Despite the rising costs of college, weakened public support for higher education and the onslaught of political challenges facing colleges and universities, provosts remain optimistic about what their institution offers students. Nearly all provosts—99 percent—report that their institution provides a quality undergraduate education. They are generally happy about their jobs, too: 91 percent say they are glad they pursued administrative work, and 86 percent say they enjoy being a chief academic officer.
These stats and others come from the latest Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers, released today by Inside Higher Ed with Hanover Research. The survey—conducted in June and July of this year and garnering 478 responses—asked provosts for their thoughts on the rapidly changing federal policy landscape, the growing prominence of artificial intelligence, the importance of tenure and academic freedom, their faculty’s job satisfaction and mental health as well as their own, and more.
The Shifting Federal Policy Environment
More on the Survey
Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers was conducted with Hanover Research. The survey included 478 provosts from public and mostly private nonprofit institutions for a margin of error of 4 percent. A copy of the free report can be downloaded here.
On Wednesday, Oct. 22, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will present a free webcast to discuss the results of the survey. Please register here—and plan on bringing your questions about academic leadership in 2025.
Read more about what provosts had to say about campus speech here in our teaser story.
This independent editorial survey was made possible by support from Coursedog, Honorlock and Watermark.
Provosts largely disagree that the current federal policy environment is good for colleges. Only 9 percent agree or strongly agree that new federal policies are “forcing changes that might benefit colleges and universities in the long run.”
More than half (56 percent) of provosts say that federal funding to their institution has decreased during the second Trump administration—relatively more than the 46 percent of college chief business officers who told Inside Higher Ed in the spring that they’d seen a drop in funding to their institution. Some 92 percent of provosts at public doctoral institutions say this—just one of the several points in the survey where they express particular vulnerability to federal policy shifts, and unsurprising given the swaths of federal cuts to research, especially from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
At most impacted institutions, provosts report that federal funding cuts amount to less than 5 percent. About 28 percent of impacted provosts say their institution has experienced a 5 to 10 percent federal funding cut, and 12 percent report a cut of more than 10 percent.
Institutions are responding to these cuts in myriad ways, provosts report. Chief among them is pursuing alternative funding sources, such as private donors or industry partnerships, at 40 percent. Twenty-one percent of provosts say their institutions reshuffled internal resources to protect vulnerable programs, and about a third of provosts report their institutions restructured or scaled back specific programs that depend on federal grants.
Another 10 percent of provosts say their institutions implemented hiring freezes, while only 3 percent report having paused or reduced graduate student admissions in response to federal funding cuts.
On top of their concerns about research funding, 74 percent of provosts are “very or extremely concerned” about potential changes to federal student aid programs under the current administration. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed in July, put new caps on some federal student loan funding, for instance, and many administrators are uncertain whether federal student aid will flow as it should due to staffing cuts at the Education Department.
External factors are leading well-intended but fearful employees to make decisions the administration itself may not be aware of. In the chaotic times we live in, leadership’s communication is significantly important to avoid these issues.”
—Mike Gavin, president of Delta College
Sixty-five percent of provosts also report that they are “very or extremely concerned” about international student enrollment this year, which is under stress from Trump’s visa policies, research funding cuts and other immigration actions.
Overall institutional approaches to the changing policy environment vary. Nearly half of provosts—47 percent—describe their institution’s approach as “strategic compliance,” defined as making only the necessary changes to remain compliant while protecting institutional values. Another 41 percent report following a “wait and see” approach: holding off on major changes until policies and consequences become more clear. Only 8 percent of provosts say their institution is taking a “risk reduction” approach, and another 8 percent describe their approach as “proactive adaptation.”
Just 5 percent of provosts cite public advocacy (3 percent) or active resistance (2 percent) as primary institutional stances.
Mike Gavin, president of Delta College in Michigan, said staff members at various institutions may be responding to shifting rhetoric and policy at the federal level ahead of official directives from their institutions—highlighting the need for strong campus leadership. “External factors are leading well-intended but fearful employees to make decisions the administration itself may not be aware of,” he said. “In the chaotic times we live in, leadership’s communication is significantly important to avoid these issues.”
Tracking Academic Freedom
The past eight months have yielded dozens of stories about chilled academic freedom at colleges and universities, which are echoed in the survey data. About 22 percent of provosts say that academic freedom at their institution has been impacted by the new federal policy environment. Half say that academic freedom is “generally maintained but with increasing challenges,” and 7 percent say it is “under significant strain from multiple directions.”
Still, 36 percent of provosts reported that academic freedom is “strong and well protected” at their institution, despite external pressure.
“Fifty percent of provosts saying academic freedom is facing challenges is pretty bleak,” said Gavin. “That means that our administrators are having to defend the work of their faculty in ways that they should not have to.” He explained that academic freedom and diversity, equity and inclusion policies are often unfairly framed as opposing efforts, when the two may go hand in hand.
“If curriculum is being changed as a result of anti-DEI laws, or faculty believe they cannot ask the questions they used to in class as a result of DEI restrictions, then there is impingement on academic freedom,” he said.
Alongside academic freedom, tenure remains important to provosts—perhaps more than others in higher education leadership. A majority of provosts are supportive of tenure, with 57 percent saying that they somewhat or strongly agree that the pros of tenure outweigh the cons. In contrast, only 28 percent of college chief business officers and 37 percent of college presidents said the same in their respective Inside Higher Ed surveys this year.
About 53 percent of provosts say that faculty tenure is very (31 percent) or extremely (22 percent) important to the overall health of their institution. This is especially true at doctoral public institutions, where 73 percent of provosts report that it’s very or extremely important.
Colleges still need nontenured faculty for instruction, and 69 percent of provosts say their institution will be as reliant as it is today on adjunct faculty to teach over the next two years. Only 9 percent of provosts say their institution will be less reliant on adjuncts, and provosts report a variety of changes to how they’ve approached non-tenure-track faculty roles: Some 52 percent say their institution offers better recognition of teaching-only roles, and 54 percent say they are offering multiyear contracts to non-tenure-track faculty members.
Two-thirds of provosts also say their institution has formally extended its academic freedom policies to non-tenure-track faculty, and another 4 percent are considering doing so.
Turnover is on the rise, provosts report. Nearly half of provosts say their institution is seeing higher-than-usual staff turnover rates. Thirty percent of provosts say their institution is seeing higher-than-usual turnover among faculty, and 22 percent report higher-than-usual retirement rates for faculty.
Provosts largely attribute turnover to employees receiving competitive offers elsewhere (76 percent), burnout (46 percent) and natural career progression (44 percent). Despite the ongoing discussion of a domestic brain drain from certain states due to their political environments, only 12 percent of provosts attribute staff turnover to the political climate in their state or region—though that figure jumps to 20 percent for public institution provosts and 19 percent for provosts in the South, by region.
More than a third of provosts report that their offices are “not at all” or “minimally” addressing faculty and staff mental health, the Inside Higher Ed survey found. About half of provosts say their office had some limited resources in place, and only 1 percent described their office’s mental health supports as “comprehensive.”
Provosts are carrying the weight of both strategy and crisis management, and many do not have peers on campus who truly understand the scope of what they are balancing.”
—Julian Vasquez Heilig, professor of educational leadership at Western Michigan University
These numbers didn’t surprise Julian Vasquez Heilig, a current professor of educational leadership and former provost at Western Michigan University.
“Health centers and mental health supports on most campuses are usually housed in student affairs or overseen by the vice president of finance or another VP, so they do not typically fall under the direct purview of the provost,” said Heilig. “At the same time, provosts are managing enormous portfolios that include budgets, accreditation, strategic planning and faculty affairs, so while wellness is deeply important, it can slip into the background.”
Heilig recently left the provost role at Western Michigan after two years. Burnout in the role is common, he explained, because of the heavy and disparate workload provosts carry.
“Provosts are having to deal with decisions that other people made. And so you have to deal with decisions that faculty made that may be problematic. You’ve got to implement decisions that the president made. You have a cabinet wanting to implement their decisions for academic affairs, and some of those things go wrong,” Heilig said. “So you’ve got to work with your team to fix all the different things, and sometimes you can’t fix it fast enough.”
More than half of provosts—58 percent—rate their own well-being, factoring in their mental health and job stress, as good or excellent. Another 33 percent rate it as fair and 7 percent rate it as poor. Provosts who also say their job is more about fixing problems than planning ahead are less likely than those who don’t to rate their well-being as good or excellent (44 percent versus 79 percent, respectively).
“Provosts are carrying the weight of both strategy and crisis management, and many do not have peers on campus who truly understand the scope of what they are balancing,” added Heilig. “I also think provosts are often discouraged from taking vacation or even spending time off campus doing community work, because of the constant worry that something might happen on campus, like a hack or another emergency, that requires their immediate presence.”
Artificial Intelligence
Amid massive federal policy changes, there is another disrupter on provosts’ minds: artificial intelligence. Nearly nine in 10 provosts say faculty at their institutions are engaged in discussions about AI, and 77 percent say their senior leaders are discussing it and think it’s important.
Half of provosts say that generative AI has proven to be a moderate risk to academic integrity at their institution so far. In their own Inside Higher Ed survey this year, chief technology officers rated AI as a moderate or significant risk. The remainder of provosts are primarily split between calling AI a minor academic integrity risk (23 percent) or a significant risk (24 percent). Only 2 percent of provosts say AI is an extreme risk, and 1 percent say it poses no risk.
Three in 10 provosts (29 percent) say their institutions have reviewed the curriculum to ensure that it will prepare students for AI in the workplace—up from 14 percent who said the same last year. An additional 63 percent of provosts indicate that they are planning to review the curriculum for this purpose. Provosts at private baccalaureate institutions are least likely to say that they have reviewed the curriculum with AI and the workforce in mind.
About two-thirds of all provosts report that their institutions are offering professional development for faculty on AI and/or integrating AI into the curriculum. Half of provosts say their institutions are actively developing policies for AI use but have not fully implemented those policies. Only 14 percent say their institution has established a comprehensive AI governance policy or institutional AI strategy.
About one in five provosts say their institution is taking an intentionally minimal approach to regulating AI use, with no formal governance or policies about AI.
The biggest application of AI is virtual chat assistants and chat bots: 50 percent of provosts say their institution uses these. Thirty-one percent of provosts report their institution uses AI for research and data analysis, and 28 percent say it is used for learning and management systems. Another 17 percent say AI is being used for grading and assessment, and 24 percent say it is used for administrative processes such as scheduling and resource allocation.
Trey Conatser, assistant provost for teaching and learning and director of the Center for the Enhancement of Learning & Teaching at the University of Kentucky, said he expects more activity this academic year from institutions operationalizing AI literacy in the curriculum, especially for workforce preparedness.
This could include required short-form courses or trainings, changes in general education requirements, institutionwide curriculum mapping, certificates, competency-based outcomes and more, he said. And with this activity comes important choices, such as whether to license third-party material, combine that material with “homegrown approaches,” or build curricular structures in-house. (Conatser said he leaned toward the latter two options, describing AI literacy as less a set of static skills than “holistic, durable” ones, like the 10 that ground the Kentucky Graduate Profile initiative.)
Institutions must also articulate what AI literacy really “means for career success beyond the basic use of AI tools to accomplish certain tasks,” he said, including the habits of mind that manifest “unique species” of durable skills from across disciplines—and reflect institutional values, identity and mission.
Conatser acknowledged the pressure to “rush to market” with curriculum changes, citing the current “point of tension between higher education’s storied process of intellectual negotiation over time and a more pragmatic responsiveness/opportunism in a volatile landscape.” Curricular approaches will also need to stay current with AI’s evolution, he added via email, with “while still centering the lasting skills and dispositions that will serve students as AI eventually becomes something most of us can’t imagine right now.”
Only one in 10 provosts says their institution doesn’t use AI for any of the 15 potential use cases suggested, down from 21 percent last year.
About half of provosts—52 percent—say that professors should not be forced to use or allow AI in their classrooms, and 38 percent report significant faculty resistance to AI.
Still, provosts largely agree that colleges should respond to AI: Just 5 percent say colleges don’t have a duty to teach students about the ethical or practical use of AI. This aligns with student expectations on AI, according to recent Student Voice data from Inside Higher Ed.
Ultimately, Conatser said, institutions’ responsibility isn’t just to train students for how AI is starting to be used, but to “provide students with opportunities to develop the skills, dispositions and sense of urgency to shape how AI is used as they add their talents and energies to our fledgling efforts to make sense of this sudden and existential challenge.”
