in artificial intelligence, quantum research and space exploration.

What can universities do about it?

University researchers rely on billions of dollars of federal funding—from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation—to develop the technological and medical advances that have built the United States’ reputation as a wellspring of innovation. Congress, which has the final say on spending, ultimately didn’t support those proposed cuts during Trump’s first term.

“The most important thing we are telling our member universities to do now is to educate the new members of Congress and new administration officials about just how important the work of research universities is for our country’s success,” Tobin Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the AAU, said in an email. “America’s research universities have been the world’s envy for decades. Why? Because the education we provide and the research we conduct on behalf of the federal government help make America stronger, safer, healthier and more prosperous.”

Most research universities require external support. The support comes largely from grants with competitive applications. Typical grant applications constitute direct and indirect requests for supporting funds. Direct support covers specific expenses that the proposed research entails. The nature of an indirect request for support is summarized by AI (through Google) below:

An indirect cost rate is a percentage that allocates an organization’s indirect costs to its programs. It’s a standardized way to charge programs for their share of general management costs.

“Indirect costs” in the context of NIH funding typically include expenses related to the operation and maintenance of research facilities, administrative support functions like accounting and personnel, utilities, equipment depreciation, and other overhead costs that are not directly tied to a specific research project but are necessary for conducting research, often referred to as “facilities and administration (F&A)” costs.

Usually, the indirect funding is negotiated between the funding institution and the university. Figure 4 shows a typical distribution of the ratio between indirect and direct funding.

Figure 4 (Source: Bar Harbor Story)

Below is a recent development on the research funding front:

The Office of the Director of the NIH announced Friday that the agency will reduce federal funding for “indirect costs,” in research, specifically calling out institutes of higher education (IHEs) — including Stanford — as those who will be impacted. On average, 26% of NIH spending goes towards these indirect costs. Now, the NIH will limit the funding of indirect costs to 15%.

The cap on the indirect cost of research proposals is not a single threat that is now being imposed on research activities. Below is a summary of the general mood that will most likely have a major impact in decreasing government support for academic research as shown in Figure 1:

President Donald Trump’s return to the White House is already having a big impact at the $47.4 billion U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), with the new administration imposing a wide range of restrictions, including the abrupt cancellation of meetings such as grant review panels. Officials have also ordered a communications pause, a freeze on hiring, and an indefinite ban on travel.

The moves have generated extensive confusion and uncertainty at the nation’s largest research agency, which has become a target for Trump’s political allies. “The impact of the collective executive orders and directives appears devastating,” one senior NIH employee says.

Public universities rely much more on public support than do private universities. Meanwhile, not all colleges and universities engage in research. The Carnegie Classification splits university engagement in research into the following categories:

Research 1: Very High Spending and Doctorate Production

On average in a single year, these institutions spend at least $50 million on research & development and award at least 70 research doctorates.

Research 2: High Spending and Doctorate Production

On average in a single year, these institutions spend at least $5 million on research & development and award at least 20 research doctorates.

Research Colleges and Universities

On average in a single year, these institutions spend at least $2.5 million on research & development. Institutions that are in the R1 or R2 categories are not included.

As I said, my wife and I recently retired from working at CUNY, the largest urban university in the country. CUNY is a federated university that was described in earlier blogs. The general structure is given below:

The City University of New York (CUNY) has 25 campuses, including 11 senior colleges, 7 community colleges, and 7 professional schools. CUNY is the largest public university system in the United States.

My wife and I were members of both one senior college (Brooklyn College) and the Graduate Center of CUNY. The Graduate Center is classified by Carnegie as an R1 Research Institution, while 9 more CUNY colleges (including Brooklyn College) were designated as leading research institutions.

An extended list of colleges and hospitals that were directly hit by the new regulations is given by the NYT.

(Source: Sigma Earth)

The ESG (environmental social governance) concept has appeared frequently throughout this blog. Two of the more recent blogs are from August 16, 2022, and March 28, 2023. Specific issues that ESG addresses are marked on the figure above, including aspects of DEI. You can find more entries through this blog’s search box. The issue that I am addressing in this blog is the new Trump administration’s attitude toward the concept and its impact on businesses. I’m especially interested in the differences between and similarities to the administration’s attitude toward DEI that was discussed in last week’s blog. In the March 28, 2023 blog, I tried to make the case that politicizing ESG means politicizing our future.

To my knowledge, President Trump hasn’t issued an executive order banning ESG in the way he ordered the abolishment of DEI in the federal workforce. However, changes were proposed before the 2024 elections:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) wants to prevent ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) funds from greenwashing. The SEC published a fact sheet with amendments calling for funds to show proof of their claims and to disclose how they choose companies and vote at annual meetings.

This news comes after Tesla was recently removed from the S&P 500 ESG Index. After all, it doesn’t make sense that oil companies, which pollute way more than Tesla, are considered by the index to have a better ESG score than a company whose entire mission is focused on sustainability. What kind of upside-down world are we in?

According to the SEC fact sheet, the ESG funds will have to also report greenhouse gas emissions related to the portfolio. It said:

“The proposed changes would apply to registered investment companies, business development companies (together with registered investment companies, “funds”), registered investment advisers, and certain unregistered advisers (together with registered investment advisers, “advisers”).”

There is no question that the structure of ESG will change during this administration, but unlike DEI, the concept will not be attacked head-on. Rather, it will face push-back in particular areas of interest such as climate change:

The impact of the recent US Presidential election on environmental, social & governance (ESG) matters is expected to be wide-ranging, with a broad pullback expected in federal rulemaking, alongside the reversal of several policies. However, legislation by certain US states, such as California, will remain in force, as will international rules requiring compliance from large US-based companies.

Just before the election, new tools were proposed to enable businesses to incorporate the environmental part of the acronym in order to qualify for the ESG Index:

ISS ESG Launches Tool to Help Banks Estimate Portfolio Emissions to Meet Sustainability Reporting Requirements;  Susan Lahey July 31, 2024

ISS ESG, the sustainable investment arm of ISS STOXX, announced today the introduction of a new Industry Average Emission Intensity Data Set as part of the evolution of its suite of Climate Solutions, aimed at helping banks and insurance companies to comply with new mandatory climate reporting requirements, such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and European Banking Authority (EBA) Pillar 3 ESG Disclosures.

The new, sector-based data set enables users to estimate emissions for non-listed companies, small and medium enterprises, and other alternative investments. In particular, it enables banks to estimate emissions for large portfolios of companies where data is scarce in support of EBA Pillar 3 reporting. The data set provides industry emission intensity averages which follow PCAF recommendations on a global and regional basis and comprises NACE and GICS industry classifications.

The ESG Index is described below (https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/esg-indexes/):

An ESG index consists of companies that meet certain criteria for environmental, social, and governance performance. An ESG index can be used as a benchmark for companies in that industry, region, or sector, just as a large-cap equity index like the S&P 500 can be used as a benchmark for the performance of large-cap U.S. stocks.

The challenge in most aspects of ESG or sustainable investing, including the construction of different indexes, is that most ESG standards are voluntary and can be inconsistent in the criteria and metrics they use to evaluate companies’ progress toward ESG goals, or mitigate ESG risks.

Nonetheless, recent research suggests that ESG investing strategies perform similar to conventional strategies. By knowing some of the top ESG indexes, then, it’s possible to invest in funds that track the performance of that index, and put your money toward companies whose aim is to focus on positive environmental, social, and corporate governance outcomes.

Key Points

• • • An ESG index consists of companies that meet criteria for environmental, social, and governance standards.
    • An ESG index may also exclude certain companies or sectors (e.g. fossil fuels, gambling, adult entertainment) or those with low ESG scores.
    • An ESG index can be used as a benchmark for securities in an industry, region, or sector.
    • There are some 50,000 sustainability-oriented indexes, according to Morningstar.
    • Owing to inconsistency around ESG criteria and metrics, it can be difficult to evaluate companies’ progress toward ESG goals, or compare one company to another.

The government is not yet attacking American businesses for participating in the ESG Index. Instead, the new administration is starting to attack foreign countries whose companies are participating in these activities:

The US may use “trade tools” to retaliate against European ESG regulations that affect American companies, said Howard Lutnick, US President Donald Trump’s pick to become commerce secretary. Lutnick was referring specifically to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. He told Republican senators last month that he’s concerned by the extent to which environmental, social and governance regulations formulated in Brussels are impacting US businesses.

I will follow these developments and return to this issue once the administration’s attitude and the feedback from business become more transparent.

A magazine cover from the McCarthy era (Source: Sarah Lawrence archives)

Since the takeover of the new administration in the US, on January 20^th, many institutions, including businesses, government offices, and universities have removed DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and ESG (environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and corporate governance), from their websites, mission statements, and declared objectives. This blog is focused on DEI in universities; next week’s blog will be focused on ESG in businesses. Both will have a major impact on our collective future.

Last week’s blog argued that using growth as the only indicator of success and failure is problematic on many levels. The government should be focused on trying to create a better future for all it governs. The emphasis in last week’s blog was on growth and DEI in the current global environment where the demographic makeup in many countries is shifting. It was proposed that growth/capita might be a better indicator than GDP.

DEI, which is now the target of hostility and division, is more complex—whether in a business, government, or university setting. Many pursue it and fight for it because it is the right thing to do. Others say that such a pursuit is detrimental to the basic mission of any institution: curbing future growth for businesses, limiting students’ preparation for a successful postgraduate future, and hampering individual and collective safety.

Meanwhile, President Trump wants to dismantle the federal Department of Education:

The Trump administration has begun drafting an executive order that would kick off the process of eliminating the Department of Education, the latest move by President Donald Trump to swiftly carry out his campaign promises, two sources familiar with the plans told CNN.

The move would come in two parts, the sources said. The order would direct the secretary of Education to create a plan to diminish the department through executive action.

Trump would also push for Congress to pass legislation to end the department, as those working on the order acknowledge that shuttering the department would require Congress’ involvement.

This would be a milestone in abolishing the federal nature of the US. However, on this issue, the Constitution will probably not act as a savior:

Defining a Federal Right to Education

Much ink and many hours of court cases have been dedicated to defining, clarifying, and debating the particulars of current Constitutional guarantees, such as the rights to speak freely, bear arms, receiving due process, etc. However, even among legal experts, there’s no singular definition for the idea of a “federal right to education.” To summarize some of the past court cases and movements advocating for it, we might define a federal right to education as:

The right of all American children to a high-quality, equal education regardless of race, income, location, etc., guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

As of 2021, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments do not specifically mention education, which is why (per the Tenth Amendment) the states are in charge of providing and regulating schooling. A federal right to education could be added to the Constitution via ratifying a new amendment. However, most attempts at enshrining this right have come through the court system.

The most notable court case regarding a federal right to education came about in 1973, when a suit out of Texas made its way to the Supreme Court. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez(Open Link in new tab), parents from the low-income, predominately Hispanic Edgewood district argued that it was discriminatory for their schools to receive only $37 per pupil while the wealthier Alamo Heights neighborhood received $413 per student. A three-judge panel in Texas agreed with the parents and went a step further by calling education a fundamental right, citing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, when the State of Texas appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices delivered a 5–4 decision overturning the Texas judges’ words. The majority opinion asserted that Texas had not violated its constitution and that education is not a fundamental right.

The anti-DEI push and idea of abolishing the federal role in education trigger many (post-WWII generations) memories of the McCarthy era:

Is repression on campuses today worse than during McCarthyism? It’s a claim that’s increasingly made, on both the right and the left. Samuel Abrams, a Sarah Lawrence professor and fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently concluded that “intellectual life today on campus is worse than the McCarthy era,” an assessment that was promptly echoed by a New York Sun headline.

Liberals have likewise argued that there is a “new campus McCarthyism” caused by conservative forces. Historian Ellen Schrecker, the foremost expert on academic freedom during McCarthyism and author of No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities (1986), invoked the McCarthy analogy in response to recent right-wing attacks on academe: “It’s worse than McCarthyism. The red scare of the 1950s marginalized dissent and chilled the nation’s campuses, but it did not interfere with such matters as curriculum or classroom teaching.”

However, some research is being done that suggests DEI (in hiring faculty and staff, for instance) is compatible with the basic mission of universities to educate students. Research shows that students learn better from people who look like them:

Studies show that students do, indeed, benefit from teachers who look like them. Black students who have even one black teacher by third grade are 13 percent more likely to enroll in college, according to research from Johns Hopkins University and American University. These same researchers also found that the positive “role model effect” of having a teacher who looks like you was especially beneficial for low-income young Black men, who are 39 percent less likely to dropout of high school if they had at least one black teacher in elementary school. Other research has found that students also benefit from attending schools led by principals of color.

Students are universities’ clients. The inclusion of DEI in managing learning institutions is compatible with the basic mission of universities. Next week’s blog will expand this same argument to businesses keeping ESG.

(Source: quotefancy)

The three targets mentioned in the title have great deal in common. One of the common attributes is that all three are targets of our new administration. This blog will address growth and DEI; next week’s blog will address the future and the roles that these elements play in academic environments.

Growth

As the caption in the photo above suggests, sunflowers must either grow or die. We are better and therefore have more options!

John Cochrane’s thesis from the 2016 election, that growth is the solution for all our ills, has some issues:

Just in the past few months, we’ve looked at problems like retirement, energy prices, political chaos, zero interest rates, negative interest rates, China’s economy, terrorism, unemployment, inflation, pensions, healthcare, refugees, and the Federal Reserve.

Whew—so many problems. There’s, however, a single solution to all of them, and it’s called growth.

John Cochrane, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, wrote a paper on economic growth last year [2015] as part of a project to design presidential debate questions. Sadly, the candidates chose to talk about other issues such as finger length and personal energy levels, but Cochrane’s paper is still useful.

John Cochrane is not alone. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of Chase Manhattan, in an interview with CNBC, could be heard repeating “growth is the only solution” for every question thrown at him. For a world with a constantly growing population and matching growth in resources (including land), they might be right. For our planet, they are not. We have finite resources (including land). We must be smarter than the sunflowers at the top of this blog. Let’s focus on Jamie Dimon’s territory, Chase Manhattan, a branch of the largest bank in the US. I am a Chase client. In addition to having a simple checking account and a savings account, they are also investing some of my money in markets for growth. When they invest my money, they create a risk profile for me to figure out the risk/reward that I will be comfortable with. If growth is the only criterion for success, however, I am not aware of a similar document that is instituted on a company level.

Below is an AI (through Google) description of Chase’s compensation profile and that of Jamie Dimon:

JPMorgan Chase’s compensation policy for executives includes a base salary, incentives, and long-term incentive awards. The Compensation & Management Development Committee evaluates executives and determines their compensation. The Board of Directors then ratifies the compensation.

Compensation components

• • • • Base salary: The annual salary paid to an executive
      • Incentives: Performance-based compensation, such as bonuses and stock options
      • Long-term incentive awards: Stock options, grants, and other awards that are intended to align the interests of executives with shareholders

Compensation process

1. The Compensation & Management Development Committee approves compensation goals and objectives
2. The committee evaluates executives based on those goals and objectives
3. The committee determines compensation for executives
4. The Board of Directors ratifies the compensation

Compensation examples

• • • • In 2024, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s compensation was $39 million, which included a $1.5 million base salary and $37.5 million in incentives.
      • Other senior executives at JPMorgan Chase saw their compensation increase by 4–21% in 2024.

It is basically assumed that the part of the compensation aligned with shareholders is the growth of the stock.

Chase is in the category of a “too big to fail” bank. Here is how AI defines that:

The “too big to fail” (TBTF) policy is a theory that some financial institutions are so large and interconnected that their failure would be disastrous for the economy. The policy suggests that the government should support these institutions if they face potential failure.

The government regulates the finances of such banks to try to prevent such catastrophic failures. Our government is now declaring that our society is over-regulated. It remains to be seen what will happen to TBTF institutions.

Economic growth is today’s yardstick for the success or failure of governments. In democratic countries, voters are translating their countries’ economic growth into their personal well-being. It will be interesting to see how this translation works as the global population shrinks. The population pyramids are shifting to show a larger percentage of older people, who need an increasing amount of support. Most of the developed world is now in this situation. Changing the criteria for economic success to growth per capita (GDP/capita) rather than overall GDP will not completely solve the problem of measuring accurately but it will be a step in the right direction.

DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)

DEI is now directly under attack by the new US government. The stated reasoning for the attack, which resonates with many, is that policies should not be racialized. The thought is that economic gains, in terms of employment and salaries, are zero-sum activities (normalized to growth) and advantages to some translate into disadvantages to others. The argument is that such distributions of advantage should not be based on race. However, DEI is not limited to the economic sphere; a significant element has to do with education. Five days after President Trump’s inauguration, the following story was published:

Trump’s anti-DEI order yanks Air Force video on first Black pilots

WASHINGTON, Jan 25 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s order halting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives has led the Air Force to suspend course instruction on a documentary about the first Black airmen in the U.S. military, known as the Tuskegee Airmen, a U.S. official said on Saturday.

The famed Black aviators included 450 pilots who fought overseas in segregated units during World War Two. Their success in combat helped pave the way for President Harry Truman’s decision to desegregate the armed forces in 1948.

About a day later, the following piece was published in the NYT by David French: 

How a German Thinker Explains MAGA Morality

There’s a difference, however, between yielding to temptation and developing an alternative morality. And what we’ve been witnessing in the last decade is millions of Americans constructing a different moral superstructure. And while it is certainly notable and powerful in Trumpism, it is not exclusive to Trumpism.

A good way to understand this terrible political morality is to read Carl Schmitt, a German political theorist who joined the Nazi Party after Hitler became chancellor. I want to be careful here — I am not arguing that millions of Americans are suddenly Schmittians, acolytes of one of the fascist regime’s favorite political theorists. The vast majority of Americans have no idea who he is. Nor would they accept all of his ideas.

Not many Americans know who Carl Schmitt was, but many Americans have heard about the reception that Jesse Owens got in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Three years after 1936, the Germans invaded Poland, the Holocaust started, most of my family was murdered, and I was moved to Bergen-Belsen with some of my remaining family. The total global number of casualties exceeded 50 million.

A day after David French published his piece on Carl Schmitt, another piece was published in the NYT on the activities of Elon Musk in Germany:

Musk Says Germany Has ‘Too Much of a Focus on Past Guilt’

Elon Musk told a gathering of the hard-right Alternative for Germany party this weekend that the country has “too much of a focus on past guilt,” an apparent effort to wipe away the long shadow of the Nazis that has influenced generations of Germans to quarantine extreme political parties from public life.

“It’s good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything” Mr. Musk said in a short video that was broadcast to thousands of party members in the eastern city of Halle.

Halle is about 110 miles (179km) from Bergen-Belsen. In two months, I will be traveling to this “neighborhood” to celebrate the liberation of the camp by the British army and my liberation by the American army.

A few days later, another piece published by the NYT announced more recent anti-DEI activity:

On Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump signed two executive orders. One was a 2,400-word behemoth focused mainly on race, gender and American history. It seeks to prevent schools from recognizing transgender identities or teaching about concepts such as structural racism, “white privilege” and “unconscious bias,” by threatening their federal funding.

The order also promotes “patriotic” education that depicts the American founding as “unifying, inspiring and ennobling” while explaining how the United States “has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history.”

Below are the states in the US that require Holocaust Studies (again, AI):

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.

I talked about my family experiences in the Holocaust in four of these states (and more that are not listed). For me, a policy that allows talks about the Holocaust but not talks about “structural racism,” “white [or Aryan] privilege,” or “unconscious bias” is more than problematic.

In the next blog, I will try to tie the concepts of growth, DEI, and the future to the function of higher ed and preparing students for future functionalities. We will see that university campuses are a much more functional environment to integrate these themes than Chase bank, which I have explored here. The proper way to explore businesses in this context is to include ESG (Environmental Social and Governance) in the discussion.

Stay tuned!

(Source: 11trees)

A week or so ago (Sunday, January 19^th), a day before President Trump’s inauguration, I woke up, ate my breakfast, opened my daily paper, and was immediately exposed to major changes in ongoing global events:

• the inauguration
• the start of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, with the release of three young hostages who were captured on October 7, 2023
• the shutting down of TikTok, followed by its almost immediate return
• the prediction of a large snow storm (around 5”) where I live (NYC), which resulted in a much lower level (1 – 2”)
• the approach of International Holocaust Remembrance Day (yesterday, Monday, January 2^7th)

Save for the fluctuations in the snow and TikTok, which I do not use, I have a direct or indirect stake in all of these events, and I care very much about the reality that they represent. Every aspect of the realities that I mentioned is complex and is being addressed by many. But one can take a bird’s eye view and address the connections in terms of “good for us” or “bad for us.” Two articles in the opinion section of the NYT are good examples of this approach.

Cherry picking was addressed before on this blog (see September 17, 2019, and January 19, 2022); however, these blogs were much narrower in scope. This time, a week after the inauguration, the concept is much more consequential. Cherry picking can often be beneficial, especially when it is followed by actions that amplify the “good” parts and try to decrease the “bad” parts. One example of “good” would be negative energy pricing models. They are good for energy consumers but not so good for energy producers, so they cannot last. They amplify the need to improve the grid in a way that will facilitate the transportation of excess energy to places where the high energy demand makes it too expensive. An example of the “bad” part would be President Trump’s call to “drill baby, drill” on the same day that he was traveling to California to see the impacts of the deadly fires in LA and a day after he traveled to North Carolina to inspect the recent flood there. Both trips took place with the full knowledge that climate change strongly amplified the impacts of the two events. There is also no scientific debate that the fossil fuels he wants to drill for are responsible for human-caused climate change.

Below are my takes on the NYT opinion pieces representative of the “good” and “bad” that I was exposed to that Sunday:

The “bad” for us – Ezra Klein:

Now Is the Time of Monsters

Donald Trump is returning, artificial intelligence is maturing, the planet is warming, and the global fertility rate is collapsing.

To look at any of these stories in isolation is to miss what they collectively represent: the unsteady, unpredictable emergence of a different world. Much that we took for granted over the last 50 years — from the climate to birthrates to political institutions — is breaking down; movements and technologies that seek to upend the next 50 years are breaking through.

If somebody is referring to reality in terms of “monsters,” there shouldn’t be any doubt about his opinion about the reality that he is describing.

I wrote about elements of three of his “monsters” last summer (August 20, 2024) in my post “The Olympics in Terms of Global Trends”:

The 5 trends include computer access, electricity access, fertility, carbon emissions, and estimated number of nuclear warheads. All five trends are anthropogenic (generated by us humans). All five have a major impact on our lives and all of them started in my lifetime. Each trend has a set of complex impacts, with both destructive and positive potential. The impact they have on our lives is projected to increase.

As we can see, there are some differences between Klein’s “monsters” and my trends. Klein also misses the biggest monster on my list: the threat of nuclear war. This threat has recently been voiced by Russia more often than ever. Maps of US vulnerabilities to such attacks have also been shown regularly. Another trend on my list that is missing from Klein’s list is that of accelerated global electrification, without which the AI “monster” mentioned by Klein could not have come about. In my list of the trends that are mentioned by Klein, AI is just an important consequence of global digitization, whose benefits and harms are much more nuanced and balanced than just AI.

The “good” for us opinion in the NYT came with an apology that the author, Nicholas Kristof, cannot currently see much good in his surrounding reality. This is quoted below:

Even This Year Is the Best Time Ever to Be Alive

Around the beginning of each year, I customarily write a column about how we’ve just had the “best year ever” in the long history of humanity.

This annual eruption of exuberance outrages some readers who see it as disrespectful of all the tragedies around us. Others welcome it as a reminder that even in our messed-up world, many trends are still going right.

So this year I heard from readers asking: Where’s your “best year ever” column?

To be honest, I didn’t have the heart to write it. I was dispirited by the suffering of children in Gaza, by the atrocities and famine in Sudan, by the wildfires in Los Angeles and what they portend and by a December trip to Madagascar, where I saw toddlers starving because of a drought probably exacerbated by climate change. And then a felon I consider unstable and a threat to democracy is about to move into the White House.

Yet, just as some readers wanted reassurance, so did I. Precisely because I felt blue, I wanted to read a column putting grim news in perspective. It has become apparent that the only way I am going to read such a column is if I write it first — so here goes.

However, Kristof does manage to find some positives from last year. He lists a few things, of which I am quoting 4:

• • • • And 2024 appears to have been the year in which the smallest percentage of children died since the dawn of humanity.
      • Likewise, consider extreme poverty, defined as having less than $2.15 per day, adjusted for inflation. Historically, most human beings lived in extreme poverty, but the share has been plummeting— and in 2024 reached a new low of about 8.5 percent of the world’s people.
      • Now we’re approaching 90 percent literacy worldwide, and the number of literate people is rising by more than 12 million each year. Every three seconds, another person becomes literate.
      • Scientists have newly developed the first antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia in decades, and a vaccine against a form of breast cancer may enter Phase 2 trials this year. And with semaglutide medications, Americans are now becoming thinner, on average, each year rather than fatter, with far-reaching health consequences.

The title of Kristof’s piece needs to be directly compared with the aspiration of our newly re-elected president, who attracted many of us with the promise to “Make America Great Again”  (MAGA). There is no exact reference for the time we would be returning to “again.”

Trump has used President William McKinley’s administration (1897-1901) as a marker  in some examples and even suggested that the tallest mountain in the US (Alaska), whose name reverted to its local Denali in 1975, should again bear McKinley’s name.

As it happens, Netflix is now showing “American Primeval”:

Western television miniseries created and written by Mark L. Smith and directed by Peter Berg. Starring Taylor Kitsch and Betty Gilpin, the series is set in 1857 during the Utah War.

The show has become very popular. However, I don’t think that many Americans would be delighted to go back to the way of life of the mid-19^th century shown in the series.

(Source: Reddit)

Last week’s blog was focused on some of the actions that colleges are taking to counter the  recent decline in enrollment. The key entry on that blog was not the final steps that some colleges find themselves having to take as a result of the declining resources (such as closing the colleges, closing programs with low enrollment, joining other schools, etc.). Instead (or in addition), I was interested in the way they are changing their targets to a different student audience. This sentiment was expressed in the Chronicle of Higher Education with the following two paragraphs:

Colleges typically prioritize those who are preparing to enter the workforce, teaching them what they’ll need to know in order to thrive in a working society. But, what about those already in the workforce? Those left behind by sudden changes in technology and changing labor expectations? Historically, universities have prioritized educating those between 18- and 24-years-old.

But, the needs of the workforce change over time. This is especially true in an age where AI and automation are making inroads into every industry. It’s time colleges adapt with the workforce. And upskilling may be the answer — whether that comes in the form of micro credentialing, skills-based training, or whatever else.

The recommendation originates from the accelerating decrease in the global fertility rate, the reliance on immigration for growth (at least in rich countries), and the resulting changes in the age distribution of the work force. The need is summarized by AI (through Google) in the following way:

The average number of careers changes a person will make during their working life is 5–7. This is due to an increasing number of career options, and 30% of the workforce changes jobs every year.

The number of jobs changes a person makes decreases with age:

• • • • 18–24: People change jobs an average of 5.7 times
      • 25–34: People change jobs an average of 2.4 times
      • 35–44: People change jobs an average of 2.9 times
      • 45–52: People change jobs an average of 1.9 times

What adds to the difficulty for such changes is the inherent tension in today’s higher ed institutions between fluctuating enrollment, budget, and faculty tenure. The present situation at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, demonstrates the issue:

Chancellor Mark Mone revealed the layoffs in a letter sent Monday to faculty and staff.

The job cuts come after the UW System said it will close its campuses in Waukesha and Washington counties.

In addition to the layoffs, Mone recommended shutting down UW-Milwaukee’s College of General Studies and its three academic departments: Arts & Humanities, Math & Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences & Business.

“I am deeply saddened by this scenario and wish it were not occurring. However, proceeding with the proposal is aligned with our mission and is the most responsible decision for UWM’s future,” Mone said in the letter.

The UW Board of Regents must approve the cuts.

This blog will be posted one day after President Trump is inaugurated. Many expect a fast-changing four years. This blog is trying to examine how universities adapt to fast-changing realities—a process that will be interesting to follow. For background, you can see my previous writing on the topic; just put “changing realities” into the search box and focus on colleges. You can start with the blogs from May 2023 that focused on strategic plans for climate change. Now, we are facing broader horizons, including changes in fertility and mass digitization, along with AI and quantum computing. Many of these changes are global; many will likely be affected by the new administration following Trump’s inauguration.

The most sensitive part of the higher education sector—and therefore that most likely to be impacted by the new administration—is the accreditation sector (Trump’s Vision for College Accreditation Could Shake Up the Sector):

Overhauling higher-education accreditation could be on the agenda for conservative lawmakers and policy mavens now that Donald J. Trump has been re-elected president.

Trump and his allies have floated a number of changes, such as barring accreditors from requiring that colleges adhere to diversity, equity, and inclusion standards. Republicans have also proposed creating new accrediting agencies that promote conservative values and allowing state governments to take on the role of accreditors.

Colleges have to be accredited for their students to be eligible for federal student aid, such as loans issued by the Education Department and Pell Grants for students from low-income families. That role as a gatekeeper of federal dollars has put accreditors in the crosshairs of groups across the ideological spectrum that see the organizations as a barrier to change and improvement.

Below is a summary of the governance in my state (NY) that controls accreditation policies:

Oversight of degree-granting institutions in the United States is often thought of as the responsibility of a triad comprising state agencies, nongovernmental accrediting bodies, and the U.S. Department of Education (USDE). All degree-granting institutions that have a physical presence in New York must have authorization from the Board of Regents to operate as a college or university. This applies to both New York institutions and those based out-of-state. The State Education Department reviews, approves, and registers all individual programs of study leading to degrees and credit-bearing certificates according to standards of academic quality in the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. Together, Regents authorization to confer degrees and State Education Department program registration make up the mandatory State approval process.

During my career as a college professor, I oversaw the assessments in my department, Physics. I am now a retired Professor Emeritus and hope to continue being of some use in this area. For more details on the expected and needed changes in higher education, I will focus on my school, the City University of New York (CUNY) as an example. CUNY is a federated university that prides itself on being the largest urban university in the US. Figure 1, at the top of this blog, shows the various colleges that are affiliated with CUNY. I have used CUNY as an example extensively in the 12 or so years that that I have been writing this blog. For almost 50 years, I was a member of two colleges: Brooklyn College, which is shown on the figure above, and the CUNY Graduate Center, which is not shown. Most public universities in the US are federated universities that spread geographically and whose missions are to serve a broad spectrum of state citizens. Many of the CUNY examples that will be used here apply to many other schools.

The agency that oversees CUNY’s accreditation is the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). CUNY’s affiliation with MSCHE is summarized below:

CUNY colleges, as well as the Graduate School and University Center, receive their institutional accreditation from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE or Middle States). MSCHE examines each institution as a whole, rather than specific programs within institutions.

The standards that the accreditation commission uses also change constantly. The most recent set is in MSCHE’s Fourteenth Edition.

Every one of the colleges affiliated with CUNY is assessed independently by the same commission. The accreditation commission bases its judgment mainly on self-assessments. AI (through Google) defines school assessment in the following way:

The assessment process is twofold — measuring student outcomes and an institution’s ability to provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to start meaningful careers. In return for holding students to a high standard, institutions receive actionable data to inform future improvements.

MSCHE accredits its schools every 10 years. Most of the work is based on a periodic self-study report that the schools produce. Below, I am giving the table of contents of the most recent self-study report from Brooklyn College. The hierarchical structure of the federated schools is covered in the reports of the participating colleges. The assessment of student learning is an integral part of the syllabus that needs approval by the Faculty Council. General Education, which consists of about 25% of the curriculum, is managed on a university level, again, anchored on common student learning. The Self-Study is a long document that is transparent to students and faculty. Go through this index to find what is of concern and what is not.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………….1

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………5

I.1 Overview of Brooklyn College…………………… 5

I.1.1 Trends in Enrollment…………………………….. 8

I.1.2 Faculty and Staff ………………………… 9

I.1.3 Trends in Affordability and Student Success ………………………………………………………… 12

I.2 Significant Changes and Challenges Since the 2009 Self-Study ……………………………………. 12

I.2.1 Leadership ………………………………. 12

I.2.2 Academic Affairs Organizational Structure ………………………………………………………….. 13

I.2.3 New Strategic Plan ……………………………… 14

I.2.4 Significant Curricular Changes ……………. 15

I.2.5 Facilities…………………………………………….. 15

I.3 Brooklyn College’s Recent MSCHE History ………………………………………………………………….. 16

I.4 The 2016-2019 Self-Study Process……………. 17

I.5 Organization of this Report …………………….18

CHAPTER 1………………………………………………….19

1.1 Introduction ………………………………………….. 19

1.2 Mission …………………………………………………. 19

1.2.1 Mission Development: Strategic Planning Process ……………………………………………………… 20

1.2.2 Alignment with CUNY………………………….. 21

1.2.3 Awareness of Mission Statement …………. 22

1.3 Quality of a Brooklyn College Education …. 22

1.4 Diversity of the Brooklyn College Community …………………………………………………………… 23

1.5 Affordability of a Brooklyn College Education …………………………………………………………… 24

1.6 Integration with Community …………….. 26

1.7 Supporting the Mission…………………… 27

1.8 Recommendations Aligned with the College’s Strategic Plan ………………………………………. 27

CHAPTER 2 ………………………………………………. 28

2.1 Introduction …………………………………………. 28

iii

2.2 Ethical Conduct, Intellectual Freedom, Freedom of Expression, and Respect for Intellectual

Property ……………………………………………………. 28

2.3 Creating a Climate of Respect ………………… 29

2.4 General Policies that Govern Students, Faculty, and Staff ………………………………………. 30

2.5 Policies Governing the Student Experience ………………………………………………………………….. 31

2.6 Faculty Personnel Policies ……………………… 33

2.6.1 Promotion and Tenure/Certificate of Continuous Employment (CCE) …………………… 34

2.6.2 Professional Development …………………… 35

2.6.3 Faculty Complaints and Grievances Procedures ………………………………………………… 35

2.7 Staff Personnel Policies …………………………. 35

2.7.1 Staff Career Advancement/Professional Development …………………………………………….. 36

2.7.2 Staff Complaints and Grievances ………… 36

2.8 Recommendations Aligned with the College’s Strategic Plan ……………………………………………. 36

CHAPTER 3 ……………………………………………….. 37

3.1 Introduction …………………………………………. 37

3.2 Academic Program Offerings ………………… 37

3.3 Faculty ………………………………………………… 39

3.3.1 Faculty Qualifications and Diversity ……. 40

3.3.2 Faculty Qualifications and Assessment ………………………………………………………………….. 41

3.4 General Education ………………………………… 44

3.5 Graduate Education ……………………………… 48

3.6 Academic Support ………………………………… 48

3.6.1 Academic Services and Resources…………………………………………………… 48

3.6.2 Support for Specialized Student Groups ………………………………………………………………….. 49

3.7 Recommendations Aligned with the College’s Strategic Plan …………………………………………….. 51

CHAPTER 4 ……………………………………………….. 52

4.1 Introduction………………………………………….. 52

4.2 Admissions, Retention and Graduation ….. 52

4.2.1 Momentum ………………………………………… 53

4.2.2 Retention and Graduation ………………….. 55

4.3 Student Information and Records ………….. 58

4.4 Adequacy and Accessibility of Web-Based Information ………………………………………………. 59

4.5 Access to Face-to-Face Support ……………… 60

4.6 Adequacy of Co-Curricular and Extra-Curricular Activities …………………………………… 62

4.7 Adequacy of Staff in Student Support Areas …………………………………………………………………. 64

4.8 Recommendations Regarding Standard IV and Strategic Plan Alignment ……………………… 64

CHAPTER 5 ……………………………………………….. 65

5.1 Introduction ………………………………………….. 65

5.2 Current Status of Assessment at Brooklyn College: Linkages Among Educational Goals and

Programs ………………………………………………….. 65

5.2.1 Overview of Educational Goals, Interrelationships, Alignment with Mission …. 66

5.2.2 Organization of Assessment ………………… 66

5.2.3 Systematic Assessment, Preparation of Students, and Sustainability ……………………….. 68

5.2.4 Supporting and Sustaining Assessment and Communicating Results to Stakeholders ……… 72

5.3 Using Assessment Results for the Improvement of Educational Effectiveness …… 73

5.4 Periodic Assessment of the Effectiveness of Assessment ………………………………………………… 80

5.5 Success of Graduates …………………………….. 80

5.6 Recommendations Aligned with the College’s Strategic Plan ……………………………………………. 82

CHAPTER 6 ………………………………………………. 83

6.1 Introduction …………………………………………. 83

6.2 Linkages among Institutional Objectives, Assessment, Planning and Resource Allocation . 83

6.3 General CUNY Budget Allocation Process for Senior Colleges …………………………………………… 85

6.3.1 Overview of the Brooklyn College Tax Levy Budget ………………………………………………………. 86

6.4 The Financial Planning and Budget Process ………………………………………………………………….. 87

6.4.1 Operating Budget Planning Processes …………………………………………………………………. 87

6.4.2 Capital Budget Planning …………………….. 89

6.4.3 Technology Budget Planning ………………. 89

6.4.4 Fiscal and Human Resources ……………… 90

6.5 Alternative Sources of Funding and Revenue ………………………………………………………………….. 91

6.5.1 Income Funds Reimbursable (IFR) ………. 91

6.5.2 Non-Tax Levy ……………………………………. 92

6.5.3 Auxiliary Enterprise Corporation (AEC) …………………………………………………………………. 92

v

6.5.4 Brooklyn College Foundation (BCF)………………………………………………………… 92

6.5.5 CUNY Research Foundation (RF) ……….. 92

6.6 Improvements to Administrative Processes ………………………………………………………………….. 93

6.6.1 College Facilities ………………………………… 93

6.6.2 Improving the Procurement Department ………………………………………………………………….. 94

6.7 Annual Audits ………………………………………. 95

6.8 Recommendations Aligned with the College’s Strategic Plan ……………………………………………. 95

CHAPTER 7 ……………………………………………….. 97

7.1 Introduction ………………………………………….. 97

7.2 Governance ………………………………………….. 97

7.2.1 Changes to Local Governance and Bylaws ………………………………………………………………….. 99

7.3 Administration ……………………………………… 99

7.3.1 Implementation of a Five-School Structure ………………………………………………………………… 100

7.3.2 Technology to Support Administration in the Delivery of Services to Students ……………. 102

7.3.3 Assessment of the College President, College Leadership and Administration …………………. 104

7.4 Recommendations Aligned with the College’s Strategic Plan …………………………………………… 105

If you look at the mission statement (page 19), you will get to another long document that takes you to the Strategic Plan. Since Brooklyn College is part of CUNY, both its mission and strategic plan are aligned with CUNY’s. In these documents, you will have an easy time finding the word “excellence.” However, it’s a bit harder to find the word “future” or references to how graduates are adapting to the changing realities that confront them. Future blogs will focus on these important issues.

(Source: Lauren Pyke, The Daily Tar Heel)

Last week’s blog returned to the issue of declining global enrollment in universities. I looked specifically at the impacts of the ongoing trend of declining global fertility, with a focus on the US. This declining enrollment has major consequences for the economic viability of many schools. Such threats require action. The question that was raised in last week’s blog was what schools should do in response to these trends.

I will start the discussion with an AI (through Google) response:

When facing declining enrollments, schools typically respond by: consolidating or closing underutilized schools, cutting programs or staff, seeking new student populations through marketing and outreach, reviewing budgets to find efficiencies, and engaging with the community to understand the reasons behind the decline and address concerns; in extreme cases, they might even consider merging with other institutions to maintain financial stability.

The first option is obviously for an institution to close its doors:

American higher education is in crisis.

This year, some two dozen colleges shut their doors and more are forecast to close in 2025, CNBC reports. According to new research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, as many as 80 colleges and universities are expected to close in the next five years.

That working paper from the Fed based its analysis on a massive dataset of college and university information from 2002 to 2023, which predicted future closures through a model using machine learning. It found that of the 100 riskiest institutions it assessed, 84 closed within a three-year period. Researchers then predicted the likelihood of future closures, factoring in a 15% decline in enrollment between 2025 and 2029.

Many colleges are struggling financially as enrollment falls, the result of skyrocketing tuition costs and students questioning if the degree is even worth the hefty price tag.

The second option is to go through college activities and find out which courses students like and which ones have difficulty attracting students. Since in most universities’ curricula the faculty determines which courses are needed to fulfill degree requirements, it is beneficial to go over the list of degrees that the university offers. This is exactly what the University of Connecticut recently did (Another Public Flagship May Cut Dozens of Majors):

Faculty members at the University of Connecticut worry that dozens of majors could face elimination as part of a review of low-enrollment programs — a process that began amid a significant budget deficit.

The Details

Christopher Vials, an English professor at UConn’s flagship campus in Storrs and president of its American Association of University Professors chapter, said 70 majors were identified as having failed to meet a threshold of 100 student completions over the last five years.

Faculty members found out about the review in May when the provost’s office asked departments with low-enrollment programs to complete an evaluation report that Vials characterized as tasking them to “justify their continued existence.”

“It is anticipated that the end result for the review of low-completion programs will result in the closure of some programs,” Anne D’alleva, the provost, and Gladis Kersaint, the vice provost for academic affairs, wrote in a memo to all academic deans.

Majors like philosophy, women’s, gender, and sexuality studies, and animal science are on the chopping block. With the exception of Spanish, every program within the university’s literatures, cultures, and languages department is under review. The department, which houses nine majors, is seemingly divided on its next step, as it postponed a vote on Wednesday on whether it should move forward with the provost’s review or preemptively merge its majors into one or two programs, Vials said.

Almost all universities operate under the stressful tension between fluctuating enrollment, budget, and faculty tenure. A recent example from Wisconsin is shown below:

Chancellor Mark Mone revealed the layoffs in a letter sent Monday to faculty and staff.

The job cuts come after the UW System said it will close its campuses in Waukesha and Washington counties.

In addition to the layoffs, Mone recommended shutting down UW-Milwaukee’s College of General Studies and its three academic departments: Arts & Humanities, Math & Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences & Business.

“I am deeply saddened by this scenario and wish it were not occurring. However, proceeding with the proposal is aligned with our mission and is the most responsible decision for UWM’s future,” Mone said in the letter.

The UW Board of Regents must approve the cuts.

University mergers are another option. One can find a few examples in a piece from Forbes that distinguished between the closing of mainly for-profit public universities and mergers in mainly public universities:

When we turn to public colleges and universities, the picture looks different. It’s a truism to note that public colleges don’t shut their doors that frequently. Just four did from 2013–14, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (although Higher Ed Dive suggests the number is much higher).

Mergers is likely how consolidation will impact public colleges and universities—particularly regional schools in areas of lower or declining population. And indeed, consolidation has already been occurring—so much so that it’s sometimes hard to keep track.

The University System of Georgia has gone from 35 institutions to 26.

In 2017–18, the University of Wisconsin System consolidated its 13 two-year college campuses into seven of its comprehensive universities. UW Platteville at Richland, UW Milwaukee at Washington County, UW Oshkosh at Fond du Lac, UW Green Bay at Marinette, UW Milwaukee at Waukesha, and UW Oshkosh at Fox Cities have all effectively closed over the past couple years—even though they don’t count in official statistics, as this Inside Higher Ed piece makes clear. More consolidation conversations are taking place in the state.

Pennsylvania is merging six of its Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education institutions into two universities.

In Maine, the system didn’t technically merge or consolidate, but instead moved to a “unified accreditation” for the system. Which, yes, means that the System’s seven main campuses now operate under the same accreditation.

In 2023, Connecticut’s 12 community colleges merged into one.

In Louisiana, eight technical and community colleges merged campuses.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is trying to find out if such college responses are consistent with higher education’s objective of preparing students for post-graduation life by introducing the term of upskilling:

Colleges typically prioritize those who are preparing to enter the workforce, teaching them what they’ll need to know in order to thrive in a working society. But, what about those already in the workforce? Those left behind by sudden changes in technology and changing labor expectations? Historically, universities have prioritized educating those between 18- and 24-years-old.

But, the needs of the workforce change over time. This is especially true in an age where AI and automation are making inroads into every industry. It’s time colleges adapt with the workforce. And upskilling may be the answer — whether that comes in the form of microcredentialing, skills-based training, or whatever else.

Google is again helpful in clarifying terms:

“Upskilling: A New Frontier for Higher Ed” refers to the growing trend where universities and colleges are actively developing and offering programs specifically designed to equip students and working professionals with in-demand skills needed for the modern workforce, often focusing on shorter, more flexible learning pathways to address the rapidly evolving job market, going beyond traditional degree programs to provide targeted skill development.

All of this is taking place as a background for what is now a challenging time for college presidents trying to coexist with changing political priorities as well as addressing global conflicts and internal polarization that are likely to grow with the coming change in government.

In the next blog, I will continue to discuss these tensions, with an increasing emphasis on multilevel assessments that are now gaining importance in school accreditation.

Previous blogs on the decline in college enrollment (May 30th, October 25th, and October 31, 2023) were inspired by my teaching experience. I am returning to this issue from the broader perspective with a focus on the US. This blog is focused on the data; next week’s blog will focus on changes that colleges need to make to try to adapt to our changing reality. The recent enrollment decline, separated by gender, is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – College enrollment rates (Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics via The Week)

Forbes’ analysis shows some specifics about very recent changes:

Enrollment of 18-year-old college freshmen decreased by 5% this fall compared to last year, and now the focus is turning to understanding why the decline occurred and how it can be reversed.

The drop-off is a sharp turnaround from last year’s growth in freshman enrollment according to a new analysis, commissioned by the National College Attainment Network.

The analysis by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center is a follow-up to its earlier report released in October that showed a 5% drop in freshmen overall and a 6% drop in 18-year-olds at the same time there was an overall 3% year-over-year increase in undergraduate students.

Overall, enrollment of 18-year-old freshmen was down 5% compared to last year, when it increased 3%. The decline was widespread, occurring in 46 states.

The enrollment decline was sharpest for white students (-10%), followed closely by multiracial students (-8.3%) and Black students (-8.2%). Asian (-5.7%) and Latino/a (-2.1%) students experienced smaller declines.

A few days later, Forbes tried to emphasize some of the consequences of these changes:

Annual college closures are likely to increase above their current rate if the anticipated decline in higher education enrollment transpires, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia working paper released this month.

Using these data, the researchers compared the accuracy of various statistical models in identifying those institutions that eventually closed. Because public institutions rarely close, the analysis was restricted to private for-profit and nonprofit two-year and four-year schools.

The best model — one that used machine learning and was able to compensate for the missing data that plagues many prediction formulas — revealed that of the 100 institutions it assessed to be at most financial risk, 84 had closed within a three-year time span.

Recent news about changes in the global population, with demographic changes in the US, is given below:

WASHINGTON — The world population increased by more than 71 million people in 2024 and will be 8.09 billion people on New Year’s Day, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released Monday.

The 0.9% increase in 2024 was a slight slowdown from 2023, when the world population grew by 75 million people. In January 2025, 4.2 births and 2.0 deaths were expected worldwide every second, according to the estimates.

The United States grew by 2.6 million people in 2024, and the U.S. population on New Year’s Day will be 341 million people, according to the Census Bureau.

The United States was expected to have one birth every 9 seconds and one death every 9.4 seconds in January 2025. International migration was expected to add one person to the U.S. population every 23.2 seconds. The combination of births, deaths and net international migration will increase the U.S. population by one person every 21.2 seconds, the Census Bureau said. So far in the 2020s, the U.S. population has grown by almost 9.7 million people, a 2.9% growth rate. In the 2010s, the U.S. grew by 7.4%, which was the lowest rate since the 1930s.

Changes in the makeup of the US workforce by generation are shown in Figure 2:

Figure 2 – Workforce by age and generation 2006-2026

As was mentioned in earlier blogs, the fertility rate in the US is declining sharply, yet the population is still growing. The main process that feeds this population growth is immigration. The dynamics of these two processes are clearly shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Population estimates (Source: US Census)

College enrollment is mainly made up of Generation Z students. The declining fertility rate ensures that the fraction of incoming freshmen will also decline. Figure 4 shows the changes in the age distribution of newly arrived immigrants; their age is sharply increasing. This dynamic is summarized in a report by the ICEF Monitor (International Consultants for Education and Fares), a summary of which is given below):

Short on time? Here are the highlights:

• US colleges are facing a smaller pool of young domestic students due to demographics and changing views on the importance of higher education

• The total number of domestic high school graduates is expected to peak in 2025 and then decline steadily through 2041

• New approaches are necessary to mitigate risk and appeal to new target audiences, including an increased emphasis on international recruitment

Figure 4 – The share of new immigrants who are of working-age (defined as 16 to 64) (Source: Center for Immigration Studies)

A broader outline of the college enrollment situation is provided by AI (through Google):

Many colleges are cutting majors and programs to reduce costs and make ends meet. This includes:

• Rural universities

Universities that serve rural students are disproportionately affected by these cuts. For example, West Virginia University eliminated 28 undergraduate and graduate majors and programs, including most foreign languages.

• Budget challenges

Colleges are facing budget challenges due to a number of factors, including:

• Fewer high school graduates going straight to college
• Rising operational costs
• The end of federal COVID relief money

• Enrollment decline

College enrollment declined during the pandemic, and officials had hoped enrollment would recover to pre-COVID levels. However, enrollment figures have not recovered.

• Financial aid application overhaul

The federal government’s overhaul of its financial aid application has complicated the situation.

Major restrictions are another way colleges can limit the number of students who can enroll in a particular major. These restrictions can include requiring students to meet GPA requirements, participate in an interview, or submit a competitive application. These restrictions can create barriers for students who are less-privileged.

While large-scale cuts to majors in the years during and since the Covid-19 pandemic have gotten some attention, what many have in common has been largely overlooked: They’re disproportionately happening at universities that serve rural students or are in largely rural states.

One remedy that schools are increasingly turning to is the reexamination of the number of majors that they are offering. In the next blog I will try to go deeper into this issue.

Less than two weeks after this blog, the new Trump administration will come to power and will try to implement one of its main promises – to significantly reduce immigration. There are already significant disagreements among the followers of the new administration about the future of the H-1B visa, which is given to some of the best qualified foreign nationals. Many from outside the US mark this program as a brain drain—especially for developing countries; they will probably not be sorry to see this program curtailed. Almost all the recipients of these visas are college graduates, so curtailing these visas will not have a major impact on student enrollment but it might have an impact on faculty recruitment. Its impact on the economy remains unknown. I will try to follow this discussion.