@crglass

Director, Executive Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Higher Education @BostonCollege | AI, Global Change & the Long Work of Leading Well

Boston, MA
Joined June 2009
A university that defines its purpose around whatever machines cannot yet do will see its mission shrink with every model release. That was my challenge at last week's @Foundation_FAST panel on Armenia's AI future, alongside Nobel Prize-winning economist Daron Acemoglu, Microsoft Research VP and Distinguished Scientist Nicolo Fusi, and investor Harry Glorikian. @DAcemogluMIT's Building Pro-Worker AI (2026), with David Autor and Simon Johnson, argues that shared prosperity requires directing AI toward expanding expertise and creating new tasks. Automation alone will not deliver it. @nfusi works on autonomous scientific discovery. Yet he asked what happens when a scientific community cannot absorb the results and build on them. My argument: judgment is social. It forms within disciplinary communities that cultivate scientific taste. Daisy Christodoulou rejects the premise of “transferable skills”: critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving depend on domain knowledge. No generic exercise can teach them across every field. Generic “AI literacy” and “AI fluency” risk repeating the same mistake. @HGlorikian, author of The Invisible Interface (Simon & Schuster), emphasized decision-making and adding friction to thinking. I brought in Howard Gardner's Five Minds for the Future: thinking “outside the box” requires knowing a discipline well enough to recognize its limits and push beyond them. Fundamentals give imagination something to work with. This is where even strong AI taskforce reports fall short. They rightly defend judgment, but often leave it generic, without emphasizing the disciplinary aspects of it. Many reports frame education as “human skills” versus “AI skills” puts people and machines on a single cognitive scale. The deeper questions involve telos – what education is for. As @jennfrey argued in her conversation with Ross Douthat, defending liberal education through employable “soft skills” reduces it to workforce training and undermines the human formation it promises. @cwellmon goes further in After the University (JHU Press): the university has turned higher learning into a credentialing system, displacing the goods of study with status and economic returns. Defending intellectual life may require building homes for it beyond the university. Universities must ask what is worth wanting, not just what is possible. Beyond cognitive development (or “debt”), I emphasized three overlooked aspects of learning: * Agency: the capacity to shape our futures, individually and collectively. * Metacognition: examining how we think, including what we delegate to AI. * Aesthetics: cultivating a sense of what is worth creating and why. Pope Leo XIV described the need for “new maps of hope” — “Educating is an act of hope and a passion that is renewed because it manifests the promise we see in the future of humanity.” This is what’s missing in many conversations on AI and the future of the university. Suzanna Shamakhyan (FAST) asked how we prepare young people for uncertainty? A good question. Thank you to Suzanna and Armen Mkrtchyan for guiding the conversation, and to FAST and Flagship Pioneering for bringing us together.
1
2
161
Chris R. Glass, PhD retweeted
Replying to @buxwal
Agree. I included your tweet in my analysis of the report. There's much is admire in its boldness but also areas where careful calibration is needed. High-skilled immigration is one of those, I believe. Great to see work from @IFP cited so much in it. chrisrglass.substack.com/p/p…
1
1
3
120
Critics see a reckless restructuring of American science. The White House sees a renaissance that returns science to Vannevar Bush’s aims. My new analysis takes both seriously. What does Science: A New Golden Age get right, and what does it miss? 👉 open.substack.com/pub/chrisr…
234
The metascience movement just moved from theory to practice. For decades, federal science has been "bonds"—safe, steady R01s. Tech Labs introduces "equity"—big bets on teams, not papers. Institutional diversity at scale. "Huge, if it works." — @tylercowen
NSF is launching one of the most ambitious experiments in federal science funding in 75 years. The program is called Tech Labs, and the goal is to invest ~$1 billion to seed new institutions of science and technology for the 21st century. Instead of funding projects, the NSF will fund teams. I’m in the @WSJ today with a piece on why this matters (gift link): wsj.com/opinion/science-fund… Here’s the basic case: 1) Most federal science funding takes the form of small, incremental, project-based grants to individual scientists at universities. 2) The typical NSF grant is ~$250k/year to a professor with a couple of grad students and modest equipment over a few years. This is a perfectly reasonable way to fund some science, but it's not the only way. 3) A healthy portfolio needs more than one instrument. Project-based grants are like bonds: low-risk, steady, safe. But no one trying to maximize long-run returns would put 70% of their portfolio in bonds. 4) Yet that's basically what our civilian science funding portfolio looks like. Around 3/4ths of NSF and NIH grant funding is project-based. 5) Tech Labs is NSF's attempt to diversify that portfolio. The Tech Labs program is aiming for: - $10-50 million/year awards per team - 5+ year commitments - Measuring impact through advancement up the Tech Readiness Level scale rather than papers published - Up to ~$1 billion for the program - Supporting research orgs outside traditional university structures 6) Scientific production looks very different than it did when the NSF launched 75 years ago. The lone genius at the chalkboard can only do so much. Frontier science + tech today is increasingly team-based, interdisciplinary, and infrastructure-intensive. 7) The team behind AlphaFold just won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. It came from DeepMind, an AI lab with sustained institutional funding and full-time research teams. It would be near-impossible to fund this kind of work on a 3-year academic grant. 8) Same pattern at the @arcinstitute (8-year appointments, cross-cutting technical support teams) and @HHMIJanelia (massive infrastructure investments to map the complete fly brain). Ambitious science increasingly needs core institutional support, not a series of project grants stapled together. 9) Similarly, Focused Research Organizations (@Convergent_FROs) have showcased a new model supporting teams with concrete missions and predefined milestones to unlock new funding. 10) There’s a whole ecosystem of philanthropically-supported centers doing amazing research, like the Institute for Protein Design, the Allen Institute, the Flatiron Institute, the Whitehead Institute, the Wyss Institute, the Broad — the list goes on. 11) But philanthropy can’t reshape American science alone. The federal government spends close to $200 billion each year on research and development, an order of magnitude more than even the largest foundations. 12) If we want to change how science gets done at scale, federal funding has to evolve. And the NSF and NIH don’t have dedicated funding mechanisms to support or seed these sorts of organizations. 13) Earlier this year, I started working on a related framework called “X-Labs” that built on all this exciting institutional experimentation that’s been happening within the private and philanthropic sectors. It’s time for the federal government to step into the arena: rebuilding.tech/posts/launch… 14) Traditional university grants are still important for training the next generation of scientists and for certain kinds of curiosity-driven work. But after 75 years of putting nearly everything into one model, we should try something different. 15) And key program details are still being developed! You can reply to the Request for Information with suggestions or feedback on how to design this program here: nsf.gov/news/nsf-announces-n… 16) Science is supposed to be about experimentation. Science funding should be too.
1
354
Chris R. Glass, PhD retweeted
In today’s @washingtonpost I argue the U.S. cannot assume top scientists will wait for a slow, uncertain visa system. If we want to lead in AI & quantum, we need a talent strategy: modernize Schedule A, unlock O-1A, and expand NIWs for STEM PhDs washingtonpost.com/opinions/…
2
2
10
1,726
In today’s @washingtonpost I argue the U.S. cannot assume top scientists will wait for a slow, uncertain visa system. If we want to lead in AI & quantum, we need a talent strategy: modernize Schedule A, unlock O-1A, and expand NIWs for STEM PhDs washingtonpost.com/opinions/…
2
2
10
1,726
Excellent resource on OPT 👉
1/ OPT OBSERVATORY I’ve spent the past year creating *the most in-depth public resource* on how the US retains international students after they graduate. Today, @IFP is releasing never-before-seen data we obtained from ICE via FOIA. Check it out: optobservatory.org
1
7
541
Chris R. Glass, PhD retweeted
The new Trump H-1B rule just dropped! It prioritizes DOL "Wage Levels," not real wages. DOL thinks an experienced acupuncturist making $40k is a higher "Wage Level" than an early-career AI scientist making $280k. That means more visas for outsourcers, fewer for real talent.
In the next few days, the Trump administration is going to propose a new regulation changing the H-1B lottery. The big question I'm watching: will DHS prioritize the highest earners or so-called DOL "Wage Levels"? Here's why it matters: 🧵
75
204
97
1,473
943,112
Four Eras of International Student Mobility (1945-2025): Multipolar Securitization, Strategic Education Blocs, and the Rise of Middle Powers @CRGlass & Ekaterina Minaeva doi.org/10.25774/jghe.v1i1.3…
1
1
127
Katya Minaeva argues the global EdTech ecosystem is a “digital blind spot” intl education can’t ignore in her provocative new piece, “Degrees of Separation.” 🔗 distributedprogress.substack… We debated for hours—agree or not, sparking big conversation is the point! 💡🌍
1
2
120
Chris R. Glass, PhD retweeted
NEW: The U.S. government underreported the number of international students on American campuses last year by more than 200,000 — an error that made it appear that overseas enrollments were falling when in fact there was steady growth. chronicle.com/newsletter/lat…
2
1
4
586
I shared my analysis with Swiss Broadcasting Corporation 👉
2
5
510
Are we on the brink of a transformative shift in the higher education landscape? Join Dr. Pedro Teixeira for a lecture discussing emerging trends in Higher Education: inequalities in access, debates on the value, tech. advancements, and the public trust in universities.
1
1
244
Olga used the term “long will” in our first conversation. It’s captured my imagination ever since. Cohort 2 embodies it. 🧵
1
1
3
273
Our #ExecEdD graduates are scholar-leaders with “long will”. This isn’t just a strength they’ve shown over the past three years. It’s a spirit they carry into a moment when higher education is under pressure on all sides. 🎓 Congratulations, Cohort 2 — Class of 2025!
1
2
81
You have not only completed a degree. You have become scholars in the fullest sense: Rooted in skholē, guided by imagination and intelligence, Committed to standing in the tragic gap where transformation begins.
4
82