Now, more than ever, the institutions we’ve been taught to trust are taking advantage of us. In the face of a global pandemic, some students are being asked to return to in-person instruction as if nothing has happened, while others are being forced into awkward hybrid models and sub-par online platforms. To add insult to injury, those of us online are being asked to pay full price for a half-baked service, and we can’t do much about it. The college experience has been lost, along with all of the connections and resources that make a modern education what it’s supposed to be. But of course, the mounting expenses remain.





Universities planning any kind of “in-person” instruction push for plans that are unrecommended, unrealistic, and unsustainable. In Spring 2020, like most schools, business was running smoothly until the panic raced its way through the country faster than the virus. All schools were forced to close down and make an ungraceful switch to online instruction. In May, immediately following the campus closure, my school, the University of Portland announced plans for in-person instruction for the Fall semester of 2020.

Even in the worst of times, my university was staunch on their original plans. They told students that in-person/hybrid instruction took up every ounce of their time and effort. Yet, when involved in the creation of said plans, the lack of organization was shocking. There was never a backup plan. There was never an acknowledgment of what could be. There was only a desperate desire to convince students that in-person instruction was feasible.

As I spoke with faculty and administrators personally over the summer, their evaluations of the situation consistently contradicted that of the public plan. Most of whom I spoke to were in full confidence that an online switch was inevitable. The odd thing was when I spoke to friends, peers, and students from UP, none of them had a clue that an online transition was even possible. Every school-wide email throughout the summer spoke only of in-person instruction, leaving out any and all transparency to those that give thousands of dollars to this institution. It wasn’t until 3 days before our tuition deadline that the school announced a fully online pivot, while in tandem asking for full-priced tuition. This has sent each of UP’s 4,000 students into chaos as they struggle to salvage their plans and their money. My university waited until the last possible second to tell the truth to their students as they soaked up every dollar they could. Many other universities are attempting to do the same.

If your school is anything like mine, they are planning to charge full-priced tuition, or even increase it. My university has increased tuition a whopping 18% over the last four years, totaling an increase of over $7,500 per student. Such a drastic hike in prices is completely unacceptable in any case… yet during a pandemic, this is an example of systemic corruption. “Why are schools doing this?”, you might ask. The answer is one word: greed. Students want transparency; this should not be too much to ask for when they are expending tens of thousands of dollars each year to their university. After contributing so much to their institution, there is a clear expectation that students and their finances will be respected. The unspoken moral contract signed when a student commits to their school has been broken. Fraudulent behavior by universities will not be tolerated.

As an Executive Board member in my school’s Student Government, I have had the privilege of meeting with countless administrators and professors; most of whom agree that any form of in-person schooling will not be sustained for even 3 weeks, sending Universities into a frenzy similar to the traumatic chaos of COVID Spring 2020. This said, schools are knowingly stealing students’ money without an ounce of transparency.

Most institutions have an invoice tuition deadline in August, just days away. Many universities, like mine, are likely planning to charge full/increased tuition for this Fall for online education, without even an asterisk next to 2020. The full truth is hidden to the student populace.

Universities fully know that a 100% online switch is not only guaranteed, but inevitable. COVID-19 continues to surge and escalate around the US, as we are setting new records for deaths/cases daily. Colleges are aware of this and what it will do to their finances, yet, sadly enough, they care more about their wallets than the health of their students.

Blatant disregard for student well-being has been uncovered through COVID-19, and it seems that schools are likely to blame their students for the inevitable online switch. In an article published by The AtlanticThe Atlantic, students will “get infected, universities will rebuke them for it; campuses will close, students will be blamed.”1 There is no feasible way that students could be monitored for their behavior, no matter how careful the collective student body is. Universities are planning to put their students at risk in order to make their ends meet, and they are under the assumption that they can get away with it; which, terrifyingly enough, they most likely will.

It must be said that many universities function just like businesses. They provide jobs for thousands of employees, they donate to greater causes, and they offer services to their entire community. However, just like any other business, they should not be allowed to get away with scheming and conniving practices. College is already absurdly difficult to afford, and when those same institutions that charge thousands of dollars lie to their students, it turns educating into profiteering. I, along with many other students and university staff, cannot imagine a scenario where this “in-person/hybrid” model operates and achieves its intended purpose. It is too much to ask of students to decide between continuing their education like “normal” under unprecedented circumstances, and keeping themselves, their peers, and their loved ones safe. I hear every day that students have felt robbed of their money from colleges pre-pandemic, yet now that universities are making empty promises and spewing white lies, this by many students is considered theft of the highest degree. I understand schools need to keep tuition prices high to keep up with increasing housing prices and economic inflation, but now is not the time to play games with the financial status of thousands.

Students across the country that rely on their school for services such as housing, food, and healthcare access are now left wondering, what’s next? It disturbs me to know that universities would put their finances before the well-being of their community. Students are being treated like pawns in a chess match, and administrators don’t think they have the power to fight back. Now, students are left scrambling for answers. Those that have had their universities come out with honesty in this situation are scrambling to change their plans and figure out their next steps, with classes just weeks away. This leaves another group of students that blissfully believe their untruthful university, only to be ripped of all hope and tuition just weeks into the school year.

Many universities have largely untapped funds that are saved for emergencies or prominent projects, yet many of those same universities have not come out with plans to use those funds in what seems like a substantial emergency. In no way do I want to shut down any school, but I cannot stand idly by while students are getting ripped off left and right, not at all receiving what they set out to pay for. By refusing to lower tuition, universities are knowingly exacerbating the equity gap in today’s education system.

I find it wrong that universities feel that they can bleed the pockets of their students in the face of a global pandemic. Students pay for the experience, the activities, the events, the community: not just the education. To charge the full price for something the buyer did not intend to purchase is unethical. Colleges need to roll back any increases in their tuition, tap into their emergency funds, and lower the cost of tuition especially for those in financial distress.

To every student: this news is daunting, yet there is a better way forward and this is possible to navigate. I urge each affected individual to consider their options at hand. Reach out to your academic advisor and financial aid office to see what alternatives are available, and act accordingly.

I, for example, am planning to take part-time courses this semester, while working part-time. I am doing this because:

a.) I choose to save thousands of dollars.

b.) I cannot afford private school tuition for online classes.

c.) I refuse to let my University rob me of my money.

My decision is in no way a one-size-fits-all option, but it is possible for some. I am able to say that my scholarships and financial aid will stay intact due to my school’s policies, although I cannot say the same for others. This said, I highly encourage you to look at what is presented in front of you, and assess all your options. Reflect hard about if your school is being honest with you and question their motives. Evaluate what makes the most sense for you. You and your friends’ emotional and financial well-beings are at stake, at risk, and in the hands of your lying university. Take the power back.


“Drew Jones is a student and the Speaker of the Senate at the University of Portland. You can send feedback on his piece to his Instagram account here.

  • Getting outside despite your 9‑to‑5 job can improve your mental health – here’s how to spend time in nature during and around working hours
    Photo credit: Todd Lookingbill Urban parks are great places to soak in the outdoors without planning an elaborate trip.

    The modern workday unfolds largely indoors. Long hours spent commuting, sitting in meetings and staring at screens can make time outdoors feel like a luxury. Finding time for nature in an already packed workday can feel impossible, especially if you think nature only “counts” when it involves hiking boots and camping gear.

    But a growing body of research suggests that nature’s benefits don’t require an exotic vacation getaway or weekend adventure. Even brief, routine interactions with green space can reduce stressimprove mood and promote overall well-being.

    I spent the spring of 2026 teaching and studying urban landscapes in Denmark, a country consistently ranked among the happiest in the world. I expected to find thoughtfully designed parks, courtyards and bicycle paths. I did see those things. But what surprised me was how seamlessly people moved through those spaces as part of their ordinary lives.

    These green spaces weren’t aspirational destinations, reserved for special occasions. They were places to eat lunch, meet friends, walk through on the way home from work, or just pause for a few quiet moments. Getting outside seemed a part of the natural rhythm of the day.

    Denmark‘s outdoor culture stemmed not only from the creation of a meticulously planned network of parks, but also from the way green spaces were fundamentally woven into the routines of everyday life.

    A wooden bench in an outdoor park
    A wooden bench in one of Copenhagen’s forest therapy parks invites people to sit and soak in their surroundings. Todd Lookingbill

    Everyday parks, everyday benefits

    Evidence linking time spent in nature with health benefits has increasingly shaped public policy. In the U.S., for example, the National Park Service’s Healthy Parks Healthy People and ParkRx initiatives reflect a growing recognition that access to parks contributes to well-being.

    For many Americans, however, the word “park” brings to mind iconic national parks such as Yellowstone, Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Yet visiting parks of all kinds can improve your overall health. The greatest public health value may come not from the parks people visit once in a lifetime but from those close enough to visit again and again.

    My own research on Civil War battlefield parks illustrates this point. These are parks that were established to commemorate historic conflicts that were frequently fought on the fringes of major metropolitan areas. Consequently, many of these landscapes preserve forests, grasslands and trails within easy reach of millions of Americans.

    Because they’re accessible without extensive travel or planning, they can become places people return to repeatedly – such as during a lunch break or after work. Reframing the notion of “park” opens up millions of acres of land for everyday uses.

    Designing for everyday nature

    At the University of Richmond, where I work, a stream restoration projects became an opportunity to rethink how nature fits into campus life. Landscape architects designed an Eco-Corridor, as the project became known. It has walking paths, gathering spaces and seating areas for quiet reflection alongside flowing streams and native vegetation.

    The result was a landscape that supports biodiversity and improves water quality while also creating places for students, faculty and staff to walk between meetings, eat lunch alfresco or spend a few quiet moments outside during the workday. Its ongoing care depends on an army of volunteers who spread mulch, remove invasive plants and tend the community garden. For these volunteers, stewardship between classes and meetings meant another opportunity to interact with nature.

    A group of young people walking along a concrete path lined with trees and shrubbery.
    Students walk through the ‘Eco-Corridor’ at the University of Richmond. Haley Herrmann

    What we learned was that nature doesn’t have to compete with work, studying or everyday responsibilities. Thoughtful landscape design can make spending time outdoors, even if only for a few short minutes, feel like a normal part of the day.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: CanvaResearchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty ImagesWhat kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and DenmarkFrance and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as educationsocializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-beingautonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Health Stories

Research

New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters

Health

May cause joy: The full-spectrum health benefits of dance