
Free Daily Podcast Summary
by Dr. Drumm McNaughton
Changing Higher Ed is dedicated to helping higher education leaders improve their institutions. We offer the latest in higher ed news and insights from top experts in higher education who share their perspectives on how you can grow your institution. Host Dr. Drumm McNaughton is a top higher education consultant, renowned leader, and pioneer in strategic management systems and leadership boards. He's one of a select group with executive leadership experience in academe, nonprofits, government, and business.
The most recent episodes — sign up to get AI-powered summaries of each one.
Most AI conversations in higher education focus on the academic side. The administrative side gets less attention and is producing the bigger near-term financial wins for institutions willing to govern the rollout. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Justin Beck, CEO of Gravyty, about how AI is being applied across enrollment and advancement at institutions including Empire State University, Florida Southwestern State College, and Boise State University. Drawing on his career across Blackboard, Instructure, Kaltura, and now Gravyty, Beck walks through the specific case studies behind administrative AI adoption: a reported 4% year-over-year retention gain at Empire State, 90% first-contact resolution of admissions inquiries at Florida Southwestern, and an 87% increase in donor volume at Boise State. He also explains where institutions go wrong, including bots that loop the way call-center bots loop and set-it-and-forget-it deployments that drift out of alignment within weeks. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, and enrollment and advancement leaders building the business case for administrative AI and the governance to back it. Topics Covered Why administrative AI is producing measurable financial gains while most institutions still treat AI as an academic policy question The retention math: how a 4% lift can translate into multi-million-dollar revenue protection at a mid-size institution How AI sorts and triages carries admissions volume that hiring cannot keep up with Why a poorly designed enrollment chatbot is worse than no chatbot at all How AI surfaces structural fragmentation across student-facing offices Advancement AI's real value: donor prioritization, not email generation What good governance and human-review cadence actually look like in practice Real-World Examples Discussed Empire State University: a 25% engagement lift and a 4% year-over-year retention gain after deploying AI virtual assistants across roughly eight departments Florida SouthWestern State College: 90% first-contact resolution of admissions inquiries and time to class registration cut in half Boise State University: an 87% increase in donor volume, a 50% increase in donor interaction and response, and $635,679 raised through an AI-assisted advancement channel A Missouri institution where an AI web crawler surfaced three different admissions deposit dates published on three active web pages A New York institution where more than 40% of questions coming into the financial aid office had nothing to do with financial aid <h3 cl
AI implementation in higher education is often framed as a technology question. California State University treated it as change management with technology as the catalyst, rolling out ChatGPT Edu to 22 universities in 18 months while running the largest AI survey ever conducted at a single university system. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Leslie Kennedy, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Technology Services at the California State University Office of the Chancellor, about how the system designed and executed its generative AI implementation and what the Ahead of the Curve survey of 94,060 respondents reveals about AI adoption, faculty engagement, and student behavior. Drawing on her work co-leading the academic side of CSU's GenAI initiative, Kennedy explains the governance structure that made the rollout possible, the campus-level training infrastructure that scaled adoption across 22 universities, and the survey findings that pushed back on common assumptions about cheating, faculty resistance, and AI access gaps. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, boards, and CIOs evaluating how to move from AI policy discussions to systemwide implementation. Topics Covered: The sequencing model behind CSU's 18-month AI rollout Findings from the largest AI survey ever conducted at a single university system Why faculty are the only group reporting both positive and negative AI impact How CSU funded faculty-led innovation through the AI Educational Innovations Challenge The communication challenges of running AI implementation across 22 independent campuses What CSU plans next: hackathons, embedded credentials, and domain-specific tools Real-World Examples Discussed: The AI Educational Innovations Challenge received 417 faculty applications against an expected 50, with 63 funded at $3M ChatGPT Edu deployment across all 22 CSU campuses, now at 225,000 active accounts Student hackathons run with IBM Watson, AWS, NVIDIA, and Cal Poly partners across multiple disciplines <li class= "font-claude-r
At sixteen, with straight A's in math and science, Dr. Karen Panetta's school career assessment told her to sell makeup or be a cook. A male friend with lower scores got engineer or politician. No AI was involved. Just a rules-based system applying gender and biographical filters to two teenagers. That same logic now sits inside AI tools landing in admissions offices and HR systems across higher ed, with one critical difference: AI does not eliminate human bias, it removes the human accountability that used to make bias correctable. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Karen Panetta, Dean of Graduate Education for the School of Engineering at Tufts University and an IEEE Fellow. Panetta lays out a procurement framework presidents and boards can use to evaluate AI tools before signing a contract. She and McNaughton work through the four questions most vendors cannot answer, why IRB principles already give higher ed a working framework for AI, and what happens to graduate research when students ask AI for a unique contribution and accept whatever comes back. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders making decisions about AI procurement, classroom adoption, and data governance who want a clear set of questions to ask before they buy and a clear standard for keeping humans accountable for the decisions AI tools are increasingly being asked to make. Topics Covered: The four procurement questions every higher ed leader should ask before signing an AI contract Why expert disagreement on ground truth limits what any AI tool trained on that judgment can do How IRB principles apply to AI deployments, and why every kind use of technology has a misuse case sitting next to it The risk of AI's interpretation of truth aging with the consensus Why faculty in English, history, and the arts are essential to AI policy What IEEE's 500,000 technical professionals are doing on AI standards that no single corporate vendor will do Real-World Examples Discussed: The career assessments that pointed a top math student toward cooking and a Navy veteran toward forest ranger work A cancer detection project where six doctors agreed on whether something was cancer but disagreed on every grade beyond that A conservation project where the same tracking data that helps park rangers could help poachers if security is weak Graduate admissions committees where different faculty weight credentials, projects, and volunteer work d
Most business schools are still forming committees to figure out what to do about AI. Kogod School of Business at American University formed a committee, but far from the typical higher ed standards. Leadership gave it six weeks and a five-page limit, and used the recommendation to integrate AI into every department, major, and minor. Three years later, undergraduate enrollment is up 40%, applications are up 50%, and more than 90% of faculty are using AI in the classroom. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with returning guests David Marchick, Dean of the Kogod School of Business at American University, and Angela Virtu, Professor of IT and Analytics and Associate Director of Kogod's AI Institute, about how the school moved from a dean's instinct that AI would be big to a fully embedded, faculty-driven transformation that has redefined how business education is taught, assessed, and experienced by students. Marchick and Virtu walk through how they navigated shared governance at speed, leaned into 14 core course coordinators to spread adoption like wildfire, and built a culture where faculty are making stuff up, trying things, and pivoting when something doesn't work. Virtu explains how courses are being rebuilt from the ground up, with professors shifting from lecturers to coaches and students building real software for real clients. Marchick shares the enrollment and media results, including being named the first AI-first business school by Bloomberg Businessweek. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders trying to figure out how to move on AI without blowing up their governance structures or losing faculty trust. Kogod's playbook worked within existing academic processes, and the results are measurable. Topics Covered: • How a conversation with a Google executive sparked the AI initiative before ChatGPT went mainstream • Why Marchick gave the faculty committee six weeks and a five-page limit instead of a two-year study • The top-down and bottom-up strategy that moved faculty adoption from a handful of volunteers to over 90% • How 14 core course coordinators became the tactical lever for culture change across the school • The shift from professors as lecturers to professors as coaches • How non-quantitative students are programming and building functioning apps using AI <span style= "mso-list: Ign
AI adoption in higher education is moving faster than institutional change models were built to handle. Students are already using AI at high rates, while many institutions are still trying to decide where AI belongs, who should lead it, and how much change is required. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Nikki Barua, serial entrepreneur and founder of FlipWork, about why higher education's traditional change management playbook will not work in the AI age. Drawing on her work with Fortune 500 companies and AI implementation, Barua explains why AI should be treated as institutional infrastructure, not an IT project. She discusses the growing gap between technology adoption and human readiness, why many AI pilots fail, and how institutions can move from slow, episodic transformation to shorter, people-centered reinvention cycles. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, CIOs, and senior leadership teams trying to prepare students, faculty, staff, and institutional systems for an AI-driven future. Topics Covered Why incremental change management cannot keep pace with AI How AI differs from previous technology disruptions like the internet and mobile Why AI should be treated as infrastructure across the institution What the AI readiness gap means for higher education leaders Why many AI pilots fail when organizations focus on tools instead of people How AI may reshape entry-level jobs and the graduate talent pipeline Why skills-based hiring is changing what students need from higher education How faculty roles may shift from content delivery to mentorship, ethics, and judgment Why liberal arts and human skills may become more valuable in the AI age How human-in-the-loop design can improve AI use in enrollment, advising, and student support Why AI literacy must become a core institutional capability Real-World Examples Discussed AI adoption among students far outpacing institutional readiness Corporate AI pilots failing because organizations did not prepare people to use the tools effectively Entry-level jobs shrinking or changing as AI takes over early-career tasks Employers moving toward skills-based hiring and project-specific teams AI tutors, teaching assistants, adaptive learning tools, and student support applications Enrollment chatbots that create frustration when they replace rather than support human interaction Human-in-the-loop workflows that know when to hand a student or prospect to a person Ethics in AI as a foundation for preparing graduates to use powerful tools responsibly Three Key Tak
Scaling higher education is no longer a theoretical strategy. As the sector moves deeper into consolidation, institutional leaders need to confront whether their operating models, credential structures, partnerships, and delivery systems are built for the market ahead. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Stephen Spinelli, President of Babson College, about how an entrepreneurial mindset can help higher education respond to consolidation, AI disruption, and changing learner expectations. Drawing from his experience as co-founder of Jiffy Lube International and president of one of the nation's leading entrepreneurship institutions, Spinelli explains why higher education's anti-scale culture has become a strategic problem. He argues that demand for learning is growing, but the sector's delivery model has not kept pace with what students, employers, and adult learners now need. The conversation covers how AI is changing the economics of small-unit, high-quality education, why credentials are likely to become more modular and measurable, and how partnerships with other institutions and industry will shape the next era of higher education. Spinelli also outlines why strategy must be tied to action, accountability, and institutional values that do not shift with every market signal. This episode is especially relevant for presidents, boards, and senior leaders working through questions of scale, consolidation, strategic partnerships, AI-enabled learning, and long-term institutional relevance. Topics Covered Why higher education is showing classic signs of market consolidation How anti-scale thinking limits institutional durability and adaptability Why demand for learning is growing while delivery models lag behind How agentic AI changes the economics of small-unit education Why credentials may become smaller, more measurable, and more industry-aligned How strategic partnerships may extend beyond institutions into corporate and industry networks Why lifelong learner relationships may become a new revenue and relevance model How quarterly board-level strategic execution reviews keep institutions accountable Why liberal arts capabilities matter more in an AI-enabled environment Real-World Examples Discussed Jiffy Lube's early growth model and what it taught Spinelli about scale Babson's shift from entrepreneurship to entrepreneurial leadership Babson's network of 45 or 46 partner schools building entrepreneurial leadership capacity A group of seven New England institutions exploring partnership models to save resources AI-supported teaching models that could allow one expert to reach far more learners The doctor, lawyer, educator relationship model for lifelong learning Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership <li data-section-id="cugm94" data-start="2902" data-end="
Civic preparedness in higher education can no longer be treated as an assumed byproduct of a college education. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Raj Vinnakota, president of the Institute for Citizens & Scholars, about how colleges and universities can rebuild the civic skills students need to navigate disagreement, evaluate credible information, and solve problems across difference. Drawing on his work with college presidents, faculty, employers, and Gen Z leaders, Vinnakota explains why higher education has drifted too far toward a private-good narrative focused almost entirely on jobs and individual outcomes. He makes the case that institutions must also reclaim their public-good responsibility by preparing students to participate productively in civic life. The conversation also explores College Presidents for Civic Preparedness, or CP², a coalition of 135 college and university presidents working together to lower the political and institutional risk of leading civic preparedness work alone. Vinnakota explains why opt-in programming is not enough, why faculty need support to teach contentious issues, and why shared measurement is needed to move civic preparedness from rhetoric to campus-wide culture change. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, boards, provosts, faculty leaders, and institutional teams working to strengthen civic learning, rebuild public trust, and prepare graduates for a more polarized and information-saturated world. Topics Covered: Why civic preparedness can no longer be assumed as a byproduct of college How higher education's public-good mission has been crowded out by short-term job-focused framing Why presidents who lead civic preparedness alone often face stakeholder pushback How CP² lowers institutional risk through a coalition of 135 college and university presidents The three civic skills every graduate needs: productive conversation, credible information use, and collaborative problem-solving Why opt-in civic programming fails to reach most students How institutions are embedding civic skills into orientation, general education, curriculum, residential life, and campus culture Why faculty need training and peer support to teach contentious issues effectively How shared measurement helps institutions assess whether civic preparedness work is changing campus culture Why local trust remains one of higher education's strongest strategic assets Real-World Examples Discussed: A diverse group of college presidents who identified the same public-good challenge across very different institutions The growth of CP² from 14 founding presidents to 135 institutional leaders Forty-two institutions moving from opt-in civic programming toward campus-wide culture change Faculty institutes that have trained more than 155 faculty members from over 60 institutions Campus-based faculty cohorts designe
International student enrollment in the United States reached record highs in 2024–2025, followed by a sharp and uneven decline heading into 2025–2026. While top-tier institutions continue to attract global talent, regional and private institutions are facing growing pressure as visa restrictions, geopolitical dynamics, and shifting perceptions of the U.S. reshape the enrollment landscape. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Shaun Carver, Executive Director of UC Berkeley's International House, about how institutions must rethink international enrollment strategy in response to these structural changes. Drawing on more than two decades of experience in international education, Carver explains why the traditional model of bringing students to U.S. campuses is no longer sufficient—and what institutions can do to remain competitive. This conversation explores how global competition, parental decision-making, and policy shifts are influencing enrollment patterns, and why institutions must begin thinking beyond geographic boundaries to sustain international engagement. Topics Covered: Why international enrollment declines are impacting institutions unevenly How global brand strength influences student decision-making Why undergraduate international enrollment is more vulnerable than graduate programs The role of parental perception in international student recruitment Why universities are exploring global delivery models and partnerships How foreign governments are funding international campus expansion The broader economic and workforce impact of international students Why institutional leadership must advocate for international students Real-World Examples Discussed: UC Berkeley increasing international enrollment despite broader national declines International House's model of integrating students from over 80 nationalities Countries like Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia investing in global education hubs Students choosing Canada, the UK, and Australia over U.S. regional institutions The long-term impact of international students on innovation and workforce development Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Universities should maintain institutional neutrality and create environments where all viewpoints are welcome and can be examined through civil discourse. Institutional leaders must actively advocate for international students, clearly communicating their economic, academic, and societal contributions. Regional and smaller institutions should position themselves as safe, supportive environments that appeal to international students and their families. This episode provides a clear view into how international enrollment is being reshaped and what institutional leaders must do to adapt in a more competitive and constrained global environment. Read the transcript: <a class="decorated-link" href="https://changinghighered.com/" target="_new" rel="noopener" data-s
Changing Higher Ed is dedicated to helping higher education leaders improve their institutions. We offer the latest in higher ed news and insights from top experts in higher education who share their perspectives on how you can grow your institution. Host Dr. Drumm McNaughton is a top higher education consultant, renowned leader, and pioneer in strategic management systems and leadership boards. He's one of a select group with executive leadership experience in academe, nonprofits, government, and business.
AI-powered recaps with compact key takeaways, quotes, and insights.
Get key takeaways from Changing Higher Ed in a 5-minute read.
Stay current on your favorite podcasts without falling behind.
It's a free AI-powered email that summarizes new episodes of Changing Higher Ed as soon as they're published. You get the key takeaways, notable quotes, and links & mentions — all in a quick read.
When a new episode drops, our AI transcribes and analyzes it, then generates a personalized summary tailored to your interests and profession. It's delivered to your inbox every morning.
No. Podzilla is an independent service that summarizes publicly available podcast content. We're not affiliated with or endorsed by Dr. Drumm McNaughton.
Absolutely! The free plan covers up to 3 podcasts. Upgrade to Pro for 15, or Premium for 50. Browse our full catalog at /podcasts.
Changing Higher Ed publishes weekly. Our AI generates a summary within hours of each new episode.
Changing Higher Ed covers topics including Education, Business, Management. Our AI identifies the specific themes in each episode and highlights what matters most to you.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.