Recently, the Chronicle of Higher Education released its "2024 Trends Report in Higher Education." This annual survey delves into the developments shaping higher education in the United States, aiming to shed light on the forces shaping it, the reasons behind them, and how to navigate times of change.
The report addresses numerous issues, including budget shortfalls, limited campus inclusivity, shifts in governance, and the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education. In this article, I'll briefly discuss several key trends highlighted in the report.
Unprecedented Authority of Legal Counsel in Academia
Historically, policies at US universities were primarily driven by campus administrators. They would devise new policies or initiatives in their offices, sending documents to legal counsel to ensure compliance with legal requirements. These lawyers rarely appeared on campus, often reviewing these documents in downtown office buildings.
However, today, the lawyers hired by schools are deeply involved in the management process of higher education institutions. Not only do they attend various meetings of university administrators, but they also wield increasing decision-making power. The report notes that current university general counsels hold significant sway within campus organizational structures. They participate in nearly all high-level management meetings and profoundly influence university decisions. A whispered word to the president or a memo to the board chair from these legal counselors could result in discontinuing an academic program, ousting an administrator, or even altering the university's trajectory.
Meredith Mayberg, a witness to this transformation, was hired in the summer of 2018 as the compliance director and university legal counsel at Oglethorpe University in the United States. Her role was initially to assist the institution in navigating increasingly stringent legal regulations. However, she quickly found her responsibilities expanded. Today, she serves as both general counsel and chief of staff, attending all critical university meetings. Her job is to observe the university's environment and provide advice on the potential impacts of its plans and policies.
Mayberg states that she collaborates with both senior university administrators and the board of trustees, often acting as a mediator. She assesses the university's risks and must be able to collaborate with everyone. She emphasizes that as the areas of involvement for general counsels continue to expand, the importance of this role will only increase. "There's absolutely no shortage of things to do," she says.
Currently, both the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States plan to strengthen oversight of higher education. With increasing pressure from various sectors of society, the number and power of full-time university lawyers may continue to expand. The report expresses concern about this development.
The report suggests that the expansion of legal counsel authority could have negative consequences. Heightened awareness of legal consequences may lead to an overreaction to certain restrictive regulations, transforming the campus from a space of free exchange into a "politically correct" environment where everyone must self-censor and be monitored, ultimately stifling creativity and imagination among faculty and students.
Artificial Intelligence Will Disrupt Higher Education; Are Universities Ready?
In January of this year, at El Paso Community College in Texas, Wolf conducted a demonstration on artificial intelligence for about 60 faculty and staff members.
Wolf is responsible for the college's quality enhancement program and assessment work. He aimed to familiarize colleagues with the use of AI tools and the potential surprises it may bring. However, according to Wolf, some of them still hesitated, focusing on a perennial question—whether there is a reliable method to know if students are using AI to cheat.
This is the reality of higher education today. Since the advent of generative AI, represented by ChatGPT, it has caused a great stir in academia, eliciting excitement, fear, and resistance. Overall, the reactions are complex and varied.
On campuses, many teachers have accepted it and have readjusted their courses. Some scholars responsible for peer review duties are also using generative AI software to identify differences in academic papers. Many individuals on campus are employing these tools as their editorial assistants.
At the same time, many others hold clear opposition, considering this technology too chaotic or problematic.
When writing this survey report, the Chronicle of Higher Education found a consensus among almost all interviewees—that generative AI has enabled the field of AI to cross a crucial threshold, undefined but vital, and has exposed the public to AI in a specific way, unlike anything before. This has never happened before. Current technology is poised to generate broader productivity.
Nevertheless, the long-term role of generative AI in higher education remains unresolved, and the entire higher education industry seems yet to prove whether educational and research institutions can adapt to this technology and keep up with its rapid development pace.
Indeed, this is the case. Higher education and the field of artificial intelligence do not match in many aspects. AI technologies, represented by generative AI, are rapidly maturing, but university development has historically been slow.
Scholars like Morick, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and others see clear benefits when studying the impact of AI on education. "Tools like GPT-4 and other generative AI can make learning more equitable and provide personalized tutoring services." However, they also point out that the lack of AI literacy and uneven adoption rates among universities could exacerbate differences in student learning experiences and widen knowledge gaps.
Many proponents of generative AI argue that current technology is likely to be a lifeline for universities. Some experts suggest that regardless of whether higher education can keep pace, these technologies should be in the sights of administrators and faculty. Wolf states that universities cannot "wait to address this issue later"; "There is no later. Later is actually tomorrow." "Patrons" Exerting Greater Pressure on Universities
It's well-known that millionaires and billionaires in the United States have long held sway over the campuses of the universities they generously donate to.
Whether their funds go towards basic research, combating diseases, or advancing technological breakthroughs, the actions of these "patrons" can influence various aspects of universities, including the intended research directions and types. Thanks to their generous donations, one can spot buildings named after them on campuses, and their descendants may enjoy privileges in certain admission processes. They may even join university boards of trustees, wielding even greater influence. This phenomenon is commonplace in American academia, with people having grown accustomed to it.
However, in recent years, at some top-tier American universities, certain donors have shown a desire for even greater influence. For instance, under pressure from donors, the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology appeared before Congress for questioning. This was also one of the main reasons that ultimately led to the resignations of the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania.
The report suggests that whether these examples will embolden donors to exert more pressure on universities remains to be seen, but the trend appears to be accentuating.
While similar instances are still relatively rare, they have raised concerns within the higher education community, with some arguing that such donation pressures do not benefit the development of universities. Even after accepting donations, universities should still pay more attention to issues of institutional autonomy in the use of donation funds.
In conclusion, due to changes in circumstances and the advent of the era of generative artificial intelligence, universities face various dilemmas and challenges. As Senior Editor Bennett of "The Chronicle of Higher Education" puts it, the root of the trends in higher education development presented in this year's report lies in university leaders facing such existential questions—who is in charge? How does technology become a force for good? Whom are we serving?
This is not only a reality that those in American higher education must confront but also one that demands the right answers for the times from the global higher education community.
(Author is a professor at Renmin University of China)
