The wave of change is already washing over us. I'm still thinking about how I feel about my university sunsetting its M.Ed. program in Higher Education and changing the parameters for the program I'm enrolled in (Ed.D). See the note below. A friend said, "The decision makes sense from a business perspective, but it’s still tough to take in." I think for me, it's more about hope--critical hope that higher ed provides to our society, hope for a bright future where people truly become educated, not trained. I'm thankful for the timing so I can reflect during the holidays and then figure out the right path forward for me in 2026. I also like that we're normalizing the review process. I like that there seemed to be a conversation between those who were evaluating and those who are leading the program. I wish we could have been part of the conversation (I wanted an action-based learning opportunity and that sounded like a great one!). I wish there were some thoughts about collaboration, too (maybe there are other schools offering where we can do together and split the resources and expenses)? Maybe we each bring a different edginess we can share and make something totally worth being in person for?
One of the understandings I've come to is that the program we're in is purposefully accelerated. I know if I was working on this degree to jump to a new position I would want to move faster too so I could add that game-changing designation to my credentials. But I'm not and I'm nervous about what's next when I finish this (I know, I know, that's the frustration of every lifelong learner--right?). I feel like I'm on fast forward again trying to suck as much as I can from the firehose even though I'm realizing I'm wishing I could push pause and just say WTF is happening in higher ed? And what are we, the people who are in this system going to do about it? We don't have time to do that during the academic courses where we are studying these issues. We don't have the space to focus on, let alone spend much time on, what's happening now because, like the law, we need to wait for things to be decided.
My mantra is that status quo is not an option (we must adapt and move forward, however imperfect our movement is), so my frustration in law, I guess, is that status quo=precedent and that law is generally controlled by it (the doctrine of stare decisis). I learned in my EdD studies that I will remain frustrated by newer issues because peer-reviewed articles (required sources that are more trusted because of the rigor and vetting required to create them) may not yet exist for things in the headlines, so there isn't much a scholar can do about them if they extend beyond offering an example of a peer-reviewed article framework or other system. I wish there was something we could do to accelerate the inclusion/introduction of them in those instances. News articles prioritize accessibility and timeliness over comprehensive analysis and I struggle with "good enough." It's something I wondered about when segments of higher ed are accredited--we either pass or fail but the amount of resources we use usually well extends well past what is required (which takes them away from other things, which may not exist without those resources) and we seek to have no notes on what needs to be improved (which seems contradictory to a lifelong learning mindset?).
I think because I was trained first as a journalist that my bias is toward informing the public/accessibility over creating new knowledge about a field via systematic inquiry. I think that's why I like the term "practical scholar." I understand academic research is created to be tested, challenged and built upon--but I think what a news article says is also tested, challenged and built upon and it can be done with the same rigor if we choose, but the initial audience is larger than the academic one--it's anyone.
Supposedly, news articles give us data and ideas to study--they help us identify emerging trends (no contact/estrangement is something I'd like to study in family business), document timelines, discussion framework, and public conversation.
__________________________________
How goes traditional undergraduate higher education?
KID #2: I'm sad watching one of my daughters collect credits in ANYTHING just to end her Easter Egg hunt in 3 years instead of 4 (she's in a 3+2 but now she's like why am I going to wait and risk not getting my 25% off for grad school because technically she's still in undergrad). She sees two minors she'd love but there's no way to stack her classes in the system the school has to get them without paying extra for 2 more credits (the system is mostly 4 credit classes, and there are a few, rare, 2 credit classes you can tack on. She's tacking them on each quarter to get the right amount of credits to simply graduate). The experience is more of a video game (figuring out how to "win", which is collecting the right amount of points by writing on a discussion board and making comments on others' insight). She is getting nothing out of this experience, except padding her GPA (she's only gone below a 4.0 for her cat dissection class, which is required for the 3+2, seemed to be offered less than once a year, had a poorly rated professor. What frustrated her more was that the professor was very unclear in his grading and comments about grading. He also seemed to be having His TA was unsettled and told my daughter she was behind the scenes working on a solution but it was too late to help the current cohort. My daughter said there was at least one doctor in the undergraduate class and sometimes that person couldn't get an A. The professor seemed to feed on the anxiety of the students, telling them the grades would not be curved and they needed to consider dropping out (so that means these students can't access their major of choice or they would have to wait a year to access this class again and hope he no longer teaches it?). His unclear grading and expectation emails created such a terrible feeling towards higher ed for my daughter. She really couldn't believe what was happening (she said one set of grades got released while they were in lab and people broke down in tears. She didn't understand why it had to be done this way? The lessons were not taught toward the text are we doing this to these students?)) .
KID #1: She's applying to grad schools. Her undergraduate major is Hearing and Speech Science. She said it is the same training for both audiologists and speech therapists. The split happens when they choose grad school. And that's where I'm upset: audiology requires a practitioner to stay in school an extra 1-2 years (doctorate) while the other career path only requires students to get a masters to practice (speech therapy). Now their access to loans for these degrees are limited. The time and opportunity cost of the doctorate is a lot. And we are on the masters path, sitting at an info session, with all women who seem like good people to be in a cohort with and my daughter looks at the course requirements and the lightbulb goes off--I don't want this. I can do it, but it's not my first choice. Audiology is my passion. So here we are, a few weeks left to the application cycle, trying to apply. And guess what--the number of options is fractional, programs at the primary state school has been discontinued, only very expensive programs are accessible nearby, and we are looking at room and board being required to access education. She will apply to one audiology program because the local one requires test scores for a test she didn't take or consider taking (not required for the other branch anymore). And then we're looking at social media and wondering--is everyone abandoning audiology because there is hardly anyone in a cohort? What is going on here? Will the tech be replaced somehow? Was this move, which took place about a decade ago, really the right one? How can they go back and adjust? Won't they need to given the occupational outlook? And is the doctorate level necessary? AI says it came to be thanks to "professional credentialing politics." Seriously?
__________________________________________________________
Subject: HIED Chair’s Corner: Program Updates
Hi everyone,
As a slight revision from my previous Chair’s Corner, the HIED program updates are going to be coming from me and not the School of Education dean. As many of you know, higher education as an industry has been going through many changes and tensions of financial pressures, international and national policy, and enrollment dips. Amidst these tensions are opportunities for us to reimagine programs and find alignment to better support students (current and past), as well as consider the future trends of our field. In light of the program changes that I’ll be highlighting below, please know that we will be holding meetings in January to offer support and guidance. Your respective program directors will also be holding individual and collective meetings to ensure that you are supported and answer your questions and concerns.
Sunsetting the M.Ed. in Higher Education Program
After some very difficult decisions amongst senior leadership, the decision was made to begin the process to sunset our M.Ed. in Higher Education program. This was not easy and to be frank still feels very raw for the faculty, but was determined as the only course of action given the trends we know regarding graduate student enrollment, upcoming changes to graduate student loans, as well as what is starting to become a saturation of online M.Ed. in Higher Education programs that limit our competitive advantages. For those of you who have already taken our "Organizational Theory & Governance" classes (ELPS 459/507), you are familiar with the impacts of neoliberalism and academic capitalism; and for the rest of you, who will be taking it in upcoming semesters, this is an case study example we unfortunately see and will likely continue to see across the field.
- For current students, be rest assured that we will be finishing you all out with your degrees and remain committed to delivering a high-quality program to you all. Your program director, Dr. jules, will be setting up meetings with each of you both individually and collectively to talk over the questions and concerns that you all might have.
- What the sunset also means is that effective immediately, we are no longer accepting applications for the M.Ed. in Higher Education, and for those who have already submitted an application, we will be communicating this and encouraging applicants to consider our M.Ed. in International Higher Education (which will continue).
In all, we want to emphasize how incredible this program has been and that doesn’t change with this news—and are dedicated to giving you all the experience you deserve and to help your transition to, thru, and post graduation be as smooth as possible.
EdD Program Evolution and Changes
As the EdD program is currently in its fourth year, it is considered a “new program” by senior leadership and undergoes a third-year review. During this time, we (HIED) provide data, narratives, as well as evidence of our program successes and projected growth. Following this review, we received notice that in order to continue the program, we must make the following changes for incoming classes (for which we have agreed): The culminating project for the EdD is no longer a dissertation, but a capstone; The program curricular no longer offers in-person intensives, and is a fully remote online program; There is no longer a four/five-year work experience requirement to apply to the program. Additionally, we have also agreed to bring in a class of 25 students each year of which 15 must be external (i.e. not employees of Loyola), and the understanding we will not receive additional faculty resources to do so. With these changes, the program faculty met intensely, including Dra. López who came out of sabbatical, to reimagine the EdD program and sustain the high-quality rigor and experience all of you deserve and applied towards.
- While we are continuing to reimagine what future courses will look like without an in-person intensive (which we also know is a hallmark that many of you have stated you have enjoyed), part of the transition means we will be offering more opportunities for optional in-person community building via writing sessions and socials.
- Further, in creating a meaningful and rigorous capstone experience, the faculty are excited to introduce the Scholar-Practitioner Brief, which is a 2,400 to 3,000 word publication-worthy manuscript that discusses implications of research to policy and practice. (Sections include an overview of the problem, relevant background and literature, guiding frameworks to address an issue, proposed recommendations, and implications with implementation).
- As these changes are currently in process of approval by senior leadership, and will be reflected in the upcoming application cycle, we are offering current 2nd- and 1st-year students to choose whether they would like to shift their dissertation to a capstone instead. Knowing that you all likely have questions related to this, your program director (me) will be holding sessions early January to more fully explain what the capstone is.
I know that these are a lot of different changes to be absorbing, and in the midst of all of this, please know that the faculty are with you all, committed to supporting you all, and have worked hard to create this new evolution for which we are excited in its potential. Again, please stay tuned for calendar invites which will offer more details. (As a request, I'll also be asking for 2nd and 1st year EdD students to attend one of these sessions before scheduling a 1on1).
