Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kenneth M. Evans, Fellow in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

U.S. science always suffers during government shutdowns. Funding lapses send government scientists home without pay. Federal agencies suspend new grant opportunities, place expert review panels on hold, and stop collecting and analyzing critical public datasets that tell us about the economy, the environment and public health.

In 2025, the stakes are higher than in past shutdowns.

This shutdown arrives at a time of massive upheaval to American science and innovation driven by President Donald Trump’s ongoing attempts to extend executive power and assert political control of scientific institutions.

With the shutdown entering its fifth week, and with no end in sight, the Trump administration’s rapid and contentious changes to federal research policy are rewriting the social contract between the U.S. government and research universities – where the government provides funding and autonomy in exchange for the promise of downstream public benefits.

As a physicist and policy scholar, I both study and have a vested interest in the state of U.S. science funding as a recipient of federal grants. I write about the history and governance of American science policy, including the nation’s investments in research and development.

In the context of broader policy reforms to federal grantmaking, student and high-skilled immigration, and scientific integrity, this shutdown has both known and unknown consequences for the future of U.S. science.

Funding freezes, data gaps and unpaid workers

Over the past two decades, the story of government shutdowns has become all too familiar. Shutdowns occur when Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, and, paraphrasing Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, the government can no longer spend money.

This funding gap affects all but essential government operations, such as the work of postal workers, air traffic controllers and satellite operators. Nonessential employees, including tens of thousands of government scientists, are barred from working and stop receiving paychecks.

With scientists and program officers at home, activities at the nearly two dozen federal agencies participating in research and development, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, come to a halt. New grant opportunities and review panels are postponed or canceled, researchers at government laboratories stop collecting and analyzing data, and university projects reliant on federal funding are put at risk.

Extended shutdowns accelerate the damage. They leave bigger gaps in government data, throw federal employees into debt or lead them to dip into their savings, and force academic institutions to lay off staff paid through government grants and contracts.

Funding, public services and the rule of law

Even for shutdowns lasting a few days, it can take science agencies months to catch up on the backlog of paperwork, paychecks and peer review panels before they return to regular operations.

This year, the government faces mounting challenges to overcome once the shutdown ends: Trump and the director of the White House budget office, Russell Vought, are using the shutdown as an opportunity to “shutter the bureaucracy” and pressure universities to bend to the administration’s ideological positions on topics such as campus speech, gender identity and admission standards.

As the budget standoff nears the record for the longest shutdown ever, agency furloughs, reductions in force, canceled grants and jeopardized infrastructure projects document the devastating and immediate damage to the government’s ability to serve the public.

However, the full impact of the shutdown and the Trump administration’s broader assaults on science to U.S. international competitiveness, economic security and electoral politics could take years to materialize.

In parallel, the dramatic drop in international student enrollment, the financial squeeze facing research institutions, and research security measures to curb foreign interference spell an uncertain future for American higher education.

With neither the White House nor Congress showing signs of reaching a budget deal, Trump continues to test the limits of executive authority, reinterpreting the law – or simply ignoring it.

Earlier in October, Trump redirected unspent research funding to pay furloughed service members before they missed their Oct. 15 paycheck. Changing appropriated funds directly challenges the power vested in Congress – not the president – to control federal spending.

The White House’s promise to fire an additional 10,000 civil servants during the shutdown, its threat to withhold back pay from furloughed workers and its push to end any programs with lapsed funding “not consistent with the President’s priorities” similarly move to broaden presidential power.

Here, the damage to science could snowball. If Trump and Vought chip enough authority away from Congress by making funding decisions or shuttering statutory agencies, the next three years will see an untold amount of impounded, rescinded or repurposed research funds.

Science, democracy and global competition

While technology has long served as a core pillar of national and economic security, science has only recently reemerged as a key driver of greater geopolitical and cultural change.

China’s extraordinary rise in science over the past three decades and its arrival as the United States’ chief technological competitor has upended conventional wisdom that innovation can thrive only in liberal democracies.

The White House’s efforts to centralize federal grantmaking, restrict free speech, erase public data and expand surveillance mirror China’s successful playbook for building scientific capacity while suppressing dissent.

As the shape of the Trump administration’s vision for American science has come into focus, what remains unclear is whether, after the shutdown, it can outcompete China by following its lead.

Kenneth Evans receives funding from the National Science Foundation, the American Institute of Physics, and the Clinton Foundation. He is affiliated with Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

– ref. All government shutdowns disrupt science − in 2025, the consequences extend far beyond a lapse in funding – https://theconversation.com/all-government-shutdowns-disrupt-science-in-2025-the-consequences-extend-far-beyond-a-lapse-in-funding-267182

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeremiah Favara, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, Gonzaga University

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump addressed hundreds of military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia in late September 2025.

Before the meeting, journalists speculated about which urgent issues might require such a costly and unusual gathering, to which the assembled military leaders had been summoned from across the globe.

Rather than a major shift in national security strategy, a loyalty oath or mass firing, Hegseth and Trump railed against what they see as the military’s primary enemy: diversity.

Hegseth claimed the Department of Defense became “the woke department” infected by “toxic political garbage” and the “insane fallacy that ‘our diversity is our strength.’”

Trump argued that the military “went, in a way, woke” and called for armed forces that would “not be politically correct.” Hegseth similarly called for a shift in military thinking about diversity saying, “No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses. … As I’ve said before and will say again, we are done with that shit.”

Having spent years studying the U.S. military and writing a book on diversity and military recruiting, the speeches made clear to me that Hegseth and Trump fundamentally misunderstand military diversity. Both men see it as a symptom of “woke” culture rather than as a long-standing practice driven by the very nature and history of the all-volunteer force.

Embracing diversity

During times of war and between 1948 and 1973, the U.S. military drafted enlistees to fill the ranks. After years of debate, the draft was ended and the U.S. established an all-volunteer force in 1973.

The demographic makeup of the military quickly changed as more Black Americans and women chose to join the military. In a 2007 study of representation in the military, scholars found that Black Americans had been overrepresented in the military for much of the span of the all-volunteer force. And the percentage of Latino service members more than doubled from the late 1980s to the 2000s.

Additionally, Latino service members made up 25% of new enlistees in 2022.

While women remain underrepresented in the military compared with the U.S. population, the shift to the all-volunteer force led to a steady increase in women’s military participation. Women made up 3% of military personnel in 1973 and 17% in 2022.

The military would not have been able to meet personnel needs and recruitment goals without the disproportionate representation of women, Black Americans, and Latino service members during this post-draft period.

The U.S. military embraced this diversity long before the influence of “woke” politics and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives that Hegseth and Trump claim have undermined the institution.

That embracement has helped the military enlist between 128,000 and 190,000 new service members annually since the 1990s, even though some armed forces, especially the Army, have struggled to meet their recruiting goals in the past few years.

Expanding the scope

To fully understand how the military became one of the most diverse American institutions, you need to go back to the foundations of the all-volunteer force.

The primary challenge the military faced in the implementation of the all-volunteer force was how to persuade young Americans to enlist. Large budgets were set aside for advertising, and military branches worked with advertisers to reach potential recruits.

One of the first steps advertisers took in the mid-1970s was to identify “vulnerable target groups.” These groups were targeted based on propensity – the likelihood that an individual would serve regardless of their desire to do so.

The likelihood of service increased when people felt they had little opportunity outside of the military – whether that meant financial struggles or an inability to afford higher education.

Based on ideas of recruit quality and the traits the military sees as best suited to success in the ranks, the military has mostly desired to recruit straight and white young men. But these people were more likely to have opportunities outside of the military. So, military leaders had to expand the scope of potential recruits to reach out to groups previously excluded – namely, Black Americans, other people of color and women.

When Hegseth talks about “fixing decades of decay” in a department gone “woke,” and when Trump argues that the military will now be “all based on merit,” they both fail to understand military diversity.

The military didn’t become diverse because it went “woke” or abandoned a merit-based system of promotions.

Military diversity resulted from the exploitative nature of military recruiting. In the all-volunteer force, the most easily persuaded recruits are those in most need of opportunities they can’t find in the civilian world. The very logic behind an all-volunteer force means that the military can’t fill their ranks with white men alone.

Central casting

Hegseth and Trump, additionally, have framed their criticism of the military with an obsessive focus on looks.

Hegseth criticized the “bad look” of the current military, saying “it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formations, and see fat troops.” He also railed against “an era of unprofessional appearance” indicated by “beards, long hair and superficial individual expression.”

Trump has consistently talked about wanting military leaders to look like they are out of “central casting”, a phrase he uses almost exclusively to talk about white men.

The firings of Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General CQ Brown Jr., the second Black Chair of the Joint Chiefs, appear to reflect this vision of the military in practice.

When Trump and Hegseth attack military diversity, they harm individuals who made the choice to serve. They also perpetuate the myth that military diversity was enforced from outside the military by liberal “woke” politics rather than born of necessity for the military’s very survival.

Jeremiah Favara does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The military’s diversity rises out of recruitment targets, not any ‘woke’ goals – https://theconversation.com/the-militarys-diversity-rises-out-of-recruitment-targets-not-any-woke-goals-267205

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kaleb Demerew, Assistant Professor of Political Science, West Texas A&M University; Institute for Humane Studies

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

---

Why can’t every country get along with each other? – Dale T., age 11, Helena, Montana

---

Countries often share similar goals, such as peace and prosperity for their citizens, so it might seem strange that they find it hard to get along. Cultural differences may sometimes cause countries such as China and the United States to compete for global influence, but even countries sharing similar values or cultures still find reasons to clash.

So why do countries compete or even go to war? As a political science scholar researching some of the most conflict-prone regions in the world, I find that the answer often comes down to three factors: scarcity, uneven distribution and perception.

Scarcity leads to hard choices

Scarcity is the reality that there are not enough resources – such as food, oil, water and land – to go around. While countries would prefer to pursue all the resources they need, they are forced to prioritize the resources that will make them most secure.

For instance, the Nile River serves as a water resource for more than 300 million people in 11 countries in Africa. However, because water is a scarce resource used for drinking, irrigation farming and hydroelectric power, countries such as Egypt and Ethiopia have often fought about using the river.

Uneven distribution means relying on others

Uneven distribution means that not everyone starts off with the same resources. Nations have different levels of power and capabilities, and this shapes how they calculate risk and opportunity when dealing with each other.

For instance, countries concerned about the United States’ dominant power joined together in a rival international organization known as BRICS+ in 2009. Its founding members include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and several other countries have joined over the years.

Perception can lead to misunderstanding

Perception is how countries view each other’s actions. A nation can build up its weapons to be safe from potential attacks, but another nation might view this move as threatening rather than defensive.

For instance, India developed nuclear capability in the 1970s to protect itself, but neighboring Pakistan perceived this as a threat and soon developed its own nuclear weapons. The two countries have since engaged in occasional conflict.

Classroom international relations

Countries have leaders with different personal experiences and backgrounds. To understand how countries interact, it is useful to draw an analogy to a classroom simulation I use in my courses.

Annabelle and Morgan are two good friends who are taking a course in international relations. For a simulation game, their teacher assigns Annabelle and Morgan to lead two different groups. Their classmates are also assigned to be leaders of a handful of other groups. Each group must decide how to spend its resources, build its industries and form partnerships.

In the game, scarcity was represented by a set number of points both groups could use to purchase resources. Since there were not enough points to provide everyone with everything they desired, each group had to prioritize needs. Should they invest more points in defense, social goods or industry?

Annabelle’s team started with 100 points and Morgan’s team started with 30. That uneven distribution mattered. Annabelle’s group could comfortably invest in industry, while Morgan’s had to focus on survival. Morgan’s group had to decide whether to trust more resource-rich groups and grow their industry points through trade, or find allies among groups with lots of military resources to prepare for potential conflict.

Perception came in when Morgan’s team was not sure how Annabelle’s team was spending its points. If they were spending many points on military, they could attack another group and steal its points. To protect her group, Morgan decided to form an alliance with two other groups. In return, Annabelle’s group perceived the alliance as a threat and started spending more points on military.

In the final round of the game, Morgan’s new alliance invaded Annabelle’s group and took most of their resource points. Annabelle felt betrayed, since she assumed her friendship with Morgan would allow their groups to work together. Morgan felt uneasy but also justified. She did not know how other members of Annabelle’s group would decide to act, so she prioritized her own group’s safety.

By the end of the game, Annabelle and Morgan were angry and frustrated with each other and their friendship was strained.

Cooperation turns into conflict

Even countries that share common goals or values sometimes compete, and the motivations are rarely simple.

Nations cooperate because it helps them grow, but they also take actions to protect themselves. When two countries compete over similar resources, and when their power balance is not clear, they can get the wrong idea about each other’s actions and engage in conflict. At the extreme, they may even go to war.

Competition and mistrust can arise even among friends who share similar goals. Similarly, while every country might want peace and stability, the forces of scarcity, uneven distribution and perception make it impossible for everyone to get along all the time.

Still, understanding these realities can help countries to build trust and work toward a shared respect that makes peace more likely.

---

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Kaleb Demerew does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why can’t every country get along with each other? It comes down to resources, inequality and perception – https://theconversation.com/why-cant-every-country-get-along-with-each-other-it-comes-down-to-resources-inequality-and-perception-268538

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rachel Porter, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame

The ongoing government shutdown shows how hard it has become for Congress to do its most basic job: keeping the government running. Ending the stalemate will require lawmakers from both parties to strike a deal – a reminder that legislative progress depends on bipartisanship.

Politicians often call for greater cooperation across party lines, and research shows that bills rarely become law without it. Bipartisan deal-making is also popular with the public. Recent polls demonstrate that Americans are twice as likely to favor leaders who compromise to get things done over those who stick to their beliefs and accomplish less.

Yet partisan gridlock continues to stall policymaking.

The public’s growing frustration with “politics as usual” has led more political newcomers to run for and win office since 2016.

These “amateur” politicians, with no prior experience in elected office, present themselves as problem-solvers rather than politicians. Many come from outside government entirely – including business owners, military veterans and schoolteachers. Amateurs’ real-world backgrounds are often seen as assets by voters, donors and even politicians themselves – qualities thought to make them more effective in Congress.

As scholars of legislative politics, we wanted to interrogate that claim. And our new study reaches a different conclusion: Electing amateurs reduces bipartisan cooperation in Congress.

We find that, once in office, political newcomers are less likely than career politicians to work across the aisle. The very outsiders many voters hope will “fix” Congress contribute to the partisan divisions that keep it from functioning.

Amateurs are more likely to view bipartisanship as a concession rather than a tool for advancing policy.

What the data shows

We analyzed over 2.2 million policymaking actions from 1980 to 2022 to assess how often members of the U.S. House of Representatives worked across the aisle to co-author bills. Legislation developed through bipartisan collaboration is much more likely to become law. We then compared the collaboration patterns of first-term amateurs – legislators who have never held office and were just elected to Congress – against the collaboration patterns of established incumbents.

The difference was clear. Over the past four decades, amateur lawmakers worked across party lines far less often than incumbent lawmakers, both when developing their own legislation and when lending support to other legislators’ proposals.

This finding is not simply a “freshman effect,” observed among all new members of Congress who are still learning its norms and procedures.

First-term representatives who entered Congress with prior elected experience in state or local office engaged in bipartisan cooperation about as frequently as longer-serving incumbents. This suggests that what matters for bipartisan engagement is prior experience in elected office, not a lack of experience in Congress itself.

The impact on democracy

Amateur lawmakers are about 10–20 percentage points less likely to engage in bipartisanship during their first term than experienced officeholders.

To put it in perspective, the size of the amateur effect is roughly on par with the collapse in bipartisan relationships that followed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. After some Republican members refused to certify the 2020 presidential election results, Democrats largely stopped working with them in that Congress – a decline in collaboration comparable in scale to what we observe among amateurs.

These effects are likely to continue, with amateurs making up nearly half of all first-term lawmakers in recent years compared to decades past. Notable amateurs elected to Congress include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor-Greene. As new cohorts of amateurs enter office each election cycle, this bipartisanship problem will persist.

Learning to value bipartisanship

Our findings show that amateur lawmakers’ approach to bipartisanship evolves as they gain office-holding experience. By their third term in Congress – about six years after first taking office – the gap in bipartisan behavior between amateurs and experienced legislators largely disappears.

Amateur lawmakers often bring impressive credentials to office – many are skilled professionals, public figures or highly educated.

However, we show that these backgrounds do not necessarily prepare amateurs for the demands of governing. Experience holding state or local office exposes politicians to the practical realities of policymaking. Lacking that experience, amateurs are more likely to view bipartisanship as giving up on their principles rather than a method for serving the public interest. We find that this tendency diminishes only as newcomers gain firsthand experience in the legislative process.

A global trend with familiar consequences

The U.S. is not alone in this trend toward amateurism. Around the world, political newcomers have surged to power amid frustration with traditional elites.

In Europe, Italy’s Five Star Movement in 2013 and France’s En Marche! movement in 2017 were led by and composed of amateur politicians who framed themselves as anti-establishment outsiders.

In each case, widespread outsider success in the legislature delivered disruption – but not necessarily effective governance. These groups often start with promises of pragmatic reform but struggle once in office.

Looking toward the midterms

Heading into 2026, many Americans continue to express deep dissatisfaction with their party’s establishment. Public approval of Congress is near historic lows, and polling shows that many voters believe professional politicians are self-interested and out of touch.

Amateur politicians are once again emerging in response to this discontent, positioning themselves as outsiders who can bring change to Washington. Yet, as our research shows, these newcomers will undervalue the bipartisan relationships needed to govern effectively.

As voters look for change, the challenge will be to balance the desire for fresh perspectives with the experience required to sustain cooperation – and to keep Congress, and democracy, working.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Amateur hour in Congress: How political newcomers fuel gridlock and government shutdowns – https://theconversation.com/amateur-hour-in-congress-how-political-newcomers-fuel-gridlock-and-government-shutdowns-268133

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jennifer L. Steele, Professor of Education, American University

The Trump administration has tried to upend many facets of American life, and many facets of higher education are no exception.

The Department of Education announced on Oct. 27, 2025, that it would resume canceling student loan debt for certain borrowers, after the government stopped this practice earlier in 2025.

The Trump administration also announced on Oct. 30 that it is planning to limit loan forgiveness eligibility for former students who work at nonprofit organizations and whose work has what the Trump administration calls a “substantial illegal purpose.” This means organizations that work with immigrants and transgender youth.

Amy Lieberman, education editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Jennifer L. Steele, a scholar of the economics of education, to understand the significance of these announcements and what student loan borrowers should know.

How big is the problem of student loan debt?

There is currently more than US$1.6 trillion of student loan debt in the United States. That number has been climbing dramatically over the past few decades. About 52% of federal loan borrowers are on track to repay their loans within 10 years.

It is difficult for some people to handle their debt levels, and they miss scheduled payments. This is especially true for people who didn’t finish their degrees or who attended for-profit colleges. It can also be challenging for people to repay their loans if they work in public service jobs that don’t pay a lot of money.

A person with an average amount of undergraduate federal student loan debt is paying about $299 a month over the course of the 10 years it typically takes to repay the loans. They could be paying considerably more if they have debt from graduate school, as well.

How do you qualify for student loan forgiveness?

Student loan forgiveness means that after people pay back their federal student loans for a certain number of years, the balance is forgiven by the Department of Education, which issues the loans.

There are two main kinds of forgiveness plans for federal student loans. There are income-driven repayment plans and public service loan forgiveness plans.

Income-driven repayment plans are used by people who do not earn enough money to easily meet the monthly payment on the standard 10-year repayment plan. In these cases, the Department of Education provides options that let you pay no more than 10% to 20% of your discretionary income toward your loans each month.

After the borrower makes the required monthly payments on time for 20 to 30 years, depending on the plan, the federal government will forgive any remaining balance.

It’s important to know that the amount you are being forgiven may be subject to income tax, as of 2026.

Borrowers who work full time for the federal, state, local or tribal government – including in schools and the military – can have their remaining debt forgiven after 10 years of monthly payments through public service loan forgiveness. This also applies to people working for nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations.

How are these standards on federal student loan forgiveness changing?

In March 2025, the Trump administration began slowing the public service loan forgiveness application process for some borrowers. It also vowed to scrutinize which public service employers qualify as nonprofit, nonpartisan groups.

The administration released new rules on Oct. 30 that will exclude borrowers from receiving new public service loan forgiveness credit if their employers are found to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” This includes organizations that provide support for undocumented immigrants, children who seek medical gender transitions, or for speech the administration deems to support terrorist, violent or discriminatory ideas. My research has shown that public service incentives help attract skilled workers to work for nonprofits and other organizations that try to help people. This shift may make it harder for organizations that help vulnerable communities to attract and retain staff.

Also in March, the Trump administration stopped processing applications for forgiveness under some income-dependent repayment plans, arguing that a recent court ruling that blocked a particular forgiveness plan initiated by then-President Joe Biden applied to other plans as well.

In response, the American Federation of Teachers filed a lawsuit in March demanding reinstatement of loan forgiveness for eligible borrowers.

In October, the American Federation of Teachers and the Trump administration reached a deal. Now, the Department of Education will resume processing student loan forgiveness applications for people who need financial help paying off the loans and for people who are public service workers. Still, public service workers might find that their work is now considered to have an “illegal purpose,” according to the White House, challenging their forgiveness.

They also agreed that loans eligible for tax-exempt forgiveness through 2025 will remain tax-exempt. In 2026, most student loan debt forgiveness will become taxable as income. There is an exception for public service workers and for former students who have been affected by college closures or fraud.

What does the new agreement mean for people who have student loans?

People who are already making monthly payments on existing federal student loans under income-driven repayment can continue to do so. People in a standard 10-year repayment plan who cannot afford their payments should know their income-driven repayment options and talk to their loan servicer if they wish to consider such a plan.

Also, beginning in 2026, the Education Department will offer a new kind of income-driven repayment plan called the repayment assistance plan. The department will begin phasing out some older income-driven plans in 2028.

How does this affect people considering going to college or graduate school?

If you are considering going to college or graduate school, it is important to know that lifetime federal debt limits for graduate degrees were reduced modestly by the tax breaks and spending cuts bill signed into law in July 2025. Lower federal debt limits decrease the amount of debt that borrowers can accrue.

People planning to go into public service with the expectation that their loans will be forgiven after 10 years should do so with modest caution. Public Service Loan Forgiveness was created by Congress to encourage public service careers, making it difficult to fully repeal. On the other hand, the Department of Education has discretion over which organizations count as public service employers, as the new Oct. 30 rules demonstrate. The department also has discretion over how easily and quickly it processes loan forgiveness applications.

Given the Trump administration’s public skepticism of not only Public Service Loan Forgiveness, but also public service employment in general, it is possible that it would continue to erode this incentive for public service workers.

Borrowers can help their case by annually certifying their employment with an eligible public service employer and by maintaining records of their loan’s eligibility, repayment plan and monthly payments. Because employers’ Public Service Loan Forgiveness eligibility may change under the administration’s Oct. 30 rules, borrowers should also stay up to date on the eligibility of their current or prospective employers.

Typically, taking on some debt to get a degree is not a bad investment. You just have to be careful with how much debt you are accumulating and whether it is reasonable given how much you expect to earn after you graduate. There are simple online tools that can help you decide whether the investment and potential debt burden are worthwhile.

Jennifer L. Steele does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump is changing student loan forgiveness rules – barring some public workers from getting relief, but resuming it for others – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-changing-student-loan-forgiveness-rules-barring-some-public-workers-from-getting-relief-but-resuming-it-for-others-268351

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Serdar Yalçin, Assistant Professor of Art History, Macalester College

The earliest form of the signature came from ancient Iraq in the form of cylinder seals.

Mesopotamians, the ancient inhabitants of the land between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, are credited for many firsts in human history, including writing, urbanism and the state. Among these inventions, cylinder seals are perhaps the most distinctive but least known.

Seals as artifacts

Thousands of these tiny objects – often no bigger than 2 inches (5 centimeters) in height and 1 inch (2.5 cm) in diameter – are displayed in museums today. They testify to an artistic tradition in ancient Iraq and Syria that remained uninterrupted from the late fourth to first millennia B.C.E.

In essence, a cylinder seal was a small sculpture that served a crucial utilitarian purpose: signing documents. It was generally made of a precious or semiprecious stone such as lapis lazuli, agate or chalcedony. Images and texts were engraved into the stone with a technique called intaglio. Notably, these engravings would need to be made in reverse of how the markings would look when it was used.

When rolled on a moist clay tablet, these engravings left low-relief markings, signifying that the object’s owner authorized the written document. In this respect, a cylinder seal’s impression is the ancestor of modern handwritten and digital signatures.

Seals and identity

While cylinder seals were a creation of the Sumerians who inhabited southern Mesopotamia about 6,000 years ago, they rapidly spread to the rest of Western Asia and the eastern Mediterranean and became important items in everyday life.

Communities in this vast region – especially those in Mesopotamia, an area poor in raw materials – imported stones from distant lands to make their seals. Mesopotamians extracted diorite from Oman, lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, and carnelian and agate from the Indus Valley and other parts of South Asia.

Seals made of these exotic stones were extra valuable, so only the elite could afford them. Often affiliated with the state and temples, these people were typically royalty, high-level bureaucrats and priests. In contrast, people from lower classes used seals made of less valuable materials, such as limestone, clay or glass.

Mesopotamians and their contemporaries in Western Asia expressed their identities not just through the material of their seals but also through the texts and images engraved on them. The seal texts often introduced the owners with their names, genealogies, gender, professions and hometowns. Thanks to this information, researchers know that not just men but also wealthy women owned seals, albeit in much smaller proportions.

Religious identity, too, was communicated via long prayers addressed to personal gods or via images depicting gods and worshippers.

Making seals

The scope of Mesopotamian imagery depicted on cylinder seals was broad. For thousands of years, seal-cutters – the artisans who exclusively specialized in making seals – carved scenes representing daily life and nature, religious rituals, warfare, architectural vistas and mythical stories involving gods, heroes and hybrid creatures such as winged horses and griffins.

Much of this rich imagery was a result of the owners’ personal choices, often referencing their identities. In some exceptional cases, Mesopotamian kings or their aides monitored and approved the designs of the cylinder seals they gifted to high-level officials.

Many seals seem to have been already carved with the popular cultural motifs before they were sold to clients, although solid archaeological and archival evidence is still needed to confirm this. When a customer bought these premade objects, they may have asked for a new inscription or some adjustments to the imagery. Most known cylinder seals were likely carved anew for elite clients, especially for those from the highest echelons of the society such as royalty.

Cylinder seals open a wide window not just into ancient Mesopotamian art and culture but also into the minds of individual Mesopotamians. Carved with personalized images and texts reflecting their views on life and society, seals were intimately connected to their owners. Losing one’s seal was considered a very negative omen for its patron. In contrast, modern signatures are often depersonalized and generic.

Cylinder seals – along with city life, organized religion and bureaucracy – were a key component of ancient Mesopotamian civilization. These features, in different forms and proportions, continue to define modern life today.

Serdar Yalçin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Signatures meant more in Mesopotamia than they do now − what cylinder seals say about ancient and modern life – https://theconversation.com/signatures-meant-more-in-mesopotamia-than-they-do-now-what-cylinder-seals-say-about-ancient-and-modern-life-266547

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Cassie Powell, Assistant Professor of Law, Legal Practice, University of Richmond

One of America’s most affordable paths to homeownership is slipping away.

At manufactured home parks – sometimes called trailer parks or mobile home parks – rents are rapidly rising due to large-scale buyouts by private equity firms.

Although private equity’s foray into the housing market is not new, the buyout of mobile home parks by investment firms is on the rise – with devastating consequences for residents. Over the past decade, rents in these parks have risen 45%, according to census data. Once a park is sold, the risk of eviction rises significantly in the following year.

I’m a poverty law attorney in Virginia, and many of my clients are residents of mobile home parks. Over the past four years, I’ve watched their communities get sold, one by one, to large investment firms. Many of them are desperately struggling to protect their homes – for some, their only source of wealth – in the face of exploding rents and threats of eviction.

The immovable mobile home

Today, the term “mobile home” is a misnomer.

Historically, mobile homes were trailers designed for travelers and workers living near factories. With so many veterans returning home after World War II, trailers provided an easy and affordable way for them to obtain housing in the face of shortages. The trailers could be moved from place to place as people either attended school or sought work.

A shift occurred in the 1950s. Those with higher incomes bought houses, and those with less means continued to live in mobile homes. Eventually, mobile home communities cropped up throughout the country as places for people to park their mobile homes for months, years or permanently.

Nowadays, mobile homes are more often called “manufactured homes.” They are assembled in factories and rarely move once they’ve been purchased and settled. In fact, more than 90% of manufactured homes never move from their original site.

Today, around 20.6 million Americans live in a mobile or manufactured home. About one-third of mobile homes are located in mobile home communities.

In these communities, the residents usually own the home itself, but they rent the lot that the home sits on. They are responsible for the upkeep of their home, but the park owners are responsible for park infrastructure, including street maintenance and sewage systems.

Although many Americans still think of these homes as mobile, they’re prohibitively expensive to move. Many have had the wheels or hitches removed years ago. Additionally, many owners of trailers or manufactured homes have invested in additions, such as porches or extra rooms, that have made these homes even more difficult to relocate.

Private equity swoops in

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, no state has enough affordable housing for those with the lowest incomes.

In the midst of a housing affordability crisis, mobile homes are seen as a way for those with limited incomes to generate wealth and access homeownership. Indeed, over half of all manufactured homeowners earn less than US$50,000 a year, and one-third are over age 60.

However, this type of homeownership is becoming more difficult to maintain for many due to the increased buyout of mobile home parks by large investment firms – a trend that mirrors the rest of the housing market.

Increasingly, housing is being treated as a commodity rather than an essential social good – what’s sometimes called the “financialization of the housing market.”

For private equity firms, housing has been a fruitful investment. But in order to maximize returns on their investments, they usually increase rents and cut costs. Company leadership is often totally divorced from their tenants; instead, they hire on-site and regional managers who exercise disproportionate control over evictions and rule enforcement. Overall, this financialization has transformed the way those with limited incomes are able to obtain shelter – including the owners of mobile homes.

In the past, manufactured home communities were largely “mom-and-pop” enterprises. Though they were still subjected to abusive practices, tenants usually knew their landlords and saw them often, and rents were much more stable.

In 2020 and 2021, institutional investors accounted for 23% of all manufactured home park purchases, up from 13% between 2017-2019. Now, 23 private equity firms own over 1,800 parks in the U.S.

Once bought, lot rents usually begin rising. Mobile home park residents are especially vulnerable due to their circumstances: Since their homes are so difficult to move, they are essentially trapped when faced with rising lot rents. One study of Florida mobile home communities found that in the months after a park sale, eviction filings increased by 40%. Residents often find themselves forced to choose between paying exorbitant costs to move their home or paying unaffordable lot rents.

State laws put the squeeze on tenants

Because they’re so unique, manufactured home communities are often governed by a special set of state laws.

In my state, Virginia, the Manufactured Home Lot Rental Act covers rules that park owners and residents must follow. If someone is evicted for failing to pay their lot rent, they still own their home but can no longer live in the park.

Often, states impose short time frames for someone to move their home following an eviction. In North Carolina, for example, a tenant has just 21 days to remove the manufactured home from the park following an eviction judgment. In Virginia, a homeowner has 90 days after being evicted to move or sell their mobile home, but they must continue paying rent during that time.

In many states, if a resident fails to move their home in time, the park owner may repossess the home or move it. Even if the resident lives in a state that continues to protect ownership of the mobile home against park owners, it is often difficult to enforce, as park owners may now have a lien on the mobile home for any amount the resident owes. The result is that many residents who are evicted lose their home.

Putting power back in the hands of residents

Currently, only 22 states have laws that require advance notice to residents of park sales. Most simply provide a timeline for owners to inform park residents of their intent to sell.

Nonetheless, many states are coming up with strategies to keep residents from being forced out and help them assume ownership of the parks.

Recently, Maine passed a law that gives park residents a right of first refusal if their park is up for sale. The law also levies a fee for out-of-state investors who buy parks, which can put residents in a better position to purchase the parks where they live.

In other cases, residents have banded together to buy the park by forming a cooperative with external support. They then apply for financing and purchase the park. Resident Owned Communities USA is one example of an organization that works to support resident ownership in manufactured home parks.

Many advocates are also pushing for rent control policies in mobile home parks, limiting the amount that new owners can raise rents annually. In 2019, New York state passed a law limiting annual rent hikes in mobile home parks to 3%, though this can climb to 6% annually in certain circumstances.

Additional solutions include limiting evictions to narrow circumstances, tightening lot lease contracts to give residents additional protections and strengthening zoning rights for existing mobile home parks.

In my practice, I see park residents eager to maintain their long-standing homes and communities in the face of outside investors and unresponsive local governments. But until these solutions are widely adopted, residents will continue to lose their wealth – and with it, this crucial path to homeownership.

I represent tenants facing eviction from mobile home parks, as well as tenant associations in mobile home parks advocating against displacement.

– ref. Private equity firms are snapping up mobile home parks − and driving out the residents who can least afford to lose them – https://theconversation.com/private-equity-firms-are-snapping-up-mobile-home-parks-and-driving-out-the-residents-who-can-least-afford-to-lose-them-264456

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Y. Tony Yang, Endowed Professor of Health Policy and Associate Dean, George Washington University

When four states between 2015 and 2021 stopped allowing parents to opt their children out of receiving routine vaccines without a medical reason, vaccination rates among kindergartners increased substantially. That’s the key finding from our new study published in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics.

All states require children entering kindergarten to be vaccinated against infectious diseases like measles and polio. Parents can request medical exemptions if, for example, their child has a severe allergy to a vaccine ingredient. But most states also allow nonmedical exemptions based on religious or philosophical beliefs. To examine whether state policy on vaccine exemptions could counter falling vaccination rates, we probed data from approximately 2.8 million kindergartners across multiple states from 2011 to 2023.

California, New York, Maine and Connecticut completely eliminated nonmedical exemptions during this period. In those states, exemption rates fell by 3.2 percentage points on average within three years – meaning tens of thousands more children gained protection against diseases like measles.

We examined rates for all four vaccines that are required in most states for children to attend school: diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, measles-mumps-rubella and polio. Vaccination rates increased for all of them after nonmedical exemptions were eliminated.

One common concern with not allowing nonmedical exemptions is that parents would simply seek medical exemptions instead. But that didn’t happen in any significant numbers, we found. While California did see an initial uptick in medical exemptions after its 2015 repeal, they declined after the state implemented centralized review processes in 2021. Overall, medical exemptions increased by only 0.4 percentage points – a statistically significant but clinically modest difference.

We also examined states that took a more limited approach. Vermont repealed philosophical exemptions but retained religious exemptions in 2015. Washington repealed nonmedical exemptions only for the MMR vaccine in 2019. These partial repeals were less effective, producing smaller and less persistent increases in vaccination rates than those from total repeal.

The timing matters too. Our findings show that vaccination rates rise over time, with the largest increases observed three to four years after repeal. This is partly because many states don’t immediately enforce legislation for all children, allowing for gradual phase-in periods.

Why it matters

Vaccination rates for routine childhood vaccines are falling sharply in the U.S. – primarily because more families are seeking exemptions for their children. Between 2011 and 2023, overall kindergarten exemption rates more than doubled, from 1.6% to 3.3%. This trend has accelerated during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, as vaccine skepticism has become increasingly mainstream

This trend leaves more children vulnerable to preventable diseases. Measles, for example, requires about 95% vaccination coverage to prevent outbreaks, and even small drops below that threshold can leave communities vulnerable. In 2025, the country surpassed 1,600 measles cases – the highest count since 1992. Public health experts worry that the U.S. could lose its measles elimination status, which was declared by the World Health Organization in 2000.

Our study shows that comprehensive policy changes can meaningfully protect vaccination coverage. When states eliminate religious, philosophical and other nonmedical vaccine exemptions, childhood vaccination rates increase – without parents simply shifting to medical exemptions.

These findings provide valuable evidence in the face of declining vaccination coverage, and they reveal what’s at stake for states considering weakening vaccine requirements. In September 2025, Florida announced its plan to end vaccine mandates for hepatitis B, chickenpox and bacterial meningitis, with seven additional diseases expected to follow.

What’s next

Our research demonstrates that policy-level solutions work. But they require comprehensive implementation and adequate enforcement mechanisms.

We’re now expanding this research to look at a critical question: Do unvaccinated children cluster together in certain neighborhoods or communities? Even when a state’s overall vaccination rate looks healthy, there might be specific towns or school districts where rates are dangerously low – leaving those areas vulnerable to disease outbreaks.

Understanding these patterns will help public health officials target interventions for the communities at highest risk for outbreaks.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Strict school vaccine mandates work, and parents don’t game the system − new research – https://theconversation.com/strict-school-vaccine-mandates-work-and-parents-dont-game-the-system-new-research-268558

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Prachi Gala, Associate Professor of Marketing, Kennesaw State University

When corporate crises hit, the public looks to the CEO. From product recalls to workplace discrimination, to customer mistreatment scandals, CEOs are often thrust into the spotlight and forced to apologize.

But do the exact words they choose really matter?

I’m a professor of marketing, and my preliminary research suggests the answer is yes. In fact, they can even move stock prices.

A tale of 2 apologies

Consider two examples from the not-too-distant past. When Samsung Electronics had to recall 2.5 million smartphones in 2016 due to battery fires, the company ran full-page ads in major American newspapers that said, “We are truly sorry.” Despite the apology, Samsung’s stock continued falling, wiping out billions of dollars in market value.

Contrast that with a famous case: the 1982 Tylenol crisis, in which seven people died after taking capsules that a still-unidentified criminal had laced with cyanide, circumventing the company’s safety protocols. The then-CEO of Tylenol’s parent company, Johnson & Johnson, said “I apologize” to consumers and immediately ordered a nationwide recall, costing the company over US$100 million. His direct acknowledgment of responsibility and swift action helped restore public trust and became a case study in effective crisis leadership. The company’s stock price didn’t take much of a hit, either.

While the two cases are different in many ways, together they illustrate a pattern my colleagues and I observed in our study: Markets respond differently to “I apologize” versus “We apologize.”

Investors reward personal accountability

I collaborated with marketing professors Jennifer H. Tatara and Courtney B. Peters to analyze 224 corporate apologies between 1996 and 2023. Using event-study methods common in finance, we tracked unusual stock returns around apology announcements and linked them to how CEOs framed their statements.

Our results, which we are preparing for publication, were striking. CEOs who said “I apologize” often saw short-term stock returns rise by a statistically significant amount. CEOs who said “We apologize” saw no such effect. Saying “I apologize” lessens the market penalty by roughly 86%, we found.

We think this is because markets reward leaders who take individual responsibility. “I” signals personal accountability and decisiveness. “We,” by comparison, dilutes ownership of the problem.

But context matters, we found. When we zeroed in on diversity-related cases – those involving mistreatment based on race, gender, disability or LGBTQ+ status, for example – the positive effect of “I apologize” weakened or disappeared.

That’s because investors often interpret diversity crises as signs of systemic failure, rather than isolated mistakes. In those cases, investors, employees and the public may expect accountability that goes beyond the CEO. A lone “I apologize” can seem hollow, while “We apologize” may resonate more by acknowledging shared institutional responsibility.

Beyond CEOs: Why stakeholders should care

Apologies are among the most scrutinized executive communications. Their effects ripple across different audiences.

For investors, apology language provides a real-time signal of leadership quality and future governance. Our research shows these signals are strong enough to move stock prices.

For corporate boards, an apology can be as important as a balance sheet in shaping market perceptions. Our research suggests that boards should insist leaders prepare for crisis communications as a standard part of risk management.

For employees and customers, apology language sends a message about corporate culture. “I” can demonstrate accountability; “we” can affirm inclusion and shared responsibility. Both matter, depending on the situation.

Leading in a skeptical era

Corporate apologies are nothing new. But in today’s environment – where social media amplifies every word and trust in institutions is fragile – the stakes are higher. A single poorly framed statement can trigger outrage, stock sell-offs or viral boycotts.

The good news is that “sorry” doesn’t have to be the hardest word. In fact, this research suggests that a good apology can pay off, literally. The key is to remember that apologies aren’t one-size-fits-all. The right words depend on the nature of the wrongdoing.

Prachi Gala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Investors prefer ‘I’ over ‘we’ when CEOs apologize – https://theconversation.com/investors-prefer-i-over-we-when-ceos-apologize-266294