Note: This interview in the Weekly Wisdom Series originally aired on March 24, 2025 as part of the University Innovation Alliance’s Innovating Together Podcast, appearing live on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. The transcript of this podcast episode is intended to serve as a guide to the entire conversation, and we encourage you to listen to this podcast episode. You can also access our summary, along with helpful links and audio from this episode.
Bridget Burns: Welcome to another episode of Start the Week With Wisdom. I'm your host, Bridget Burns from the University Innovation Alliance.
Sara Custer: And I am Sarah Custer from Inside Higher Ed.
Bridget Burns: Each week we team up to have a conversation with a leader in the field that we think is uplifting and inspiring and helps us all navigate the complexity and challenges of today. So, our hope is this is a short conversation that leaves you inspired and hopeful for the days ahead. That's why we call it Start the Week With Wisdom.
Sara Custer: The show Weekly Wisdom is sponsored by Mainstay, the student engagement and retention platform, proven to work through peer-reviewed research. Check out the research and learn more at Mainstay.com.
Bridget Burns: It is also supported on the Innovating Together Podcast by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, who we are always grateful for their generosity.
Sara Custer: And today we have a returning guest who needs no introduction: Jamie Merisotis, the president and CEO of Lumina Foundation. The last time Jamie was on our show, we explored his leadership journey and his insights, but today we are here to talk about something even bigger: the future.
Bridget Burns: Two weeks ago, Lumina announced a bold new goal. By 2040, 75% of U.S. working-age adults will hold a college degree or workforce credential that leads to economic prosperity. And this is a major shift from the 60% goal set for 2025 previously by Lumina. And it comes at a time when higher ed is facing a reckoning, rising skepticism about college and its value, changing workforce demands, the new complexity of AI, a new administration, questions about what credentials actually deliver value. So today we're going to unpack a lot about how this goal came to be, the data that drove it, and what needs to happen next to make it a reality.
Sara Custer: Jamie, welcome back to the show.
Jamie Merisotis: Thank you very much. It's hard to believe I can be wise once, never mind more than once. So, I'm looking forward to our conversation.
Sara Custer: Well, you really got to deliver this time.
Bridget Burns: Lots of pressure.
Sara Custer: Yeah. So, Jamie, I just wanted to start off, actually, by talking about your 2025 goal, which helped increase post-secondary attainment from 38% to 55%. When you sat down to redefine the next goal for Lumina, were there any critical lessons that you had in mind from the previous 15 years that really helped you think about what your new target was going to be?
Jamie Merisotis: We spent a lot of time on this, because I think it's important to understand what the journey's been, right? The delta that you talk about, 38% to 55%, is one of the biggest social change successes, I would argue, of the last 15 or 20 years. And we were proud to have played a small role as a catalyst in making that happen in terms of people getting pay raises, people being able to get jobs in new fields, becoming better citizens, being better participants in their community because they got a degree, a certificate, or a certification. So, I think all of that is really good, and what we learned from that is that talent is a driver. It's a driver of not only individual success but societal well-being. And that was a foundation for this work now in thinking about a 2040 goal. Because what we learned from the 2025 goal is that it takes time to build momentum. The college attainment movement really is a movement. It wasn't something that just spawned from something that – It was designed by people who actually believed that post-secondary credentials have value, and they work together in order to be able to make that happen. Institutions of higher education, large national organizations, funders, and particularly states. And one of the things that we learned from our work over the last several years is that states are a major driver of the delta. This was not something that was intuitive to me when I pitched the idea to the Lumina board of a 2025 goal. When I interviewed for the job at Lumina in 2007, the idea was that we believed that more people with credentials, more people with degrees and certificates and other credentials will make a difference economically and socially to the country. But we weren't quite sure how that was going to happen. And what we realized with a few years of work is that states are major drivers, because not only do they have the power of the purse, but they educate the most students and therefore they have the greatest influence on the process. And so, states set attainment goals; 49 of the 50 states set attainment goals in that post-2008 time period to the present. Only New York did not. And the net result obviously was that they learned a lot about how to both improve access – because access had been a long goal of higher ed, but was not really achieved before the attainment movement – and to continue to focus on access while they focused on attainment. And attainment being the completion of the credentials so that people can be successful and working in life. But states were a major part of that, and states will continue to be a major part of what we do going forward.
Bridget Burns: I love that and appreciate your patience as I was navigating exploring the platform shifts, love how they always upgrade things. But what I love is that because you have been around since you helped set the first one, you have that expertise to bring to bear on the strategy of how you set the goal to do it well, what to listen to, and how do you actually scaffold the right evaluative component. So, what I want to understand is this idea of credentials of value. The 2040 goal, it's not just about attainment, it's about the credential leads to economic prosperity, some call it mobility. I'm just curious about the 15% wage premium as a benchmark. Were there different definitions that you considered strong voices that you felt like really helped persuade that that was going to be the most compelling thing to target? I'm just getting to the nuts and bolts of it.
Jamie Merisotis: Yeah. We spend a lot of time with economists and with policymakers, particularly CEOs, on this question of what value means. And to be clear, and I want to make this point as transparent as possible, we do not believe wages are the sole or even the best measure of value. They're the thing that we can best measure right now, which is why we are advancing them. The analogy here is that when we started the work on increasing attainment, we could only measure degrees. We had no national data systems to measure certificates, certifications, other credentials. We had to build that. And we're sort of doing that here. We're saying, "Look, value is, in the beginning, going to be measured as 15% wage premium compared to people with a high school credential. That is necessary in our view, but not sufficient." And the 15% is really a consensus view among economists that that's enough of a delta to actually justify the investment and make a difference both for the individual and for society. And you can debate whether it should be 20% or something else, but we landed on the 15 in the near term. Over time, we hope to build data systems. That's one of the strategies that we're going to pursue here as we did in the last 15 years to help actually get better data around things like, well, what are other measures of value? Well, wealth might be a measure. Community impact might be a measure. Participation in the democracy. So, there's lots indicators that you can use in order to measure value, but the idea is to get clearer about the fact that the whole reason to go to college to get a workforce credential is ultimately to gain value, and that value should lead to economic prosperity. Prosperity is the aspirational societal benefit that all of us should be a part of.
Sara Custer: Sure. You said whenever you were on the 2025 goals that you were surprised to see the influence that states had in helping get to that 55%. I'm wondering, when you're looking at the 2040 goals and you're looking at trying to connect that bridge or make that bridge between education and the workforce, I'm wondering if there's – I don't know – a specific solution or a direction that you're hoping to go towards, or what specific area of that gap you're hoping to focus on to hopefully connect that a little bit? I think that's been part of the problem with a lot of the graduate success that we're seeing, whether it's based on wage or however we want to measure it, is making that connection between finishing an education and then finding success in the workforce.
Jamie Merisotis: The important thing, I think, is that the credentials should have both near-term and longer-term value. And I think that's one of the questions. So, you need the shorter-term skills, if we can use that as a simple term, so that you can do work that is available now given the current labor market. But if the goal is ultimately about 75% of the U.S. labor market having these credentials of value, we've got to be clear that the labor market is changing as we speak, that the nature of work is changing. All this future of work conversation that we've been a part of for more than a decade is real AI. It really is starting to impact how people work and what they do and who does, which means the enduring skills, critical thinking, problem solving, interpersonal human communication. And things that people historically have called more innate values that we disagree, that they're innate. We think they're things that you can develop, like your ability to be ethical, your ability to be caring, and other things. Those things long-term are going to be very, very important. So, it's the near-term, more specific job skills that are required, but having those more generalizable longer-term durable skills, as some people call them, I think ultimately are going to be incredibly important. And so, these credentials should demonstrate both of those things in my view, which is why I think wages are a necessary but not sufficient indicator of how you're going to do. You should be able to get out in the labor market and be able to get that 15% delta at the jump, as they say, but you will need to continue to develop your skills, because the nature of work is changing. And that means both your shorter-term skills, your near-term skills, and those longer-term human skills that are going to be so important to us as human workers.
Bridget Burns: The whole balancing the status quo and the future. I mean, knowing how long it takes. I work with universities, but I mean, we're talking about institutions that take a really long time to set a curriculum, to set a strategy to try and, I mean, it's often been a struggle for them to work with workforce. There's a lot of complexity, I think, for balancing that. So, I appreciate the nuance that you definitely took in and have put into setting the goal. I think that some of the stuff that we've always struggled with we're going to continue to struggle with, and it's a matter of how you actually can start moving systems at a bigger level.
Jamie Merisotis: Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. And one of the realities we've got to face is that one of the reasons why, even if there wasn't a time-limited 2025 goal that we had developed, we'd be talking about this anyway, because fundamentally the nature of the industry and the demand for talent has changed. The industry has changed. Because, well, we all know the data confidence in higher education has declined dramatically just in the last five years, a 20% point decline in confidence. The rising costs are a big reason for that, but so are near-term job skills to the point of our conversation we just had, so are these questions about what higher education does, what it contributes to us as individuals and to us as a society? So, the system's got to change and got to be responsive to those things in a different way. In 2008, frankly, I wasn't thinking about the questions of are people going to think getting a degree or a certificate or other credential is worth it? But today they are, and that is something that the industry ignores at its own peril, in my opinion. The industry of post-secondary learning ignores at its own peril in my opinion.
Bridget Burns: I just want to add the finer point here and ask the very clear question that I think my colleagues need to hear. Which is higher ed has long been focused solely on degrees. There's been a lot of narrative and talk about mobility, all of that. But reality is that we're not seeing it actually implemented on the ground by institutions we're still struggling with. There's not, like, one measure that is being used by everyone or hasn't been embedded. I'm just curious about what you think needs to happen to get colleges to fully embrace this idea that credentials need to have a tangible economic return in a way that they actually change what they do, that they don't just –
Jamie Merisotis: My conversations with college presidents increasingly are about accepting that reality. It may not be the reality that they trained for that they came up through the system for, but for many college presidents, that reality is clear because their legislators are telling them this. They're hearing this message very clearly at the federal level or even from private funders like Lumina Foundation. So, I think many are grasping that. I don't think that is as much of a challenge as is the question, what do we do? How do we actually make that happen? And here I think it is why hopefully we can provide some support with lots of others to help them think about that. This question, for example, let's just zero in on the elephant in the room, which is high-cost affordability is a long-term issue that we've tried to address through various strategies over the last 30 years, increasing student financial aid, finding ways to improve productivity in the system. All of these things have been a part of the enterprise, but fundamentally, prices have continued to outpace inflation wages and other measures over a very long-term time period. Many people have argued that it's still worth it because what you earn and the other benefits that you get from higher education continue to exceed those costs. But it's pretty clear that that argument has declining value for an awful lot of people, even if it is true. So, the question of affordability has to be what are we going to do to literally make our education more affordable for our students, not how do we show them that they're wrong, that it's not affordable, it's got to be how do we actually make it more affordable? And that gets at questions about fundamental redesign, things that you've worked on, Bridget. Fundamental redesign of the university, of the institution. So that you can literally deliver more value,. Find ways in which people are getting into the labor market, where they add near-term and long-term value. But also protecting the role of higher education as a source of innovation research, the ability to actually influence the way work changes comes in part by what colleges and universities do. And so making that a clear part of the argument, if you will, for why this is increasingly important to society, is going to be terribly important. I don't think we should mansplain college affordability to America. That's not a good idea. I think we should actually do a better job of explaining how we are making it more affordable, because I think ultimately that's what the public policy makers and employers really expect.
Sara Custer: Yeah.
Bridget Burns: Can I just jump in that? So, this makes me think about Purdue and their decision. So, when the UIA first launched, one of our goals was to hold down our costs. And what I found interesting is, one, it was really hard for me to measure that over time. I could measure how our tuition increases, and I tried to try and index against certain other institutions, but I was making it up, but how little people cared when I was trying to report on our data. Nobody was asking for that. And I find myself frequently being like, "Hey, here's a goal we've accomplished." And they're kind of like, "Yeah, yeah, we get it." But Purdue actually held their tuition flat for ten years. And the marketplace, I think, responded. Parents love it, but there has not been enough unpacking of what they learned in order to do that and how you actually set up systems to reinforce it because they didn't win awards for that. There are awards out there. There are rankings out there, and yet that's the thing you're talking about in terms of, I think, that there is an economic return on that end, but literally holding their tuition flat. And obviously the systems have not responded as well as they think they could to what they did.
Jamie Merisotis: Yeah, I mean, I think – look, Purdue, there are lots of good examples of institutions now that have delivered more value. Purdue's one strategy, the Georgia State example is another strategy, the Southern New Hampshire, Arizona State. You've got lots and lots of these examples. The challenge is to turn these into broader strategies, and the broader strategies, I think is still challenging for a lot of the sector. Part of that is that it is – and this is one of the strengths of American higher education – it's a competitive industry. And so, finding out where you stand out in the marketplace is actually valuable for a Purdue. One of the reasons why holding tuition for such a long period of time, constant worked for Purdue, is that it was fairly unique. It helped for them from a marketing perspective, and that marketing paid off in getting more, and in some cases, better qualified students who wanted to go to an institution that was willing to take that kind of risk. How do we measure that is the point in terms of the long-term impact and value on that institution, in this case Purdue, but long-term on the sector itself.
Sara Custer: I wanted to pick up your point about how it sounded like you're really trying to reflect society a little bit in these goals in terms of public skepticism and higher education. And I know that Lumina has done your own surveys and data showing that that is very much the case. How much of that combating that, or not mansplaining, but maybe explaining the value of higher education to the public, how much of that was in the back of your mind in addition to, obviously, institutions first and foremost being the audience for this goal, then policymakers at the state and federal level? How much of it, though, was about maybe trying to mend some of that skepticism that the public has about the value of higher education or even high-value credentials?
Jamie Merisotis: Yeah, I think it's a complex story. The short answer is some of that is embedded in what we've tried to do here, but it's a complex story. It's worth underscoring that at the same time that people say their confidence in higher education is declining. That's very clear, and that's a very dramatic decline in a short period of time. It's also true that the majority of Americans continue to believe that college is worth it, and that they believe that they want their own family members to participate in it. And you look at the interesting thing from the data is who has the highest belief in that? It is the people who haven't participated in the system. So, it's low-income populations, disproportionately people of color, people in rural areas, etc. So, you have an understanding here that people who haven't benefited from the investment in talent look at others and say, "Oh, I see what they got. I would like to be able to participate in that, or I would like my family to participate in that." So, that's an opportunity, in my opinion, for higher education to do some of that work to make the case as you point out. But my point simply is that making the case isn't a sufficient part of the strategy, that the institutions, the systems themselves literally have to be transformed. And part of what we're thinking about at Lumina, and this is very early days on this, is what does this redesign look like? So, what do we mean when we say make it more affordable, or improve financial aid, or change the business model, or –? There's lots of things that have been in the water supply for a number of years. But they've been very conceptual. And I think we've got to be much more specific and granular about how that works and then how the public, the current and prospective consumers of higher education, actually understand that. Back to the point about explaining so that they understand what they are getting. Some of that is transparency, being clearer about what you do and don't get when you go to college. But also, I think it is fundamentally about changing delivery models, about rethinking the fundamentals of the system. Because fundamentally, the public's demand is requiring that, fundamentally, the nature of work is changing and therefore we are really at this tipping point, I think, for higher education where it will have to do this. And I think, absent that, I think both the institutions will suffer, but more importantly than that, society will suffer.
Sara Custer: So, it's not really lamenting messaging, it's now actually, action. Now's the time.
Jamie Merisotis: It's time to do the work.
Bridget Burns: I want to ask, it's a twofold question. One is we're seeing the data around whether it's rural students, students of color, working adults, the challenges and their outcomes. Just wondering which population are you most concerned about in terms of reaching that 75% number. And then, going to your wheelhouse, we know you, we know that you have policy ideas, and I am just wondering if there's one policy idea that, for you, you see as necessary to the achievement of this goal.
Jamie Merisotis: I would say that we need to continue to focus on, even though the word is now a part of the challenge in the environment, but focus on what has long been understood as equity. That these are barriers that people come to the table with that you've got to address as part of the learning process. And what are those barriers? Well, for a long time we've understood it, income that is a barrier. We've understood that race and ethnicity are clearly barriers and that geography is a barrier. You mentioned rural as an example. Those to me are some of the top priorities. There are other things that we've got to address. Gender continues to be a challenge for many Americans. Gender discrimination, issues related to discrimination against people with disabilities, et cetera. All of those I think are very, very important. But I would sort of say that the core of it is income, geography, race, and ethnicity. That continues to be the focus. And in Lumina's case, we've continued to say that we won't stop talking about the issues related to race because fundamentally nothing has changed given the political environment. We also recognize that, for many at the policy level, to get to your point about policy, for many of the policy conversations, the conversations about race are largely untenable. So, finding ways in which you continue to focus on the value of this without getting tripped up over whether or not people believe the fundamentals of racial inequity is a challenge, it's something that you've got to deal with. And I am not one of those people that says, "Well, let's just ignore those people because they have power." It doesn't make sense to ignore the people who actually aren't willing to accept these issues about where the barriers lie. And some of those barriers clearly are barriers of race, but I think doing a better job of helping to contextualize why those barriers are very similar to the things that those individuals might believe are barriers is really important. And so, that's why these conversations about equity or whatever you want to refer to it as – fairness – will continue to be important from a policy perspective. I do think that fundamentally we've got to be focusing on this idea that increasingly the dollars have to flow to the institutions that are actually delivering on these credentials of value. That is very clear. Now, I don't know in what time period yet, that's part of what we're focused on, but again, the funding environment of being clear that you've got to deliver on value for the students, for all of the students, is really important. And there's been years and years of conversation about outcomes-based or performance-based funding that I think is going to come back in a different way this time around. But I think we've got to be clearer about what we mean by value going forward. Again, the delta because of wages, that 15% difference is really important, but it is not sufficient to describe value, in my opinion. And that's got to be a part of these policy funding conversations going forward.
Bridget Burns: That's super important. And of course, you have good ideas of what we need to be handling. Let’s just put it – Let's just be clear about what's at stake if we don't actually achieve this. I think that's the thing that we want to leave for people in their pocket is for you – if there's an image that for you is haunting to prompt you to want to push America towards achieving this goal. Is it just this expanded wealth inequality, fracturing, polarization. All of this 10X. Is it the AI disruption? I'm just curious if there's an image, of a threat that you think is the most concerning that's causing – that people should think about to create some urgency around the goal? Jamie Merisotis: What is education for? Fundamentally, that's the question that we've got to ask. And if the answer is, it's ultimately to ensure that people have economic prosperity individually and that therefore, societally, we have the shared well-being that comes from that economic prosperity, that's what we've got to focus on. So, the opposite of that is declining economic prosperity. It is that we aren't actually making the changes to the system that are necessary to lead to those credentials of value, that therefore drive increasing economic prosperity. That's the risk. The risk is that we will say, "Oh, we don't actually need as much talent as we thought because AI is going to perform the work that humans used to do." Or something like that. I think it's a false promise. I think that human ingenuity, human productivity, human happiness is ultimately derived from continuing to learn and therefore apply the learning and work and in life. And if we don't make these investments, investments not just in what's happening now, but investments in what society needs long term, the thing that keeps me up at night is this idea that we will see a continuing diminishment of prosperity. A diminishment of economic well-being and the rest of the world gaining at our expense. And the 20th century clearly was the American century. There's no guarantee that the 21st century is the American century. Human talent has to be the driver to ensure that we continue to be successful in the same ways that we were in the 20th century.
Sara Custer: On that point, I wonder if you could leave our listeners with any practical advice, whether they're university leaders or policymakers or employers. What's one thing that you would want them to walk away and go out and start doing now in order to advance towards this goal?
Jamie Merisotis: I love this question, and I get it a lot when I'm out speaking because my answer is always the same, which is participate in the change. Do not assume that someone else is doing the work and that you'll either agree with it or benefit from it. You've – Participate in the change. This is an all hands on deck moment, in my opinion. And it's going to require not just public policymakers, not just business leaders, not just college and university leaders, not just students or consumers themselves, but everyone. Understanding that the development and deployment of human talent requires our collective effort. It is not a static process. We've all got to participate in it. So, if you're an individual, think about what your learning goals are and how you're going to get there. If you're an employer, think about what your employees need now and tomorrow. If you're a policymaker, think about what society's goals should be in terms of economic and social well-being. Everyone should be focused on this idea of increasing human talent, because it is ultimately why we focus on education; because it is the biggest contributor to economic prosperity.
Bridget Burns: I'm just so glad that you did this, that you moved us forward. It was entirely possible to just rest on the laurels of the last goal to just celebrate the W. And frankly, I think a lot of folks would completely understand right now, hunkering down and just head down. Just try and navigate the transitions and the turbulence and just come back up for air later. I like that you brought Lumina to lead and step forward to show others that this is the kind of stuff we need to be thinking about, talking about. These are the kind of changes that we need to be prioritizing. And I think what's interesting is the role that you play with the other funders. I think that this is not happening in a vacuum necessarily, that I think it will likely influence where they go. I'm already seeing new strategies unveiled from multiple other funders, and so I know that you show up in the same places, but I think that the leadership that Lumina is bringing to the table is critically important. And so yeah, I'm just glad that you didn't just take the W.
Jamie Merisotis: Well, thank you. I've said since I got here that being a funder is good. Being a leadership organization is better. Ultimately, at the end of the day, when you've got resources and expertise, you need to be a leadership organization. And for me, that's what Lumina Foundation is and must continue to be.
Bridget Burns: Well, you're doing it. So, this has been an incredibly insightful conversation. We've covered so much ground from the key data points that shaped the new goal to the policies and mindset shifts that need to happen in higher ed. I love that you frame the urgency around increasing credentials. But making sure that institutions are actually going to lead in economic mobility.
Jamie Merisotis: Thank you.
Sara Custer: And for our listeners, per the last question that I asked Jamie, whether you're a university leader or a policymaker or an employer or just someone that's invested in the future of education and society, your challenges to lean in, engage, take responsibility, take the agency on this, to know that education and workforce readiness really is everybody's responsibility. So how are you ensuring that credentials you offer support or pursue have that real economic value? And if you want to learn more, obviously, about Lumina Strategy and how you can be a part of this, you can head over to Lumina’s website for their full strategy.
Bridget Burns: And as always, if you found this conversation valuable, share it with your colleagues. Subscribe to the Innovating Together Podcast. Let us know what you think. Jamie, thanks again for being here. It's always such a pleasure. We love what you're doing, and we're excited to be able to elevate it. And Sarah, as always, thanks for being an excellent co-host.
Sara Custer: My pleasure. Well done, Jamie.
Jamie Merisotis: Thank you.
Sara Custer: Well done at the same time. Thank you.
Bridget Burns: I'll see you.
Bios of Guest and Co-Hosts
Jamie Merisotis, an internationally recognized leader in higher education, human work, philanthropy, and public policy, has been Lumina Foundation’s president and CEO since 2008. Frequently sought as a media commentator and contributor, his writing has appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, among other publications. Prior to joining Lumina, he served as president of the nonpartisan Institute for Higher Education Policy, which he co-founded, and executive director of a bipartisan national commission to study college affordability. Mr. Merisotis is the author of America Needs Talent, named a Booklist Top 10 Business book of 2016, and Amazon bestseller Human Work in the Age of Smart Machines. An experienced board leader, he serves as board member and advisor to several organizations including the Commission on the American Workforce, the UK’s Ditchley Foundation, and the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership. He also advises companies that rely on artificial intelligence and machine learning to address complex challenges related to work and learning. Mr. Merisotis is past chairman and trustee emeritus of the Council on Foundations and past chairman and investment committee chair of The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis. A distinguished graduate and trustee emeritus of Bates College, he has been awarded honorary degrees from colleges and universities worldwide.
Co-Host: Bridget Burns, Executive Director, University Innovation Alliance
As a trusted advisor to university presidents and policymakers, Dr. Bridget Burns is on a mission to transform the way institutions think about and act on behalf of low-income, first-generation, and students of color. She is the founding CEO of the University Innovation Alliance, a multi-campus laboratory for student success innovation that helps university leaders dramatically accelerate the implementation of scalable solutions to increase the number of college graduates.
Co-Host: Sara Custer, Editor-in-Chief, Inside Higher Ed
Sara Custer became Inside Higher Ed’s editor-in-chief in 2024 after serving four years at Times Higher Education. At THE, she worked across departments to launch and grow the Campus platform, and then lead its editorial team. Prior to that role, she served as digital editor, helping to launch THE’s newsletter strategy and overseeing daily, weekly, and monthly publications. Ms. Custer was previously editor and senior reporter at The PIE News, a website and magazine covering the international education industry. She grew up in Cushing, OK., and earned a B.A. in English literature from Loyola University Chicago and an M.A. in international journalism from City, University of London. As a journalist, she has covered global higher education for more than five years.
About Innovating Together
Innovating Together is an event series that happens live on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. It also becomes a podcast episode. Every week, we join forces with Inside Higher Ed and talk with a higher education luminary about student success innovations or a sitting college president or chancellor about how they're specifically navigating the challenges of leadership. We hope these episodes will leave you with a sense of optimism and a bit of inspiration.
Rate, Review & Subscribe
Learn why hundreds of people have rated the Innovating Together podcast 5 stars. Please join others and rate and review this podcast. This helps us reach and inform more people -- like you -- who are committed to helping more students succeed.
Click here, scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “Write a Review.” Then be sure to let us know what you loved most about the episode. Also, if you haven’t done so already, subscribe to the podcast. You'll never miss an episode.
Follow us to Join LIVE:
