As a professor of computer science and engineering at Washington University in St. Louis, Ian Bogost spends a lot of time trying to connect with his Gen Z students. He knows the stereotypes about this crop of young people: lazy, grade-grubbing, incapable of resolving problems without running to an administrator. But Bogost, who frequently writes about his teaching experiences for The Atlantic, says there are larger forces at work that have changed the way college students think about higher education. If there’s a problem with “kids today,” Bogost says, the adults who’ve shaped their world have a lot to do with it.

Related Reading

⁠Why Are Students Obsessed with ‘Points Taken Off’⁠ (The Atlantic)

⁠Is Gen Z Unemployable?⁠ (The Wall Street Journal) 

⁠Nobody Cares if Music is Real Anymore⁠ (The Atlantic) 

⁠What We Know About Gen Z so Far⁠ (Pew Research Center) 

Guest

⁠Ian Bogost⁠, professor and director of film and media studies, and professor of computer science and engineering at WashU

For more on today’s episode, visit ⁠chronicle.com/collegematters⁠. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

As public attitudes toward higher education sour, many college presidents are either staying mum or defending their institutions. But a handful of high-profile college leaders have taken a different tack of late, publicly conceding that the sector’s critics have a point. Concerns about rising tuition, the value of degrees, and higher education’s liberal tilt are all valid, these leaders argue. But what’s driving these self-critical administrators? Is this about principle? Branding? Or is it just a cynical ploy to cozy up to the Trump administration?

Related Reading

The Self-Flaggelating President (The Chronicle)

Sian Beilock’s Star Turn (The Chronicle)

The University’s Voice: Principled Silence and Purposeful Speech (Johns Hopkins University Press)

Guests

Nell Gluckman, senior reporter for The Chronicle of Higher Education

Eric Kelderman, senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

After about a year of battling with the Trump administration, higher-education leaders and analysts are collectively catching their breath. But this doesn’t feel like a break: The discourse around colleges and universities of late has taken on a dire tone. There’s open talk about the end of the great American research university as we know it. And no one feels fine.

Related Reading

The Unmaking of the American University (The New Yorker) 

Some Data on College Earnings (Bob Shireman’s Substack) 

Young Graduates Face the Grimmest Job Market in Years (The New York Times) 

Guest

Andy Thomason, assistant managing editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

Ted Carter’s resignation this month as president of Ohio State University carries the hallmarks of a tabloid scandal. Announcing his departure, the university cited Carter’s "inappropriate" relationship with a woman who was “seeking public resources to support her personal business.” Reporting from The Columbus Dispatch suggests Carter had a romantic relationship with a female podcaster, and that Carter had used his university position to connect the woman with influential state leaders. Carter is just the latest high-profile academic to imperil an institution through reckless personal conduct. Given what social scientists know about how people in power behave, he’s unlikely to be the last.

Related Reading

‘Inappropriate Relationship’ Leads Ohio State’s president to resign (The Chronicle) 

Carter's relationship included dinner with OSU leaders, business lobbying (The Columbus Dispatch) 

Flirty emails got Mark Schlissel fired. A deeper history weighs on Michigan’s Flagship. (The Chronicle)

Guests

Sarah Brown, senior editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education

Nell Gluckman, senior reporter at The Chronicle of Higher Education

Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the U. of California at Berkeley

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

What began as a controversy last September over a lesson on gender identity in a children’s-literature class at Texas A&M University has morphed into something altogether more substantial. In recent months, Texas A&M has set about purging from its catalog any courses that “advocate race or gender ideology.” Courses on religion and culture, and even readings from Plato, have all been singled out for scrutiny or elimination. But how does a university respond behind the scenes when censorship becomes policy?

Related Reading

Inside Texas A&M's Scramble to Censor Its Curriculum (The Chronicle)

Censoring Courses Isn’t the Law in Texas. Public Universities Are Doing It Anyway. (The Chronicle)

Texas A&M Bans Plato Excerpt From a Philosophy Course (The Chronicle) 

Inside the Ousting of Texas A&M’s President (The Texas Tribune) 

Guest

Jasper Smith, staff reporter at The Chronicle of Higher Education 

Scott Galloway, a prolific podcaster and marketing professor at New York University, has had enough. For anyone who knows Galloway’s schtick, that’s not too surprising. On his popular podcast, Pivot, which he co-hosts with Kara Swisher, variations on the theme of Galloway reaching his limit are practically a recurring segment. But few things set Galloway off quite like highly selective universities, which he says have unscrupulously constrained enrollments to justify unfathomable tuition increases. The catch? Galloway has spent his career at just such a university — and he’d be “crushed” if his son didn’t get admitted to one.

Related Reading

Higher Ed’s Prickliest Pundit (The Chronicle) 

Scott Galloway’s Ted Talk (YouTube) 

The Making of Michael Crow, a Higher-Ed Agitator (The Chronicle) 

Guest

Scott Galloway, marketing professor at New York University

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

The Justice Department’s recent release of millions of pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in 2019, shines a harsh light on a privileged network of scholars who had entered his orbit. Throughout the documents, professors butter up the financier to fund their pet projects, banter crudely about women, and appear to overlook the criminality of a man who had already been convicted on prostitution-related charges involving a minor. What do the documents reveal about the gilded world of high-profile scholarship — and about elite higher ed’s fraught relationship with money, power, and prestige?

Related Reading

Unmasking Academe’s Gilded Boys’ Club (The Chronicle)

Jeffrey Epstein’s Academic Fixer (The Chronicle)

'A Moment of Reckoning': After Epstein, Higher Ed Faces Hard Questions About Its Proximity to Power (The Chronicle) 

Guests

Nell Gluckman, senior writer at The Chronicle

Emmy Martin, reporting intern at The Chronicle 

For more on today’s episode, visit ⁠chronicle.com/collegematters⁠. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

As president of the American Council on Education, Ted Mitchell is at the tip of the spear. A year ago, when the Trump administration moved to slash federal research funding, ACE joined a lawsuit to stop the cuts. This was a major departure for the influential higher-ed advocacy group, which is hardly ever a plaintiff in litigation. In Trump’s second term, ACE has taken a notably pugilistic approach. In addition to fighting in courtrooms, Mitchell has been active in the court of public opinion, casting the Trump administration’s agenda as both unlawful and unwise. But not everyone agrees on the nature of the Trump threat or how to respond to it, which puts Mitchell in a tricky spot. Can he unite this disparate constituency?

Related Reading
How Higher Ed Staved Off a Research-Funding Bloodbath — For Now (The Chronicle)

Statement by Higher Education Associations in Opposition to Trump Administration Compact (American Council on Education)

'A Robust Victory: Federal Judge Says Harvard Should have Billions of Research Dollars Restored (The Chronicle)

Guest
Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

In its long and often tortured history, the faculty-job-protection status known as tenure has been defended as an essential safeguard for academic freedom. Professors, the argument goes, need to know that they won’t get fired for researching and teaching about controversial topics. In theory, tenure provides that necessary security. But critics of the system, who balk at the idea of a “job for life,” are unmoved by this defense. State lawmakers are busy chipping away at tenure’s protections or even seeking to do away with it altogether. But if the traditional argument for tenure’s existence is failing, what are its supporters to do? Is there a case for the system beyond academic freedom?

Related Reading

The War on Tenure (Deepa Das Acevedo / Cambridge University Press) 

Tenure Will Be Eliminated at Most of Oklahoma's Public Colleges, Governor Says⁠ (The Chronicle) 

The Strange, Secret History of Tenure (The Review) 

A Professor Was Fired for Her Politics. Is That the Future of Academia? (The New York Times Magazine)

Guest

Deepa Das Acevedo, associate professor of law at Emory University

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

Outcome-driven investigations. Threats of dizzying fines. Broad claims of rampant, unchecked antisemitism. The Trump administration’s playbook against higher education is familiar by now, and it always presents universities with the same stark choice: Pay up or face a potentially yearslong legal battle with an extremely powerful adversary. Washington insiders and judges say Trump’s tactics are legally dubious at best, breaking with procedural rules and even violating the U.S. Constitution. But will any of that matter in the end?

Related Reading

The Shakedown: How Trump’s Justice Department pressured lawyers to ‘find’ evidence that UCLA had tolerated antisemitism (The Chronicle/ProPublica) 

The Improbable Warrior: Why the unlikely leader of Trump’s antisemitism task force may be the perfect man for the job. (The Chronicle/ProPublica) 

Trump Wants $1 Billion From UCLA for Its ‘Hostile Environment.’ What Is That? (The Chronicle) 

Guests

Peter Elkind, national investigative reporter at ProPublica

Katie Mangan, senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education 

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.