I Teach at a Business School. It’s Time to Shut Them Down.  — from nytimes.com by Chris Marquis; this is a gifted article

Business schools have always struggled to justify their place in the university. A medical school’s core justification is health, and a law school’s is justice — undisputed public goods. Business schools are organized explicitly around a private good: the pursuit of profit. The American sociologist Thorstein Veblen identified this tension a century ago, criticizing university schools focused on commerce because they “need imply nothing in the way of serviceability to the common good.”

Corporate influence feeds a larger problem: The cases almost always feature winners, making it easy to mistake luck or timing for a proven strategy. Failures, dead ends and nonmarket solutions are rarely considered. 
…
Furthermore, edits that push the case narratives away from reality are often meant to make it “work” in a classroom. Complexity is systematically shaved away, and dissenting voices often go unheard.

Business schools have a divided mission: They seek to legitimize an economic system focused on private gain while also developing guardrails to tame it. They found a remarkable way to manage this tension: the “win-win” story in which the conflict between private gain and public good simply evaporates.

Many of my students arrive on campus wanting to work on the crises that our economic system has created. What they lack is an institution that is worthy of their better impulses.

 

The Faculty Bargain Of 2040: What Should The University And Its Faculty Owe One Another? — from forbes.com by David Rosowsky

What if we stopped reforming the existing faculty career for a moment? What if we started over?

Suppose we were designing the faculty career today for the university of 2040, starting with a blank sheet of paper. There would be no rigid departmental affiliations, ranks, tenure systems, promotion policies, or inherited assumptions. We could keep anything that still made sense. But nothing would be presumed necessary simply because it has been around for decades.

What would we build?

When machines can increasingly perform parts of the work that once consumed enormous amounts of human time, the scarce attributes may shift toward judgment, curiosity, creativity, disciplinary depth, the ability to frame consequential questions, the capacity to connect ideas across fields, and the ability to know when a machine is wrong.

That is not an argument for fewer faculty. It may be an argument for different faculty – and for a faculty employment system capable of recognizing those important (even desirable) differences.

 

 

The unexpected toll of searching endlessly for a new job — from washingtonpost.com by Julia Carpenter [this is a gifted article]
“Ghost job” postings, AI interviewers and a lack of in-person connection can take a toll on your mental health.

A prolonged job search doesn’t just sap job seekers of time, money and energy — for many, the hunt takes a devastating toll on their mental health.

Although unemployment rates in the United States have been historically low, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that more than a quarter of jobless people qualify as “long-term unemployed,” meaning they have been hunting for 27 weeks or more.
…

“A prolonged job search isn’t simply a logistical challenge,” she said. “It erodes a person’s confidence over time and their sense of agency, along with their financial security, obviously.”

Studies show unemployment is linked to the development of mental disorders, including anxiety and depression. Long-term job seekers describe heightened stress and exhaustion, which can make the everyday work of a job hunt feel even more burdensome, said Mindy Shoss, professor of industrial and organizational psychology at the University of Central Florida.


From DSC:
I retired at the end of 2021, so I haven’t been in any kind of job search for years now. But I went through a time of job searching back in 2017 that lasted 9 months. I had some part-time work during that time, but nothing like the long work weeks that I was used to for years. It was a highly emotional time for me. Putting in the work to apply for a job took me at least a day per job application. Over time, not hearing anything back was discouraging. It’s hard not to take things personally, even though I knew these were business decisions. (But I also strongly believed that I faced age discrimination.) Putting oneself out there in a job search can be highly grueling and discouraging. 

As any good job searching firm will tell you, networking is key. Students — know that up front. Go find out about networking, and if you aren’t doing it now, start doing it as soon as you can. Start to:

  • Share relevant and useful information via a blog, out on LinkedIn, or via other types of social media
  • Develop contacts and help them out whenever possible
  • Connect people to each other

Don’t just initiate something with your network when you need something. Feed your network constantly. (Though I will say, my network on LinkedIn was very little help to me. It turned out that the people I knew locally came through for me the most.)

 

Below are several items that were either mentioned by Matt Tower or I came across them via offshoots of items that he linked to:

Future Universities Alliance Names Inaugural Innovation Sandbox Cohort — from provost.duke.edu
Program incubated by Duke brings together higher education innovators from 23 countries for year-long peer exchange

The Future Universities Alliance has selected 49 institutions from 23 countries for the inaugural cohort of its Innovation Sandbox, a 12-month peer learning program for higher education leaders advancing ambitious, institution-level innovation.The cohort brings together founders of new universities, administrators and faculty leading high-stakes changes within established institutions, and leaders of proven models exploring how their innovations can travel to new contexts. Participants were chosen through a competitive process that drew applicants from around the world in its inaugural year.

A makeover for college: No gym, no meal plan and two years of work — from npr.org by Jon Marcus

An entirely new college is being planned here to change not only how higher education is delivered, but at what price. It also proposes to highlight ways the current business model no longer works, as evidenced by the 152 colleges and universities that have closed or merged since 2016, and the 442 others that a new projection says are at risk.

So deeply entrenched are the problems confronting higher education that a growing chorus of innovators says the easiest way to fix them is to begin again from scratch.

All undergraduates should get work-based learning, v-cs say — from timeshighereducation.com by Jack Grove. NOTE: this item is behind a paywall.
Bold plan to support graduate employment would require placements for 1.4 million students annually

 

MIT’s Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use in Teaching, Learning, and Research Training — from aiandeducation.mit.edu

However, what we learned as a group quickly convinced us that the Institute community, particularly the faculty, must tackle a set of deeper questions about the structure, meaning, and value of an MIT education in an era in which AI is one of several factors complicating the Institute’s mission.
…

In this report, we:

  • Highlight key aspects of the current educational landscape at MIT.
  • Share eight principles we relied on and that we hope will guide the Institute in the work ahead.
  • Recommend immediate and long-term actions for both instructors and the administration.

On somewhat related notes:

 

The Law School Deans Driving AI Innovation in Legal Education — from natlawreview.com by Shivani Vedhere, AI & the Law Newsletter; via Colin S. Levy

Artificial intelligence is no longer a peripheral issue for legal education. It is quickly becoming one of the central questions facing law schools: how to prepare future lawyers for a profession in which AI will affect research, client counseling, litigation strategy, access to justice, and the business of law.

For decades, law schools treated legal technology as an elective or a niche interest for students already inclined toward innovation. That era is ending. Law firms are adopting AI tools at scale and even investing in developing their own tools. Clients are asking harder questions about efficiency, cost, and competence. Courts are sanctioning lawyers and litigants for AI-generated hallucinations, with the number of identified cases in the United States now exceeding 1,000. Students entering the profession will be expected to keep up with this rapidly changing landscape.

The most forward-looking law schools are responding accordingly. That transformation is being driven in large part by a group of innovative law school deans who are treating AI not as a passing trend, but as a structural change in legal education.

These initiatives signal a broader shift in legal academia where law schools are no longer merely debating whether AI belongs in the curriculum. The more pressing question is how deeply, how early, and how responsibly AI should be integrated into legal education.

 

The Current State of Play: AI in Higher Education and the Road Ahead — from er.educause.edu by Tanya Gamby, David Kil, Rachel Koblic, Paul LeBlanc, Mihnea Moldoveanu and George Siemens

The conventional explanation for this strategic vacuum points to the speed of technological change; it is moving too fast for institutions built for deliberation. That is true. . . and incomplete. The deeper issue is cultural. In fairness to higher education, many industries are struggling to keep up with the pace of AI advances. Higher education, however, moves even more slowly and is not built for the kind of transformational speed now underway. Getting institutional stakeholders to engage, rethink the work, and move faster may be the central challenge facing presidents and chancellors today, and that’s saying a lot in such volatile times.

From DSC:
I highlighted this paragraph because it hits upon the key item involved here — culture. “The deeper issue is cultural.” I think that’s a very true statement.

Part of the culture and setup of many institutions includes giving faculty members full rein of their classes and their departments. Faculty members have a great deal of leeway and power in how they do things. So trying to get X faculty members to get on board — including the Department Chairs — is not an easy task. 

Another part of culture involves being willing — or not — to change in the first place. Some institutions are like Google and are used to making changes and being more innovative. But those institutions are not the norm, at least in my experience. And this doesn’t even address another topic the article mentioned — the pace of these changes. As the authors point out, most institutions of traditional higher education are not equipped to deal with the current pace of change (nor are most of our other types of institutions and our corporations as well). 

I’m going to end this posting with another brief excerpt from the article:

Institutions rooted in human relationships, committed to truth-seeking, and oriented toward the full development of persons play a central role. AI cannot manufacture the experience of mattering to another human being. It cannot model intellectual courage or ethical discernment. It cannot build the kind of community in which students discover who they are and what they believe.

These are not small things. They are, in fact, the things most worth doing. At their best, colleges and universities are not only preparing better workers but shaping individuals and strengthening society.

 

The Tyranny of College Admissions: Why It’s So Challenging to Have Real Change in K-12 Education — from gettingsmart.com by Jon Alfuth

Key Points

  • College admissions policy shapes K-12 practice. If colleges continue to privilege course sequences, seat time, and grades, high schools will remain constrained in how far they can move toward competency-based learning.
  • States and institutions already offer models for change. Wisconsin, Colorado, Indiana, and pilots like CUNY and Michigan Ross show that admissions can incorporate portfolios, demonstrations of learning, and durable skills.

If we could instead orient K-12 education around skill development and application rather than Carnegie Units and grades, we could create a new paradigm for where, when and how students demonstrate college and career readiness. Competency-based education moves schools and systems towards this desirable future that balances knowledge with skills. 

Despite tremendous evidence of its potential, efforts to accelerate this shift have been stymied by the tyranny of college admissions requirements and processes. Parents, teachers, administrators and policymakers end up in a quandary. Anyone attempting to shift away from this traditional course sequence is criticized as trying to lock kids out of higher education and we snap back to the way things have always been done. 

 

Putting college on the fast track — from hechingerreport.org by Jon Marcus
As students grow impatient, colleges try three-year bachelor’s degrees

Some colleges and the accreditors and states that oversee them are adding and approving three-year bachelor’s degrees that require fewer credits than the traditional four-year kind.

Institutions facing enrollment declines hope the new three-year degrees will attract students unwilling to spend the usual amount of time and money that it takes to graduate. States need those graduates to fill jobs.

Nearly 60 universities and colleges are planning, considering or have already launched reduced-credit, three-year bachelor’s degrees in some disciplines. They’re calling them “applied” or “career-focused” bachelor’s degrees.

While earning bachelor’s degrees with fewer credits may appeal to some students, the idea is so new that there’s a key unanswered question: whether employers, graduate schools and licensing agencies will accept them. 

From DSC:
Given the often high price of obtaining a degree these days…whether it’s a 4-year program or a 3-year program, the key is whether a student can get a good job coming out of that program.  I think the required time doesn’t help as much as making the necessary changes to offer more responsive curricula, relevant programs, and real-world learning experiences (including apprenticeships and internships).  I appreciate the experiment to lower the overall costs, but like so many other “innovations,” it’s playing at the fringes. It’s really the same old, same old — just on a shorter time frame.

At current prices, families are FORCED to consider employment prospects. They are demanding a ROI, because they have to.

I was at a meeting earlier this year with other parents and family members who were interested in a particular program at a Michigan-based university. One set of parents really wanted to know if their student would be getting a good job coming out of the program. They didn’t want to take a second mortgage out if the investment wasn’t going to pay off.


Also see:

Here is the link to Chris Mayer’s posting on LinkedIn.

 

Enrollment Growth Continues, Bolstered by Short-Term Credentials — from insidehighered.com by Johanna Alonso
Enrollment is up across the board this fall, except for graduate student enrollment, which remained stagnant. The biggest increase was among those pursuing short-term credentials, followed by those earning associate degrees.

College enrollment continued to grow this fall, increasing by 2 percent compared to fall 2024, according to preliminary fall data released by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

The biggest gains came from students studying for short-term credentials, whose ranks increased 6.6 percent, while the number of students enrolled in associate and bachelor’s degree programs rose 3.1 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively. Enrollment also grew faster at community colleges, which experienced a 4 percent increase, than at public (1.9 percent) and private (0.9 percent) four-year institutions.

Total graduate enrollment was stagnant, however, and the number of master’s students actually decreased by 0.6 percent.


Speaking of higher education, also see:

OPINION: Too many college graduates are stranded before their careers can even begin. We can’t let that happen — from hechingerreport.org by Bruno V. Manno

This fall, some 19 million undergraduates returned to U.S. campuses with a long-held expectation: Graduate, land an entry-level job, climb the career ladder. That formula is breaking down.

Once reliable gateway jobs for college graduates in industries like finance, consulting and journalism have tightened requirements. Many entry-level job postings that previously provided initial working experience for college graduates now require two to three years of prior experience, while AI, a recent analysis concluded, “snaps up good entry-level tasks,” especially routine work like drafting memos, preparing spreadsheets and summarizing research.

Without these proving grounds, new hires lose chances to build skills by doing. And the demand for work experience that potential workers don’t have creates an experience gap for new job seekers. Once stepping-stones, entry-level positions increasingly resemble mid-career jobs.


 

The Most Innovative Law Schools (2025) — from abovethelaw.com by Staci Zaretsky
Forget dusty casebooks — today’s leaders in legal education are using AI, design thinking, and real-world labs to reinvent how law is taught.

“[F]rom AI labs and interdisciplinary centers to data-driven reform and bold new approaches to design and client service,” according to National Jurist’s preLaw Magazine, these are the law schools that “exemplify innovation in action.”

  1. North Carolina Central University School of Law
  2. Suffolk University Law School
  3. UC Berkeley School of Law
  4. Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law
  5. Northeastern University School of Law
  6. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
  7. Seattle University School of Law
  8. Case Western Reserve University School of Law
  9. University of Miami School of Law
  10. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University
  11. Vanderbilt University Law School
  12. Southwestern Law School

Click here to read short summaries of why each school made this year’s list of top innovators.


Clio’s Metamorphosis: From Practice Management To A Comprehensive AI And Law Practice Provider — from abovethelaw.com by Stephen Embry
Clio is no longer a practice management company. It’s much more of a comprehensive provider of all needs of its customers big and small.

Newton delivered what may have been the most consequential keynote in the company’s history and one that signals a shift by Clio from a traditional practice management provider to a comprehensive platform that essentially does everything for the business and practice of law.
…
Clio also earlier this year acquired vLex, the heavy-duty AI legal research player. The acquisition is pending regulatory approval. It is the vLex acquisition that is powering the Clio transformation that Newton described in his keynote.

vLex has a huge amount of legal data in its wheelhouse to power sophisticated legal AI research. On top of this data, vLex developed Vincent, a powerful AI tool to work with this data and enable all sorts of actions and work.

This means a couple of things. First, by acquiring vLex, Clio can now offer its customers AI legal research tools. Clio customers will no longer have to go one place for its practice management needs and a second place for its substantive legal work, like research. It makes what Clio can provide much more comprehensive and all inclusive.


‘Adventures In Legal Tech’: How AI Is Changing Law Firms — from abovethelaw.com
Ernie the Attorney shares his legal tech takes.

Artificial intelligence will give solos and small firms “a huge advantage,” according to one legal tech consultant.

In this episode of “Adventures in Legal Tech,” host Jared Correia speaks with Ernie Svenson — aka “Ernie the Attorney” — about the psychology behind resistance to change, how law firms are positioning their AI use, the power of technology for business development, and more.


Legal software: how to look for and compare AI in legal technology — from legal.thomsonreuters.com by Chris O’Leary

Highlights

  • Legal ops experts can categorize legal AI platforms and software by the ability to streamline key tasks such as legal research, document processing or analysis, and drafting.
  • The trustworthiness and accuracy of AI hinge on the quality of its underlying data; solutions like CoCounsel Legal are grounded in authoritative, expert-verified content from Westlaw and Practical Law, unlike providers that may rely on siloed or less reliable databases.
  • When evaluating legal software, firms should use a framework that assesses critical factors such as integration with existing tech stacks, security, scalability, user adoption, and vendor reputation.

ASU Law appoints a director of AI and Legal Tech Studio, advancing its initiative to reimagine legal education — from law.asu.edu

The Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University appointed Sean Harrington as director of the newly established AI and Legal Tech Studio, a key milestone in ASU Law’s bold initiative to reimagine legal education for the artificial intelligence era. ASU, ranked No. 1 in innovation for the 11th consecutive year, drives AI solutions that enhance teaching, enrich student training and facilitate digital transformation.


The American Legal Technology Awards Name 2025 Winners — from natlawreview.com by Tom Martin

The sixth annual American Legal Technology Awards were presented on Wednesday, October 15th, at Suffolk University Law School (Boston), recognizing winners across ten categories. There were 211 nominees who were evaluated by 27 judges.

The honorees on the night included:

 

Why Co-Teaching Will Be A Hot New Trend In Higher Education — from forbes.com by Brandon Busteed

When it comes to innovation in higher education, most bets are being placed on technology platforms and AI. But the innovation students, faculty and industry need most can be found in a much more human dimension: co-teaching. And specifically, a certain kind of co-teaching – between industry experts and educators.

While higher education has largely embraced the value of interdisciplinary teaching across different majors or fields of study, it has yet to embrace the value of co-teaching between industry and academia. Examples of co-teaching through industry-education collaborations are rare and underutilized across today’s higher ed landscape. But they may be the most valuable and relevant way to prepare students for success. And leveraging these collaborations can help institutions struggling to satisfy unfulfilled student demand for immersive work experiences such as internships.


From DSC:
It’s along these lines that I think that ADJUNCT faculty members should be highly sought after and paid much better — as the up-to-date knowledge and experience they bring into the classroom is very valuable. They should have equal say in terms of curriculum/programs and in the way a college or university is run.

 
 
 

I Teach Creative Writing. This Is What A.I. Is Doing to Students. — from nytimes.com by Meghan O’Rourke; this is a gifted article.

We need a coherent approach grounded in understanding how the technology works, where it is going and what it will be used for.

From DSC:
I almost feel like Meghan should right the words “this week” or “this month” after the above sentence. Whew! Things are moving fast.

For example, we’re now starting to see more agents hitting the scene — software that can DO things. But that can open up a can of worms too. 

Students know the ground has shifted — and that the world outside the university expects them to shift with it. A.I. will be part of their lives regardless of whether we approve. Few issues expose the campus cultural gap as starkly as this one.ce 

From DSC:
Universities and colleges have little choice but to integrate AI into their programs and offerings. There’s enough pressure on institutions of traditional higher education to prove their worth/value. Students and their families want solid ROI’s. Students know that they are going to need AI-related skills (see the link immediately below for example), or they are going to be left out of the competitive job search process.

A relevant resource here:

 
© 2025 | Daniel Christian