Changing Higher Ed

Hosted by Dr. Drumm McNaughton

Business Management Education

Website RSS feed

Episodes

314

Latest episode

Jun 2026

Language

About the show

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.

Listen to episodes

60 recent

June 16, 2026Episode 31636 min

When AI Finds the Administrative Friction Higher Ed Leaders Miss

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 Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership Move quickly, with an acceptable use policy on the books and defined institutional outcomes the AI work is supposed to drive Control what you can control while pulling stakeholders in, including the faculty committee model Iterate often on a recurring governance cadence, because the technology is changing month by month Institutions that do not use AI to improve administrative efficiency are incurring opportunity costs in every cycle. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/administrative-ai-in-higher-ed-finding-revenue-friction/ #AdministrativeAI #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast

June 9, 2026Episode 31532 min

Inside CSU's ChatGPT Edu Rollout Across 22 Universities

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 Faculty-led podcasts (My Robot Teacher from Cal Maritime and Unfixed from Chico State) that built peer-to-peer training resources Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Sequencing matters more than budget or technology. Faculty resolution first, governance second, enterprise tool third, training and funded experimentation in parallel. Faculty carry more complexity than staff or students in AI implementation, and need different support, training cadence, and communication than other groups. Communication is a continuous operating discipline, not a launch campaign. The technology changes faster than any single training cycle. This episode offers a practical view of what large-scale AI implementation actually looks like in higher education, and why the institutions getting it right are treating it as change management work supported by technology rather than a technology rollout in search of governance. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/https://changinghighered.com/csu-chatgpt-edu-rollout-lessons-higher-ed-leaders/ #GenerativeAI #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast

June 2, 2026Episode 31438 min

AI in Higher Education: Bias, Procurement, and Human Oversight

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 differently, and what gets lost when only one set of weights is encoded into an AI screen Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: AI does not create bias. It scales whatever bias is already in the institution's decision systems, at the speed and volume the institution chose to deploy. Every consequential decision needs a human in the loop who can explain the call out loud. Without that, the institution cannot defend the decisions it is making. The sticker price on the AI tool is not the story. The data behind it is, and most vendors cannot tell you what it is. This episode gives presidents, provosts, and boards a practical framework for AI procurement and governance, along with a clear answer to the trustee asking why the institution has not bought what everyone else is buying. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/ai-bias-procurement-framework-higher-education/ #HigherEducation #AIinHigherEd #HigherEducationPodcast #AIGovernance #AIBias #HigherEducationLeadership

May 26, 2026Episode 31337 min

AI-First Business Education: How Kogod Transformed Culture, Curriculum, and Faculty Adoption

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 • Kogod's scaffolded four-year curriculum: AI literacy in year one, domain-specific applications in year two, deep dives in years three and four, and a capstone that combines all three pillars • Why the school teaches what's wrong with AI before teaching what's right • The AI assessment problem no institution has solved yet • What's next: domain-specific AI apps, student portfolios, and an AI minor for non-business students Real-World Examples Discussed: • Tommy White's course with no readings and no textbook, where students use AI prompts to find their own materials and come to class with different sources on the same topic • Kelly Frias's advertising class where students built a social media content tool and owner dashboard for a real college-apparel business with brand ambassadors at 75 campuses • Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, telling Marchick that the specific AI tool matters less than teaching students to feel comfortable experimenting and trying new things • A distinguished Kogod scholar describing AI as like having a PhD student for research productivity Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: 1. Culture first, training second, technology third. Faculty adoption spreads when leadership creates permission to experiment and fail, not when it purchases a platform. 2. Teach what's wrong with AI before teaching what's right. A human has to be in the loop at the beginning and at the end. AI can be a collaborator, a partner, an assistant, but it cannot be a substitute. 3. Don't wait for the technology to stabilize. AI capabilities are changing in weeks. If you tried it two years ago and weren't impressed, try it again. The updates in just the last few weeks represent really big strides. This episode offers a practical, replicable look at what happens when a business school treats AI integration as a culture change initiative and moves fast enough to stay ahead of the technology. Kogod's transformation is relevant to any institution trying to figure out how to act on AI without waiting for a perfect plan. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/kogod-ai-first-business-school-enrollment-growth/ #AIinHigherEd #BusinessEducation #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

May 19, 2026Episode 31239 min

Closing Higher Education's AI Readiness Gap with Human-First Transformation

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 Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership AI is an opportunity for reinvention, not an IT project. Institutions should treat AI as a strategic leadership issue that affects competitive position, culture, academic delivery, student support, and institutional agility. Students are already ahead of many institutions. Without governance, ethical guidelines, and structured leadership, AI use can become unmanaged shadow AI across the institution. The cost of waiting grows exponentially. AI is advancing week by week, and institutions that delay action will face a widening readiness gap that becomes harder and more expensive to close. This episode offers a direct look at why higher education cannot rely on its traditional pace of change in the AI age, and why institutional leaders must rethink what they offer that AI cannot replicate. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/closing-higher-educations-ai-readiness-gap/ #AIinHigherEducation #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #WorkforceReadinessGap

May 12, 2026Episode 31136 min

Scaling Higher Education: An Entrepreneurial Approach to a Consolidating Market

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 Institutions need a crisp and understandable value proposition that clearly explains why they exist and what they believe. Mission and values must drive strategy so institutions can adapt their actions without abandoning their core purpose. Strategic plans must be actionable, measurable, and reviewed regularly by the board so they inform decisions instead of sitting unused. This episode offers a direct look at what higher education leaders need to confront as consolidation, AI, modular learning, and partnership-driven delivery reshape the sector. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/scaling-higher-education-entrepreneurial-approach/ #HigherEducation #HigherEducationLeadership #HigherEducationPodcast

May 5, 2026Episode 31037 min

Why College Presidents Need a Coalition for Civic Preparedness

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 designed to build enough internal capacity for institution-wide change Shared measures tied to productive conversation, credible information, and collaborative problem-solving Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Civic preparedness should not be led in isolation. Presidents have more leverage when they work through coalitions, peer networks, and shared institutional practice. Local trust is one of higher education's most durable assets. Colleges and universities can strengthen public legitimacy by engaging their surrounding communities through visible, substantive civic work. Student voice should be built into planning and governance. Students provide a different read on whether institutional efforts are producing real impact. This episode offers a practical look at how higher education can move civic preparedness from isolated programming to institution-wide practice, and why presidents, boards, faculty, and students all have a role in rebuilding the civic capacity colleges were once assumed to produce. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/civic-preparedness-in-higher-ed-coalition-of-college-presidents/ #CivicPreparedness #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #CollegePresidents #StudentSuccess

April 28, 2026Episode 30934 min

International Enrollment Strategy: Taking Higher Education to the World

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: https://changinghighered.com/international-enrollment-strategy-for-regional-and-private-colleges/ #HigherEducation #InternationalStudents #EnrollmentStrategy

April 21, 2026Episode 30837 min

Higher Ed Technology Change Management and Digital Transformation

Higher education's track record with technology change is uneven for a reason, and the reason is rarely the technology. It is whether leadership treats change management as a discipline that runs from planning through sustainment, or as a rollout activity bolted on at the end. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Mike Toguchi, Chief Strategy Officer at Tectonic, about why technology projects in higher education succeed or fail on the strength of leadership behavior rather than tooling. Drawing on 23 years working with universities, nonprofits, and foundations, including Stanford and UC Davis, Toguchi explains how the institutions producing durable digital transformation engineer trust, governance, and adoption into the project from day one. He shares why faculty resistance is empirically calibrated rather than culturally driven, why pilots should be sized for honest failure rather than confirmation of decisions already made, and why boards need to fund and govern transformation as an operating model rather than a discrete project. Throughout the conversation, McNaughton draws on his own consulting experience to surface common failure patterns, including the double-process trap that destroys trust by leaving legacy systems running alongside new ones. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, board members, CIOs, and senior leaders responsible for digital initiatives that span multiple departments and require sustained adoption across faculty, staff, and student-facing operations. Topics Covered: • Why change management belongs in the planning phase, not at rollout • The "trust as infrastructure" framework and how to design for it • Scalability versus departmental fiefdoms in institutional technology systems • Pilot design that allows departments to surface real problems and report honestly • The double-process trap and the discipline of hard end-of-life dates for legacy systems • How board governance choices shape every downstream failure pattern • Reframing technology ROI as reclaimed staff capacity in a non-expansionary funding environment Real-World Examples Discussed: • UC Davis disability center work that clarified workflow, saved staff time, increased compliance confidence, and produced documentation that gave leadership actionable data • A multi-campus STEM admissions program that preserved each campus's unique workflow while keeping the underlying data consistent for funders and program leadership • Two connected Stanford departments with shared faculty and joint ventures that consolidated systems and reduced the tool burden faculty were carrying • Faculty teaching across multiple sections who routinely navigate 10 to 15 different tools as a baseline workload Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: 1. Move change management to the front of the project lifecycle. The decisions that determine adoption are made during planning, not during launch communications. 2. Treat digital transformation as an operating model, not a project. Fund phase two before phase one ships and build governance reviews into the board's normal cadence. 3. Make trust the explicit design input. Faculty resistance is calibrated to past experience, and the way to change it is to give faculty a structural role in shaping the project, deliver visible reductions in their daily burden, and retire the legacy systems on a date everyone knows. This episode offers a practical framework for institutional leaders who want their next digital initiative to deliver durable adoption rather than another fragmented rollout that quietly settles into legacy mode. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/higher-ed-change-management-tech-projects-digital-transformation/ #ChangeManagement #DigitalTransformation #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

April 14, 2026Episode 30731 min

Building Workforce Readiness Through Real Startup Experience

Most institutions offer experiential learning. Few deliver it. The gap between the claim and the outcome is structural, and closing it requires more than a better course design. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Chris Crittenden, founder of Sandbox, a for-credit startup incubator operating at eight universities, about what it actually takes to produce the depth of learning that institutions advertise but rarely achieve. Drawing on his experience founding and selling a technology company to Walmart, leading the entrepreneur center at Brigham Young University, and building Sandbox across multiple institutions, Crittenden explains how credit consolidation, real stakes, and interdisciplinary structure create the conditions for genuine learning. He also addresses how an AI-powered oral examination system solves the assessment problem that has long undermined open-ended experiential programs, and how institutions can build a program like Sandbox without triggering a substantive accreditation review. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, and academic leaders looking to close the gap between what their experiential learning programs claim to deliver and what they actually produce. Topics Covered: • Why most experiential learning is too shallow to produce genuine workforce capability • How credit consolidation creates the structural conditions for deep learning • The role of real stakes in developing professional skills that assignment deadlines cannot • How to build an interdisciplinary program from existing approved coursework without a curriculum overhaul • Why conventional milestone-based assessment undermines open-ended experiential learning, and what Sandbox does instead • How to design a program that stays below the threshold for a substantive accreditation review Real-World Examples Discussed: • 18 Sandbox companies have received venture backing with a combined valuation exceeding $205 million • Sandbox graduates who do not start companies consistently rank among the most competitive entry-level technology hires in their regional ecosystems • The program has been replicated at eight universities by mapping to existing approved coursework, without triggering a substantive accreditation review at any institution Key Takeaway for Leadership: Universities already have the resources to build deep experiential learning programs. What is consistently absent is the leadership willing to pull them together: identifying faculty who want to work at the cutting edge, building the cross-departmental coalitions those faculty cannot form on their own, and absorbing the coordination costs personally. No new budget line required. What it takes is a leader willing to make the case, department by department, and follow through. This episode gives institutional leaders a practical model for building deep experiential learning programs within the structural and accreditation constraints most institutions already face. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/build-workforce-readiness-through-startup-experience/ #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #WorkforceDevelopment #StudentSuccess