Colleges must evolve into innovation hubs by embedding experiential learning and industry collaboration into their core, which requires rewarding creativity, agility and cross-functional teamwork across the institution. In this interview, Jerry Rhead discusses institutionalizing industry collaboration and experiential learning in curricula while overcoming structural barriers to foster entrepreneurial mindsets in higher education.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): How can colleges and universities institutionalize collaboration with industry to evolve from just knowledge transmitters to an actual innovation incubator?
Jerry Rhead (JR): Most institutions already engage with industry to some extent through partnerships that align with areas of expertise, faculty connections or advisory boards. Some of those boards may be more ceremonial than functional, but both have value. The real opportunity lies in leveraging those relationships to embed meaningful, experiential learning into curricula.
Internships, co-ops and real-world projects are great examples, but we shouldn’t treat them as extras or one-offs. Too often, they’re seen as cool add-ons rather than integral parts of the student experience. When corporate partners get involved in shaping curricula and helping define competencies, the impact can be substantial. It brings in perspectives that faculty might not otherwise encounter and makes the learning more relevant.
But to truly institutionalize this kind of collaboration, colleges and universities need to rethink what they recognize and reward, especially in promotion and tenure. Faculty doing innovative, interdisciplinary or community-based work often don’t get formal credit for it. If institutions want to evolve from knowledge transmitters to innovation incubators, they need to acknowledge and support that work at a systemic level. You get what you reward, and innovation should be one of those things.
Evo: In what ways can experiential learning both inside and outside the classroom be redesigned to mirror the agility of entrepreneurial environments?
JR: It starts with a mindset shift. There’s this lingering perception that academic rigor and experiential, entrepreneurial-style learning are at odds, but they don’t have to be. We need to rethink and redefine what rigor means and see how iteration, exploration and even failure can be legitimate, valuable parts of the learning process.
In entrepreneurial environments, learning often happens through doing—through trial, error and discovery. If we can design academic experiences that mirror that process, focusing more on process than just predetermined outcomes, we create space for real growth. It’s about valuing the journey, not just the result.
That means shifting from product-based learning models to process-oriented design and embracing competencies that already exist in the entrepreneurial world—things like adaptability, creativity and problem solving. These aren’t new ideas, so let’s build them into our curricula, into how we assess students and into our rubrics.
This isn’t a trip to Mars. It’s a matter of realigning what we value in education and building experiences that reflect those values. If we want students to be agile, resilient and innovative, we need to design learning environments that nurture exactly those skills.
Evo: What structural barriers exist within academic governance that inhibit entrepreneurial thinking, and how can cross-functional teams overcome those barriers?
JR: A major barrier is siloing—limited collaboration across academic units. Some institutions reward interdisciplinary work, but many don’t. Without recognition or incentive, it’s hard to justify the extra effort. It’s easier to collaborate within your department, where relationships and trust already exist. But reaching across to another college? That takes initiative and usually goes unrewarded.
Higher ed is also extremely risk averse. Compliance, accreditation and governance structures often discourage experimentation. Even faculty with big ideas struggle to implement them because innovation isn’t built into the systems of recognition like promotion or tenure are. You end up relying on personally motivated individuals carrying the weight alone.
Leadership adds another layer. Many presidents, provosts or chancellors are steeped in academic tradition and may not have experience with fast-moving, innovative environments. Without direct exposure to those models, there’s hesitation. You can present best practices all day, but the real shift happens when leaders see or experience the impact firsthand.
The pace of change is unforgiving, especially in tech. By the time new ideas make it through curriculum approval, the original innovation might already be obsolete. We need more agility, collaboration and structural support to keep up.
Evo: How can faculty and administrators balance academic rigor and risk-taking without compromising learner outcomes?
JR: It really comes down to a mindset shift. Some institutions might fast-track things with leadership mandates, setting goals like creating X number of innovative learning models by a certain date. But real change requires building cross-functional stakeholder teams—faculty, students, industry and community partners—who can shape models together.
People often don’t believe something works until they see it firsthand. You can show examples from peer institutions, but until stakeholders experience the impact for themselves, the skepticism remains. These collaborative teams can serve as change cells, helping navigate outdated policies and shift thinking internally without completely upending existing systems.
It’s not about throwing away academic rigor but aligning creativity and innovation with strategy and functionality. When others see that these new approaches lead to better outcomes, they’re more likely to try them too. Over time the examples multiply, and the culture shifts.
Ultimately, for this to stick, institutions need data. Anecdotal evidence and qualitative feedback help, but real staying power comes from quantitative proof that risk-taking and innovation are improving learner outcomes. That’s what convinces people it’s not just possible but worth it.
Evo: What role should technology play in scaling the entrepreneurial mindset across these diverse learner personas?
JR: First off, it’s important to remember that technology isn’t the solution but the enabler. It amplifies what you’re already trying to do, but it can’t replace the core of entrepreneurial learning. That said, technology plays a huge role in scaling mindsets across diverse learners.
For example, when piloting an entrepreneurial course, a lot of the coaching, feedback and support might fall on faculty or staff, but that becomes hard to sustain as you expand. Technology, especially adaptive platforms and AI, can offer timely feedback, coaching and assessment support. It helps make the learning experience scalable without doubling the number of teaching assistants.
Technology also supports iterative learning. It allows students to fail, adapt and try again with real-time insights. Faculty may only be able to give limited feedback during a term, but a tech tool can step in between those touchpoints, offering reflection and direction.
You Might Also Like
