Katie Kroeper

Presently, by integrating generative AI into the teaching and learning process, we are not only misleading ourselves into thinking we are tackling education’s challenges, but we are also outsourcing a social, civic and democratic process of cultivating the coming generation to commercial and capitalist enterprises whose priority is profit. The AI industry has consistently demonstrated that it is willing to undo decades of progress towards fundamental rights (Peters, 2025), peace (Singh, 2025) and democracy (Zeff, 2025) and can easily close down education efforts (Holtermann, 2025b) by operating in an environment with little to no oversight and riddled with conflicts of interest (Menn and Nix, 2023), in accordance with these companies’ business models: maximization of profit and concentration of power. An industry with such an extractive business model, developing and deploying generative AI tools with little oversight and testing, cannot be a good steward for the betterment of education. Instead, integrating generative AI into education will result in commercialization of a collective responsibility: fostering and cultivating the coming generations

"integrating genAI into education will result in commercialization of a collective responsibility: fostering & cultivating the coming generation"

and this responsibility can't be left to an industry that has aligned with authoritarian regimes, prioritises profit at any cost, and is powering fascism

Refusing to "trust the experts" is meant to be a brave, responsible position.

But (as Carl explains in the thread) there is too much knowledge in the world. You have to trust *somebody*, much of the time.

If you have no trust in experts, you end up trusting the idiots.

Something that I have been thinking about with attribution of "PhD level intelligence" or "PhD level expertise" to a machine is that it reflects an increasing trend among these AI bros and their sycophants to want the products of highly skilled training without actually doing any of the work.

“the kindest person in the room is often the smartest.” JB Pritzker is a mensch.

Katie Kroeper (@katiekroe.bsky.social) Although this isn’t exactly new news, I wanted to share more about a paper that came out while I was on maternity leave: “Who Gets to Belong in College? An Empirical Review of How Institutions Can…

📚 “Who Gets to Belong in College?” by @katiekroe.bsky.social and colleagues examines how institutions can assess and expand belonging for historically marginalized student groups.A powerful contribution to research on equity and inclusion in higher ed.
🔁 buff.ly/P1n87ip
📄 buff.ly/iRqFvES

Non-academics: if you see an interesting academic paper on here and you can’t access it due to a paywall just email the author and (depending on the state of their inbox 😜) they will generally be thrilled you are interested in their work and send you a copy.

among the things we apparently need to do a better job of going forward - as a society, it seems - is communicating the basic conceit of what learning is and why we value it. a problem that we in higher ed share with our K-12 colleagues

The day started with tragedy with political violence in MN and instead of being scared, neighbors SHOWED UP to stand together at No Kings Twin Cities. We packed the Capitol Mall all the way to the Cathedral. Estimate 80,000+ right now. So proud of our state. #nokings #indivisible

Rick Steves finishing his speech in Edmonds. This is about halfway back in the crowd and to the side. The patriotism of this crowd was something else. And Steves' point is right -- change is going to come from an engaged center that stands in *solidarity* with the most vulnerable.

It should not be lost on anyone that Minnesota Rep Melissa Hortman, who was shot to death in her home last night by an assassin, was a gun safety advocate who worked tirelessly to protect her constituents from gun violence.

What happened in Minnesota is a direct consequence of the violent way that Trump talks about his political opponents.

A photo of sweet baby Charlotte.

And because I mentioned a new baby... here's a photo of little Charlotte, the sweetest, most chill baby you’ve ever met. 💜

As always, it was a pleasure to work with Maithreyi Gopalan (@maithgopalan.bsky.social), Kathy Emerson, and Greg Walton! Grateful as well to Carlton Fong (@carltonfong.bsky.social‬) and Chris Rozek (@chrisrozek.bsky.social‬) for their thoughtful and sharp editorial guidance throughout the process.

Read the full paper here:

📄 doi.org/10.1007/s106...

📄 drive.google.com/file/d/1md8M...

We hope this work can help institutional leaders identify the students they’re serving well—and who is not YET well-served—and take evidence-based steps to expand belonging opportunities for all students.

New Research: How Colleges Can Expand Opportunities for Student Belonging on Campus Data from over 15,000 students across 22 universities show many institutions fail to provide adequate opportunities for belonging for all students; here’s what institutions can do.

And Kathy Emerson (a coauthor on this paper) wrote a fantastic summary here:

🔗 theequityaccelerator.substack.com/p/new-resear...

I talk more about all these ideas in this Chronicle of Evidence-Based Mentoring interview:

🔗 www.evidencebasedmentoring.org/profiles-in-...

Through regular surveys, interviews, and focus groups with a cross-section of your students, you can learn who is well-served—and who is NOT well-served YET—and why.

This listening is essential for taking steps that reflect the experiences of students on YOUR campus.

So, what’s a good starting point for institutional leaders?

LISTEN to YOUR students. Don’t assume you already know which student groups feel greater or lesser belonging on your campus—or which opportunities are equitably available across groups. Ask!

Table displaying correlations and partial correlations between institutional factors and belonging affordances at the local identity group level. All factors show significant positive correlations with belonging opportunities, even after adjusting for in-group representation. (Additionally, Stepwise and LASSO regression analyses can be found in the paper's supplement)

We also tested the four institutional factors identified above. Each one predicted belonging affordances—even when considered simultaneously.

These factors may serve as levers of change at your institution—areas where colleges and universities can intervene to expand belonging opportunities.

Scatterplot illustrating variation in belonging affordances across schools for each race/ethnicity × first-generation identity group. Each data point represents a local-identity group at a specific institution. Circles and triangles indicate data from the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 cohorts, respectively, with colors representing individual schools and point sizes proportional to the number of students in each group. The horizontal line at -0.50 SD (the 36th percentile) marks the threshold for “minimally adequate” belonging affordances, as determined by Bayesian Causal Forest analyses (see Walton et al., 2023). Groups above this line are considered to have medium-to-high opportunities for belonging; those below, low. The figure shows meaningful within-group variation. For example, Black continuing-generation students rank at the 0th percentile at School 7 but at the 73rd percentile at School 16. Native American first-generation students rank at the 10th percentile at School 5 but reach the 90th percentile at School 18. The plot reveals that although some identity groups are generally less well-served, institutional context matters: some schools provide adequate belonging affordances to students from systematically underserved groups.

But we also found hopeful variation: some institutions are doing a good job supporting students from these same groups.

So, a big takeaway is that there’s no single outcome tied to identity—simply put, campus context matters.

Bar chart showing the percentage of local identity groups (LIGs) at U.S. colleges with “minimally adequate” belonging affordances. White, Hispanic/Latinx, and continuing-generation students are most likely to have adequate belonging opportunities; Black, Asian, and first-generation students are least likely. Especially low belonging opportunities are observed among Asian and Black first-generation students.

Some student groups—esp. Black, Asian, and first-gen students—were systematically less well-served by institutions. That is, they were less likely to have what we call “minimally adequate” belonging affordances: the baseline level of opportunities needed to benefit from belonging interventions.

We found wide variation in belonging opportunities—across and within universities, and across and within identity groups.

Then we analyzed data from over 15,000 students at 22 colleges—a nationally representative sample collected by the College Transition Collaborative—to map the landscape of belonging opportunities in U.S. higher education.

3. Opportunities for strong relationships – Are there real chances for me to form close connections with peers and faculty?

4. Opportunities for productive learning – Do I feel supported in developing a sense of purpose? Do I get the message that I—and people like me—can grow and thrive here?

1. In-group representation – Are there others on campus who share my identity?

2. Inclusive campus cultures – Do norms, policies, and practices signal that I am (and others from my identity groups are) valued, included, and respected?

Table listing four institutional factors that shape student belonging on college campuses: (1) In-group representation; (2) Inclusive campus cultures, including commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, reduced identity threats, reduced bias and discrimination; (3) Opportunities to develop strong peer and mentor relationships; and (4) Opportunities for productive learning, including pathways to purpose and growth mindsets.

So what, then, is the institution’s role?

We began by synthesizing the literature on belonging to identify key institutional factors that influence whether students feel they belong:

That said, we want to be clear: students AREN’T passive recipients of campus culture. They are active agents in shaping that culture and their own sense of belonging within it—by seeking out connections, engaging in learning, building community, etc.

This paper explores the institution’s agency—that is, the role colleges and universities play in creating the conditions where all students can come to belong.

Let’s start with a few terms. By "belonging," we mean a student’s overall sense of how well they fit in—or could fit in—at their institution. And we view belonging as a relationship between a person and a context, meaning both the student AND the institution have agency in shaping that relationship.