Lumina Foundation is working to increase the share of adults in the U.S. labor force with college degrees or other credentials of value leading to economic prosperity.
Every fall, a familiar set of college rankings tells the same tired story. The wealthiest, most exclusive schools dominate the top. That leaves the vast majority of prospective students—whose SAT scores and family income aren’t in the upper 1 percent—to navigate one of the most consequential decisions of their lives armed with a deeply skewed picture of what “best” really means.
The Washington Monthly College Guide and Rankings exist to offer a better answer. The 25 colleges that follow differ in size, geography, and mission. Some are prestigious and famous. Others are largely unknown outside their regions. But all show what’s possible when colleges put students and the public good first.
The debate over test-optional policies, often framed as a simple for-or-against proposition, misses a key point. New research, just published in American Sociological Review, suggests the real story is more nuanced and more institutionally driven.
The critical question is not if test-optional policies work, but under what conditions they do—and for what goals. The answer has less to do with the policy itself and more to do with the underlying cultural values and competing priorities of the institutions that adopt it, the study's researchers suggest.
Across three decades of research on campus racial climate, many negative experiences that students of color face remain stubbornly consistent, according to a new study published in the Community College Journal of Research and Practice.
The study also highlights underexplored areas for further research, including a need for more data on racial climate at community colleges and students’ racial experiences in activities such as internships and study abroad programs.
There are more than 19 million college students in the United States. Most are well removed from academia’s corridors of wealth and power, cavernous football stadiums, and carefree nights hanging out in dorms. The war between President Donald Trump and Harvard University barely registers to them.
Instead, many live close to home, often juggling work or taking care of children with their course load. Many are enrolled part-time or in community colleges.
A lab at Harvard Medical School recently discovered something that could change the way cancer, neurodevelopmental disorders, and other diseases are understood, treated, and prevented.
But the federal grants that funded that work were abruptly terminated this spring, as the Trump administration froze more than $2 billion in research funding to Harvard in its fight to force the university to yield to its demands for change. Now, the university finds itself in a precarious situation, navigating lawsuits and negotiations in an attempt to mitigate the damage to research.
Ohio college students are navigating the ramifications of the state’s new higher education law that bans diversity efforts, prohibits faculty strikes, and regulates classroom discussion. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 1 into law on March 28 after it quickly passed the House and Senate earlier this year.
For students like Audrey Ansel, a senior at Ohio University, the new law is personal. "I feel like it's almost a grieving process," she says when describing the closing of the school's Pride Center—one of the key reasons Ansel chose to attend OU.
.jpg?upscale=true&width=500&upscale=true&name=istockphoto-1676823816-612x612%20(1).jpg)
