Podcasts about universities

The University of Akron and the city of Akron are important resources to one another. Sociology professor Dr. Stacey Nofziger is on hand to explain some unique ways that sociology students are engaged in experiential learning that simultaneously helps to advance solutions to community problems. 

This week on The Narrative, Aaron, David, and Mike break down the firestorm that erupted in Cleveland after the City Club’s January 16 event, featuring Aaron, became ground zero in a very public showdown. LGBTQ activists penned an open letter to pressure the City Club to cancel or modify the event, drawing a response from Attorney General Dave Yost. The Board met on Wednesday, and the City Club CEO Dan Moulthrop announced on Thursday that the event would proceed as planned. After the news, stay tuned for the powerhouse keynote from Carl Trueman at the 2025 Essential Summit. Trueman brilliantly uncovers the root of every cultural battle we’re facing by exposing the deeper crisis behind debates on gender, tech, and identity: the fight over what it means to be human. He shows how modern technology—from smartphones to AI—isn’t just changing how we live, but how we see ourselves. Our society has technology that is actively blurring the very boundaries of human nature. And in that confusion, movements like transgenderism and transhumanism gain ground by treating the human body as nothing more than raw material for reinvention. Trueman delivers a gripping roadmap for Christians on how to respond with clarity, conviction, and courage in a culture being reshaped by forces most people don't even notice. More About Carl Trueman Born and raised in England, Carl R. Trueman is a graduate of the Universities of Cambridge (M.A., Classics) and Aberdeen (Ph.D, Church History), and has taught on the faculties of the Universities of Nottingham and Aberdeen. In 2017-18 he was the William E. Simon Visiting Fellow in Religion and Public Life in the James Madison Program at Princeton University.  Since 2018, he has served as a professor at Grove City College in the Calderwood School of Arts and Humanities. Originally a specialist in Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant thought, more recently his work has focused on identity, critical theory, and the impact of the sexual revolution. He is a Contributing Editor at First Things and a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington DC. His most recent books are The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Expressive Individualism, Cultural Amnesia, and the Road to Sexual Revolution, (with Bruce Gordon) The Oxford Handbook to Calvin, and To Change All Worlds: Critical Theory from Marx to Marcuse (B and H). His writing has appeared in Deseret Journal, Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, American Mind, Claremont Review of Books, and Public Discourse. He and his wife, Catriona, a proud Gaelic Scot, have two adult sons, a daughter-in-law, and a granddaughter. Want to Go Deeper? This week, ticket sales opened for the 2026 Essential Summit! Each year, the momentum grows as believers, ministry leaders, educators, and families gather to equip themselves for faithful influence in a rapidly shifting culture. 2026 promises to be even better! From now until December 31, you can lock in $50 off by using the code FIRSTINLINE at checkout. This early-bird rate is the lowest ticket price we will offer. Once December ends, the price increases and will not return. Register today, and we'll see you on October 23 for the third annual Essential Summit!

A round-up of the main headlines in Sweden on December 11th 2025. You can hear more reports on our homepage www.radiosweden.se, or in the app Sveriges Radio. Presenter and producer: Michael Walsh

00:08 — Sang Hea Kil is professor in the justice studies department at San Jose State University. Se was suspended from her tenured position at the university and is currently contesting her case. 00:33 — Peyrin Kao, is Lecturer in the department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at UC Berkeley, we previously spoke to him over a month into his hunger strike. He has now been suspended without pay for the Spring 2026 semester. Katie Rodger is a Lecturer at UC Davis and President of UC-AFT. 00:45 — Maya, is a Stanford alumni and defendant in the Stanford 11 case and one of 5 who have begun trial in Santa Clara County. The post Campus Attack on Pro-Palestinian Staff and Students at Bay Area Universities appeared first on KPFA.

Welcome to the People vs Inequality Podcast! In a time of crisis and fast change, this podcast is a space to reflect and learn with changemakers on how to tackle inequality. In this season we dive into the question of how academics and practitioners can better collaborate at this time of great need. As more and more countries are facing democratic backlash, both activists and academics are under attack. They are also in a unique position to defend civic space and human rights - especially if they come together. What can we learn from those working across these spaces on doing this well?In this first episode we speak to someone who is particularly effective in bringing together knowledge and practice for real change. Liza Mügge is a political scientist at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands who was recently nominated for a prestigious gender equality price. She's well known for groundbreaking research ánd media impact in her field of gender and democracy. It's a great kick-off to the series that will hopefully leave you inspired to be brave and step into the unknown - because where else would change happen?So please grab a coffee or tea and listen in on the conversation! Resources: More about Liza: https://www.uva.nl/en/profile/m/u/l.m.mugge/l.m.mugge.html#Ancillary-activities More about the research group https://politicsofdiversity.euCartoons: https://pushbacklash.eu/dissemination/cartoons/Toolkit theatre of the oppressed:  Tools of Resistance – Participatory Theatre against the Anti-Gender Backlash: A Toolkit for Universities and NGO'sMen4dem project and reports: https://men4dem.eu/Short summery of theatre experiment: https://men4dem.eu/news-events-in-the-media/radical-immersion-a-theatre-experiment-at-oerolSee also Instagram: @pushbacklash @beldan_sezen @MEN4DEM**See https://afsee.atlanticfellows.org/academic-practitioner-collaborations for previous work of the podcast host on 'AcPrac collaboration' as part of the Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity Politics of Inequality project that also supported this podcast series.Credits: The People vs Inequality Podcast is a co-production between Barbara van Paassen (host, creator) and Elizabeth Maina (producer). This episode was edited by Charles Righa.

Caroline is Professor of English, Carlson Professor in the Humanities, and Vice President for Global Strategy at Rice University. We discuss how to foster a creativity mindset in students, interdisciplinarity, specialists vs generalists in academia, literature, fiction versus nonfiction reading, among many interesting topics. Caroline's latest book "Invent Ed: How an American Tradition of Innovation Can Transform College Today" (MIT Press) will be released on December 16, 2025. Amazon link: https://shorturl.at/9DvTM _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad To subscribe to my exclusive content on X, please visit my bio at https://x.com/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted on December 10, 2025 on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1957: https://youtu.be/FjJX1NO-6ng _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense.  _______________________________________  

Alexandra Beller is a celebrated choreographer, director, and educator with over 25 years of experience in dance, theater, and creative process. A former company member with the Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company, director of Alexandra Beller/Dances, and professor at Universities throughout the country, she has since become a sought-after mentor, helping artists and students cultivate brave, embodied, and meaningful creative practices. She is an award-winning choreographer for theater, and intimacy director, and is the author of 2 books, "The Embodied Conductor, and "The Anatomy of Art: Unlocking the Creative Process for Theater and Dance." Her book, "The Anatomy of Art," is a field guide for artists—a powerful blend of poetic insight, practical tools, and embodied wisdom that challenges makers to disrupt their habits, trust their instincts, and reimagine how they create. Whether in the studio or on the page, she brings clarity, rigor, and deep care to the messy, beautiful work of making art. https://alexandrabellerdances.org/

Invisible illnesses shape millions of lives, yet most patients spend years in the system without answers. Dr. David Clarke has spent his career at the intersection of internal medicine, psychology, and mind-body research. His mission is clear. Help clinicians recognize when symptoms are driven by the nervous system rather than structural disease. Help patients finally feel seen. And give the medical community a framework to reduce unnecessary testing while improving outcomes.In this episode he explains how the brain generates real physical symptoms under stress, trauma, and emotional overload. He walks through clinical red flags that differentiate structural disease from functional conditions. He shares stories of patients who suffered for years before receiving the right diagnosis. Dr. Bonta and Dr. Clarke explore why invisible illnesses are often missed in rushed systems. They dig into tools clinicians can use to validate symptoms without over pathologizing them. They highlight communication strategies that restore trust. They also discuss prevention, early detection, and the growing evidence supporting mind-body approaches.The conversation is practical. Evidence based. Deeply human. Dr. Clarke shows how clinicians can uncover hidden drivers of symptoms and give patients a path to recovery even when imaging and lab work are normal. This episode is designed for anyone who wants to understand the science and psychology behind medically unexplained symptoms and how to improve care for this underserved population.David Clarke, MD's Website : https://www.symptomatic.me/Episode Takeaway 1. Neuroplastic Symptoms: Real physical sensations created by the brain that can improve with the right approach.2. Invisible Illnesses: Often missed because standard training focuses on structural disease, not functional mechanisms.3. Brain Body Pathways: Stress and trauma can activate neural circuits that generate chronic pain and gut symptoms.4. Diagnostic Clarity: Red flags help distinguish functional illness from conditions that need imaging or procedures.5. Validation Matters: Patients recover faster when clinicians acknowledge symptoms without dismissing them.6. Communication Skills: Asking the right questions uncovers hidden emotional drivers behind persistent symptoms.7. Prevention Tools: Early recognition of neuroplastic patterns reduces unnecessary testing and specialist referrals.8. Hope in Recovery: Most patients improve once they learn how the nervous system produces their symptoms.Episode timestamps 02:46 – Why invisible illnesses elude standard medical training06:13 – How the nervous system produces real physical symptoms10:34 – Red flags that separate structural disease from functional illness14:51 – Communication strategies that validate patient symptoms19:30 – Trauma, stress and the hidden drivers of chronic symptoms24:42 – Clinical cases that shifted Dr. Clarke's diagnostic approach30:04 – Tools clinicians can use to reduce unnecessary testing35:57 – Preventing invisible illness through early recognition and educationDISCLAMER >>>>>>    The Ditch Lab Coat podcast serves solely for general informational purposes and does not serve as a substitute for professional medical services such as medicine or nursing. It does not establish a doctor/patient relationship, and the use of information from the podcast or linked materials is at the user's own risk. The content does not aim to replace professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, and users should promptly seek guidance from healthcare professionals for any medical conditions.   >>>>>> The expressed opinions belong solely to the hosts and guests, and they do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Hospitals, Clinics, Universities, or any other organization associated with the host or guests.    Disclosures: Ditch The Lab Coat podcast is produced by (soundsdebatable.com) and is independent of Dr. Bonta's teaching and research roles at McMaster University, Temerty Faculty of Medicine and Queens University. 

Jeffrey Epstein's ascent into elite financial and social circles was not accidental, according to sustained criticism aimed at retail magnate Les Wexner, who is widely regarded as a central early enabler of Epstein's power and legitimacy. Epstein, despite lacking conventional financial credentials, was granted extraordinary authority over Wexner's assets, including sweeping power of attorney, access to properties, and control of finances. Critics argue this patronage gave Epstein the money, credibility, and institutional cover that allowed him to embed himself among political, academic, and royal elites for decades. Wexner, they contend, was not a passive bystander but a key architect in Epstein's rise, with his financial backing serving as the foundation upon which Epstein built his broader influence and protection.The criticism extends beyond Wexner himself to the institutions that continued to honor him while avoiding scrutiny of his ties to Epstein. Universities, particularly Ohio State University, are accused of prioritizing donor relationships and endowments over accountability, despite past failures to address sexual abuse allegations in other contexts. Observers argue that Wexner's philanthropy and political donations helped deflect investigation and shield him from serious congressional inquiry, even as Epstein's crimes became undeniable. Calls have grown for Congress to compel Wexner to testify under oath, framing his continued avoidance of direct questioning as emblematic of how wealth and institutional power have delayed accountability in the Epstein case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:OSU alumni hold photos of billionaire Les Wexner with Jeffrey Epstein while demanding testimonyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, David J. Staley reads his latest University Design essay, “Underemployment,” a timely and compelling examination of the rising underemployment of college graduates in the United States.Drawing on Peter Turchin's framework of “eliteoverproduction,” national labor market data, and comparative insights from global economies, Staley explores the widening disconnect between higher education and the jobs available in the current workforce. He highlights striking statistics—from the underemployment rates by major to the top U.S. occupations that do not require a college degree—and argues that the problem lies not with college-going students, but with an economy unable to generate enough high-skill jobs.The episode challenges listeners to consider:·      Is underemployment a temporary labor marketfluctuation or a chronic structural issue?·      What happens to college enrollment and socialstability if the trend continues?·      Should workforce development simply respond tothe current labor market—or design a better one?·      And what new mission might colleges anduniversities embrace to combat underemployment?Staley ultimately proposes a bold idea: Universities should not only educate future workers but actively catalyze the creation of high-skill economic opportunity, shaping a labor market aligned with the talent they cultivate. 

What does learning look like when technology shifts faster than most university systems can adapt? That question shaped my conversation with Rob Telfer, who leads education strategy for D2L across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Rob returned to the show with a clear view of how AI is transforming higher education and why so many institutions are struggling to keep pace with expectations from students, employers, and society. Rob opened by laying out the reality universities face today. Financial strain, fluctuating enrolment, employer demands changing at speed, and a generation of learners preparing for roles that may not even exist yet. Against that backdrop, he described AI as the biggest catalyst the sector has seen in decades and explained how it has already reshaped academic policy, assessment models, and daily teaching practice. We explored practical examples of where AI is already creating meaningful change. Rob shared how D2L is helping institutions introduce adaptive learning, on demand student support, and content creation tools that reduce the pressure on educators. These are not speculative ideas. They are used by universities serving tens of thousands of learners, improving accessibility, easing workloads, and giving students faster, more personal support. The conversation moved to employability, a worry at the centre of almost every higher education debate. Rob explained how curriculum design needs to shift from theory first to skill first, and how deeper collaboration between academia and industry can help close widening gaps. He described why AI should be woven through the learning experience rather than bolted on at the end, and how that alignment can shape graduates who are confident with the tools they will soon use in the workplace. A striking theme came from the mismatch between student behaviour and institutional policy. Many students use AI daily, even where guidance is unclear or restrictive. Rob argued that ignoring the reality only pushes students into the shadows. Universities that teach responsible use, clear evaluation methods, and prompt literacy will better prepare their learners for the world they are about to enter. We ended by looking ahead to 2026. Rob believes the institutions that thrive will be the ones that act with intent, create clear AI policies, invest in meaningful technology, and keep human connection at the centre of learning. Those that resist or delay may find themselves struggling to compete in a sector where expectations rise quickly and alternatives for learners continue to grow. If you work in education or care about the future of learning, Rob's insights offer a candid, practical view of what must change. Which of his observations resonates most with your own experience, and how should universities evolve from here? I would love to hear your thoughts. Useful Links Connect with Rob Telfer on LinkedIn Learn more about D2L Follow on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook Tech Talks Daily is Sponsored By Denodo. To learn more, visit denodo.com

Is it because of lower birth rates? or less useful degrees?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Rev. Richard A. Burnett: General Secretary of the Colleges and Universities of the Anglican Communion Track link St. John's, Lafayette Square Washington, DC Release date: 1 December 2025

French hit squads, MTG resignation, and NPCs take up most of our conversation tonight. Also, Trevor basically knows Joe Rogan now. Enjoy!Email us at happyfoolspodcast@gmail.comOrder Shroud-Pilled!Buy my book God's Eye View with this link: https://a.co/d/7CI89rvBuy the Audiobook: https://www.audible.com/pd/Gods-Eye-View-Audiobook/B0F55K2GT1?source_code=ASSGB149080119000H&share_location=pdpWant to publish a book? Check out my publisher https://hemisphericpress.com/Check out our ad free substack: https://hemisphericpress.substack.com/

Այս թողարկման հյուրը ԿԳՄՍ նախկին փոխնախարար, Բրյուսովի պետական համալսարանի նախկին պրոռեկտոր Գրիգոր Թամրազյանն է։Քննարկում ենք Բրյուսովի պետական համալսարանում վերջին զարգացումները․ ռեկտորի ընտրությունների արդյունքները, դրանց շուրջ կեղծ հաղորդումներն ու ապատեղեկատվությունը, ինչպես նաև բուհերի ապաքաղաքականացման հակադարձ ազդեցությունը։ Անդրադառնում ենք ուսումնական հաստատությունների բաժանված վիճակին, Բրյուսովը վաճառելու մասին տարածված խոսակցություններին, բուհերի խոշորացման գործընթացին։ Գրիգորը վերլուծում է նաև ընդդիմադիր ուժերի պայքարի ձախողումները, 2026-ի ընտրական հնարավոր սցենարները և ընդդիմադիր դաշտում իրական համախմբումի հնարավորությունը։ArmComedy թիմը ներկայացնում է ԼուրջCast

Maged Harby, General Partner at VMS, joins Jeremy Au to share his journey from publishing to building one of the Middle East's earliest EdTech venture programs, explain how Egypt and Saudi Arabia differ as innovation ecosystems, and guide founders on how to enter the region with cultural fit and strong partnerships. They discuss how EdTech adoption accelerated during COVID, why parents still steer children toward traditional fields, and how Gen Z is shifting toward entrepreneurship. Their conversation explores the contrast between Egypt's talent depth and Saudi Arabia's purchasing power, the need for localization in pricing and UX, and why Middle Eastern markets must be treated as distinct rather than homogeneous. Maged also outlines what he hopes to see next in personalized learning and why teacher training remains the region's biggest unlock. 00:25 VMS: Corporate Venture studio based in Saudi Arabia and provide several program to help and support startup to grow such as Bridge program that support startups that need to expand their business to Saudi Arabia and other programs 03:00 Parents push traditional paths: Egypt's university admissions are rigid and most families still guide children toward engineering or medicine. 07:00 EdVentures built from zero: Maged grew EdVentures into a major EdTech incubator and accelerator with more than 90 graduated startups and 23 investments. 14:00 Gen Z shifts to entrepreneurship: Young people are increasingly drawn to building startups and solving real problems instead of following traditional job tracks. 16:00 Localization defines success: Middle Eastern markets differ in pricing, UX, language and regulation which makes adaptation essential for expansion. 19:00 Competition varies by country: FinTech is saturated in Saudi Arabia while EdTech and health tech remain more open in Egypt and the UAE. 27:00 Teacher quality is the bottleneck: Universities must modernize teacher training so classrooms can match Gen Z and Gen Alpha digital habits. Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/maged-harby-middle-east-playbook Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Bahasa Indonesia: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Chinese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Vietnamese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts #MiddleEastTech #EdTechInnovation #SaudiArabiaStartups #EgyptEcosystem #GenZEntrepreneurs #LocalizationStrategy #VentureStudios #GCCExpansion #PersonalizedLearning #BRAVEpodcast

For students and families, navigating the world of higher education isn’t easy. Some of the challenges, like student loan debt, have been going on for years. Other challenges come from more recent changes in how the federal government approaches universities. To explore these challenges, we're talking to John Maduko, who was appointed Interim Chancellor of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system in June. We'll also hear from Jamal Watson, whose new book is The Student Debt Crisis: America’s Moral Urgency. GUESTS: Jamal Watson: Journalist covering higher education. He’s also Associate Dean of the School of Professional and Graduate Studies and Professor of Strategic Communication and Public Relations at Trinity Washington University. His new book is The Student Debt Crisis: America’s Moral Urgency. John Maduko: Interim Chancellor of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system. If you want to learn more about higher education, you can listen to our recent interview with Beverly Daniel Tatum. You can also listen to our 2022 interview with John Maduko.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

0000019a-ea12-d7c5-a1fe-ee96ca270000https://www.wvik.org/podcast/good-morning-from-wvik-news/2025-12-04/new-president-picked-to-lead-the-board-overseeing-iowas-public-universitiesJoseph LeahyNew president picked to lead the board overseeing Iowa's public universiti

The DOJ shuts down another scam center in Myanmar. OpenAI confirms a Mixpanel data breach. A new phishing campaign targets company executives. A bipartisan bill looks to preserve the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program. Universities suffer Oracle EBS data breaches. India reports GPS jamming at eight major airports. Kaiser Permanente settles a class action suit over tracking pixels. The FTC plans to require a cloud provider to delete unnecessary student data. An international initiative is developing guidelines for commercial spyware. Our N2K Producer Liz Stokes speaks with Kristiina Omri, Director of Special Programs for CybExer Technologies about the cyber ranges for NATO and ESA. Iranian hackers give malware a retro reboot.  Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Today, we bring you a conversation our N2K Producer Liz Stokes and Kristiina Omri, Director of Special Programs for CybExer Technologies, had during Liz's  visit to Tallinn, Estonia about the cyber ranges for NATO and ESA. We are pleased to share that our N2K colleagues Liz Stokes and Maria Varmazis were in Tallinn, Estonia this week for the NATO Cyber Coalition 2025 Cyber Range Exercise. Their visit marks the CyberWire as the only United States podcasters invited to attend. We'll be sharing interviews and insights from the event, starting today with our producer Liz Stokes' conversation with  Kristiina Omri, Director of Special Programs for CybExer Technologies. Selected ReadingDOJ takes down Myanmar scam center website spoofing TickMill trading platform (The Record) OpenAI Confirms Mixpanel Data Breach—Was Your Data Stolen? (KnowTechie) New “Executive Award” Scam Exploits ClickFix to Deliver Stealerium Malware (GB Hackers) Hassan and Cornyn bring in bipartisan bill to keep state and local cyber grant program alive (Industrial Cyber) Penn and Phoenix Universities Disclose Data Breach After Oracle Hack (SecurityWeek) Indian government reveals GPS spoofing at eight major airports (The Register) Kaiser Permanente to Pay Up to $47.5M in Web Tracker Lawsuit (BankInfo Security) FTC settlement requires Illuminate to delete unnecessary student data (Bleeping Computer) Pall Mall Process to Define Responsible Commercial Cyber Intrusion (Infosecurity Magazine) Iran Hackers Take Inspiration From Snake Video Game (GovInfo Security) Share your feedback. What do you think about CyberWire Daily? Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey. Thank you for helping us continue to improve our show.   Want to hear your company in the show? N2K CyberWire helps you reach the industry's most influential leaders and operators, while building visibility, authority, and connectivity across the cybersecurity community. Learn more at sponsor.thecyberwire.com. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A one-time allocation for Tribal Colleges and Universities unexpectedly just doubled the federal allocation compared to the previous year. And a small handful of colleges are rejoicing over multi-million-dollar windfalls from philanthropist MacKenzie Scott. But that doesn't mean officials at any of those institutions are breathing a sigh of relief. Instead, the unpredictable nature of federal funding and other factors — including the Trump administration's stated plan earlier this year to all but eliminate their funding, has tribal higher education administrators scrambling. We'll speak with some of them about the educational institutions that thousands of Native students depend on. GUESTS Christopher Caldwell (Menominee), president of the College of Menominee Nation Leander McDonald (Dakota, Arikara, Hidatsa and Hunkpapa), president of the United Tribes Technical College Manoj Patil, president of Little Priest Tribal College

Artificial intelligence is making its way into everything in American life: the stock market, journalism, medicine and more. Now major universities like Arizona State are buying into the future of AI by combining it with their offered education. This week on The Gaggle, we explore the role AI has at ASU, the future of AI in universities and how the concerns are being met. Email us! thegaggle@arizonarepublic.com Leave us a voicemail: 602-444-0804 Follow us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tik Tok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Guest: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Helen Rummel Host: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ron Hansen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Producer: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Amanda Luberto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At a time when middle-skills jobs can offer salaries over $55,000 annually without requiring a bachelor's degree, the U.S. still isn't producing enough workers to fill these roles. Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) Director of Research, Zack Mabel, joins host Jason Altmire to discuss CEW's recent report, Missed Opportunities: Credential Shortages in Programs Aligned with High-Paying Middle-Skills Jobs in 55 US Metro Areas. Together, they explore the structural and cultural forces behind the middle-skills gap and why certain sectors, especially the trades, face staggering shortages. The conversation highlights metro-level variations, the persistent impact of “college-for-all” messaging, and the nuances of credential shortages and surpluses in healthcare fields specifically. The episode offers a fresh perspective on how institutions can expand opportunity without defaulting to the four-year degree.To learn more about Career Education Colleges & Universities, visit our website.

Stack or Stall: Why Credentials Collapse but Ecosystems CompoundLast year's Chemistry Nobel went to non-chemists. The lasting power of domain-specific credentials is collapsing - but David Julian has seen this pattern before across four technological revolutions and knows what compounds instead. From Hotjobs.com to Google's global EdTech partnerships, Julian identified what separates transformative innovations from footnotes: they teach users something new, reduce friction, and fundamentally improve lives. Now on Harvard's Galileo Project steering committee, he's applying ecosystem logic to AI-powered astrophysics - and discovering why stacking beats selecting.The insight: Skills stack. Modular, complementary, and interoperable capabilities stack. Liberal arts + AI certifications compound income dramatically. Universities aren't obsolete - their business models are. Survivors become platforms for compounding, not gatekeepers of credentials.Paradigm Shifts:

We sit down with William G. (Jerry) Berberet, the 2025 recipient of the prestigious Ernest L. Boyer Award and the founding executive director of what is now the New American Colleges & Universities. Jerry reflects on his decades in academia, the enduring moral vision of Ernest Boyer, the role of leadership and innovation, and his compelling, purpose-driven vision for higher education -- an imperative every bit as vital today as it was thirty years ago. Host: Sean CreightonThank you for tuning in to this episode of Degrees of Impact, where we explore innovative ideas and the people behind them in higher education. To learn more about NACU and our programs, visit nacu.edu. Connect with us on LinkedIn: NACU If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, rate, and share it with your network.

In this deeply human episode, Dr. Mark Bonta sits down with cardiac surgeon, scientist, and writer Dr. Paul Fedak for an honest look at the hidden cost of excellence in medicine. Dr. Fedak shares the story of the injury that forced him out of the operating room and into a profound reckoning with identity, purpose, and the culture of silence that surrounds clinician suffering.Drawing from years as Professor at the University of Calgary and Director of the Libin Cardiovascular Institute, he unpacks why perfectionism is so common in medical training, how surgeons learn to mask pain behind composure, and why emotional detachment has long been mistaken for professionalism. Together they explore the unseen burden clinicians carry, the pressure to perform without pause, and the moments when the mask finally cracks.Dr. Fedak speaks candidly about ego death, vulnerability, and rebuilding a life after losing the work that once defined him. He describes the colleagues who opened up only after he shared his own story, highlighting how connection and honesty can transform a profession built on quiet endurance.This episode examines the human side of medicine that rarely makes it into textbooks. Identity. Injury. Recovery. Presence. What it means to care for others while trying to stay whole yourself.A moving conversation for anyone in healthcare or anyone who has ever struggled with the weight of impossible expectations.Paul Fedak, MD, PhD's website : paulfedak.comEpisode Takeaways1. Surgeons are trained to push through pain, not acknowledge it.Medical culture rewards resilience and persistence, but that same conditioning prevents clinicians from recognizing and responding to their own injuries.2. Perfectionism is wired into medical training.Traits like list making, obsessive task completion, and performance under observation are common in medicine and often go unexamined despite their psychological cost.3. The mask of competence becomes automatic.Clinicians become so skilled at hiding distress that even close colleagues fail to notice warning signs. This silence leaves suffering invisible.4. Vulnerability creates connection and protects lives.When Dr. Fedak shared his story, dozens of peers came forward with their own hidden experiences. Openness is not weakness. It is safety.5. Ergonomic injuries in surgery are far more common than most people realize.The physical demands of operating are intense, yet surgeons lack the protections that other healthcare workers receive.6. Leadership shows the true burden physicians carry.Once in leadership roles, clinicians see the depth of burnout, fear, and quiet endurance happening behind the scenes.7. Losing the identity of “surgeon” creates an existential crisis.Stepping out of the operating room forced a complete reevaluation of purpose, ego, and self worth.8. Technical excellence is not the full measure of a doctor.Relational skill, empathy, presence, and human connection matter just as much as procedural skill.9. Medicine needs protected space for reflection.Without pause and presence, clinicians lose touch with themselves and the people they care for. Healing requires time, community, and grounding.10. System structures shape clinician wellbeing.The fee for service model rewards quantity over recovery, creating pressures that make self care feel impossible.11. Paying clinicians to care for themselves could change outcomes.If mental health visits, ergonomic care, and recovery time were compensated, more clinicians would seek help early.Episode Timestamps07:10 How one surgeon's work related injury forced a career pivot and a deeper conversation about wellbeing.08:25 The secret stories colleagues shared only after Paul opened up about his own suffering.10:30 Independent contractor status and why doctors lack the ergonomic protections nurses receive.13:00 The unseen emotional toll behind surgical careers and what leadership reveals about clinician suffering.16:00 Training teaches perseverance, but injury demands honesty. The conflict surgeons are never taught to navigate.17:28 Medical trainees and perfectionism. Why obsessive traits are six times more common in medicine.19:10 When the mask becomes permanent. How clinicians hide distress even from each other.20:00 Two tragic losses and the lessons Paul learned about checking in with colleagues.22:00 Vulnerability as leadership. Why sharing your story opens the door for others to heal.28:57 Did speaking out come with professional risks. What changed when Paul stopped protecting his own ego.31:55 Losing the identity of “surgeon.” The ego death that followed leaving the operating room.33:40 Beyond technical mastery. Why excellence must include human connection, empathy, and presence.34:46 How medicine can “create space” for reflection, grounding, and real conversations.37:50 The hidden financial pressures behind surgical work and how billing shapes clinician behavior.DISCLAMER >>>>>>    The Ditch Lab Coat podcast serves solely for general informational purposes and does not serve as a substitute for professional medical services such as medicine or nursing. It does not establish a doctor/patient relationship, and the use of information from the podcast or linked materials is at the user's own risk. The content does not aim to replace professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, and users should promptly seek guidance from healthcare professionals for any medical conditions.   >>>>>> The expressed opinions belong solely to the hosts and guests, and they do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Hospitals, Clinics, Universities, or any other organization associated with the host or guests.    Disclosures: Ditch The Lab Coat podcast is produced by (Podkind.co) and is independent of Dr. Bonta's teaching and research roles at McMaster University, Temerty Faculty of Medicine and Queens University. 

Our guest today has taken a long look at an out-of-fashion principle in higher learning – institutional neutrality. Basically it's the importance of letting students and faculty say what they want, and not have the administration put its thumb on the scale. In that he sees a whole world of problems facing post-secondary education today, from public and political support to an ongoing court case.Simon Lewsen is a magazine journalist who teaches part-time at the University of Toronto. His new story in Maclean's is called “The Battle for the Soul of the University”. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In this episode, I talk with Dr. Mark Yarhouse and Dr. Julia Sadusky about the rapidly expanding language of emerging sexual identities and what it means for the young people we care about. We explore why new terms keep appearing, how identity forms in adolescence, and what teens are actually trying to express when they use language many of us have never heard before. Rather than reacting with fear or reducing anyone to a label, Mark and Julia help us rethink our posture, moving toward curiosity, presence, and trust instead of anxiety and quick judgments. We dig into discipleship, belonging, and how to walk with teens in a way that reflects the steady, un-fragile heart of God. If you're a parent, pastor, or leader trying to navigate this moment with wisdom, compassion, and clarity, this conversation offers a hopeful and deeply grounded way forward.Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D., is a clinical psychologist who specializes in conflicts tied to religious identity and sexual and gender identity. He assists people who are navigating the complex relationship between their sexual or gender identity and Christian faith. He is a Professor of Psychology at Wheaton College, where he runs the Sexual and Gender Identity (SGI) Institute and the Mental Health Collective. He is an award-winning teacher and researcher and is the past recipient of the Gary Collins Award for Excellence in Christian Counseling. He was a past participant with the Ethics and Public Policy Center think tank in Washington, DC, and he was named Senior Fellow with the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities to conduct a study of students navigating sexual identity concerns at Christian colleges and universities. He has served for over a decade as the Chair of the task force on LGBT issues for Division 36 (Psychology of Religion and Spirituality) of the American Psychological Association.Dr. Julia Sadusky is a licensed clinical psychologist and the owner of a private practice in Littleton, CO. She is also an author, consultant, speaker, and adjunct professor. Dr. Sadusky has done extensive research and clinical work in sexual and gender development and specializes in trauma-informed care. She earned a bachelor's degree from Ave Maria University and a master's degree and doctorate in Clinical Psychology from Regent University. She has authored several books around human sexuality and gender with Dr. Mark Yarhouse and has authored several books herself helping equip parents to teach kids and teens about sexuality in developmentally-appropriate ways.Mark and Julia's book:Emerging Sexual IdentitiesMark's Recommendation:The Anxious GenerationJulia's Recommendation:TendernessConnect with Joshua: jjohnson@shiftingculturepodcast.comGo to www.shiftingculturepodcast.com to interact and donate. Every donation helps to produce more podcasts for you to enjoy.Follow on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Threads, Bluesky or YouTubeConsider Giving to the podcast and to the ministry that my wife and I do around the world. Just click on the support the show link below Contact me to advertise: jjohnson@shiftingculturepodcast.com Support the show

Universities were not always so vulnerable to the whims of politics. The whole system of taxpayer-funded, university-led scientific research came about at the end of World War II, and was the brainchild of a man named Vannevar Bush. He felt the partnership of government and academics had to be equal in order to yield breakthroughs. Today, the Trump administration is proposing a new “compact” that would make the President the dominant partner. We speak with one of the authors of the Trump compact, May Mailman. Find On the Media every week, here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Dr. Robert Jones is the new president of our region’s largest educational and research hub. He took the helm at the University of Washington in August, and when we sat down recently, he shared a bit about his background and path to Seattle. Jones says his parents were sharecroppers farming peanuts and cotton in southwest Georgia. “Where most people would tell you the last thing you should have anything to do with if you grew up as a son of sharecroppers. I was innately curious about science, and particularly became very curious about plants” It’s ultimately what set him on his academic path: Crop physiology. “And in my case, it was corn, and the whole goal was to understand the impact of environment on physiological processes that would be disrupted and cause a reduction in the yield of a major agricultural crops under a global climate change scenario. This was before the term global climate change was corn, and so that's what I spent 34 and a half years trying to understand, how do we make corn more tolerant to heat and drought stress? And that basic physiological research has led to what is now most of the major agricultural crops being able to withstand temperatures and drought longer than they ever had before in the modern history of production agriculture.” Jones spent more than three decades teaching and doing research at the University of Minnesota. He later led the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where the enrollment grew by 25% and they launched a new medical school during his tenure. The University of Washington has a similar enrollment size to Illinois – more than 60-thousand students and 30-thousand faculty and staff. So Soundside wanted to hear from the new university president… Roughly 100 days into his tenure, what’s his read on the biggest challenges and opportunities facing the school? We should note we are a self-sustaining service of the University of Washington, with editorial independence. GUEST: University of Washington President, Dr. Robert Jones Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week delivered one of the biggest waves of AI news in recent memory - and Dan and Ray unpack what it all means for schools, universities and vocational education. From Microsoft's upcoming Copilot upgrades to Google's jaw-dropping Gemini 3 and Nano Banana Pro image model, the landscape for teachers shifted fast. They explore how these tools are already reshaping lesson design, image generation, student support and academic workflows - and why NotebookLM might quietly be the most important education tool Google has ever released. They also break down newly released case studies from the Australian Industry Group, discuss Claude's expansion through Azure, and look at how sectors like health, logistics and vocational training are adopting AI at speed. In the second half, the episode dives into three significant peer-reviewed research papers - including new evidence of gender bias in AI explanations, emerging AI-pedagogy frameworks, and fresh insights into how students actually use (and feel about) AI in their studies. News   Microsoft   Microsoft rolling more into the free version of Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat https://www.theverge.com/news/822789/microsoft-copilot-chat-outlook-word-excel-powerpoint  Microsoft and NVIDIA invest $15 billion in Anthropic - and Anthropic agree to buy $30B of Microsoft's Azure  https://www.anthropic.com/news/microsoft-nvidia-anthropic-announce-strategic-partnerships  Google Useful review of Gemini 3 by Ethan Mollick https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/three-years-from-gpt-3-to-gemini  Examples of the infographics we created with Google's NotebookLM can be found on these two links: The podcast episode infographic from the Aaron Driver, of UNE, interview https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ai-in-education-podcast_aiineducation-notebooklm-podcast-activity-7398861734071083008-08GD The podcast series infographic from Series 14 "the Humans of AI" https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rayfleming_aiineducation-podcast-notebooklm-activity-7398515648089468928-vOUS  NotebookLM announcements https://x.com/notebooklm/status/1989078069454270649?s=46&t=p57lLRpTCXGNBiwhIjsl7Q  Google announce new Gemini certifications for education https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/gemini-certifications-education/  Cogniti 29 teachers sharing their stories about using AI with students https://cogniti.ai/2025-cogniti-mini-symposium-resources/  Anthropic   Anthropic partners with Rwandan Government and ALX to bring AI education to hundreds of thousands of learners across Africa https://www.anthropic.com/news/rwandan-government-partnership-ai-education  The London School of Economics has provided all students with access to Claude for Education https://www.lse.ac.uk/news/latest-news-from-lse/d-april/lse-partners-with-anthropic-to-shape-the-future-of-ai-in-education  OpenAI   OpenAI announce "ChatGPT for teachers" for US school teachers - and makes it free until the middle of 2027 https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-for-teachers/ https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12844995-chatgpt-for-teachers  First ChatGPT Edu deployment in Australian Vocational Education https://connectweb.com.au/news.aspx?id=1038171&headline=nexted-launches-australias-first-chatgpt-edu-deployment-in-vocational-education    Australian Industry Group Report: AI positive for companies, their people and Australian industry https://www.australianindustrygroup.com.au/news/reports/2025/artificial-intelligence-positive-for-companies-their-people-and-australian-industry/    Research   Gender equity in GenAI science explanations https://www.ase.org.uk/resources/school-science-review/issue-395/gender-equity-in-genai-science-explanations https://www.linkedin.com/posts/victoriamhedlund_biasaware-aiineducation-genderbias-activity-7394637681978212352-1UUB    Bonus research mentioned: Sexist textbooks: Automated analysis of gender bias in 1,255 books from 34 countrieshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11463758/    A dialogic theoretical foundation for integrating generative AI into pedagogical design https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.70026    Time, emotions and moral judgements: how university students position GenAI within their study https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2025.2580616   

In this week's mini episode, Madigan discusses Zohran Mamdani's visit to the Shite House, Education Secretary Linda McMahon's steps in de-professionalizing women led degrees at Universities, Karoline Leavitt's familial ties to an ICE detainee, and lastly, a sad update on Gaza since the "ceasefire" began in October. Support Bruna Ferreira and her family: https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-brunas-fight-to-stay-home?attribution_id=sl:ecf80161-7ab9-4d13-bd6f-0f9c6b4348d8&lang=en_US&ts=1764125876&utm_campaign=fp_sharesheet&utm_content=amp17_tc&utm_medium=customer&utm_source=copy_link⁠ Pre-Order The Double Standard Sporting House Now! https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-double-standard-sporting-house-nancy-bernhard/1147607322 Do you have a topic that you want the show to take on?    Email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠neighborhoodfeminist@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Social media:     Instagram: @angryneighborhoodfeminist Get YANF Merch! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://yanfpodcast.threadless.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ JOIN ME ON PATREON!! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/angryneighborhoodfeminist⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgqd42gl0qo https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/what-the-department-of-educations-professional-degree-proposal-really-means-for-employers/91270224 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/eating-mindfully/202007/why-do-we-say-diet-culture-instead-the-patriarchy https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/25/us/mamdani-trump-meeting-elder-uncle-cec https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/26/karoline-leavitt-nephew-mother-detained-ice https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/weirdest-thing-zohran-mamdani-saw-at-white-house-during-donald-trump-meet-9702430 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Clinical psychologist Dr. Chloe Carmichael joins Dr. Mark Bonta for an important and timely conversation about free speech, emotional regulation, and the psychology of open dialogue. Drawing on her clinical work and her new book, Dr. Carmichael explains how suppressing opinions affects stress, anxiety, and even physical health. She describes her own experience with media self censorship, the impact of masking policies during COVID, and how moving from New York to Florida revealed the mental health benefits of open discussion.The episode explores how naming emotions reduces amygdala activity, how repressing thoughts can lead to acting out, and why honest conversation promotes neural coupling and lowers cortisol. Together they examine bullying, victimhood, groupthink, and how language can unintentionally shut down dialogue instead of inviting clarity and connection.Listeners will learn practical tools for navigating political disagreements, managing emotional overload during difficult conversations, and practicing reflective listening to stay grounded and curious rather than reactive.Dr. Carmichael's message is simple and powerful. Dialogue matters. Open conversation strengthens emotional regulation, builds healthier relationships, and supports mental clarity. Her invitation to the audience is to have more honest disagreements and to rediscover the psychological value of speaking freely.Dr. Chloe Carmichael Link : https://www.drchloe.com/Episode Takeaways1. Free Speech Supports Mental Health: Speaking openly improves emotional regulation, strengthens relationships, and reduces anxiety.2. Suppressing Thoughts Has Consequences:Bottling emotions disrupts emotional processing and can lead to acting out, stress, and internal tension.3. Labeling Emotions Lowers Fear Response: Simply naming what we feel reduces amygdala activation and increases clarity and control.4. Self Censorship Takes a Psychological Toll: Avoiding truthful expression to fit social expectations erodes authenticity and increases distress.5. Groupthink Is Dangerous: Institutions that suppress debate become vulnerable to poor decisions and intellectual stagnation.6. Open Disagreement Is Healthy: Learning to disagree politely strengthens community bonds rather than damaging them.7. Authoritarian Environments Harm Wellbeing: Chronic suppression of speech leads to anxiety, helplessness, and depressive patterns across populations.8. Language Can Shut Down Dialogue: Words like bullying or victim can be used as shields, stopping rational discussion and reflection.9. Listening Does Not Mean Agreeing: Separating listening from endorsement allows conversations to stay civil and productive.Episode Timestamps01:23 – Dr. Carmichael's clinical background and early media experience03:40 – Moving from New York to Florida over masking policies04:38 – Mark on masking, speech development, and emotional suppression06:32 – Why naming emotions lowers amygdala activity07:00 – Emotional suppression and how bottling feelings leads to acting out10:00 – Media censorship and limiting acceptable viewpoints13:00 – Listening versus agreeing and the psychology of disagreement17:00 – Thought replacement as a tool for staying grounded20:00 – Why political conversations feel dangerous and how to navigate them24:00 – Groupthink in institutions and intellectual environments26:32 – How suppressing discussion harms innovation and clarity27:10 – Authoritarian environments and mental health consequences28:16 – Living with hidden thoughts and long term anxiety30:24 – The power of labels like bullying to shut down dialogue32:00 – Victimhood culture and the upside down bully victim dynamic35:45 – Why shutting down dialogue creates conflict rather than reducing it40:16 – Dr. Carmichael's call for more open, happy disagreements42:21 – Closing reflections and holiday dinner table dynamics42:52 – Invitation to join discussion groups with her book purchaseDISCLAMER >>>>>>    The Ditch Lab Coat podcast serves solely for general informational purposes and does not serve as a substitute for professional medical services such as medicine or nursing. It does not establish a doctor/patient relationship, and the use of information from the podcast or linked materials is at the user's own risk. The content does not aim to replace professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, and users should promptly seek guidance from healthcare professionals for any medical conditions.   >>>>>> The expressed opinions belong solely to the hosts and guests, and they do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Hospitals, Clinics, Universities, or any other organization associated with the host or guests.    Disclosures: Ditch The Lab Coat podcast is produced by (Podkind.co) and is independent of Dr. Bonta's teaching and research roles at McMaster University, Temerty Faculty of Medicine and Queens University. 

What is UGC - Full Breakdown https://youtu.be/vDWzpP1OdIQGet my FREE Guide to go from 0 to $3k/mo as a UGC Creator - https://ugcmasteryacademy.com/opt-in-guideIf you want to see if me and my team can help you get to $5k-$15k/month as a UGC creator book a call here - https://api.leadconnectorhq.com/widget/bookings/mmugcmastery?setter=Youtube

Have you ever been told you couldn't do something? That's what happened to today's guest, Shelbi Davenport. Years ago, Shelbi was told she wouldn't be able to attend college due to her disability. However, she didn't take "NO" for an answer. Shelbi Davenport is a disability advocate, podcaster, and speaker. After many struggles and victories, Shelbi graduated from Texas A&M. Being awarded the first Peer-to-Peer Training certification in Texas on February 5th, 2017, was one of her greatest achievements. Shelbi's passion is to change lives by teaching individuals with disabilities to advocate for themselves and dream big. Shelbi played a big role in advocating for HB 2081 (a bill that would allow Universities to receive more funding for post-secondary programs), which passed not too long ago. Shelbi is currently attending school to get her Master's Degree in Mental Health.You can check out her Shelbi Show on Facebook or Spotify. Check out her website at http://betterlivespcp.com.Her mom's book, "Thanks For Telling Her No" can be purchased here.Send us a textTEDx Talk, Disrupt HR Talk

Send us a textAbout Eef van der Worp, BOptom, PhD, FAAO, FIACLE, FBCLA, FSLSEef van der Worp is an educator and researcher. He received his optometry degree from the Hogeschool van Utrecht in the Netherlands (NL) and has served as a head of the contact lens department at the school for over eight years. Eef received his PhD from the University of Maastricht (NL) in 2008. He now runs his own research & education consultancy 'Eye-Contact-Lens' which is based in Amsterdam (NL), and gives courses on ‘How to Present'.He is a fellow of the AAO, BCLA and the SLS, a lifetime fellow of IACLE and a honorly life member or the Dutch contact lens association ANVC. And he is on the education committee for a number of conferences, including the Global Specialty Lens Symposium (GSLS) in the US and the Dutch Contact Lens Conference (NCC) and Dutch Optometric Society meeting (OVN). He is a board member of the BCLA journal Contact Lens & Anterior Eye.Eef is adjunct assistant Professor at Pacific University College of Optometry (Oregon, USA), and adjunct Professor at the University of Montreal University College of Optometry (CA) and he is lecturing extensively worldwide and is a guest lecturer at a number of Universities in the US and Europe.---If you're considering or have ever considered getting a virtual team member for your practice check out hiredteem.com, mention The Myopia Podcast when signing up for a $250 dollar discount off of your first month's teem member.https://hireteem.com/myopia-podcast/

When the Epstein files go public, the biggest shock won't be a single name — it will be the realization of how many institutions failed, looked away, or quietly enabled a predator to operate at the highest levels of society. And once that truth lands, America is going to feel something profound: institutional betrayal. In this riveting one-hour discussion, Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott dig into the psychology of what happens when the public discovers that the systems they trusted were protecting someone like Jeffrey Epstein. Governments. Universities. Financial institutions. Social circles. Even media figures. When the public sees how interconnected it all was, trust fractures — sometimes permanently. Shavaun explains why institutional betrayal wounds deeper than individual harm, why people struggle to process wrongdoing by powerful figures, and why this release may cause a destabilizing but necessary shift in how Americans view power, authority, and accountability. We explore the psychological whiplash of discovering that “the system worked” was a myth. Why people defend public figures out of identity rather than fact. And why denial becomes a survival mechanism when the truth feels too big to accept. Most importantly, we examine what healing could look like — how truth, even painful truth, can be the beginning of a more honest national conversation about abuse, complicity, and institutional decay. This interview isn't about politics. It's about psychology. And it's about what happens when a country finally sees what was in the dark. #HiddenKillers #EpsteinFiles #InstitutionalBetrayal #ShavaunScott #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimeAnalysis #PowerAndAbuse #Psychology #NationalTrauma #MentalHealth Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

When the Epstein files go public, the biggest shock won't be a single name — it will be the realization of how many institutions failed, looked away, or quietly enabled a predator to operate at the highest levels of society. And once that truth lands, America is going to feel something profound: institutional betrayal. In this riveting one-hour discussion, Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott dig into the psychology of what happens when the public discovers that the systems they trusted were protecting someone like Jeffrey Epstein. Governments. Universities. Financial institutions. Social circles. Even media figures. When the public sees how interconnected it all was, trust fractures — sometimes permanently. Shavaun explains why institutional betrayal wounds deeper than individual harm, why people struggle to process wrongdoing by powerful figures, and why this release may cause a destabilizing but necessary shift in how Americans view power, authority, and accountability. We explore the psychological whiplash of discovering that “the system worked” was a myth. Why people defend public figures out of identity rather than fact. And why denial becomes a survival mechanism when the truth feels too big to accept. Most importantly, we examine what healing could look like — how truth, even painful truth, can be the beginning of a more honest national conversation about abuse, complicity, and institutional decay. This interview isn't about politics. It's about psychology. And it's about what happens when a country finally sees what was in the dark. #HiddenKillers #EpsteinFiles #InstitutionalBetrayal #ShavaunScott #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimeAnalysis #PowerAndAbuse #Psychology #NationalTrauma #MentalHealth Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

When the Epstein files go public, the biggest shock won't be a single name — it will be the realization of how many institutions failed, looked away, or quietly enabled a predator to operate at the highest levels of society. And once that truth lands, America is going to feel something profound: institutional betrayal. In this riveting one-hour discussion, Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott dig into the psychology of what happens when the public discovers that the systems they trusted were protecting someone like Jeffrey Epstein. Governments. Universities. Financial institutions. Social circles. Even media figures. When the public sees how interconnected it all was, trust fractures — sometimes permanently. Shavaun explains why institutional betrayal wounds deeper than individual harm, why people struggle to process wrongdoing by powerful figures, and why this release may cause a destabilizing but necessary shift in how Americans view power, authority, and accountability. We explore the psychological whiplash of discovering that “the system worked” was a myth. Why people defend public figures out of identity rather than fact. And why denial becomes a survival mechanism when the truth feels too big to accept. Most importantly, we examine what healing could look like — how truth, even painful truth, can be the beginning of a more honest national conversation about abuse, complicity, and institutional decay. This interview isn't about politics. It's about psychology. And it's about what happens when a country finally sees what was in the dark. #HiddenKillers #EpsteinFiles #InstitutionalBetrayal #ShavaunScott #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimeAnalysis #PowerAndAbuse #Psychology #NationalTrauma #MentalHealth Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

When the Epstein files go public, the biggest shock won't be a single name — it will be the realization of how many institutions failed, looked away, or quietly enabled a predator to operate at the highest levels of society. And once that truth lands, America is going to feel something profound: institutional betrayal. In this riveting one-hour discussion, Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott dig into the psychology of what happens when the public discovers that the systems they trusted were protecting someone like Jeffrey Epstein. Governments. Universities. Financial institutions. Social circles. Even media figures. When the public sees how interconnected it all was, trust fractures — sometimes permanently. Shavaun explains why institutional betrayal wounds deeper than individual harm, why people struggle to process wrongdoing by powerful figures, and why this release may cause a destabilizing but necessary shift in how Americans view power, authority, and accountability. We explore the psychological whiplash of discovering that “the system worked” was a myth. Why people defend public figures out of identity rather than fact. And why denial becomes a survival mechanism when the truth feels too big to accept. Most importantly, we examine what healing could look like — how truth, even painful truth, can be the beginning of a more honest national conversation about abuse, complicity, and institutional decay. This interview isn't about politics. It's about psychology. And it's about what happens when a country finally sees what was in the dark. #HiddenKillers #EpsteinFiles #InstitutionalBetrayal #ShavaunScott #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimeAnalysis #PowerAndAbuse #Psychology #NationalTrauma #MentalHealth Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

When the Epstein files go public, the biggest shock won't be a single name — it will be the realization of how many institutions failed, looked away, or quietly enabled a predator to operate at the highest levels of society. And once that truth lands, America is going to feel something profound: institutional betrayal. In this riveting one-hour discussion, Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott dig into the psychology of what happens when the public discovers that the systems they trusted were protecting someone like Jeffrey Epstein. Governments. Universities. Financial institutions. Social circles. Even media figures. When the public sees how interconnected it all was, trust fractures — sometimes permanently. Shavaun explains why institutional betrayal wounds deeper than individual harm, why people struggle to process wrongdoing by powerful figures, and why this release may cause a destabilizing but necessary shift in how Americans view power, authority, and accountability. We explore the psychological whiplash of discovering that “the system worked” was a myth. Why people defend public figures out of identity rather than fact. And why denial becomes a survival mechanism when the truth feels too big to accept. Most importantly, we examine what healing could look like — how truth, even painful truth, can be the beginning of a more honest national conversation about abuse, complicity, and institutional decay. This interview isn't about politics. It's about psychology. And it's about what happens when a country finally sees what was in the dark. #HiddenKillers #EpsteinFiles #InstitutionalBetrayal #ShavaunScott #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimeAnalysis #PowerAndAbuse #Psychology #NationalTrauma #MentalHealth Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

When the Epstein files go public, the biggest shock won't be a single name — it will be the realization of how many institutions failed, looked away, or quietly enabled a predator to operate at the highest levels of society. And once that truth lands, America is going to feel something profound: institutional betrayal. In this riveting one-hour discussion, Tony Brueski and psychotherapist Shavaun Scott dig into the psychology of what happens when the public discovers that the systems they trusted were protecting someone like Jeffrey Epstein. Governments. Universities. Financial institutions. Social circles. Even media figures. When the public sees how interconnected it all was, trust fractures — sometimes permanently. Shavaun explains why institutional betrayal wounds deeper than individual harm, why people struggle to process wrongdoing by powerful figures, and why this release may cause a destabilizing but necessary shift in how Americans view power, authority, and accountability. We explore the psychological whiplash of discovering that “the system worked” was a myth. Why people defend public figures out of identity rather than fact. And why denial becomes a survival mechanism when the truth feels too big to accept. Most importantly, we examine what healing could look like — how truth, even painful truth, can be the beginning of a more honest national conversation about abuse, complicity, and institutional decay. This interview isn't about politics. It's about psychology. And it's about what happens when a country finally sees what was in the dark. #HiddenKillers #EpsteinFiles #InstitutionalBetrayal #ShavaunScott #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimeAnalysis #PowerAndAbuse #Psychology #NationalTrauma #MentalHealth Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Doubling Chinese student visas to 600,000 would bail out failing universities at the expense of national security. The CCP has already infiltrated American campuses through espionage fronts and influence networks.Some things can't be traded away. Not sovereignty. Not security.Learn more at https://www.standingforfreedom.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/freedomcenterlu/ Twitter: https://x.com/freedomcenterluInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/freedomcenterlu/

Today I have the immense honor and privilege to speak with Ellen Schrecker, who has been referred to as “the dean of the anti-anti-Communist historians.”  Well known for her classic studies of McCarthyism, today Schrecker explains how much worse Trump's regime is than what we saw in the 1950s and 60s.  A fierce defender of democracy, Ellen explains the central role education plays in creating a public culture and in maintaining democracy.  Our conversation takes many paths, including an indictment of Capitalism, of the dominance of economistic thinking and values, of the ways university leaders are bending a knee to Trump.  We talk about the value of the humanities, the importance of autonomous forms of education and mutual support such as we saw in the pro-Palestinian encampments, and one of the most remarkable differences between the days of McCarthyism—the phenomenon of mass protests like #NoKingsDay. I know you will treasure this conversation as much as I do.Ellen Schrecker is an American historian known for her research on McCarthyism, political repression, and American higher education. Among her books are The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing War on Academic Freedom (2024) edited with Valerie C. Johnson and Jennifer Ruth, (2024) winner 2025 Frederick Ness Book Award. American Association of Colleges and Universities; The Lost Promise: American Universities in the 1960s (2021); Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (1998); and No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities (1986). A retired history professor from Yeshiva University, she is active in the American Association of University Professors and now serves on its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. 

It's Wednesday, November 19th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Christians faced 2,211 hate crimes in Europe last year Christians and churches are facing increased attacks in Europe. The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe released their latest report on Monday.  Christians faced 2,211 hate crimes across the continent last year. The number is slightly down from 2023, but last year saw a rise in violent crimes like physical attacks and arson.  The countries with highest number of anti-Christian incidents were France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and Austria. 189 university evangelists gathered in Spain The Fellowship of Evangelists in the Universities of Europe held their 17th annual meeting in Spain recently. Evangelical Focus reports 189 university evangelists from 39 countries attended the conference. Evangelists are committed to the public proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the universities of Europe.  The article noted, “A strong theme of the conference was the renewed spiritual openness emerging across the continent, particularly among young people.” Romans 10:15 says, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!” Trump lifted tariffs on 200 food products In the United States, President Donald Trump lifted tariffs on over 200 food products last Friday. The products include coffee, beef, bananas, and orange juice.  The move comes as Americans face rising grocery prices. Listen to comments from President Trump aboard Air Force One.  TRUMP: “For the most part, the foods, when we cut back a little bit on those tariffs, will get the price down. But they're not competitive in this country, like tomatoes and bananas and things we don't make in this country. So, there's no protection of our industries or our food products.” President Trump also suggested sending $2,000 tariff rebate checks to most Americans next year. House to release Epstein Files without redacting perpetrators' names The House of Representatives, in a near-unanimous vote, passed a bill on November 18 that would require the Department of Justice to release more files surrounding the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, reports The Epoch Times. The final tally was 427–1. Republican Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana was the sole lawmaker who voted against the measure. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said he will take up the bill. The Epstein Files Transparency Act, introduced by Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California and co-sponsored by Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, would order the Department of Justice to release “in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” tied to Epstein no later than 30 days following the enactment of the bill. The legislation would prohibit the Justice Department from withholding, delaying, or redacting records for reputational and political reasons. Oregon to pay 2 teachers $650,000 over their objection to biological boys entering female bathrooms A school district in Oregon recently agreed to a $650,000 settlement for wrongfully terminating two teachers who opposed transgender ideology.  Back in 2021, Grants Pass School District terminated two teachers named Rachel Sager and Katie Medart. The two had voiced objections to allowing biological boys to enter female bathrooms and locker rooms.  Alliance Defending Freedom represented the teachers in the case.  Attorney Mathew Hoffmann said, “Teachers don't give up their First Amendment rights when they set foot on school property. Public schools can't retaliate against speech simply because they disagree with what's said.” Deaths by in vitro fertilization surpass abortion deaths Live Action reports the number of lives lost to in vitro fertilization now surpasses those lost to abortion. In 2023, 3.8 million embryos were created through in vitro fertilization. Of those, 1.9 million embryos died or were deliberately killed. Another 1.7 million embryos were either miscarried, destroyed, donated to researchers, released for embryo adoption, or frozen indefinitely. Only 95,860 babies were born through the process. In comparison, there were one million abortions in the U.S. in 2023. Live Action noted, “In vitro fertilization is not about creating life but about controlling it, determining which lives are accepted as valuable and worthy and which are automatically destroyed for being deemed ‘subpar'.” Only 49% of Americans say religion important to daily lives A new report from Gallup found that the U.S. is experiencing one of the largest drops in religiosity in the world. Forty-nine percent of U.S. adults say religion is an important part of their daily lives today, down from 66% in 2015. The only countries with greater drops in religiosity, over a 10-year period, are Greece, Italy, Poland, Chile, and Turkey. However, Americans still have medium-high levels of Christian identification. The report noted, “The U.S. increasingly stands as an outlier: less religious than much of the world, but still more devout than most of its economic peers.” Revelation 3:15-16 warns, “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” Last penny was just minted last week And finally, the United States Mint struck its final penny last Wednesday. The penny was authorized under the Coinage Act of 1792. At the time, a penny could purchase items like a biscuit, a candle, or a piece of candy. Not anymore. In fact, it costs nearly four cents to make a penny now.  The U.S. Mint has struck the penny in its current form since 1909, featuring the motto, “In God We Trust.” U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach struck the final penny last week. He said, “God bless America, and we're going to save the taxpayers $56 million.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, November 19th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Reporter Ilya Marritz—a longtime fan of More Perfect—drops in to share a new series he's made with The Boston Globe and WNYC's On the Media. The Harvard Plan investigates how the Trump administration's pressure campaign is reshaping American universities through memorable characters, thorny moral and ethical questions, and high stakes. Preview the first episode here.The whole series is available to listen at https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/harvard-plan

The Trump administration is asking universities to sign an agreement in exchange for preferential access to federal funding. On this week's On the Media, how the arrangement would radically alter the relationship between the government and higher education. Plus, how university leaders are navigating the fight over academic freedom.[00:00] Universities were not always so vulnerable to the whims of politics. The whole system of taxpayer-funded, university-led scientific research came about at the end of World War II, and was the brainchild of a man named Vannevar Bush. He felt the partnership of government and academics had to be equal in order to yield breakthroughs. Today, the Trump administration is proposing a new “compact” that would make the President the dominant partner. We speak with one of the authors of the Trump compact, May Mailman.  On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

Universities, names, & geography To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jonah Goldberg talks to William Inboden, executive vice president and provost at the University of Texas and one of the leading conservative voices in higher education. Jonah and Will discuss the absurdity of the ivory tower, the inconsistency of our free speech standards, and the threat posed by Chinese interference in American universities. Shownotes:—William's piece for National Affairs—WSJ piece on research funding—Chesterton's Fence—An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America—University of Texas Statement on Academic Integrity—Select Committee on the CCP report on espionage in academia—The Death of Learning: How American Education Has Failed Our Students and What to Do about It, by John Agresto—Will's article on the White House compact in The Chronicle of Higher Education—Keith Whittington in The Dispatch on the White House compact We're running a listener survey, which you can find at thedispatch.typeform.com/podcast. The Remnant is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of Jonah's G-File newsletters—⁠click here⁠. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member ⁠by clicking here⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TDC Podcast topics - Doug Podell is retiring, Amy sports some TDC gear, Jim Kimmel's wife is a delusional, self important jerk, Trump threatens to sue the BBC for a billion dollars, Antifa goes off at a Turning Point event at Berkeley, guy yells racist stuff at Dave Portnoy, Trump says we need Chinese students at our Universities, is a 50yr mortgage a good idea?  And email