Podcasts about universities

Send us a textHigher education institutions operate in an environment where academic mission, financial sustainability, and long-term stakeholder relationships must coexist—placing unique demands on enterprise systems. Before reviewing our Top Higher Education CRM Systems in 2025, it is essential to clarify how CRM success is defined in this context, where engagement extends far beyond traditional recruitment or advancement functions. Universities must manage complex, multi-decade relationships with prospective students, current learners, alumni, donors, faculty, research partners, and governing bodies, often across decentralized colleges and departments. As a result, higher education CRMs must emphasize lifecycle visibility, data governance, cross-functional coordination, and compliance, rather than narrowly focusing on transactional interactions or short-term conversion metrics.In this episode, our host Sam Gupta discusses the top 10 Higher Education CRMs in 2025. He also discusses several variables that influence the rankings of these Higher Education CRMs. Finally, he shares the pros and cons of each CRM system.Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suOIiIoZDFARead: https://www.elevatiq.com/post/top-non-profit-crms/Questions for Panelists?

Get featured on the show by leaving us a Voice Mail: https://bit.ly/MIPVM 

Hi ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS! FOR YOUR MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!ACTIVE ENTREPRENEURS Volunteers welcome. Apply now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606

Hi ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS! FOR YOUR MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!ACTIVE ENTREPRENEURS Volunteers welcome. Apply now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606

Hi ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS! FOR YOUR MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!ACTIVE ENTREPRENEURS Volunteers welcome. Apply now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606

Hi TEACHERS Volunteers WANTED – Apply Now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS - DO MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!Watch today's this holistic video for wisdom: https://www.youtube.com/live/DOKzAIWaXdMSubscribe & join GPBNet's #Peace2025 movement and tap into a revolutionary system unlocking over 430+ Global Benefits – 95 percent of G empowerment you were missing daily until now at your place with GPBNet G Franchise Association of Schools, Universities, Education, and Academia's global peace movement for you.Experience the most powerful daily PeaceBuilding Actions & Education for ultimate global #Peace2025!ACT NOW: Get your membership at our website: https://1gpb.net

Hi ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS! FOR YOUR MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!ACTIVE ENTREPRENEURS Volunteers welcome. Apply now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606

YOUR BILLIONS ABUNDANCE Hi ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS! FOR YOUR MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!ACTIVE ENTREPRENEURS Volunteers welcome. Apply now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606

BILLIONAIRES DO THIS EVERY MORNING Hi ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS! FOR YOUR MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!ACTIVE ENTREPRENEURS Volunteers welcome. Apply now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606

Hi ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS! FOR YOUR MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!ACTIVE ENTREPRENEURS Volunteers welcome. Apply now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606

Hi ESCAPE SUFFERING: Go FROM ZERO TO BILLIONS! FOR YOUR MAXIMUM DISTRIBUTION!Unlock Your Destiny & Receive 430+ GLOBAL BENEFITS!ACTIVE ENTREPRENEURS Volunteers welcome. Apply now via WhatsApp: +7 905 633 3606

This episode is borrowed from one of our other podcasts - SPT Overtime. It's supposed to be about basketball, but that doesn't come until Part 2 since the guys took time out to put together a draft-style discussion about their favorite symbols, activities, and more as we approach December 25.

It's YOUR time to #EdUp with Dr. Sarah Holtan, Assistant Provost, Carroll University, & Host of the Get Down to College Business PodcastIn this episode, part of our EdUp Extra series (because who doesn't love a little extra goodness in their life), & sponsored by the 2026 InsightsEDU Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, February 17-19,YOUR co-host is Darius Goldman, Founder & CEO, Career-BondYOUR host is Elvin Freytes⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠How does Carroll University achieve its largest incoming class (814 students) with 40% first generation students while adapting to serve more commuters than ever?What happens when students drive AI adoption on campus faster than faculty, forcing universities to shift from resistance to strategic integration?How does a 150 year old university (older than Wisconsin itself) balance heritage with launching its first PhD program & pioneering new general education aligned with employer expectations?Listen in to #EdUpThank YOU so much for tuning in. Join us on the next episode for YOUR time to EdUp!Connect with YOUR EdUp Team - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Elvin Freytes⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dr. Joe Sallustio⁠⁠⁠⁠● Join YOUR EdUp community at The EdUp ExperienceWe make education YOUR business!P.S. Want to get early, ad-free access & exclusive leadership content to help support the show? Then ⁠​subscribe today​⁠ to lock in YOUR $5.99/m lifetime supporters rate! This offer ends December 31, 2025

There's a new recruitment opportunity at Health and Human Services. The agency has just launched the Roy Wilkins Fellowship. It's reserved for students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs, who are interested in public service. Many of HHS's divisions will host career fairs to promote the new fellowship, including the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The opportunity comes in response to an executive order President Trump signed in April, on promoting innovation at HBCU's. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dave Rubin of "The Rubin Report" talks to Rabbi David Wolpe about the rise of antisemitism at America's most elite universities like Harvard University; how real world interaction can help combat the rise of online antisemitism; they discuss the real reason that Hanukkah is so important; what the future holds for peace in the Middle East; the need for human connection in a digital age; what we can learn from biblical stories; and much more.

Higher education is operating in a more competitive, consumer-driven environment than ever before, and new data shows what actually moves the needle. In this episode, Patrick Patterson, CEO of Level Agency, and Prithwi Dasgupta, President of LeadSquared North America, join host Jason Altmire to unpack national benchmarking data, analyzing more than 500,000 student inquiries and $100 million in higher education advertising spend.The conversation explores what the data reveals about enrollment performance today, including why responding to student inquiries within the first five minutes leads to significantly higher conversion rates, how channel mix and brand building impact cost per enrollment, and where many institutions are misallocating their marketing dollars. Listen now and learn how to adjust your marketing strategy!Learn more about Level Agency here.Learn more about LeadSquared here.Read the report here.To learn more about Career Education Colleges & Universities, visit our website.

Psychotherapist and author Leah Marone joins Mark for a grounded conversation about why so many of us fall into the trap of overfunctioning for others. Leah, whose new book Serial Fixer explores this exact pattern, explains how emotional mirroring and urgency cycles show up in families, friendships, and clinical environments. She walks through the patterns she sees when people try to rescue or fix someone who is struggling and why that well intentioned approach often fuels more chaos rather than growth.Leah introduces practical indicators that boundaries are slipping, including resentment and repetitive conversations where nothing changes. She breaks down what serial fixing looks like in real time, how quickly we jump into problem solving to relieve our own discomfort, and why validation is the missing skill that keeps ownership where it belongs.She also explains her framework of support not solve, a mindset that helps clinicians, caregivers, and families shift away from codependency and toward healthier relational dynamics. Through relatable examples, Leah teaches how to use I statements, strengthen self trust, and approach hard conversations with clarity rather than guilt.This episode gives listeners concrete tools to stop taking responsibility for what is not theirs, communicate boundaries with confidence, and build more sustainable, compassionate relationships in their personal lives and in healthcare.Leah C Marone, LCSW Website : https://www.serial-fixer.com/TedTalk : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVBjI4tNv3sEpisode Takeaways Self Care Is Not a Spa Day- Real self care is a series of small resets throughout the day that regulate your nervous system.Fixing Others Creates More Chaos- Trying to solve someone's problems for them often fuels dependency and resentment.Resentment Signals a Boundary Problem- When irritation grows, it usually means you have taken on work that is not yours.Validation Beats Problem Solving- People calm down when they feel understood, not when they receive rapid fire solutions.I Statements Keep Conversations Safe- Replacing “you always” with “I feel” prevents defensiveness and keeps dialogue open.Urgency Is Often Self Imposed- Feeling responsible for everyone's comfort pushes you into overfunctioning and emotional burnout.Self Trust Requires Reps- Boundaries get easier through practice, not perfection, and discomfort is part of the growth curve.Micro Transitions Change Your Day- Short pauses between tasks help reset your focus and reduce the compounding stress that builds across a busy day.Episode Timestamps03:58 – Meeting the Inner Critic: Why We Judge Ourselves So Harshly05:16 – Realizing People Are Not Thinking About You as Much as You Think24:18 – Why Fixing Others Fails and How to Shift the Pattern25:50 – Boundaries Require Reps: Getting Comfortable With Discomfort28:28 – The Danger of “You” Statements and How They Trigger Defensiveness32:19 – The Hidden Crisis in Medicine: Shell Culture and Silent Burnout33:23 – What Self Care Really Means: Internal Conflict and Rigid Beliefs35:40 – Micro Transitions: How Small Daily Moments Can Reset Your Nervous SystemDISCLAMER >>>>>>    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. 

How can universities become powerful engines of innovation, startups, and economic growth—especially in a challenging funding environment? In this episode, host Elaine Hamm, PhD, sits down with Kimberly Gramm, PhD, MBA, the David & Marion Mussafer Chief Innovation and Entrepreneurship Officer at the Tulane Innovation Institute and Managing Director of Tulane Ventures. Kimberly shares how Tulane is building a comprehensive innovation ecosystem—from early-stage programming and mentorship to venture funding—designed to help researchers, students, and founders translate discovery into real-world impact. Together, they explore what it takes to change institutional culture, scale innovation thoughtfully, and position universities as active investors in the future of biotech and healthcare. In this episode, you'll learn: How universities can support founders and technologies across every stage of the innovation journey, not just at commercialization. Why mentorship, alumni engagement, and listening to stakeholders are critical to building sustainable innovation programs. How strategic venture funds and proof-of-concept investments can accelerate biotech spinouts and regional economic growth. Whether you're a researcher, founder, or innovation leader, this episode offers a behind-the-scenes look at how universities can step up, take risks, and help innovation thrive—even in uncertain times. Links: Connect with Kimberly Gramm, PhD, MBA, and check out Tulane Innovation Institute and Tulane Ventures. Connect with Elaine Hamm, PhD, and learn about Tulane Medicine Business Development and the School of Medicine. Check out our previous episode with Kimberly. Connect with Ian McLachlan, BIO from the BAYOU producer. Check out BIO on the BAYOU. Learn more about BIO from the BAYOU - the podcast. Bio from the Bayou is a podcast that explores biotech innovation, business development, and healthcare outcomes in New Orleans & The Gulf South, connecting biotech companies, investors, and key opinion leaders to advance medicine, technology, and startup opportunities in the region.

Energy bills, electric car bans, banks behaving badly, and the climate crisis - have we lived through it before? The Swiss Army Beaver, Netanyahu and anti-semitism, Dale in the eye of the storm.  And June Sarpong.  Eclectic and electric.  Data centres, Universities and dead end jobs - and the DNA of Polar Bears.

 Should the state decide what values college degrees are meant to promote? Indiana's new higher-education requirement asks public colleges to show that their programs advance “American values,” a move supporters say increases accountability and civic focus. Critics argue it threatens academic freedom and could politicize curriculum decisions across universities. (Source: IndyStar)

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.

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. 

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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

India is sending more students abroad even as visa rules tighten and costs rise. So why are so many young Indians still choosing foreign universities over campuses at home. And what will it take to build Indian institutions that can truly compete globally and serve our demographic dividend.In this episode of The Core Report Weekend Edition, Govindraj Ethiraj sits down with Pramath Raj Sinha, founder and trustee at Ashoka University and founding dean of the Indian School of Business, to unpack the hard truths about higher education in India. From the demand supply gap to the campus experience to academic freedom and funding, this conversation looks at institution building with the same seriousness that business families bring to succession and long term planning.You will hear about:a) Why visas for Indian students have tightened and what that means for study abroad plans?b) How India's demographic boom creates enormous pressure on universities and policymakers?c) Why even an average foreign community college can often offer a better student experience?d) What Ashoka and ISB tried to do differently in curriculum, faculty and governance?e) How to balance academic freedom with institutional survival and brand risk?f) Why quality in education is so hard to scale and why many private universities lose steam?g) What it really takes to build an 8 to 10 thousand student world class university in India?For India based professionals who track business, policy, world news and long term growth, this episode offers a rare inside view of how universities are designed, funded and governed. It speaks to anyone interested in Indian higher education, liberal arts, global talent flows, institution building, philanthropy and the future of Indian students who might otherwise choose the US, UK, Canada, Europe or China.If you care about Indian growth, talent, opportunity and the next generation, this conversation is worth your time.#IndiaEducation #IndianUniversities #StudyAbroad #TheCoreReport #AshokaUniversity

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

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.

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

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

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