For a number of years, the value Higher Education in this country has been questioned. The model proposed by Ned and Scott in this book could contribute to curtail these attacks and make it clear to students and parents what Higher Education can do for them that micro-credencials provided by their employers will not.

.

Here at our institution, we have already started to move away from "What's your major?" to "What's your career plan?" and while I am proud of what we have done, reading this book showed we still have changes we can make.

I completely agree with the challenge by Ned and Scott to shift from the fixation on majors and shifting to "field of study" approach. This empowers students to integrate their interests and their experience in general education, electives, and experiential learning into a cohesive, personalized academic journey that will serve them well post college as they navigate a very evolving and ever changing world.

This is particularly important for the future of higher education, where institutions are facing growing pressure to demonstrate value, improve career outcomes, and support an increasingly diverse student body - many of whom are first-generation or low-income and lack the cultural or social capital to "hack" the college experience on their own. Especially with the reality that terms like "traditional", "non-traditional", "adult" are no longer really applicable to how we define students. We need to focus on the "modern learner" which better describes the nature of students whether they are 18, 30 or 50.

By emphasizing hidden intellectualism, cultural capital, and purpose-driven learning, Ned and Scott offer a student-centered alternative to transactional advising and bureaucratic rigidity. The highlighting of the need for higher ed to evolve - not by adding flashy new programs, but by rehumanizing conversations, rethinking advising, and helping students connect coursework with their long-term goals is LONG overdue. This kind of redesign is vital to improving both persistence and post-graduate success (not to mention relevancy).

It's important to funnel resources into students, so that they're successful out in the world.

There is no mechanism for sampling for students to learn what they want, and there's no infrastructure that builds awareness of what actually exists in the world beyond very narrow courses that are not interdisciplinary and not centered on real world challenges.

We can have a lot of discussion about the cause of this: standardized testing, cultural pressure on academic achievement, and more.

It's important to ensure that students can tackle the wicked problems-- in ways that AI cannot do.

The use of AI seems to take away the time factor if what we're doing is only about "information." AI can give us instantly what information (and even arguments) we are wanting in the moment.

If we faculty can help students identify their wicked question, this could spur motivation to "get through" even boring stuff--because students see the need.

We have to be careful not to try to make learning fun, fun, fun. It often isn't. Besides, unless we're on TikTok, we can't compete with students' attention.

This question was asked of Ned, and he responded with a story about his daughter's backgrounds. Ned said: Humanities is as marketable as anything else if we pair them with the student's hidden intellectualism and the hidden job market.

This concept directly intersects with today's public discourse on ROI in higher education. As families and policymakers increasingly question whether college is "worth it" they often measure value through earnings alone, fueling a reductive narrative that equates certain majors with success and others with failure. But Ned and Scott's book shows that the problem isn't the major itself - its how institutions fail to help students meaningfully connect their education to a sense of purpose and to the hidden job market. Additionally, how institutions fail to help students develop the skills needed to adapt, pivot, adjust, and shift as their life dictates or forces them to well after they graduate.

An "empty degree" doesn't just risk poor financial return; it contributes to underemployment, dissatisfaction, and disillusionment, and significant challenges later in life. Hacking College shows us that the antidote isn't to cut liberal arts or herd students into high-ROI majors, but to teach students how to fil in the "blank spaces" of their education with intentional choices that reflect their interest and aspirations and instill a skill set to help the "modern learner" to navigate an uncertain future and an evolving world landscape.

Ned responded that Hacking College is about focusing on the student's hidden vocation-- which will solve the wicked problems of the world.

How do the disciplines we teach and the programs we administer connect with this emphasis on soft skills? This viral post from Axios is pretty chilling: https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/ai-jobs-white-collar-unemployment-anthropic

With the implication that major = job (which as the book notes is a view too often found at our schools), we are perhaps responding to changing perceptions of college, and so the purpose of "general ed" is missed which is to provide the mental furniture needed for a truly human life.

Perhaps our priorities, in light of the "expertise" AI can give us instantly, should be more on Gen Ed (I teach at a California community college and so have a horse in this race) rather than technical knowledge in our major? Asking for a friend... 😃

It will always be difficult to help ‘students’ become productive if they are thought of as students and it is about college. Students are people first, whole or not, and colleges first need to determine if the people in their educational system know how to live independently yet. It is a basic test of agency, what motivates people to finish what they start. College education has two parts, personal and professional. Personal is usually MIA, but must come first — educate for that via a Human Ecology program; for so many people, it is terrorizing to try to navigate this society — so they give up. With the knowledge and skills to live, professional education speeds along!

For example: a common pathway for low-income students is to start with college in the schools, postsecondary enrollment option, etc. to gain credits while in high school. All too often, the extra work students put in during high school in an attempt to 'get ahead' leave them with no benefit as the credits don't transfer to their next school. Robust transfer policies need to be considered to make this approach as transformational as it has the potential of being.

In addition, colleges require too many specific courses - Math is a good example. College Algebra is a required course for nearly all college degrees. How can we think differently about meeting that college level math class requirement with a variety of options for students (especially those who hate math) to choose from? Business math, personal finance, etc. is something that would likely provide a clear connection for students, be more interesting (even to those who hate math) and be more engaging. So many adults I talk to would return to college to pursue their dreams except for "I couldn't pass the math class".

These are important things for higher education to consider both from an enrollment standpoint and in regard to student success. Higher ed can't rely on the traditional student for much longer - to offer true opportunity for lifelong learning that will continue to have students enrolling, these practical issues need to be considered by the systems that issue the credentials.