Major Updates

International-Student Crackdown Escalates | UPCEA Joins Opposition to Broad Changes

After weeks of public sparring, the Department of Homeland Security formally revoked Harvard’s authority to host F-1 and J-1 students on May 22, citing non-compliance with new federal demands around campus protests and DEI programs. More than 6,800 students, about a quarter of Harvard’s enrollment, would have been forced to transfer or leave the country.

Harvard answered the same day with an emergency lawsuit and, on May 23, won a temporary injunction that restores its Student-and-Exchange-Visitor Program (SEVP) certification while the case proceeds. The judge said the administration’s action “appears calculated to punish protected speech” and would cause irreparable harm to students.

The fight is part of a broader policy shift: the State Department has paused all new student-visa interviews while new social-media vetting is designed, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. will “aggressively revoke” visas for some Chinese nationals in “critical” fields. Institutions with large international student pipelines or with heavy Chinese enrollments should prepare for sudden drops in starts and heightened document requests. 

In a May 30 letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, UPCEA joined more than 60 associations led by the American Council on Education urging the department to lift the interview pause and abandon wholesale visa revocations, warning that delays threaten the nationwide economic impact of $44 billion that international students contribute.

 

Sector-Wide Letters Push Back Against Trump Administration and Congressional Cuts

  • UPCEA Calls On Trump Administration to Reforge the Compact with Higher Education
    UPCEA joined with more than 50 higher education organizations, representing tens of millions of students, educators, researchers, and administrators nationwide, in a statement that expresses broad opposition to recent actions by the administration that jeopardize the longstanding partnership between the federal government and colleges and universities.​​ The statement emphasizes that the campus-federal partnership has made American higher education an engine of national progress and prosperity, and urges the administration to reforge this vital compact and work with colleges and universities to advance our shared national interests.    It is dangerous and disruptive, the statement notes, to hold billions of dollars for education and competitively awarded research grants hostage for political reasons and without due process. Efforts to condition funding on colleges and universities surrendering control to the federal government of core functions such as what students they admit, what courses they teach, and who teaches them is harmful to students, institutions, and our country. Read the letter

     

  • FY 2026 Basic-Needs Grant Letter
    A separate letter also signed by UPCEA asks Congress for $45 million to expand the Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students program, pointing to data that 23% of undergraduates still experience food insecurity. It is essential that Congress address the crisis of student basic needs insecurity to improve affordability, retention, and completion in higher education. Basic Needs Grants help support these goals for institutions of higher education with limited resources and help scale badly needed interventions to reach more students in need. Read the letter.

 

Secretary of Education’s Discretionary Grant Priorities Highlight Alternative Pathways & Online Ed [Open for Public Comment until June 20]

The U.S. Department of Education has published proposed new agency-wide priorities that will guide all discretionary grants, both current and future. One of the sections outlining these priorities includes “flexible options such as competency-based education that allows students to progress through learning at their own pace, short-term workforce-aligned programs or three-year or less degrees, and distance education.” The proposal also invites projects that expand dual enrollment, apprenticeship pathways and part-time coursework, and it is encouraging that many of these are areas where UPCEA members already lead. 

Public comments on these priorities are due by June 20; individuals and institutions may wish to highlight their own efforts supporting these priorities. Administrators should take note and highlight programs which align with these priorities for grants in progress, or future opportunities. Read more and comment.

 

Other News

In reflecting on my feelings about the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in our lives, I must report they are mixed. I have the strong sense of the inevitability that this technology will meet and exceed its hype to alter the course of humanity, generally for the better. However, at the same time there is a measure of trepidation in my awe of the potential power and performance of AI.

I am receiving more frequent emails from colleagues reporting renewed intransigence among faculty regarding the push to adapt to AI use by students, to integrate the technology into teaching, and to help prepare learners for the AI-enhanced workplace. I see parallels to the 1990’s and early 2000s when faculty also resisted the advent of online and blended learning. That resistance gradually subsided until the pandemic when remote learning, albeit a less refined use of the technology, came to the rescue of universities.

In both instances, the resistance seems to be prompted by a general lack of understanding and comfort with the technology. This creates an elevated level of anxiety. It also requires a change in pedagogy to adapt to expanded capabilities in the hands of students. This involves re-conceiving and re-writing lesson plans and, in some cases, learning outcomes for multiple classes. This can be time-consuming. Yet, this is not the first time that emerging technology has impacted teaching modes and methods.

I am fortunate to remember, as a faculty member, the advent of the personal computer in the late 1970s, graphing calculators in the mid-1980s, the rise of the World Wide Web in the early 1990s, the release of smartphones shortly afterward, Google Search in 1998, and in 2001, the launch of Wikipedia. Each one of these technologies demanded changes in the ways we presented and assessed learning. Questions of student integrity were raised in each of these cases. We also were urged to consider the students’ needs to become facile with these tools as they left to commence their careers. Imagine HR’s response to applicants who could not conduct an internet search or use a personal computer. The pressure was on to adapt to the emerging technologies while ensuring integrity.

Each of the technologies has become incrementally more sophisticated and more capable. They have required more and more attention by faculty to maintain a quality learning environment, and to prepare students for the rapidly changing workplace environment. In the case of AI, larger leaps in sophistication are coming on a weekly or monthly basis. The stakes are high. The integrity of the instruction, the relevance of the learning, and the future employment of the students hang in the balance. The pressure is on the faculty to maintain quality and security in a rapidly changing environment.

Change in the AI field comes not on the rather pedestrian pace of new releases of the past when we would see new versions released on annual schedules by just a handful of providers. Now, we must track ten or twelve of the largest providers as each of them releases new versions about every three or four months, or more often. Generative models still see improvements while agentic models offering awesome deep research and autonomous agents are flooding the market from around the world.

In a TED talk recorded last month in Vancouver, BC, former Google CEO and chairman Eric Schmidt explained that, if anything, Artificial Intelligence is wildly underhyped, as near-constant breakthroughs give rise to systems capable of doing even the most complex tasks on their own. He points to the staggering opportunities, sobering challenges and urgent risks of AI. Schmidt asserts that everyone will need to engage with this technology in order to remain relevant. Meanwhile, in an interview this month, the current Alphabet/Google CEO Sundar Pichai, in the “All In” podcast, affirms the commitment of the company to developing AI. He describes the evolution from Google search through AI, while it continues on the continuum of a discovery path of quantum computing and pursuing the concept of autonomous robots.

Just as Google is working to further develop and refine their multiple versions of AI, so too are many other major corporations and startups. What they come up with over the coming months and years will have a huge impact on higher education, the workplace, job market, and society as a whole. The very nature of human jobs will change. Meanwhile, Elon Musk predicts smart robots will proliferate and will outnumber humans. His Optimus robots are to sell under the Tesla label, priced at $20,000-$30,000. Of course, AI is central to the operation and functioning of such humanoid robots.

So, what might the workplace, or more specifically the individual human work assignment within that workplace, look like. In his recent podcast, Wes Roth reviews “The Age of the Agent Orchestrator” by OpenAI’s Shyamal Hitesh Anadkat. In the article, Anadkat describes the key new role that humans may play in the AI-enhanced workplace, noting that in the future “the scarce thing is no longer ‘who knows how to do that task by hand.’ The scarce thing becomes ‘who can orchestrate resources well’ – compute, capital, access to data, and human/expert judgment.” That role he describes as the “agent orchestrator.” In sum, Anadkat writes:

As always, the most important thing is to build something that users want. In a world where your marginal cost of expertise/knowledge goes to zero, your ability to turn cheap intelligence and expensive resources into valuable products is what will matter. i’m [sic] very excited to see the new companies, the new tools, and the new jobs that come out of this. Welcome to the Age of the Agent Orchestrator!

The human will orchestrate what may be a very large number of highly capable intelligent AI agents. That may not seem as creative of a job as many of us now hold, such as authors, researchers, graphic designers, Web developers, and the diversity of positions in designing and enhancing instructional resources. Yet, there is creativity, and certainly impact, in marshalling the vast resources at hand in the workplace of the future. Implicitly, the job becomes one of orchestrating abundant resources in conducting a symphony of interacting virtual workers to achieve desired goals. Doing so in the very best way calls upon higher order creative thinking, strategic planning and execution.

All of these developments bring to mind the assertion of the pre-Socratic philosopher, Heraclitus, who is credited with saying 2,500 years ago, “the only constant is change.” We can expect much more change in the field of AI over the coming months and years. It will be far-reaching and long-lasting. It will penetrate the very essence of what it means to be a human in a technological society. We in higher education cannot ignore this change or make it stop simply because it is inconvenient or incompatible to our teaching style. The money, momentum and weight of advantages of AI make it an inevitable advance to civilization. It is not stoppable. We must change our practice to meet the needs of the students and society.

I am left with a less-than-easy feeling to welcome Artificial Intelligence with all of its sweeping ramifications into our work, lives and future. Yet, at the same time, I know that we must move forward to meet that future, if not so much for ourselves, but rather for our students who will live the greater part of their lives alongside their AI companions.

In the late 1960’s a gifted folk music composer and performer, Joni Mitchell, released an impactful song titled “Both Sides Now.” Within that song is a phrase that has stayed with me through the decades: “Well something’s lost, but something’s gained in living every day.” I suppose it helps to sum up my feelings about this new technology that is rapidly gaining momentum and promising to change our learning systems, workplaces, lives, identities and society.

 

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed. 

A person (Stacy Chiaramonte) smiling

By Stacy Chiaramonte

In the fast-evolving landscape of higher education and workforce alignment, non-degree credentials are surging in popularity. This trend is largely a result of baccalaureate degrees that are not adapting quickly to address more immediate market needs, coupled with a skepticism about the value of the degree. In place of bachelor’s degrees, students are seeking more modular, stackable educational pathways that can support them in their ability to adapt to changing job market conditions. Stackable credentials are also critical to the “Some College, No Credential” (SCNC) market, which reached a total of 36.8 million under the age of 65 in the U.S., up 2.9% from the previous year. Recent research from UPCEA and StraighterLine found that 76% of SCNC adults said being able to earn alternative or microcredentials that could stack toward a degree would increase or greatly increase their interest in completing their degree.  

Major employers, including government entities, have recently determined that a bachelor’s degree may no longer be required for entry into some positions. If the degree isn’t required, non-degree, skills-based training becomes increasingly important to help employers to find and hire the right candidates.  Research from UPCEA and Collegis Education has shown that companies with external partnerships that provide employee training or professional development increased from 54% in 2022 to 68% in 2023, and among those without existing relationships, 61% of companies would be interested in developing these partnerships.  

From microcredentials to digital badges, these programs promise agile, skills-based learning to meet the demands of modern learners and employers alike.  But here’s the problem: nobody agrees on what to call them. 

What are Non-Degree Credentials? 

The terms alternative credentials, microcredentials, certificates, badges, and more are used interchangeably across institutions, creating confusion for the very people they aim to serve. It’s a bit like the old “po-tay-toe or po-tah-toe” dilemma—what’s in a name? 

Let’s dig into why terminology matters, what the leading voices in credentialing are saying, and how UPCEA is shaping the future with credential innovation. 

It is generally agreed upon that non-degree credentials refer to structured learning opportunities that do not immediately result in a traditional degree, such as a bachelor’s or master’s and include: microcredentials, certificates, digital badges, industry certifications, and bootcamps or short-term training programs. These offerings can be credit-bearing, non-credit, stackable toward a degree, or aligned to specific skills and workforce needs. Unfortunately, there isn’t one universal definition for each of these and the time commitment, rigor, and outcomes can vary.   

The Lumina Foundation refers to them as “short-term” credentials, including college-level certificates and industry-recognized certifications, and notes that they generally take less time and money to earn than degrees.  Lumina goes on to say that credentials meet their benchmarks for quality if they: 

  • Lead to meaningful employment
  • Serve as a steppingstone to career advancement, higher pay, and future opportunities
  • Provide a pathway to continued education training—and lifelong learning 

What do you call non-degree credentials? 

In August 2023, UPCEA polled its members on what terminology they use for non-degree credentials. Unsurprisingly, the responses were all over the map.  94% of members responding to the poll indicated that they offer programs, such as badges or certificates, that are outside of the scope of traditional degree programs and credit-bearing certificates.  However, what they called them ranged from microcredentials (36%), alternative credentials (24%), non-degree credentials (13%), competency-based credentials (6%), skills-based credentials (6%), complementary credentials (5%), and other (11%).  This variance points to a fundamental issue in the space: Lack of standard definitions makes it harder for learners to navigate options and for employers to assess value. 

What is an Alternative Credential, really? 

At UPCEA, we’ve historically referred to microcredentials and alternative credentials to describe this growing sector. But these terms didn’t quite capture the full picture. Many of UPCEA’s member institutions are innovating with credentials – adapting credit-bearing programs to shorter, targeted, skills-based learning modules and/or creating new short-form skills-based learning programs.  It seemed to us that the terms microcredential or alternative credential didn’t properly reflect the depth of the work happening in this space, which offers learners multiple on and off-ramps to learning throughout their career. That’s why we’ve shifted to using the term: Credential Innovation. 

What is “Credential Innovation” in higher education? 

Because today’s programs go far beyond the binary of credit vs. non-credit. As noted, institutions are thinking about these credentials as a way to create flexible entry and exit points for learners to “earn and learn” throughout their lives.  Members are offering stackable pathways from non-credit to degree programs, allowing learners to build skills that contribute to meaningful employment while they pursue their education.  Additionally, institutions are working with employer partners to design industry-aligned certifications, helping them to meet the rapidly evolving needs of their organizations with agile, skills-based training.   

Credential Innovation captures the richness and diversity of this space. It speaks to the intentional design, employer alignment, and learner-centric approaches that our member institutions are pioneering to serve learners in targeted ways over a continuum of learning.   

How do we strengthen and add clarity to Credentialing Innovation in higher education?  

Several leading organizations have stepped in to bring structure and shared language to this space. The Education and Employment Research Center in the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations has developed a primer on non-degree credentials to support its work on a noncredit data taxonomy—a critical step for tracking and measuring these programs. Workcred has developed a helpful guide that explains how different credentials compare and what value they provide and Credential Engine is mapping the credential universe and building transparency into the skills and competencies they confer. 

These efforts all aim to standardize, clarify, and simplify what is currently a fragmented and confusing landscape. 

Why does the definition of Credential Innovation matter? 

In the quest for credential innovation, clarity and transparency are still essential.  There is a need to better align short form, skills-based programs to workforce training needs.  The World Economic Forum publishes an annual “Future of Jobs” report that identifies the jobs of the future and the skills needed to get those jobs.  Credential innovation will be a key way to close the gap between the jobs of the future and a trained workforce. Employers must understand the credential to ensure that it meets their needs and allows them to assess candidates and recognize verified skills.  To best align credentials with workforce needs, institutions should engage employers. This will ensure that programs fill real-world talent gaps, boost learner employability, and strengthen corporate partnerships.  This will also help to ensure that learners understand the credential they’re earning, how it stacks to other learning modules, and how it leads to future opportunities.   

Lastly, institutions need clarity to create coherent credentialing ecosystems that are aligned with their mission and the market. This will prepare institutions to best partner with employers and provide learners with clear and transparent outcomes.  This will also enable institutions to provide comprehensive learner records that are universally understood by employers.   

What does all of this mean for my institution and my work? 

Whether you call them alternative credentials, microcredentials, badges, or certificates, one thing is clear: 

✅ Non-degree programs are here to stay. 

✅ They are critical tools for economic mobility, lifelong learning, and workforce development. 

✅ And most importantly, we need to be transparent and intentional about what they are and how we talk about them. 

While it takes time to develop a taxonomy and define the various types of credentials, it is important foundational work.  Organizations are actively seeking to provide standard definitions to support institutions, learners and employers.  Use this work as a guide for your own institutional planning.  Consider sources to keep you connected to this evolving landscape, such as UPCEA’s Innovative Credentials Network, a community advancing the future of non-degree learning. This network brings together leaders from online and professional continuing education who are defining the future of education and creating impactful, workforce-relevant credentials. 

 

Stacy Chiaramonte is the Senior Vice President of Operations and Strategy for UPCEA’s Research & Consulting division. Prior to joining UPCEA, she spent 13 years at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, most recently as the Associate Vice President of Graduate and Professional Studies. 

Many non-academic factors influence learners’ higher education decisions: financial implications, geography, degree paths, sports success, family legacy, and more. While there are many ways for a given institution to market itself, economic, technological, and societal shifts are motivating schools to refocus their marketing on attributes that specifically drive positive outcomes and generate industry-ready graduates:

  • Learners are putting greater emphasis on educational ROI, suggesting that—at least for some—outcomes outweigh non-academic features.
  • As the new federal administration continues to sow fiscal uncertainty, institutions increasingly look for more efficient, cost-effective differentiation strategies.
  • Not only have teaching methods evolved to include online and hybrid learning, but industries are innovating at a far faster pace than most universities can match.

These shifts suggest a return to the fundamentals of education marketing. In other words, to sell an education, you need to sell an education.

Why It All Begins (and ends) With Learning

If you ask AI, “What are the key fundamentals of marketing higher education?” you will likely get some version of the content in the left column of the table below. The right column illustrates how the current realities of each fundamental suggest that a learning focused marketing strategy can be beneficial.

Fundamental Why this suggests a “Learning-Focus”
Understand your audience Students expect a solid positive return on their investment in education. Being amply prepared for the demands of industry requires a focus on learning hard and soft skills.
Maintain a consistent brand voice Regardless of message focus, consistency is crucial
Keep up with industry trends The exponential growth of technology remains one of the key trends in the marketplace driving decisions and strategy across verticals. Delivering candidates with the necessary technical skills suggests emphasizing the quality of the learning experience.
Utilize data to inform strategies Particularly in context of AI
Highlight the value of education The value of an education is its ability to prepare students to become valued contributors
Share the student/alumni experience Make the learning component as compelling as the social/recreational aspect … but with a better return.
Evaluate and adjust Whatever the message, we must evaluate performance in context of goals and adjust based on the experience and any new inputs.

 

So, if the needs of the customer (students and employers) are increasingly focused on successful outcomes, how do institutions proceed?

Learning Design and Enrollment

Capturing the attention of a desirable prospect begins with getting on their radar. As there is no shortage of content on marketing for enrollment, we will avoid discussions of implementation in favor of understanding the messaging opportunity.

Institutions that are committed to student success are likely already emphasizing their academic credentials, such as in-demand faculty, state-of-the-art research, and graduation/employment rates. However, the more nuanced subject of learning design–-how we learn versus what we learn—is often overlooked.

If the unifying goal is to produce industry-ready graduates, it is incumbent upon institutions to take the necessary steps to maximize each student’s chance of success. That means addressing students individually, based on their strengths and weaknesses. In a textbook-and-classroom scenario, this is all but impossible. Students who excel often have to wait for others to catch up, while those facing difficulties may become discouraged or even embarrassed.

Today’s learners, on the other hand, benefit from extraordinary technological growth. Incoming students don’t know—or probably care—what came “before” smartphones, the internet, and AI, and they are accustomed to some degree of personalization in everything they do. The same advances that decide what ad to show you on social media can and are being put to use in developing individualized learning strategies.

Marketing exceptional learning design to prospects should focus on how it can benefit them as individuals who have their own unique learning challenges, giving each student an equal opportunity to excel by tailoring their education to their own learning style and pace. Commitment to advanced learning design signals that the institution does indeed focus on the individual and helps reduce the fear of being “just a number.”

Learning Design and Retention

When we look at the primary causes of drop out and stop out, most can be connected, at least in part, to academic challenges. Thoughtful application of modern learning design theory and current technology can help overcome these.

  • Financial strain – Still number one for most learners, but not directly tied to learning in most cases.
  • Emotional stress – While any number of factors can contribute negatively to an individual’s mental health, academic challenges and failures will stand out as a major cause for many learners.
  • Academic unpreparedness/inability to keep up – Students who excelled in K-12 may struggle when they experience the pace and volume of higher education.
  • Lack of structure/motivation – Students with underdeveloped study habits and issues with procrastination may struggle.
  • Personal/family issues – Most likely not directly tied to learning challenges.

To borrow from the medical field, we can see from this list that treating the disease—call it learning struggles—will have a positive impact on the outward symptoms listed above. By utilizing the myriad tools available, especially AI and other advanced technology, learning designers, in partnership with faculty, can provide students with personalized educational experiences that can help them overcome their individual challenges.

Furthermore, through constant monitoring of student data, intelligent learning design can help instructors identify struggling students sooner. Integrated AI can also meet learners where they are and scaffold their learning experiences appropriately. Facilitating individual learning will logically lead to increased retention rates which, in turn, can be used as a recruitment tool.

Learning Design and Success

What exactly do we mean by “industry-ready graduates”? More importantly, what do potential employers mean when they use that phrase? Certainly, readiness for the workforce begins with  industry- and job-specific skills that typically make up the lion’s share of a learner’s educational program. But most employers also put high value on “soft skills” or the capacity to productively work and interact with others toward a common goal. While the availability of highly-trained graduates varies by industry, the “skills gaps” that all employers seem to agree on relate to the ability of employees to thrive in the working environment.

In their 2023 study “The Career-Ready Graduate: What Employers Say About The Difference College Makes”, the AAC&U does a deep dive into this subject, but to the specific point of non-technical skills gaps, they shared the following chart:

Chart from The Career-Ready Graduate showing percentages of employers who indicated a skill was "very important" relative to perceptions that students are "very prepared" in that skill.

Source: THE CAREER-READY GRADUATE

If your eyes quickly drop to the bottom, you’re not alone. One of the interesting results of this online survey of 1,010 employers seems to indicate that the industry isn’t too worried about graduates’ ability to utilize technology and digital media platforms. In fairness, this is likely driven by the understanding that modern students have only ever existed in a digital world and the perception that, by nature, they will readily accept and adopt new technology. 

But perhaps the more telling results are in the rest of the chart. Of the 10 other skills listed, none are tech-based, none are industry-specific, and none are apparently being adequately taught/coached in the university setting.

Not surprisingly, this represents an opportunity for learning designers to incorporate these skills by creating tailored, engaging learning experiences that connect theoretical knowledge with real-world applications. And, of course, as with increasing retention rates, successful career placements can be a powerful recruitment tool.

Learning Design and the Importance of Staying Current

In the US, Professor James Lang in his 2016 book Small Teaching, describes this development:

“The past several decades have brought us a growing body of research on how human beings learn, and a new generation of scholars in those fields has begun to translate findings from the laboratories of memory and cognition researchers to the higher education classrooms of today. Their findings increasingly suggest the potency of small shifts in how we design our courses, conduct our classrooms, and communicate with our students.” 

(Source: What’s behind the growth and interest in learning design? — Neil Mosley Consulting)

In our exploration of the importance of regular course updates we take a closer look at the challenges of keeping up with rapid technological growth and the downside of failing to stay current. Rather than review all the reasoning behind this assertion and the steps higher ed should pursue, let’s look at the opportunities that modern learning design creates for implementing curricula that are not only current in terms of content, but in terms of learning science and design.

  • Programs built as a series of independent modules can be easily updated or replaced individually, rather than overhauling an entire curriculum as regulations or market needs change.
  • Micro-credentials or certifications can be quickly developed and deployed, allowing you to quickly respond and giving learners a more dynamic and personalized educational experience.
  • Implementing a sprint-based approach allows curriculum changes to be regularly piloted, tested, and refined based on direct feedback from students, faculty, and industry advisors.

By adopting these strategies, universities can build a more responsive educational framework that is better equipped to navigate the rapid changes in teaching methodologies, regulatory requirements, and technological advancements.

Learning Design and the Future

The importance of learning design in developing the next generation of industry-ready workers cannot be overstated. In fact, The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that employment of training and development specialists will grow by 12% from 2023 to 2033, much faster than the average for all occupations. This translates to an average of about 42,200 openings each year over the decade. As a partner with institutions, Noodle can provide guidance on hiring or outsourcing, help with evaluating candidates, and ensuring integration with other initiatives.

Perhaps the most salient takeaway is that the way students learn has changed significantly over time and will continue to evolve as new teaching approaches and technologies are developed. Institutions must embrace the opportunity to serve the next generation of learners by understanding how they learn, utilizing available technology to meet those needs, and guiding them through their education and professional development to become the in-demand employees that industry needs.

 

Robyn Hammontree, Senior Managing Director of Partnership Development for Learning at Noodle, brings over 12 years of instructional design experience and 20+ years on university campuses, helping educators tackle challenges and focus on their passions.

Kevin Phang, VP of Partnership Development for Marketing & Enrollment at Noodle, has over 15 years of experience in digital marketing. With roles at QuinStreet and HotChalk, he brings expertise in creating impactful solutions by balancing the needs of learners and institutions.

 Noodle is the leading tech-enabled strategy and services partner for higher education. A certified B corporation, Noodle (founded in 2013) has developed infrastructure and online enrollment growth for some of the best academic institutions in the world. Noodle empowers universities to transform the world through life-changing learning. It offers strategic consulting to advise partners as they navigate their futures, provides services tailored to meet their growth aspirations, and deploys technology, tools, and platforms that integrate for scale, making our partners more resilient, responsive, efficient, and interconnected.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming a cornerstone of contemporary practice in higher education. This summer is an ideal time to become AI literate for the fall.

Perhaps you just haven’t had time to keep up with the advent of agentic AI. Or, you simply didn’t realize that AI is not just a fad in higher education, rather it is our best hope to survive the pervasive budget cuts and dropping enrollments. Or, perhaps based on your look at AI tools in 2023, you found them too unreliable and subject to “hallucinations” to take them seriously. Here’s hoping that this summer provides you a bit of time spread across the season to “catch up” with the technology and begin the fall term with the knowledge and experience to make AI the best professional assistant you have ever had.

Instead of facing a stack of projects and problems alone, you will have a PhD-knowledge virtual assistant working at speeds far exceeding human thought:

According to OpenAI, o3 earned a record-breaking score on the ARC-AGI visual reasoning benchmark, reaching 87.5 percent in high-compute testing—comparable to human performance at an 85 percent threshold. The model also scored 96.7 percent on the 2024 American Invitational Mathematics Exam, missing just one question, and reached 87.7 percent on GPQA Diamond, which contains graduate-level biology, physics, and chemistry questions.

These assistants work 24/7, without vacation or holiday breaks. At the end of long day of work, you can pose complex problems to an advanced deep research model and it will conduct research, compose a detailed report, and prepare follow-up questions while you are eating dinner (I have experienced this myself; reading the results over dessert so much more satisfying). I have also awakened in the early hours of a Sunday morning with a great idea to pursue for work. I tapped it in directly to one of the advanced models and awakened to a 20+ page report complete with comprehensive citations and suggestions for further research later that morning.

AI developers have made great strides in avoiding hallucinations and off-target results. Among the improvements are the utilization of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), a natural-language processing technique that taps an expansive database to “enhance the context and accuracy of generated text.” Those who may have stopped using AI because of errors of the past will be surprised to see the far more consistent and accurate results of today. Despite these improvements, I continue to recommend that users submit nearly identical prompts to two or three of the leading models of AI. Although my motivation for that recommendation primarily is that you are likely to gain additional, useful information from the added results.

Today, most of the leading models provide “multimodel” features that can input, process and output various types of data beyond text, such as images, audio, and video. This enables engaging the prompter via voice communication. It supports the generation of stunning images and rather brief video segments. Google’s Notebook LM tool accepts input documents and related media about which it can create a podcast, allow listeners to ask questions and get audio responses, create crossword puzzles based on your lecture notes, and even create virtual debates.

The tools I most commonly use are those from OpenAI, particularly o3; those from Google, particularly Gemini 2.0 Flash for general work and Gemini 2.5 Pro for detailed research; and Anthropic’s Claude 3.7 Sonnet. However, there are many more models available today that may better meet your needs or preferences. One of the projects I have been pursuing lately is tracking research, new treatments and other emerging information about a particular disease. I am using Gemini 2.5 Pro and ChatGPT o3, running updates every week. The results have been comprehensive and well cited. Notably, ChatGPT o3 noticed that I had been asking for reports every Tuesday and asked if I would like it to run the same prompt every Tuesday and email the results to me. Such an action could be considered elementary agentic AI in which the tool can analyze needs, create a plan of action, and with permissions take autonomous actions:

Agentic AI is an AI system that acts autonomously, adapts in real time, and solves multi-step problems based on context and objectives. They are built of multiple AI agents that leverage large language models (LLMs) and complex reasoning. This enables them to have enhanced decision-making abilities and natural language understanding, facilitating more effective and intuitive user interactions.

The power of AI agents is only beginning to be realized; 2025 has been dubbed the year of the agent. It is anticipated that millions of agents will be created by the end of the year. Their potential is enormous, reaching beyond the individual to take actions on behalf of a human.

So, how can you get on top of this AI trend this summer? Prompt engineering, asking questions in proper context, detail and format, is a good place to begin. You might consider enrolling in one of the many low-cost or free prompt engineering online classes. The Google Prompting Essentials course is $49 through Coursera. It takes just a few hours, and successful completion results in a certificate. There are also a number of YouTube videos that condense the contents of the micro-course. You may want to browse the Coursera catalog section on prompt engineering that lists scores of classes from industry leaders, commercial vendors, colleges and universities that last from a few weeks to a few months in length. Many provide professional certificates.

I suggest you begin a course, many are self-paced, or one of the informal YouTube videos, then begin using the tools at every possible opportunity. “Iterative prompting” is the name of the game. Try reframing the prompt, providing additional information, and including examples of what you are seeking, for the tool to better understand your expectations.

Use your one or two chosen tools as often as possible. Ignore non-AI search tools for a while. You will notice that AI searching gets right to the best solutions rather than first listing the responses in order of those who paid for their place in the search response, such as “googling” a question does.

Searching topics as they arise four or five times a day, refining each of those search prompts to better understand the capabilities of each tool, and searching across a wide variety of topics and disciplines will advance your expertise and comfort with AI. By the time classes begin in the fall, you will be prepared to save much time and effort by using AI. You will also be able to integrate AI into your daily routine, become more productive, and share your expertise with your colleagues and students.

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed. 

In partnership with the HELIX Summit on Continuing Medical Education 

How are institutions navigating the dynamic intersection of workforce demands, digital learning, and credentialing innovation—especially in healthcare? That’s exactly what we explored in a recent Coffee Chat, where UPCEA leaders from across the higher education landscape gathered for an unrecorded but powerfully candid conversation on the trends shaping professional and continuing education.

This lively discussion surfaced practical strategies, inspiring innovations, and shared challenges. Here are the highlights, organized around the key themes that framed our conversation, moderated by UPCEA’s Deputy CEO and Chief Learning Officer, Amy Heitzman. 

Institutional Mission Meets Market Needs

We kicked off by exploring how each panelist’s work fits into the larger mission of their institutions—and who’s at the table when these strategies are developed.

  • Robert Kearns of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine emphasized the importance of designing modular content that serves both students and professionals. Collaborations with frontline clinicians and junior faculty ensure that programs stay relevant to shifting care models and emerging technologies.
  • Mike Macklin, representing the Colorado Community College System (CCCS), discussed the power of collaboration across their 13 colleges. Their “Power of 13” strategy aligns with state-wide partners—from governments to businesses—to ensure career pathways are accessible and aligned with workforce demand.
  • John McKenzie of the University of North Texas Health Science Center described a whole-of-institution approach: working across academic programs and building scalable, accessible continuing education programs that reached learners in 47 states last year—all in service of a mission to build healthier communities.
  • Elizabeth Valencia-Borgert from St. Cloud State University echoed the value of employer-aligned programming. At SCSU, close industry partnerships help shape training in real time, ensuring credentials reflect emerging needs in sectors like healthcare, equity, and AI. 

Stacking Toward the Future: Microcredentials in Motion

We then turned to microcredentials—small, stackable credentials that can stand alone or ladder into larger academic programs. What are panelists learning as they experiment and scale?

  • At CCCS, Mike Macklin spotlighted their partnership with Education Design Lab on Behavioral Health Micropathways. These industry-informed credentials lead directly to jobs, stack into associate degrees, and keep students “earning while learning.”
  • John McKenzie shared examples of aligning non-credit courses with licensure and certification opportunities: from pharmacy tech to community health worker programs. He noted a new initiative in forensic nursing that bridges non-credit and degree-seeking pathways.
  • Elizabeth Valencia-Borgert noted that SCSU is in active conversations with system leadership about expanding through Professional and Continuing Education Division (PACE) their highly successful digital badges to gain broader industry recognition.
  • Robert Kearns described how Johns Hopkins is working to create institution-wide clarity and consistency around microcredentials; ensuring shared language, standardized end products (like badges or certificates), and clear distinctions between non-credit offerings and academic degrees. 

Scaling Without Sacrificing Quality

Innovation means nothing without quality. So how do institutions scale to meet learner demand while preserving high standards?

  • At UNTHSC, John McKenzie outlined a robust quality assurance framework: faculty-instructional designer partnerships, third-party course reviews using Quality Matters, and mandatory accessibility certifications for course developers. They’re even exploring holographic, AI-powered standardized patients for future training.
  • He also offered a compelling roadmap to financial sustainability: blending tuition with grant-funded course development, aligning with military and workforce benefits, and embedding education into faculty research dissemination plans.
  • At CCCS, Mike Macklin described several system-wide consortia that are helping to deliver education equitably across rural and urban regions, using shared curriculum and multi-modal delivery. Their healthcare apprenticeships are a powerful example of this approach in action.
  • Elizabeth pointed to an inspiring international model from Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, which integrates company partnerships directly into program design and delivery.
  • Robert Kearns emphasized that at Johns Hopkins, scaling goes hand-in-hand with instructional design. Their team-driven model pairs faculty with instructional designers who handle early drafts, format content, and optimize for accessibility and branding which ensures faculty time is used strategically while maintaining a consistent, high-quality learner experience across all offerings.

Final Thoughts

What emerged from this UPCEA Coffee Chat was a shared sense of urgency—and opportunity. Across the board, institutions are rising to meet the changing needs of learners, communities, and industries. From stackable credentials to system-wide partnerships, healthcare education is being reimagined for access, agility, and impact.

Missed the conversation? Stay tuned for future HELIX events, and follow our blog for more thought leadership at the intersection of education, innovation, and workforce development.

 

A person (Vickie Cook) smiling

By Vickie Cook

Why Values-Based Influence Matters Now 

Higher education is undergoing seismic shifts—demographic changes, budget constraints, AI disruption, and questions of relevance. In this environment, how we lead and why we lead matters as much as what we do as leaders. Leaders who operate from a strong internal compass—those grounded in values—offer clarity, stability, and hope. 

Values-based influence is not about hierarchy or control. It’s about leading with integrity, building credibility through consistency, and aligning actions with deeply held beliefs. And it works—because people follow authenticity before they follow authority.   

What Is Values-Based Influence? 

Values-based influence is the ability to lead by example, inspire others through shared values, and foster a culture rooted in purpose and trust. This model of leadership prioritizes: 

  • Integrity over image 
  • Collaboration over compliance 
  • Consistency over charisma 

It is about becoming the kind of leader others choose to follow—not because they have to, but because they believe in the direction you are leading. 

How to Identify Values-Based Influence 

Recognizing and strengthening values-based influence begins with a few key strategies: 

1. Conduct a Values Audit 

Review strategic plans, communications, and decision-making patterns. More importantly, listen. What stories are being told in meetings? What behaviors are recognized and rewarded? These are reflections of your unit’s real values.  Align the values that are identified with the strategic plans being made. 

2. Recognize Informal Leaders 

Look beyond titles. Identify those who consistently demonstrate ethical behavior, inspire peers, or provide a moral compass during conflict. These individuals are often quiet influencers who uphold the culture and keep teams anchored in purpose. 

3. Facilitate Values Mapping 

Hold intentional conversations to map where individuals see values showing up—or falling short—in daily work. This can help uncover disconnects and foster ownership of cultural alignment. 

4. Align Practices to Principles 

Are your hiring, recognition, and budget decisions aligned with your values? If not, adjust. Systems either reinforce or erode culture.  Systems that erode culture have an oversized negative impact on an organization. 

Aspire to Lead with a Values-Based Identity 

To become a values-based leader, commit to personal and professional alignment: 

Clarify Your Leadership Values 

Define your non-negotiables—those values you refuse to compromise. Whether that’s equity, transparency, or courage, write them down, keep them on your phone, refer to them in moments of tension and conflict. Know yourself and be determined in values-based leadership. 

Model the Culture You Want to Create 

Your behavior sets the tone. If you seek a culture of collaboration, invite voices into decision-making. Build distributed leadership patterns.  If you value innovation, create safe spaces for experimentation and learning from failure. Build an entrepreneurial foundation. 

Empower Others to Lead from Their Values 

Mentor your team in reflecting on their personal values and encourage them to act from that space. Distributed, values-based leadership creates resilience and engagement. 

The Impact on Your Unit—and Beyond 

When leadership becomes rooted in shared values, the results are powerful: 

  • Greater trust across teams 
  • Deeper engagement from faculty and staff 
  • Stronger alignment with mission and strategic goals 
  • A healthier, more inclusive workplace culture 

Values-based leadership transforms institutions not from the top down, but from the inside out. 

Final Thought 

Values-based influence is not about perfection. It is about taking a bold, courageous stand to lead authentically, a commitment to mission and values alignment, and the discipline to act with integrity. In the shifting landscape of higher education that we are experiencing today, the leaders who thrive will be those who inspire not just through ideas, but through who they are. 

Additional Resources 

 

Vickie Cook is the Vice Chancellor for Enrollment and Retention Management and a Research Professor of Education at the University of Illinois Springfield, as well as a Strategic Advisor for UPCEA Research and Consulting.  To learn more about UPCEA Research and Consulting, please contact consulting@upcea.edu.