Thursday, October 10, 2024

Ambow's HybriU. Is any of this real?

Ambow Education is at it again, pumping up its stock with another edtech business deal. This time, they sent out a press release that a Singapore company called Inspiring Futures has reached a $1.3M deal for licensing Ambow's 3D learning platform HybriU. Shares of AMBO soared more than 200 percent on the news. In April, Ambow appeared at the ASU+GSV conference to pitch its latest technology. 

The Ambow Sales Pitch for HybriU 

"HybriU is currently the only available 5-in-1 total solution. It seamlessly integrates AI—empowering five key domains: teaching, learning, connectivity, recording, and management—along with lecture capture, immersive technology, and a comprehensive management platform designed specifically for the education sector. HybriU delivers a unified learning experience that transcends the boundaries of both online and offline education, bridges language and regional divides, and connects academia with industry."

"HybriU's cutting-edge 3D solution includes 3D signal capture, recording, transformation, and remote display capabilities. It supports broadcasting life-sized 3D projections of professors in remote classrooms via a 3D LED wall, enabling a highly immersive learning experience. Learners can engage in their native language while interacting with the 3D content, making the platform accessible and effective across diverse linguistic and regional boundaries."

But is any of this technology real? We know of no schools currently using HybriU.  And there are no video presentations available online. We have reached out to experts in edtech to evaluate Ambow's claims for the technology and will provide a follow up when we learn more. 

Inspiring Futures? 

Inspiring Futures, the Singapore company that made the deal with Ambow for licensing HibriU, was created four months ago and employs three people. Its headquarters is in an outlet mall. 

Ambow also operates out of a small space in Cupertino, California, after its move from the People's Republic of China. Ambow still owns and operates NewSchool, a real college in San Diego, California, that has been declining in enrollment.    

Labor, Big Tech, and A.I.: The Big Picture (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies)



Wednesday, October 30, 2024

1:00pm - 2:30pm

Lunch will be served. Free and open to all.25 West 43rd Street, 18th floor, New York, NY 10036 (map)

*In-person* only in Midtown Manhattan.

REGISTER:

https://slucuny.swoogo.com/30October2024/register

Join us for a conversation with Alex N. Press, staff writer at Jacobin magazine and Edward Ongweso Jr., senior researcher at Security in Context and a co-host of the podcast This Machine Kills; moderated by New Labor Forum Editor-at-Large Micah Uetricht.

The discussion will address major issues confronting the labor movement with the development and use of artificial intelligence, surveillance, automation of work generally, and the rise of Big Tech’s control over large segments of the U.S. workforce. This conversation is the first in what will be an ongoing series focusing on the impact of Big Tech and AI on the labor movement and strategies for organizing to build worker power.

Presented in collaboration with New Labor Forum (NLF), this program connects to the fall 2024 issue of NLF, which features the special section, “Labor and the Uncertain Future of Artificial Intelligence,” and includes the article, “How the U.S. Labor Movement Is Confronting A.I.,” by Alex N. Press.

Speaker Bios:

Edward Ongweso Jr. is a senior researcher at Security in Context and a co-host of This Machine Kills, a podcast about the political economy of technology. His work has appeared in The Guardian, Baffler, Logic(s), Nation, Dissent, Vice, and elsewhere.

Alex N. Press is a staff writer at Jacobin magazine. Her writing has appeared in New Labor Forum, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Nation, among other places, and she is currently writing her first book, What We Will: How American Labor Woke Up.

Micah Uetricht is Editor-at-Large of New Labor Forum, a national labor journal produced by the Murphy Institute at CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies and host of SLU’s podcast Reinventing Solidarity. Uetricht is also the editor of Jacobin and the author of two books: Strike for America: Chicago Teachers Against Austerity; and Bigger than Bernie: How We Go from the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism (co-authored by Meagan Day).

REGISTER:

https://slucuny.swoogo.com/30October2024/register

TWICV special with Ashley Kern from Sightline (Gary Stocker, College Viability)


Sightline data focuses on creating data-based solutions to improve college and university operations, while trying to make education more accessible and affordable for college students everywhere.

In this episode of This Week in College Viability, Ashley Kern discusses: • Data enterpreneurs in higher ed and their impact • The FAFSA Debacle • The Sightline niche • Market analysis services • Using data to improve graduation rates.

SightLine is a nationally certified Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE) and Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB).

SUNY and CUNY Faculty Support HELU Statement of "Unity for the Future of Higher Education"



Three Executive Committees for the faculty governance bodies of the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY) today pledged their strong support for the “Statement of Unity for the Future of Higher Ed,” which was issued by Higher Education Labor United (HELU) and eleven national unions, from AFSCME to NEA to SEIU to UAW, that represent campus workers. These three Executive Committees, which lead and represent

● the SUNY University Faculty Senate (SUNY UFS), the system-wide shared governance organization for SUNY’s state-operated and statutory campuses (Keith Landa, President);

● the SUNY Faculty Council of Community Colleges (SUNY FCCC), the system-wide shared governance organization for SUNY’s community colleges (Candice Vacin, President); and

● the CUNY University Faculty Senate (CUNY UFS), the system-wide governance organization for CUNY’s 11 senior colleges, seven community colleges, and seven graduate, honors, and professional schools (John Verzani, President); released the following joint statement:

We endorse the HELU “Statement of Unity for the Future of Higher Ed” and urge SUNY Chancellor John B. King, Jr., CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, SUNY Board of Trustees Chair Merryl Tisch, CUNY Board of Trustees Chair William C. Thompson, Jr., and Governor Kathy Hochul to join the American Federation of Teachers, the American Association of University Professors, nine other national unions, United University Professions, SUNY UFS, SUNY FCCC, and CUNY UFS in calling on the Harris/Walz campaign (and, indeed, all presidential candidates and campaigns) to commit to investing in public higher education like the public good it is.

We urge Chancellors King and Matos Rodríguez, Chairs Tisch and Thompson, and Governor Hochul to call on the New York State Congressional delegation to set an example by uniting to maximize federal investments in SUNY and CUNY; expand student access to, and the affordability of, public higher education; and enhance working conditions and worker protections on every campus.

We urge Chancellors King and Matos Rodríguez, Chairs Tisch and Thompson, and Governor Hochul to make New York State the national leader in college affordability and in advancing the mission of public higher education. We encourage Governor Hochul to take the national stage with the boldest Executive Budget proposal for SUNY’s 64 campuses and CUNY’s 25 campuses in New York State history in State Fiscal Year 2026 (SFY26).

SUNY UFS, SUNY FCCC, and CUNY UFS will be proposing SFY26 Executive Budget Resolutions for approval at our Fall 2024 Plenaries. The proposed resolutions will lay out our case that increased state support for each SUNY and CUNY institution is needed to promote student access and success, to make SUNY and CUNY the world-class public higher education systems that they can be, and to super-charge regional economic and workforce development. We pledge to continue building broad public support for SUNY and CUNY on the ground that these public higher education systems advance the public good by transforming our students’ and patients’ lives and future prospects.

To that end, SUNY UFS, SUNY FCC, SUNY, and CUNY are organizing the national conference Public Good U: Strengthening the Case for Public Higher Education in Albany, February 7-9, 2025, and encourage all stakeholders to attend.

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

Shall we all pretend we didn't see it coming, again?: higher education, climate change, climate refugees, and climate denial by elites

Can US higher education do much to reduce climate change, either as a leader or as a teacher?  The answer so far is no. That's not to say that there aren't universities (like Rutgers) doing outstanding climate change research or students concerned about the planet's future. There are. But that research and resistance is outweighed by those who control higher education, trustees and endowment managers, and their financial interests. 

While devastating occurrences like Hurricane Helene (and possibly Hurricane Milton) serve as high-rated entertainment, news coverage also makes the stakes seemingly more visible to those who are not directly affected. 

For many, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, and heat waves are quickly forgotten or remembered merely as single acts of god or seasonal anomalies, not as ongoing acts of greedy rich men. And melting icebergs and disappearing islands are something most Americans don't see, at least firsthand. Generations of data and information are ignored by those who are poorly educated and those who claim to be educated, but uneducated morally. 

Predictions of more global conflicts and an estimated 1.2 billion climate chaos refugees are barely mentioned in the news, but they are looming.   


Related links: 

Thinking about climate change and international study (Bryan Alexander)

Tuesday, October 8, 2024

20-year UVA law school librarian forced to seek redress from President Jim Ryan; defending the right to protest in the face of illegal disciplinary action

Contact: Ben Doherty, 434-282-9009

Charlottesville - On Saturday, May 4th, Ben Doherty (they/them) joined hundreds of UVA co-workers, students and community-members protesting for university leadership to divest from Israel’s war-machine.

Not only do Ben and coworkers have a demonstrable right to protest under the law, it’s also the case that UVA as a public institution has legal restrictions that prevent it from infringing on such rights. However, in response to this May 4 protest, UVA law school leadership issued Ben a “Letter of Counseling.” Letter of Counseling refers to an optional first step in discipline by the VA Department of Human Resources Management’s Standards of Conduct which has jurisdiction over UVA.

On June 25th, Ben was joined by coworkers on a delegation where they asserted the need for UVA to accept its legal restrictions and honor Ben’s right to protest. In response to this delegation, the UVA law school’s Assoc. Dean sent an email to Ben indicating, “a letter of counseling is not a disciplinary action.” However the email also sent mixed messages that were out of step with DHRM requirements. The Asst. Dean would not categorically agree that the result of ruling it not discipline is by extension ruling it unable to be referenced in any future cumulative evaluation or attempts at termination. The Asst. Dean encouraged Ben to take a one-on-one with Dean Leslie Kendrick. However, that meeting on July 12th did not resolve anything.

The unwillingness to comply with Ben’s rights is a risk not only for Ben but for their coworkers as well. That’s why Ben and their team have decided that the issue must be brought to the attention of UVA President Jim Ryan. Ben will lead a delegation to President Jim Ryan’s office tomorrow Wednesday, Oct. 9th at 1pm.

***

What: Delegation to President Jim Ryan

When: Wednesday, Oct. 9th, 1pm.

Where: Launching from Gingko Tree (b/w Rotunda & Chapel), UVA Campus 145 McCormick Rd.

***
Please see below: Full statement from the UCW-UVA’s campaign committee to defeat retaliation.

On Wednesday, October 9 at 1:00pm, United Campus Workers-University of Virginia (UCW) will rally to “say no to retaliation” outside of Madison Hall at the University of Virginia. UCW has chosen that location to tell UVA President Jim Ryan that it will not accept retaliation against any workers for exercising their right to protest.

On May 4, 2024 the University of Virginia administrators sent in riot police to violently break up the encampment for Palestine. After attacking the protesters with shields and chemical weapons, the police arrested 27 people. One of the people arrested was Ben Doherty (they/them pronouns), a librarian who has worked at the law school for over 20 years. Like the other arrestees, Ben was charged with criminal trespass–a charge that was later dismissed; and given a No Trespass Order barring them from campus–which was also soon rescinded since Ben was not an actual threat to anyone at the university.

However–in addition to the police violence, dismissed criminal charges, and rescinded No Trespass Order–on May 21, 2024, the law school issued a “letter of counseling” to Ben. The letter mischaracterizes Ben’s lawful protest against genocide in Palestine as insubordination and explains that “future conduct of this kind, whether at the Law School or elsewhere at the University, will very likely result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.” That is now the second “letter of counseling” the law school has placed in Ben’s employment record, the first being in 2018 when Ben objected to the presence in the law library of one of the main organizers of the white nationalist Unite the Right rally who was harassing people in the law school, and whom the University had failed to issue a No Trespass Order.

Workers everywhere have a right to protest and the United Campus Workers will collectively oppose any retaliation against workers for exercising that right. The University cannot be allowed to illegally chill anyone’s right to protest against genocide. UCW has already raised its concerns about this illegal and chilling discipline twice earlier this summer, and now is asking Jim Ryan to stop this retaliation threatening Ben’s termination for engaging in their right to protest as a member of the world community.

Quote from Ben Doherty: “In 2017 and 2018, I was present when University administrators did nothing to protect UVA students, staff and community members from blatant white nationalist violence and harassment. In 2024, I was also present when University administrators sent violent riot police in to attack and arrest people protesting against genocide in Palestine. In both cases, University leadership failures fell on the backs of students, workers and community members. To cover these failures, the University wants to keep people quiet and we all must work collectively to push back against University retaliation designed to chill our right to protest injustice.”

Gary Broderick
UCW-VA Lead Organizer
804-347-4942



GOP Attorneys General Shop for Judges in Effort to Crush Student Loan Debtors (David Halperin, Republic Report)

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.] 

When a federal trial judge in St. Louis issued an order last week blocking the latest Biden-Harris administration student loan relief plan, the Republican state attorneys general who filed the case gleefully celebrated yet another court victory over Americans struggling to pay their college debts. But those GOP AGs apparently don’t want to discuss the route by which the case arrived in Missouri: They seemingly tried to hand-pick a federal judge in coastal Georgia to hear their complaint, only to have that judge, a close associate of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, mysteriously recuse from the matter, and then have a second Georgia federal judge, after granting temporary relief, ship the case to St. Louis.

Let’s break all that down.

On October 3, U.S. District Judge Matthew T. Schelp of the Eastern District of Missouri issued a preliminary injunction barring the Department of Education from implementing proposed regulations to provide student debt relief to several major categories of borrowers, including those who owe more than they first borrowed because of mounting interest, those who have made payments for more than 20 years, and those whose schools failed to offer them “sufficient financial value.” The Biden administration estimated the new rules would completely cancel student debt for 4 million people and erase accrued interest for 23 million.

Judge Schelp held that the GOP AGs were likely to succeed on their claim that the Department of Education lacked the legal authority to cancel all this debt without authorization from Congress.

The ruling was another notable case of extreme judicial activism by supposedly “conservative” judges; Schelp, unusually, struck down the proposed rule before the Department of Education had even finalized it.

Persis Yu, Deputy Executive Director and Managing Counsel at the non-profit Student Borrower Protection Center, said in a statement that Judge Schelp’s ruling was marked by “a dearth of legal reasoning.”

But Judge Schelp, a Donald Trump appointee, is not the first federal judge to handle the latest case in the month since it was filed. He is, remarkably, the fifth.

Led by Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey, and that state’s solicitor general, Josh Divine, the states of Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, and Ohio filed the lawsuit, against the education department, on September 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, and specifically in that court’s division based in Brunswick, Georgia, on the state’s east coast, close to the Florida state line.

The Brunswick Division has exactly one U.S. District Judge: Lisa Godbey Wood, appointed by George W. Bush.

The Georgia attorney general’s office tends to file its significant federal lawsuits in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta. So why was this action to nullify major student debt relief filed in Brunswick, when the Georgia AG doesn’t even have staff there and had to rely on a private local lawyer to assist? There was always the risk that a case filed in Atlanta would be assigned to a judge skeptical of the Republican AGs’ effort to void debt relief, including whether the AGs would have legal standing to contest the action. Perhaps the GOP AGs thought Judge Wood was a better bet to do what they wanted.

But the same day that the case was filed, Judge Wood issued a two-sentence order recusing herself and transferring the case to R. Stan Baker, Chief Judge of the Southern District of Georgia. Wood did not state the reason she was recusing.

The next day, Chief Judge Baker issued an order reassigning the case to another judge on the court, J. Randall Hall, also a George W. Bush appointee.

One observer posited to me that the GOP AGs might have already known that Judge Wood had a reason for recusal when they filed the case in front of her; under this theory, the AGs bet that, after Judge Wood recused, Chief Judge Baker would hand-assign the case to another “conservative” judge who would be a good bet to strike down the new Biden student debt rules.

That theory might sound far-fetched. But the day after receiving the case, Judge Hall granted the GOP AGs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, thus blocking the regulations. On September 19, after yet another member of the court, Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray, had handled several preliminary motions in the case, Hall extended the restraining order an additional two weeks while he considered the AGs’ motion for a longer preliminary injunction.

But on October 2, Judge Hall threw a curveball: He granted the Department of Education’s motion to dismiss the state of Georgia from the case, holding, appropriately, that Georgia had not demonstrated an interest sufficiently concrete to provide standing to contest the debt regulations. In short, Georgia did not have a significant interest in ensuring that its own citizens, and those of other states, would remain mired in student loan debt.

With Georgia out of the litigation, Judge Hall further ruled that a federal court in Georgia was not the proper venue for the case. He transferred the lawsuit to Missouri, holding that that state had “clear standing” based on the potential harm the rule posed to MOHELA, Missouri’s student loan agency.

The transfer set the stage for the Missouri judge’s decision, the very next day after the case was sent over from Georgia, that blocked the Biden rule pending final resolution of the lawsuit.

So the GOP AGs got the outcome they wanted, at least for now. But why didn’t they go to Missouri, where the argument for standing to bring the case was much stronger, in the first place?

“It appears that the Missouri AG has achieved through dumb luck what they were hoping to get through strategic maneuvering,” Persis Yu told me. “Getting transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri was not necessarily going to be in their favor, which is why I assume they avoided it in the first place. While no liberal oasis, there are a number of Democratic-appointed judges, and so the outcome they got was far from guaranteed.”

But, Yu says, through apparently random assignment the GOP AGs ended up with Schelp, “one of the most ideologically driven judges, who is seemingly happy to eviscerate precedent and the [federal Administrative Procedure Act] to give the Missouri AG what he is looking for.”

Spokespersons for the AGs wouldn’t tell me why they didn’t file in Missouri in the first place, and declined to opine on the reason for Judge Wood’s recusal.

Kara Murray, communications director for Georgia attorney general Chris Carr, said their office was “unable to speak” to my questions, and simply noted that the Missouri District Court “immediately granted a preliminary injunction.”

Madeline Sieren, communications director for Missouri Attorney General Bailey, told me her office “cannot answer these questions at this time, as litigation is ongoing.” She added, “Happy to answer questions that don’t reveal litigation strategy or speculate on judges’ recusal decisions.”

Sieren referred me to Attorney General Bailey’s X (formerly Twitter) feed, where he crowed about the court victory. “A huge -and quick – win for every American who won’t have to pay for someone else’s Ivy League debt,” Bailey tweeted, ignoring that many of those who would benefit from the Biden debt relief plan are struggling middle- and low-income Americans who were scammed by high-priced for-profit colleges. And also ignoring that getting all these people out of heavy debt would help them to have families, buy homes, go back to school, and engage in other activity that would boost the U.S. economy.

Attorney General Bailey struck out with the U.S. Supreme Court in August when, facing a primary election challenge from a lawyer who has represented Donald Trump, he made an absurd effort to press the high court to halt Trump’s criminal sentencing in New York until after the November election. (Bailey won his primary, and the New York judge, Juan Merchan, eventually postponed the sentence on his own.)

The case in which Judge Schelp issued his injunction is the third lawsuit led by Attorney General Bailey to halt the Biden administration’s efforts to grant debt relied to student loan borrowers. Over the summer, the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked an earlier Biden debt relief plan called SAVE, as well as blocking parts of other federal Income-Driven Repayment plans on which millions of borrowers have long relied to reduce their debt burden.

Bailey originated that case, Missouri v. Biden, by suing in the St. Louis federal court, but this time he decided to try Brunswick, Georgia, and its only judge.

Shopping for judges is not a new tactic for Republican attorneys general in their quest to nullify Biden administration regulations (or for the for-profit college industry in its efforts to do the same). But proposed federal legislation to curb judge-shopping has gone nowhere in the bitterly divided U.S. Congress.

(Democratic attorneys general and progressive groups often appeared to try judge shopping during the Trump administration, especially by filing in California, headquarters of the relatively liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but California federal district court rules assign cases at random within a district, preventing the automatic assignment to a local federal judge by filing in a specific courthouse.)

Missouri’s solicitor general, Josh Divine, who has been litigating the case for Bailey’s office, is a former aide to U.S. senator Josh Hawley (R-MO). He also was once a law clerk for Judge William Pryor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the appellate region that includes Georgia, and perhaps gained some familiarity with Judge Wood and Judge Baker in that capacity. After clerking for Pryor, Divine clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Divine trumpets his fandom of Thomas aggressively, calling Thomas “the GOAT Supreme Court Justice.”

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas appears to be a fan of Brunswick’s Judge Wood. When Wood was sworn in for her own term as Chief Judge of the Southern District of Georgia in 2010, Justice Thomas, a south Georgia native, showed up to effusively praise her.

When you have MAGA-inspired attorneys general and MAGA-connected judges and justices endless gaming the system and ignoring long-standing legal precedents, fairness and justice are crushed, as are, in this instance, the hopes and dreams of generations of hard-working Americans who are buried under insurmountable student loan debt.

Monday, October 7, 2024

Trump's DOD Failed to Protect Servicemembers from Bad Actor Colleges, But We Demand More Evidence

The Higher Education Inquirer has been waiting since December 2017 for information from the US Department of Defense (DOD) about decades of predatory behavior by subprime colleges against military servicemembers, a disturbing pattern reduced by the Obama Administration and made worse again by the Trump Administration. We are still waiting for information, nearly seven years later and through multiple efforts, as Donald Trump runs again for President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. And today, with yet another delay, DOD says they won't have the response until after the election.   

In 2012, the Obama Administration, through Executive Order 13607, established policies for increased oversight of schools that received DOD Tuition Assistance (TA) funds. DOD TA is a program that pays schools for servicemembers going through college. For several decades before Obama was the President, subprime schools systematically exploited servicemembers, veterans, and their families, collaborating formally and informally with military officials and educators. They even held conferences at the national and state level through the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). 

 
As part of Obama era reform, DOD Voluntary Education and their contractor (PwC and later Gatehouse) were to select for review 200 schools at random and 50 schools that were the worst performing. The worst actors could be sanctioned. But it never happened.

In 2017, the Trump Administration began rolling back these protective measures and decided not to provide information to the media to avoid "a witch hunt."  This action shielded bad actor schools from public scrutiny and sanctions that the schools could receive for abusing servicemembers. 

In December 2017, we contacted a DOD VOL ED official who refused to answer us. But based on other bits of information, including data from the Department of Veterans Affairs, we believe we know many of these bad actor schools. Some of those schools, like the politically connected University of Phoenix, would be obvious to those who follow bad actors in higher education. But we wanted the DOD to publicly name them. That DOD official is now working as a special advisor to the Department of Education Federal Student Aid.  Our intent was not to target that official, but to get to the bottom of the problem, which we believe to be at a higher level of management, and possibly to then-President Trump. 

In May 2019, we filed a Freedom of Information request (DOD OIG-2019-000702) asking for a list of the 50 worst actor schools for 2017 and 2018. DOD denied that such a list existed despite evidence to the contrary.  We filed another FOIA request in 2021, 21-F-0411 and even with more information that we provided, they denied that such a list existed. 

Our last attempt for information, DOD FOIA 22-1203-F, was filed in July 2022 to obtain communications between the high-level DOD Voluntary Education official and others.  DOD has given us a number of excuses for the delays, and we have modified the request to limit the search.  In the meantime, we have contacted politicians and national media to help us with what's been going on. So far, nearly seven years later, no one has acted, as servicemembers continue to be ripped off by predatory subprime colleges. 

Related links: 

DoD review: 0% of schools following TA rules (Military Times, 2018)

Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why. (Military Times, 2019)

Saturday, October 5, 2024

Lies, Damn Lies, and Projections: Higher Ed Business and the Enrollment Cliff

While nothing is for sure, we at the Higher Education Inquirer believe higher education enrollment is going to continue on a slow downward slope for the foreseeable future, and that it could get worse. Looking at the numbers we see, it's difficult to imagine anyone arguing this. But today there is a debate between those who believe in the enrollment cliff and those who do not.


The Debate

Carleton College Professor Nathan Grawe has used the term "enrollment cliff" to describe the decline that is projected to come to a number of states within the next two years and with a trend that will last for a number of years. He uses information from a number of sources, including the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) to make these estimates. These projected declines are the result of a decline in births during and after the Great Recession. US fertility and birth rates have been declining for generations, but enrollment has been shored up by in-migration and higher rates of high school graduation. These rates could increase as abortions are criminalized.  

US Department of Education enrollment projections are fueling the debate for enrollment cliff deniers. But HEI has observed that ED has been wrong in its projections for years and has largely maintained its faulty formula. Presumably the enrollment cliff deniers also don't believe in the projections by WICHE which predicts modest declines in the number of high school graduates. For the record, these deniers are not uniform in their beliefs, values, or their intentions. 

University of Wisconsin-River Falls Professor Neil Kraus, author of the Fantasy Economy: Neoliberalism, Inequality, and the Education Reform Movement, believes that "in the aggregate, higher ed enrollments are fairly constant over time, and if you go back decades, have gradually gone up." Kraus has a point. Relatively stable birth rates would seemingly keep enrollments stable, but there are other social, economic, and political factors in the equation. 

It's a Racket on Both Sides 

Some enrollment deniers may not be so sincere. Many in the education business, including the Department of Education, have vested interests in believing everything is OK. But it's not OK. And while funding is important, it's not the entire answer, especially when the money goes into the wrong (greedy) hands, as it frequently does. 

Higher education has become a racket that has garnered increasing public skepticism about its value. That does not mean that parents won't continue to buy into the college mania and encourage all their children to go to a college regardless of the costs, and the potential debt.   

Some who believe in the enrollment cliff, and pitch it to others, may also be insincere. The President of the University of Idaho, for example, has used the enrollment cliff to rationalize their purchase of the University of Phoenix to shore up their revenues, even though Idaho is not likely to feel dramtic looses in enrollment. There are undoubtedly many others who are using this phenomenon to scare people into buying and selling their products and services.

Coming to a Consensus?

Perhaps the term "enrollment cliff" needs to be defined or the term to define the enrollment decline needs to be renamed. No one can deny that US higher education has seen an enrollment peak and a slow steady decline since 2011. There are also estimates that population declines will occur in many states, as a result of out-migration patterns that have been ongoing. There are other states that will continue to see enrollment gains, especially in the South and West. Maybe enrollment cliff is too harsh a term, but reduced enrollment cannot be ignored. 

Related links: 

Department of Education Fails (Again) to Modify Enrollment Projections


US Department of Education Fails to Recognize College Meltdown

What are ‘Promise Programs’ and how can they help make college more affordable? (PBS News Hour)

 

Since its inception in 2015, College Promise has been steadfast in its commitment to making postsecondary education, including career-technical colleges and apprenticeships, accessible, tuition-free, fees, and wraparound supports, and readily available to all.

In 2023, College Promise celebrated 425 Promise programs located in all 50 states. This milestone measures significant growth since the initiative's inception, when 53 programs were initially identified. 

The local and state leaders driving these Promise programs have facilitated the provision of scholarships from both the public and private sectors to eliminate tuition and fee costs and have extended their efforts to provide vital support services, including advising, counseling, mentorships, transportation, basic needs, and career exploration. 

Research suggests these comprehensive measures enhance student access, retention, and success in education, career, and civic mobility.

For information about participating institutions, visit College Promise here.

Friday, October 4, 2024

Why Day-1 CPT Can Be The Worst Investment You Make (Yash Mittra)

To our global friends, what's your opinion of Day 1 CPT visas and the various schools that use them?
 

 


 

HEI Welcomes International Viewers

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has a significant international viewership, despite its primary focus on US higher education. Here's why:

  1. Global Impact of US Higher Education: The US higher education system is influential worldwide. Many international students choose to study in the US, and universities often have international partnerships and collaborations. This means that developments and trends in US higher education have significant global implications.
  2. International Students and Faculty: HEI's audience includes international students and faculty members who are interested in staying updated on the US higher education landscape. These individuals may be seeking information on admissions, funding opportunities, or research collaborations.
  3. Global Interest in Higher Education: There is a growing global interest in higher education as a pathway to social mobility and economic opportunity. Even individuals who may not be directly involved in US higher education may find HEI's coverage of trends and issues relevant to their own experiences or interests.
  4. Digital Reach and Accessibility: In today's digital age, information can be accessed from anywhere in the world with an internet connection. HEI's online presence and accessibility make it easy for people from all over the globe to discover and consume its content.
  5. Reputation and Credibility: HEI's reputation as a trusted source of information on US higher education may attract readers from around the world who are seeking reliable and accurate information.

Overall, while HEI's primary focus is on US higher education, its content has broader implications and relevance for a global audience. This, combined with the digital nature of its publication, likely contributes to its significant international viewership.






Thursday, October 3, 2024

Universities (and Thousands of International Students) Gaming the Visa System

We are following a story first exposed by two Bloomberg journalists about universities that are taking unfair advantage of the US visa system. The program is called Day 1 CPT. 

The CPT (Curricular Practical Training) program has been around for decades, but has evolved over time to give foreigners the ability to work immediately in the US. The student visa system is managed by the Immigration and Custom Enforcement's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). A 244 page list of the certified schools is here.

According to the Bloomberg article, "By exploiting a federal on-the-job-training rule, people from India, China and elsewhere can work full time while completing most classes online and showing up in person only a few times a year."

The article listed Harrisburg University of Science and Technology (Pennsylvania-Middle States), University of the Cumberlands (Kentucky-SACS), Trine University (Indiana, Michigan,Virginia-HLC), Campbellsville University (Kentucky, California, Illinois, Florida-SACS), Westcliff University (California-WSCUC), and New England College (New Hampshire-NECHE). All of these colleges and universities in the Bloomberg article are regionally accredited. 

Other Schools that Issue Day 1 CPT Visas

HEI has located a number of other schools that issue Day1 CPT visas: Sofia University (California), Saint Peter's University (New Jersey), McDaniel College (Maryland), Monroe College (New York), Sullivan University (Kentucky), National Louis University (Illinois, Florida), Dallas Baptist University (Texas), California Institute of Advanced Management (California), Tennessee Wesleyan University (Tennessee), Humphreys University (California), International Technical University (California), Ottawa University (Kansas, Arizona, Wisconsin),  Computer Systems Institute (Illinois, Massachusetts), St. Francis College (New York), University of Fairfax (Virginia), and American National University (Virginia).

The F-1 Student Visa System  

The US issues more than 400,000 F-1 student visas each year, but the number that are Day 1 CPT visas is unknown--because Day 1 CPT visas are not issued directly by the government. Instead, they are authorized by the Designated School Official (DSO) at the student's university. 

While the actual authorization for Day 1 CPT is typically handled by the Designated School Official (DSO) at the student's university, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) sets the overall guidelines and regulations governing the program.

The number of Day 1 CPT visas issued each year depends on the number of students enrolled in eligible programs at universities that offer Day 1 CPT and the number of those students who meet the eligibility criteria and apply for work authorization.  

For some, this gets an untold number of foreigners the opportunity to game the system: getting to work immediately in the US while waiting to win the visa lottery.  And when some win, they quit going to school.  

Larger Questions of Fairness and Justice

Bloomberg indicated that this legal (but questionable) visa scheme began in 2014, but did not mention whether the students' employers were complicit or actively involved in gaming the system. 

They also failed to mention the much larger issue of the federal government issuing so many F-1 student visas, while large numbers of American born students are denied access to state universities and private schools that receive federal funds. 

F-1 visa holders also compete with domestic students for good jobs after graduation, potentially leading to lower wages and reduced opportunities for U.S. citizens.

“Repression on Grounds: A Virtual Town Hall on May 4 and Its Aftermath” (Faculty for Justice in Palestine)

(Charlottesville, VA)

In the aftermath of the violent repression of the encampment protests at UVa in May by police and administration, and with issues about first amendment rights at UVa still unresolved, faculty at the University of Virginia will host: “Repression on Grounds: A Virtual Town Hall on May 4 and Its Aftermath” on Sunday October 6 from 11 am -12:30 pm EDT. The town hall will be virtual.

Participants can register for the event here: https://tinyurl.com/56r54kus

The town hall will address violent break up of the pro-Palestinian encampment on May 4, 2024
by military-style police in riot gear and its aftermath. But rather than seeing this as a defeat,
organizers will share what they have learned since the summer and chart a path forward for
pro-Palestinian activism at UVA and nationally, including renewed calls for divestment from
Israel and genocide. The town hall will address:
- What happened on 5/4;
- What has happened since 5/4;
- Suggested steps moving forward;
- National framing;
- Disclosure, divestment & how to get involved
- Q&A

As Israel’s genocide in Gaza intensifies to include Lebanon, members of Faculty for Justice in
Palestine
and allies will highlight the moral urgency of the moment and discuss the role student,
faculty, staff, and community activism and pressure has to do in achieving an arms embargo
against Israel and charting a path towards Palestinian sovereignty. With free speech and
academic freedom under fire across the nation and in the Commonwealth, It’s time to hear from
faculty, staff and students what is really going on with regards to freedom of speech, academic
freedom and protest rights at Jefferson’s University. 

As we enter into another academic year, questions of politics, both domestic and international,
are central to the work we do at the university. It is critically important that faculty, staff, and
students maintain the right to speak freely on these issues without risking the kinds of retaliation
they've seen in the last several months.

Contact: Faculty for Justice in Palestine, UVA. fjp.uva@gmail.com

 

Related links:

Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.

What caused 70 US universities to arrest protesting students while many more did not?

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education 

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

What would a second Trump administration mean for higher education? Summing up Project 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

[Editor's Note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

What happens to higher education if Trump wins November’s election?

We’ve been exploring this question over the past year, including months of reading, analysis, reflection, and conversation about Project 2025 might mean for higher education. Today I’d like to sum up what we found.

The book, Mandate for Leadership, addresses academia directly on multiple levels. I’ll break them down here. The implications for the broader society within which colleges and universities exist – that’s a subject for another post.

I’ve organized the various ideas and threads into several headers: the Department of Education, higher education economics, international education and research, research supported and opposed, military connections, sex education, and anti-intellectualism.

Higher education and the Department of Education Many accounts of Project 2025’s educational impact draw attention to its attack on the Department of Education, which makes sense, since this is where the document focuses its academic attention. to begin with, Mandate for Leadership wants to break up the DoE and distribute its functions to other federal units. For example, the work the Office for Postsecondary Education (OPE) does would move to the Department of Labor, while “programs deemed important to our national security interests [shift] to the Department of State.” (327).

It would revise the student loan system to a degree. “Federal loans would be assigned directly to the Treasury Department, which would manage collections and defaults.” (327-330) Income-based repayment schemes would continue, but with restrictions. (337-8) Project 2025 would end the Biden team’s Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, along with “time-based and occupation-based student loan forgiveness” plans. (361) More ambitiously, the new government could just privatize loans. (353)

The chapter’s author also calls for “rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory” in the department or through its successor units. (322) This might also proceed via changes to one law, as a new secretary would “[w]ork with Congress to amend Title IX to include due process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth; and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities.” (333) This culture war move could have another legal feature, given the call to amend FERPA in order to make it easier for college students to sue the government for privacy violations, in response to school support of transgender and nonbinary students. (344-346)

The obverse of these moves is having the new DoE or its replacements “promulgat[ing] a new regulation to require the Secretary of Education to allocate at least 40 percent of funding to international business programs that teach about free markets and economics.” Additionally, the government would “require institutions, faculty, and fellowship recipients to certify that they intend to further the stated statutory goals of serving American interests,” although it’s unclear what that would mean in practice. (356)

This section’s author, Lindsay Burke, also wants the next administration to change its relationship with post-secondary accreditors. She supports Florida’s new policy of requiring public universities to cycle through accrediting agencies. (332) Burke also wants to encourage new accreditors to start up. (355) Her chapter further calls for a new administration to prevent accreditation agencies from advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work on campuses. (352)

The economics of higher education The Department of Education chapter would see a revamped Department of Education or its successors “[r]equir[ing]… ‘skin in the game’ from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment.” (341) I can’t see how this would work in detail. Her new federal administration would also reduce funding to academic research by cutting reimbursement for indirect costs. (355)

That section also wants to reduce the labor market’s demand for post-secondary degrees. Under the header “Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements” we find: “The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it.” (357). Later on in the book, the Department of Labor section section also calls on Congress to end college degree requirements for federal positions. (597) That chapter wants to boost apprenticeships, mostly likely in competition with college and university study. (594-5)

International research and education. Cutting down immigration is a major Project 2025 theme, and the book does connect this to academia. It calls out international students like so:
ICE should end its current cozy deference to educational institutions and remove security risks from the program. This requires working with the Department of State to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of visas issued to foreign students from enemy nations. (141)

First, this would impact many would-be students’ careers. Second, implementing such a policy would likely depress international student interest.

Project 2025 consistently focuses on China as America’s enemy, and this means it wants United States higher education to decouple from that adversary or else face consequences. For example, the introduction warns that “[u]niversities taking money from the CCP should lose their accreditation, charters, and eligibility for federal funds.” Later in the text is some language about the government and universities supporting American but not Chinese research and development. (100) Another section sees “research institutions and academia” playing a role in Cold War 2.0:
Corporate America, technology companies, research institutions, and academia must be willing, educated partners in this generational fight to protect our national security interests, economic interests, national sovereignty, and intellectual property as well as the broader rules-based order—all while avoiding the tendency to cave to the left-wing activists and investors who ignore the China threat and increasingly dominate the corporate world. (emphases added; 218)

Later on, the Department of Justice discussion offers this recommendation:

key goals for the China Initiative that included development of an enforcement strategy concerning researchers in labs and universities who were being coopted into stealing critical U.S. technologies, identification of opportunities to address supply-chain threats more effectively, and education of colleges and universities about potential threats from Chinese influence efforts on campus. (556)

This seems to describe increased DoJ scrutiny over colleges and universities. I’m not sure what “education… about potential threats” means, although I suspect it might include pressure on academics.

The Department of Commerce section wants to “[t]ighten… the definition of ‘fundamental research’ to address exploitation of the open U.S. university system by authoritarian governments through funding, students and researchers, and recruitment” (673) More succinctly, that chapter calls for strategic decoupling from China (670, 674). We can imagine a new federal administration – along with, perhaps, state governments, businesses, nonprofits, and foundations – asking academia to play its role in that great separation. One of the trade policy chapters broods about how “more than 300,000 Communist Chinese nationals attend U.S. universities” and it’s hard not to see this as a call for reducing that number. (785)

That chapter’s author, Peter Navarro, condemns one leading American university for allegedly enabling Chinese power:

Huawei, well-known within the American intelligence community as an instrument of Chinese military espionage, has partnered with the University of California–Berkeley on research that focuses on artificial intelligence and related areas such as deep learning, reinforcement learning, machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision, all of which have important future military applications.28 In this way, UC–Berkeley, whether unwittingly or wittingly, helps to boost Communist China’s capabilities and quest for military dominance. (785-6)

I can’t help but read this as a call for federal scrutiny of academic international partnerships, with sanctions in the wings.

Project 2025 looks at other regions of the globe and wants higher education to help. For example, the State Department chapter calls on American campuses to assist its African policy: “The U.S. should support capable African military and security operations through the State Department and other federal agencies responsible for granting foreign military education, training, and security assistance.” (187)

Other federal units come in for transformation which impacts colleges and universities. One chapter calls for “reinstituti[ng] the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board.” (Wikipedia; 218) The USAID chapter would cut some post-secondary support, based on the argument that “[w]e must admit that USAID’s investments in the education sector, for example, serve no other purpose than to subsidize corrupt, incompetent, and hostile regimes.” (275)

Support for and opposition to research Project 2025 consistently calls for research and development, at least in certain fields. The Department of Energy chapter enthusiastically promotes science. That chapter also tends to pair research with security, so we might infer increased security requirements for academic energy work. Alternative energy and decarbonization research would likely not receive federal support from McNamee’s departments, as he might see them as a “threat to the grid.” (373)

The document also calls for transparency many times, which might benefit academics as it could (should it occur) give greater access to more documentation. One passage actually uses the language of open source code: “True transparency will be a defining characteristic of a conservative EPA. This will be reflected in all agency work, including the establishment of opensource [sic] science, to build not only transparency and awareness among the public, but also trust.” (417)

On the flip side, Project 2025 opposes climate research throughout. For a sample of the intensity of this belief,

Mischaracterizing the state of our environment generally and the actual harms reasonably attributable to climate change specifically is a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs. (419)

That passage exists in the Environmental Protection Agency chapter, and fits into its author’s desire to cut back the EPA in general, but particularly to end its support for academic research. There are specific examples, such as “[r]epeal[ing] Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants for environmental science activities” (440). This is also where we see a sign of Project 2025’s desire to get more political appointees into federal positions. There would be “a Science Adviser reporting directly to the Administrator in addition to a substantial investment (no fewer than six senior political appointees) charged with overseeing and reforming EPA research and science activities.” (436) That would have further negative effects on academic work.

Later on, the Department of Transportation chapter calls for shutting down the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Why? NOAA is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity.” (675) Faculty, staff, and students who rely on NOAA would lose out.

Military and civilian higher education There are many connections here, reflecting a view that all of academia can contribute in an instrumental way to American military and foreign policy goals, while also being reformed by a new administration. For example, the text calls for reforming post-secondary military education, asking a new government to “[a]udit the course offerings at military academies to remove Marxist indoctrination, eliminate tenure for academic professionals, and apply the same rules to instructors that are applied to other DOD contracting personnel.” (104)

There’s also an idea for creating a new military academy, a Space Force Academy:
to attract top aero–astro students, engineers, and scientists and develop astronauts. The academy could be attached initially to a large existing research university like the California Institute of Technology or MIT, share faculty and funding, and eventually be built separately to be on par with the other service academies. (119)

Related to this, a later discussion calls for the creation of a new academic institution dedicated to financial warfare:

Treasury should examine creating a school of financial warfare jointly with DOD. If the U.S. is to rely on financial weapons, tools, and strategies to prosecute international defensive and offensive objectives, it must create a specially trained group of experts dedicated to the study, training, testing, and preparedness of these deterrents. (704)

Earlier in the book there’s some discussion of reforming the Pentagon’s purchasing systems calls for spreading some Defense Acquisition University (DAU) functions to “include accreditation of non-DOD institutions” – i.e., potentially some civilian institutions. (98)

Project 2025 would reverse certain Biden- and Obama-era human rights provisions for military academies’ faculty, staff, and students. It calls for “individuals… with gender dysphoria [to] be expelled from military service…” (103)

Sex education, research, support for student life All of this appears under threat. Here’s the relevant passage from the introduction, a shocking response to pornography: “Educators and public librarians who purvey [pornography] should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.” (5) This seems aimed at K-12 schools, where so much culture war battling has occurred, but we shouldn’t assume higher education would escape. Remember that it’s a common strategy for critics to label sex education and research materials as porn.

Anti-intellectualism Project 2025 respects knowledge and skills insofar as they assist with making a new administration succeed, but is at the same time very skeptical of their role in broader society, when formally recognized. It wants universities to develop new technologies, but not to advance DEI. For a clear sense of what I’m talking about, here’s the introduction’s take on credentials:

Intellectual sophistication, advanced degrees, financial success, and all other markers of elite status have no bearing on a person’s knowledge of the one thing most necessary for governance: what it means to live well. That knowledge is available to each of us, no matter how humble our backgrounds or how unpretentious our attainments. It is open to us to read in the book of human nature, to which we are all offered the key just by merit of our shared humanity. (10)

One could respond that most of the book’s authors possess intellectual sophistication and/or advanced degrees and/or financial success, but that’s part of the conservative populist paradigm.

Summing up, Project 2025 presents multiple challenges, threats, and dangers to American higher education. Proposed policies strike at academic teaching, research, finances, autonomy, and some of the most vulnerable in our community. It outlines routes for expanded governmental surveillance of and action upon colleges and universities, not to mention other parts of the academic ecosystem, such as accreditors and public research entities.

Keep in mind that Project 2025 isn’t necessarily a total guide to a potential Trump administration. The candidate has denounced it and led the publication of another platform. I’d like to explore that document next. We should also track Trump’s various pronouncements, such as his consistent desire to deport millions of people. For that alone we should expect a major impact on higher education.

Yet Project 2025 draws deeply on Republican politicians and office holders, not to mention conservative thinking. It seems fair to expect a new administration to try realizing at least a chunk of it, if not more.

What do you think of this sketch of a potential Trump administration?

Sweet v Cardona Borrower Defense Update

The most recent update to the Sweet v Cardona Borrower Defense to Repayment case is here.  This video was taped September 26, 2024.  A transcript of the meeting is also available. 

According to Rebecca Ellis of the Project on Predatory Student Lending, "we think that this is substantial compliance in our eyes with the August 31st deadline. It's a very small number of loans still outstanding that have these particular complications."  About 870 loans from the automatic relief group are still awaiting discharge. However, several thousand refunds are still awaiting processing from the US government and student loan servicers. 


Student loan debtors have a community on Reddit at r/BorrowerDefense where more than 12,000 members exchange information and provide support. 

Move Aside for Tomorrow's Indigenous Graduates (American Indian College Fund)

Related links:

Monday, September 30, 2024

"White Labeling" in Online Higher Education: Simplilearn

Yesterday the NY Times published an article titled "Students Paid Thousands for a Caltech Boot Camp. Caltech Didn’t Teach It." The scandal is likely larger than this NYT article and the small, but important, bits of information in it. Simplilearn, the edtech company involved in the scheme, but not named in the title, is a growing for-profit business with offices in Bengaluru, India and San Francisco. 

What makes the story interesting for consumers and consumer advocates is that like 2U-edX, we find another online program manager, Simplilearn, peddling elite university certificates that may not work out for those seeking better work opportunities. What makes the story doubly interesting is that Blackstone, a company with a trillion dollars in assets under management, holds a controlling interest in Simplilearn. 

What makes it triply interesting (and not noted by the NY Times) is that GSV Ventures has also been involved in Simplilearn.  GSV Ventures includes a number of high-profile names in education, business, and edtech, including Arne Duncan, Johny C. Taylor, Jr., Michael Moe, and Michael Horn.  

Simplilearn also markets online certificates with other elite, brand names, including Purdue University, University of Massachusetts, Brown University, and UC San Diego. In June, Simplilearn stated that it was growing dramatically in revenue (35-45%) and becoming profitable. Consumers on Reddit, however, have made critical remarks about Simplilearn bootcamps. 


Students can use Splitit, ClimbCredit or Klarna for buy now, pay later financing. 

"White Labeling" in Edtech

According to edtech innovator and pioneer John Katzman (Noodle), "White labeling is done everywhere; your GE microwave is not made by GE, and Walgreens doesn't make ibuprofen. And note that these are non-credit, non-accredited programs. Still, I wouldn't put my university's name on other peoples' programs without clear disclosure. Tech and marketing are one thing; teaching and academic advisement are at the core of what a university does."

HEI Values Your Feedback

If there is anyone who has attended one of these bootcamps, please let us know how you financed the program and whether it has resulted in a positive or negative return on investment.


Related links:
Edtech Meltdown

Sunday, September 29, 2024

Layoffs in Higher Education

The Layoff.com is a "simple discussion board" for workers who would like to learn more about the rumors or possibility of job cuts in their organization. It's also been helpful for us to understand what has been happening behind the scenes in the US Higher Education business. 

We have been observing and participating on this website for more than a dozen years, watching the fall of Corinthian Colleges (Everest College, Wyotech, and Heald), ITT Tech, Education Management Corporation (the Art Institutes and South University), the partial collapse of Apollo Group (University of Phoenix), Perdoceo (formerly Career Education Corporation), and Laureate International, and the transformation of Kaplan University to Purdue University Global and Bridgepoint Education (Ashford University) to University of Arizona Global.   
 
 
 
As the College Meltdown has advanced, we have also observed a number of private schools collapse and public colleges and universities struggle. As enrollments continue to drop, we can expect more layoffs to occur and for education related businesses to struggle more.  
 
The contents of this article are updated periodically, to illustrate trends in the College Meltdown.  The most recent update was published September 29, 2024.  2U, the online program manager for elite university certificates has been the poster child in 2024, but there are many other companies and institutions in peril.  

 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Wittenberg University 

Friday, September 27, 2024

Southern New Hampshire University: America's Largest Robocollege Facing Resistance From Human Workers and Student Complaints About Curriculum

Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), America's largest robocollege, is facing layoffs again. And this time, workers are talking

For years, Southern New Hampshire has avoided scrutiny compared to other online schools that have been labeled as bad actors. Part of this reduced scrutiny may have been because SNHU is a non-profit and some because Paul LeBlanc, its long-time president, was perceived as a higher education visionary, granting degrees that consumers could use and afford.  

Consumer advocates largely ignored that Southern New Hampshire often worked like a for-profit.  The school, which includes a physical campus in Manchester, New Hampshire employs 130 full-time instructors and 8,042 part-time instructors for 164,000 students. A  lion's share of the organization's budget is spent on marketing and advertising rather than on curriculum and instruction: about $14,000 per student.  

But things have changed, with the higher education terrain, with public opinion, and with Southern New Hampshire leadership. More people and organizations are questioning the value of degrees, especially graduate degrees, which Southern New Hampshire specializes in. SNHU has lowered tuition to $10,000 to increase demand, which has reduced financial margins. 

Despite good enrollment numbers, layoffs at Southern New Hampshire have occurred in 2023 and 2024. Now at SNHU, after the latest round of IT layoffs, folks are talking about the new leadership and of office politics taking precedent over innovation. And students are complaining about the course materials as old and recycled.  

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to monitor the situation at Southern New Hampshire University as it develops.



Thursday, September 26, 2024

Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.

[Updated 9-29-24]

Elite universities have changed their policies to significantly reduce free speech and free assembly. In response, college students and their faculty allies are having to regroup and rethink how they protest the US-Israel war against Palestine as it expands in the Middle East. On the establishment side, will universities further crack down on students and faculty, wherever peaceful protests might occur?  

Campus "Crime and Punishment"

Elite universities like UCLA have dramatically reduced the areas that students can speak and assemble freely, restricting protesters to free speech zones, a common tactic used by the US government during the War on Terror. Universities have also upped surveillance measures and punished students involved in protests, with limited due process. 

The visible resistance may now be limited on campuses where students have been detained, assaulted, arrested, expelled, and banned from campus. Foreign students wary of facing deportation may also be keeping quiet, publicly.     

In California, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill to update public university codes of conduct "and train students on how to protest with civility, a response to pro-Palestinian demonstrations that erupted across the state last spring." The bill was opposed by pro-Paletestinian Groups and the ACLU.


Protests Off Campus

There have been a number of protests against the US-backed war that has expanded from Gaza, to the Occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. Demonstrations have been held in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and other college towns, including Iowa City, home of the University of Iowa.  Those protests will be closely observed and documented by law enforcement. 

With the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the fossil fuel lobby, states have already crafted anti-protest legislation to reduce public free speech and free assembly.  According to the UK Guardian, 45 states have considered new anti-protest legislation since 2017.  

Protests on Campus

Over the last week, there were small protests at Penn State University and the University of Arizona.  The Penn State demonstration, which had about 60 attendees, was supported by Penn State Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the Student Committee for Defense and Solidarity (SCDS), the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), the United Socialists at Penn State (USPSU) and the People's Defense Front - Northern Appalachia. The impromptu Arizona protest was set up by the Party for Socialism and Liberation. At Cornell University, about 100 students protested a career fair that included defense contractors Boeing and L3 Harris. It's not surprising that these demonstrations would be small, given recent crackdowns across the country. 

Collaboration Between Elite Schools and Law Enforcement

Will elite schools work with law enforcement at the local, state, federal, and international level to further restrict free speech and freedom of assembly?  And university administrators try to quell dissent, will students be more harshly disciplined for planning and engaging in peaceful protests, of any type, on and off campus? 

Related links:

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

A People's History of Higher Education in the US