Blue Falcons: Politicians, Government Agencies, and Nonprofits Serve Themselves, Not Those Who Have Served

“Blue Falcon”—military slang for a “Buddy F****r”—refers to someone who betrays their comrades to get ahead. It’s a fitting label for disgraced U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter, a Marine Corps veteran convicted of misusing campaign funds while cloaking himself in patriotic rhetoric. But Hunter isn’t alone. He’s emblematic of a broader betrayal—one that involves politicians, bureaucrats, predatory schools, and veteran-serving nonprofits. Together, they form an ecosystem where self-interest thrives, and veterans are left behind.

Despite endless platitudes about “supporting our troops,” the systems designed to serve veterans—especially in education—are failing. Two of the most generous and ambitious benefits ever created for veterans, the Post-9/11 GI Bill (PGIB) and Department of Defense Tuition Assistance (TA), are now riddled with waste, abuse, and profiteering. The real beneficiaries aren’t veterans, but an extensive network of for-profit colleges, lobbying firms, and institutions that exploit them.

---

The GI Bill and DOD Tuition Assistance: A Pipeline for Predators

The Post-9/11 GI Bill was supposed to be a transformative benefit—a way to reward veterans with the chance to reintegrate, retrain, and succeed in the civilian world. At more than $13 billion annually, it is the single most generous higher education grant program in the country. According to a report highlighted by Derek Newton in Forbes, the GI Bill now costs more than all state scholarships and grants combined and represents half of all Pell Grant spending.

And yet, it isn’t working.

A groundbreaking study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)—conducted by researchers from Texas A&M, the University of Michigan, Dartmouth, William & Mary, and even the U.S. Department of the Treasury—delivers a scathing indictment of the program’s effectiveness. According to the report, veterans who used PGIB benefits actually earned less nine years after separating from the military than peers who didn’t attend college at all. The researchers found:

“The PGIB reduced average annual earnings nine years after separation from the Army by $900 (on a base of $32,000). Under a variety of conservative assumptions, veterans are unlikely to recoup these reduced earnings during their working careers.”

The reason? Too many veterans are enrolling in heavily marketed, low-value schools—institutions that offer little return and often leave students without degrees or meaningful credentials. Veterans from lower-skilled military occupations and those with lower test scores were particularly likely to fall into this trap. These “less advantaged” veterans not only saw worse labor market outcomes but were more likely to spend their GI Bill benefits at for-profit schools with dismal outcomes.

Even worse, the report estimated that the cost to taxpayers for every additional marginal bachelor’s degree produced by PGIB is between $486,000 and $590,000. That’s beyond inefficient—it’s exploitative.

In the Forbes article we put it bluntly:

“This is sad to say, that the GI Bill does not work for many servicemembers, veterans and their families. What's even sadder is that if you drill into the data, to the institutional and program level, it will likely be worse. There are many programs, for-profit and non-profit, that do not work out for servicemembers, veterans, and their families.”

---

Tuition Assistance and the DOD’s Open Wallet

The Department of Defense’s Tuition Assistance program also faces exploitation. With few controls, it serves as an open faucet for bad actors who aggressively recruit active-duty service members through deceptive advertising, partnerships with base education offices, and endorsements from shady nonprofits. Just as with the GI Bill, predatory institutions see DOD TA not as an education resource, but as a predictable stream of federal cash.

Military leadership has done little to intervene. The same institutions flagged for fraud and poor outcomes continue to operate freely, bolstered by industry lobbyists and revolving-door influence in Washington.

---

Nonprofits and Politicians: Wolves in Patriotic Clothing

The betrayal doesn’t stop with colleges. Many large veteran-serving nonprofits and “military-friendly” initiatives exist more for image than impact. Instead of helping veterans, they prop up harmful systems and launder legitimacy for the very institutions exploiting the military community.

Meanwhile, Congress talks a big game but routinely fails to act. Lawmakers from both parties show up for ribbon cuttings and Veterans Day speeches, but many take campaign donations from subprime colleges and education conglomerates that prey on veterans. They refuse to close known loopholes—like the infamous 90/10 rule—that incentivize for-profit schools to chase GI Bill funds with deceptive tactics.

And all the while, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)—underfunded, overburdened, and politically manipulated—struggles to provide the basic services veterans were promised.

---

A Sad Reality, and a Call to Action

It’s a bitter irony that programs designed to lift up veterans often lead them into deeper debt, poorer job prospects, and wasted years. The data from NBER, the findings from watchdogs like Derek Newton, and the lived experience of thousands of veterans all point to one conclusion: the Post-9/11 GI Bill, as currently administered, is failing. And so is the broader system around it.

Veterans deserve better. They deserve:

• Strict oversight of predatory colleges and training programs

• Transparency in outcomes for veteran-serving nonprofits

• Accountability from lawmakers and government agencies

• Equitable investment in public and community college options

• A fundamental shift from patriotic lip service to real systemic reform

Until then, the Blue Falcons will continue to circle—posing as allies while feasting on the very benefits veterans fought to earn.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue exposing the policies, institutions, and individuals who exploit veterans under the guise of service. If you have insider information or want to share your story, contact us confidentially at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

The Failure of DOD Tuition Assistance

In a world where military service members are promised educational opportunities as part of their service, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) operates a Tuition Assistance (TA) program that offers financial support to active duty and reserve servicemembers seeking to further their education. The program, overseen by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training (ODASD FE&T), offers veterans a pathway to enhance their skills and prepare for life beyond the military. However, findings from the DoD Voluntary Education (VolEd) program show that the very institutions that are meant to support servicemembers may be failing them instead.

As part of their oversight, the DoD requires educational institutions to sign a Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the Tuition Assistance program. By signing this agreement, institutions commit to adhering to strict guidelines designed to protect service members from deceptive practices. These guidelines cover a wide range of areas, including avoiding aggressive recruitment, ensuring transparent pricing information, and providing access to essential services such as academic counseling and job search support. However, compliance with these policies has been under scrutiny, as the Department of Defense’s compliance monitoring team reveals troubling trends.

The Problem with Accreditation Misrepresentation

One of the most alarming trends identified by the DoD VolEd MOU Partnership Institutional Compliance Program (ICP) was the misrepresentation of institutional accreditation. Institutions often displayed accreditation information, but a significant number had accreditation agencies listed that were no longer recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In some cases, institutions completely omitted this important information from their websites, a serious oversight that can mislead prospective students into spending valuable time and money on degrees that fail to meet industry standards or qualify for employment in their chosen fields. This failure to provide accurate or transparent accreditation information can have long-lasting consequences for military students, who may unknowingly invest years of their life in programs that ultimately leave them unprepared for the workforce.

Lack of Support for Military Students

Another concerning finding involved a lack of support for service members once they entered educational institutions. According to the ICP’s compliance checks, many institutions failed to comply with the MOU requirement to provide a knowledgeable point of contact (POC) for students seeking assistance with military Tuition Assistance, federal Title IV funding, and VA education benefits. In some cases, the institutions provided no POC information at all. In others, they only offered a name or a hyperlink to a page that lacked substance—no qualifications or training information for the individual listed.

This oversight reflects a deeper systemic issue: military students are not receiving the necessary academic, financial, or job search counseling they need to succeed. Without proper support, these students may struggle to navigate the complexities of education benefits and find themselves lost in a sea of bureaucratic inefficiencies. In turn, this increases the risk that they may drop out, accumulate unnecessary debt, or be left with an education that does not help them transition smoothly to civilian life.

The Numbers Behind the Failures

The findings are staggering. Over a five-year period from 2017 to 2022, the DoD’s compliance program uncovered a total of 10,560 compliance-related issues across 1,414 assessments of institutions participating in the TA program. This indicates systemic problems in the delivery of education to military members and points to an alarming trend of disregard for the agreements made between the institutions and the DoD. Despite efforts to monitor compliance, these violations continue to undermine the integrity of the TA program and threaten to harm servicemembers seeking educational opportunities.

Each year, the ICP team provides feedback to the institutions involved, offering corrective action plans (CAPs) to improve their compliance. Institutions are expected to address these issues to align with the MOU and provide the necessary improvements to better serve military students. However, even with this support, the issues persist, leading to questions about the effectiveness of the DoD’s compliance program and whether enough is being done to hold institutions accountable.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The Department of Defense’s efforts to hold institutions accountable through the VolEd program and the MOU agreement are commendable, but the findings clearly show that much more needs to be done. The onus should be on these educational institutions to provide servicemembers with the highest standards of transparency, support, and educational quality. After all, these men and women risk their lives for the nation, and in return, they deserve to receive the best education possible, with all the necessary tools to succeed in their civilian careers.

As DoD works to refine its compliance programs, it is imperative that it pushes for stronger accountability mechanisms and greater transparency from institutions. With new initiatives, clearer regulations, and a culture of compliance, DoD can ensure that all service members are equipped with the education they were promised—and avoid leaving them vulnerable to misleading and deceptive practices from educational institutions.

Looking Ahead

While the ICP has made significant strides in assessing institutional compliance, the overall effectiveness of these efforts will ultimately depend on whether the institutions take responsibility for making the necessary changes. DoD's mission of protecting and supporting military students remains a vital one, and it is crucial that all educational institutions participating in the TA program take their commitments seriously. Only through true compliance and a dedication to military students’ success can we ensure that those who serve this country are treated with the respect and care they deserve.

If educational institutions fail to hold up their end of the bargain, it is time for the DoD to take stronger actions to protect military members from being deceived. It’s time to demand that these schools do better—for the sake of the brave men and women who serve.

Pending HEI Investigations

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) is working on a number of investigative projects. They include:

(1) Maximus is the sole contractor for the US Department of Education's Default Resolution Group (DRG) and its "Fresh Start" program.  The DRG contract is set to expire, and information about their contract appears to have been removed from public view. DRG is likely to face more problems as defaults are expected to rise dramatically in late 2024. 

(2) Subprime scholarship at America's largest online robocolleges, including Liberty University's online doctoral degrees in history and philosophy. We are communicating with subject matter experts to determine the extent of the problem. 

(3) Our 6 1/2 year battle to obtain information about bad actors receiving Department of Defense Tuition Assistance (TA).  

Approximately $600 million in tuition assistance each year is managed by DOD VOL ED and its contractors. About 100,000 servicemembers each year use TA benefits to pay for continuing education, and a disproportionate amount goes to robocolleges.

In 2017, as a continuation of Obama-era policies, contractors PwC and Gatehouse compiled a list of the 50 worst offenders, schools that were violating DOD MOU and President Obama's Principles of Excellence (Executive Order 13607). 

Under President Trump, DOD refused to name the bad actors and did not punish anyone for their violations.  In 2018, DOD education program analyst Anthony Clarke said that DOD did not want to create a "witch hunt." After 2019, the oversight program fell under the radar.  

The University of Phoenix was implicated in a number of violations, but there is no record that DOD did anything to correct the situation, other than to reprimand at least one base commander. DOD has had a long-term relationship with predatory subprime colleges for years through the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). 

DOD has a current contract with Purdue University Global offering degrees of questionable academic value. 

HEI has spent a great effort communicating with DOD officials, whistleblowers, and political aides, and following up with information that first appeared in in the Military Times in 2018 and 2019, then reappeared in 2024. We are also awaiting a substantive response from DOD FOIA 22-1203-F submitted in July 2022 that has received multiple delays and is not expected to be answered until October 4, 2024, about 1 month before the US federal elections.     

Related links:

Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex 

Articles About Robocolleges 

Articles About DOD Tuition Assistance

 

Time to Shut Off the Tap: The Case for Ending DoD Tuition Assistance to Predatory Colleges

On July 3, 2025, the Higher Education Inquirer received the latest response from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) regarding FOIA request 22-F-1203—our most recent effort in a nearly eight-year campaign to uncover how subprime and for-profit colleges have preyed on military servicemembers, veterans, and their families.

The response included confirmation that 1,420 pages of documents were located. But of those, 306 pages were withheld in full, and 1,114 were released only with heavy redactions. A few for-profit colleges—Trident University International, Grand Canyon University, DeVry University, and American Public University System (which includes American Military University and American Public University)—were specifically mentioned in the partially visible content.

And yet the larger truth remains hidden. The names of other institutions known to have exploited military-connected students—University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, American InterContinental University, Purdue University Global, and Liberty University Online, among others—were nowhere to be found in the documents we received. Their absence is conspicuous.

We have been pursuing the truth since December 2017, demanding records that would reveal how the DoD enabled these schools to thrive. We sought the list of the 50 worst-performing colleges receiving Tuition Assistance (TA) funds, based on data compiled under Executive Order 13607 during the Obama Administration. That list was never released. When the Trump Administration took power in 2017, they quietly abandoned the protective measures meant to hold these colleges accountable. Our FOIA request DOD OIG-2019-000702 was denied, with the Pentagon claiming that no such list existed. A second request in 2021 (21-F-0411) was also rejected. And now, more than three years after we filed our 2022 request, the DoD continues to deny the public full access to the truth.

The records we did receive are riddled with legal exemptions: internal deliberations, privacy claims, and most notably, references to 10 U.S.C. § 4021, a law that allows the DoD to withhold details of research transactions outside of traditional grants and contracts. In other words, the Pentagon has built legal firewalls around its relationships with for-profit education providers—and continues to shield bad actors from scrutiny.

But the complicity doesn’t end there. It extends deep into the institutional fabric of how the military interfaces with higher education.

Decades of Systemic Corruption

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Defense has worked hand-in-glove with for-profit colleges through a nonprofit called the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). What began in the 1970s as a noble initiative to expand access to education for military personnel was hijacked by predatory colleges—including the University of Phoenix—that used the organization as a lobbying front.

These schools infiltrated CCME events, using them to curry favor with military officials, often by hiring veterans as on-base sales agents and even providing alcohol to loosen up potential gatekeepers. While CCME publicly maintained the appearance of academic integrity and service, behind the scenes it served as a conduit for lobbying, influence, and enrollment schemes. Military education officers were schmoozed, manipulated, and in some cases, quietly co-opted. This is something you won’t find in CCME’s official history.

We have been told by multiple insiders that the partnership between DoD and these schools was not just tolerated but actively nurtured. Attempts at reform came and went. Investigations were buried. Promises to "do better" evaporated. No one was held accountable. No one went to jail. But the damage has been lasting—measured in ruined credit, wasted benefits, and lives derailed by fraudulent degrees and broken promises.

The Trump-Hegseth Department of Defense

And still, new scandals—except those uncovered by us—go largely unreported. The media has moved on. Congressional attention has shifted. And the same schools, or their rebranded successors, continue to operate freely, often under the protective shadow of military partnerships.

Today, the DoD continues to deny that the DODOIG-2019-000702 list of the 50 worst schools even exists. But we know otherwise. Based on VA data, whistleblower accounts, and independent reporting, we are confident that this list was compiled—and buried. The question is why. And the answer may very well lie in the unredacted names of institutions too politically connected or too legally protected to be exposed.

The Evidence Is Overwhelming

The most damning proof of institutional complicity remains publicly available. In GAO Report GAO-14-855, published in 2014, the Government Accountability Office detailed the deep flaws in DoD’s oversight of its Tuition Assistance program. The report highlighted inconsistent evaluations, unqualified contractor reviewers, vague standards, and incomplete data collection. The DoD had spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on schools without ensuring quality or protecting students. In response, DoD temporarily halted its school evaluations—then quietly resumed business as usual.

PwC audits from 2015 and 2018 confirmed widespread noncompliance with DoD’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Schools violated marketing guidelines, offered misleading transfer information, and failed to provide basic academic counseling. Few were sanctioned, and even fewer were removed from eligibility lists.

Gatehouse Strategies, in its 2022 report, reinforced these conclusions. It warned of “a lack of consistent enforcement mechanisms,” and found that even institutions under investigation continued to receive DoD TA funding. The system appeared designed not to punish misconduct, but to tolerate and obscure it.

The Cost of Inaction

Meanwhile, service members seeking education are left exposed. Many receive low-value credentials, accumulate debt, and waste their limited benefits at schools that offer little academic rigor and even less career mobility. When those credits don’t transfer—or worse, when degrees are rejected by employers—the burden falls squarely on the individual.

Institutions like American Public University System, University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, DeVry, and Purdue Global have collected tens of millions in DoD TA funding. Some are under state or federal investigation. Others have quietly changed ownership or rebranded. But the underlying model—targeting military students with high-volume, low-quality online programs—remains largely intact.

We Don’t Need Another Report

The time for reflection is over. The data from GAO, PwC, Gatehouse, and from our own FOIA investigations are clear. What remains is the political will to act.

The Department of Defense should immediately:

– Revoke TA eligibility for schools with documented abuse, federal scrutiny, or repeat MOU violations.
– Release the suppressed list of the worst-performing colleges, as identified under Executive Order 13607.
– Mandate transparent outcome reporting—including transferability, job placement, and default rates—for every school in the TA program.
– Sever ties with lobbyist conduits like CCME that have enabled predatory behavior for decades.

This is not just a matter of bureaucratic reform—it is about justice. For the servicemembers who were deceived. For the families who sacrificed. For the taxpayers who unknowingly foot the bill for failure.

The Higher Education Inquirer will not stop pushing for those names, those documents, and that accountability. Behind every redaction is a veteran who trusted the system—and got scammed. Behind every delay is another student targeted by the same exploitative machinery. Behind every refusal to act is a government more loyal to profit than to people.

Related Reading
GAO-14-855: DoD Education Benefits Oversight Lacking
Military Times (2018): DoD review finds 0% of schools following TA rules
Military Times (2019): Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why.

HBCUs and Alternative Programs Step Up for Students Affected by Job Corps Cuts

As federal budgetary constraints trigger widespread cuts to the Job Corps program, thousands of young Americans—many from low-income and marginalized backgrounds—are left in limbo, uncertain about their educational and career futures. In response, several Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and nonprofit training organizations have stepped in to provide pathways forward for these displaced students.

Morris Brown College has emerged as a leader in this emergency response, inviting students affected by the Job Corps shutdowns to apply for admission and continue their education. The college is offering federal financial aid options to eligible students, making the transition more accessible. This initiative aligns with Morris Brown’s ongoing efforts to reestablish itself as a vital access point for underserved communities following its reaccreditation.

Jarvis Christian University and Wiley University, both HBCUs in Texas, have similarly opened their doors to Job Corps students. These institutions have long histories of serving first-generation college students and have extended their outreach to ensure that affected youth can find a welcoming academic home.

Winston-Salem State University in North Carolina is taking a more targeted approach. The university has secured a grant through the Job Corps Scholars program to provide tuition assistance and job training to a select group of students. This model blends academic instruction with practical skills development, creating an effective bridge between high school-level education and gainful employment.

Beyond the HBCU community, national service programs and workforce training initiatives are also mobilizing to fill the void. AmeriCorps offers job training, GED preparation, and education awards that can be used toward college tuition. YouthBuild provides at-risk youth with the opportunity to earn a high school diploma or equivalent while learning construction skills and receiving supportive services like housing assistance.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), a longstanding federal employment program, connects individuals with training and job placement assistance through local workforce boards. These WIOA programs are especially vital now, helping youth access industry-aligned credentialing programs.

For those looking to bypass traditional college pathways, apprenticeships and union-led training programs offer paid, on-the-job learning in skilled trades. These earn-as-you-learn models remain one of the most reliable routes to middle-class employment without taking on student loan debt.

The National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program offers another alternative, particularly for students aged 16–18 who are seeking structure, discipline, and a chance to build job and life skills in a quasi-military setting.

Several private-sector and nonprofit initiatives are also stepping into the breach. Grow with Google provides free online certificates in tech-related fields such as data analytics and IT support. SkillsUSA supports students preparing for careers in technical and skilled service sectors, often in tandem with high school or community college programs.

Year Up is a standout nonprofit that offers professional training paired with paid internships in IT, software, and finance. It targets young adults who are not enrolled in school or working, providing a powerful pipeline into white-collar careers. Likewise, Urban Alliance provides internships, mentoring, and work readiness training to high school seniors in underserved communities.

The dismantling of Job Corps centers is a major setback for a federal program that has, for decades, helped vulnerable young people achieve educational and economic stability. But in the absence of federal leadership, community institutions—especially HBCUs—are proving their enduring value. They are not only preserving access to education and training but also strengthening the broader social safety net for America’s forgotten youth.

As this transition unfolds, students and families need to remain vigilant in researching legitimate programs while avoiding scams and predatory for-profit institutions. With thoughtful guidance and continued support, the displaced Job Corps students can still find opportunities to thrive, even in uncertain times.

Sources:
U.S. Department of Labor
Morris Brown College
Winston-Salem State University
AmeriCorps.gov
YouthBuild USA
SkillsUSA
Grow with Google
National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Year Up
Urban Alliance

Rebuilding the Purpose of the GI Bill (Garrett Fitzgerald*)

[This article is part of the Transparency-Accountability-Value series.]

The landscape of military-connected students in higher education has been filled with turmoil for the last two decades. The G.I. Bill, a well-earned and financially substantial benefit for student veterans since 1944, has been a lightning rod for this turmoil. With the more recent release of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, the benefits have become even more lucrative for the student and therefore, the universities receiving those dollars. 

From 2009 to 2020, approximately $60 billion in Post-9/11 G.I. Bill tuition has been paid out to colleges and universities. In light of this cash windfall predatory companies and institutions took advantage. It has caused irreparable harm to hundreds of thousands of military-connected students. 

One of the original concepts behind the Montgomery G.I. Bill was to supercharge the country’s economic rebuild after World War II. With college paid for, the country could spread the introduction of millions of veterans into the workforce over a period of time rather than all at once. It also provided, in an unprecedented fashion, a pipeline of trained, skilled and educated candidates for the workforce. It worked. The country saw strong economic growth during this period and one of the primary reasons for this was that student veterans - and their financial benefits - were being put to good use at quality institutions of higher learning.

Fast forward to today, we see veteran graduation rates declining and employment statistics headed in the wrong direction. Coincidentally, a trend we’re also seeing, in parallel, is the immense amount of money paid each year to subprime predatory colleges and universities. These institutions have lost sight of their purpose (education) and are investing millions of dollars into military recruitment for a cut of the financial benefits. 

To better showcase this imbalance, in 2017 seven of the top 10 colleges receiving the most G.I. Bill benefits, spent less than one-third of tuition and fees on “academic instruction” (Veterans Education Success). These colleges, coincidentally, are producing far below average graduation and employment statistics - wonder why? They are more focused on military recruitment than what to do with these students once they enroll.

One might ask themself, “how do these bad colleges manage to enroll so many military-connected students?” The answer is that they advertise their programs with substantially more investment than others. Colleges with limited budgets or those looking to enter the military market for the first time, are unable to compete on most lead gen sites and some are even outpriced on sites like Google and Facebook. 

The question is what do we do about this crippling issue? Predatory colleges won’t change their ways with the lack of government-backed punishment handed down over the years so the solution has to come from elsewhere. CollegeRecon sees the solution in the way military-connected students research and discover university options. 

There has been a need for change in the way military-connected students learn about their education benefits, research degree program pathways and select institutions to enroll in for decades. The VA doesn’t do nearly enough, transition programs are often not effective and selecting colleges based on location or misleading marketing messages is what got us here in the first place.

Over the last 6+ years, CollegeRecon has been building a new standard for the way military-connected students discover and engage with colleges and universities, and vice-versa.

The platform is free for the military and veteran community. It provides impartial and easily digestible information on all the benefits programs available to each individual based on their own military experience and status. It also dives into degree program opportunities, earning credit for service, recommended questions to ask admissions reps, discounts available to military-connected students, etc. 

What sets CollegeRecon apart from other online resources is the set of free tools we’ve created to assist men and women with refining school searches, connecting with campus administrators and gaining access to military-affiliated scholarships to offset any out-of-pocket expenses. CollegeRecon has nearly 3,000 active college profiles with information on degrees offered, tuition costs, military support programs, campus facts, etc. If a match is made and the individual is interested in learning more about the institution, he or she can “request info” from a designated point of contact on campus who can help answer questions. An important key to our platform’s success is that members can connect with any college in our network, not just partners. 

CollegeRecon is NOT a traditional lead generator where users register an account and have their information sold to 10 semi-matched schools. CollegeRecon members are in complete control of who they request information from and they can even choose to communicate with a school outside of the CollegeRecon environment; we provide links and contact information for all school websites listed in the tool.  

For universities, CollegeRecon offers a safe and effective environment to promote their brand and create opportunities for engagement with a targeted audience of college-seeking, military-connected students. With this platform, colleges can get their brand in front of the largest online community of military-connected men and women actively seeking opportunities in higher education.  

CollegeRecon aligns with schools to be a transparent, targeted and trusted partner and to provide an even playing field for different types of colleges. CollegeRecon currently works with colleges and universities across the country; including four-year private and public, 2-year colleges, as well as online and campus learning institutions.  

Our goal has never been to create high volume, low quality leads. The purpose of the platform is to create awareness for colleges in a brand-safe way while offering a non-predatory environment for prospective students looking to utilize the G.I. Bill or Tuition Assistance.  

As we continue to build out the platform’s capabilities and reach within the military and higher ed community, our focus remains set on rebuilding the purpose of the G.I. Bil. That purpose, in our view, is to ensure those who served in uniform are rewarded with a genuine education that leads to career fulfillment and economic prosperity.

Related Link:  Report: Veterans Who Use GI Bill Have Lower Incomes After College Enrollments (Derek Newton, Forbes)

Related link:  8 tips to help vets pick the right college (Military Times)

*Garrett Fitzgerald is the CEO and Founder of Homefront Alliance, the parent company of College Recon.  "GI Bill" is a registered trademark.  

From the New Deal to Narcissism: How Individualism, Libertarianism, and Trumpism Gutted the Public University

The New Deal rested on a foundational belief: that the federal government could be a force for collective uplift. In the shadow of economic collapse and mass unemployment, the Roosevelt administration mobilized state resources to create jobs, reform capitalism, and restore public confidence. Public education—including the university—was part of that vision.

The Higher Education Act of 1965, influenced by the New Deal ethos, vastly expanded federal support for public colleges and student aid. By the early 1970s, nearly 75 percent of college students attended public institutions, with tuition at flagship universities often below $1,000 per year (roughly $7,000 in today’s dollars). Pell Grants could cover most, if not all, of a low-income student’s tuition, room, and board. The GI Bill had already lifted millions into the middle class. State legislatures invested heavily in public universities, seeing them as engines of democratic growth and regional development.

But this consensus began to unravel with the rise of neoliberalism and libertarian ideology in the 1970s and 1980s. Thinkers like Milton Friedman and organizations like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation argued that the state was inherently inefficient, that markets should govern most aspects of life, and that individuals—not governments—were responsible for their outcomes. Reagan declared that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” and higher education funding soon became a target.

State appropriations for public colleges as a share of university revenue declined dramatically. In 1980, public funding made up about 75 percent of the operating costs of state universities. By 2020, it had fallen below 25 percent. Students and their families made up the difference, mostly through debt. Between 1995 and 2023, average tuition at public four-year colleges tripled, even after adjusting for inflation. Total student loan debt exploded, surpassing $1.7 trillion by 2024, burdening more than 45 million Americans. The average debt per borrower was more than $38,000.

This wasn’t merely an economic shift—it was an ideological one. Higher education was no longer understood as a public good but as a private investment. Students were told to “shop” for degrees like they would consumer goods, choosing programs based not on curiosity or civic purpose but on return on investment. The university was transformed from a site of public inquiry to a marketplace. Faculty governance was weakened. Shared governance gave way to corporate-style management. Instruction was outsourced to contingent faculty, 70 percent of whom now teach off the tenure track. Adjunct professors, often paid less than $3,500 per course, frequently live below the poverty line and qualify for public assistance.

Trumpism emerged from this late-capitalist malaise but redirected its anger. Instead of questioning the privatization of education, it turned public resentment against institutions of learning themselves. Universities were portrayed as hostile, elitist, and corrupt—agents of indoctrination rather than enlightenment. The Trump administration’s policies followed this rhetoric. Betsy DeVos, a billionaire with no experience in public education, oversaw aggressive deregulation of for-profit colleges, attempted to eliminate gainful employment rules, and delayed or blocked borrower defense claims from defrauded students.

Even after Trump left office, his political movement sustained an aggressive campaign against public education. Under Project 2025, a policy blueprint promoted by the Heritage Foundation and embraced by Trump’s allies, universities are targeted for ideological control. The plan calls for defunding departments deemed “woke,” ending diversity and inclusion programs, and purging federal agencies—including the Department of Education—of those who challenge the political orthodoxy.

In Florida, under Governor Ron DeSantis, this agenda was made real. The New College of Florida, once a respected liberal arts institution, was taken over by political appointees who dismantled its academic programs, removed professors, and imposed a conservative curriculum. Across red states, tenure is under attack, academic freedom is shrinking, and LGBTQ+ students and faculty are being driven out or silenced.

The ideology driving this assault is not consistent libertarianism—it’s an incoherent blend of market fundamentalism, Christian nationalism, and authoritarian populism. It pretends to value freedom but enforces conformity. It invokes personal responsibility while shielding the powerful from consequence. It lauds meritocracy even as it strips away the conditions for anyone outside the elite to succeed.

Underlying all of this is a distorted form of individualism. The student is no longer part of a learning community—they are a solitary debtor. Faculty are no longer public servants—they are expendable contractors. The public university is no longer a site of shared knowledge or democratic imagination—it is a hollowed-out brand, increasingly indistinguishable from the for-profit sector.

Even the language of crisis has lost its power. We no longer speak of austerity or retrenchment—we have normalized decline. College closures are expected. Student defaults are routine. A generation of graduates has never known a university that wasn’t precarious, transactional, and shaped by fear.

To move forward, we must confront not just the political project of Trumpism but the longer neoliberal arc that made it possible. That means rejecting the lie that education is only valuable when it is profitable. It means refusing the narrative that students in debt deserve their suffering. And it means restoring the idea that knowledge—and the institutions that sustain it—are worth defending not just for individuals, but for the society we want to live in.

The public university was never perfect, but it was once animated by a different moral vision. Reclaiming that vision is not nostalgic—it is necessary. If we fail, we consign ourselves to a future of narcissistic consumerism, epistemic decay, and civic disintegration.

---

Sources and Data

• U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES): College Tuition Trends

• Congressional Budget Office (CBO): Student Loan Debt Projections, 2024

• The Century Foundation: “The State of Adjunct Faculty,” 2022

• National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO): “State Funding vs. Tuition Revenue, 1980–2020”

• Project on Predatory Student Lending: Legal challenges to Trump-era ED policies

• Heritage Foundation, “Mandate for Leadership: Project 2025”

• Florida Department of Education and New College public records, 2023–2024

• Inside Higher Ed, “Contingent Faculty and the Collapse of Tenure,” March 2024

• The New Deal and Higher Education, John R. Thelin, A History of American Higher Education

• Barkan, Joanne. Merchants of Debt: How the Student Loan Industry Became a Power Broker

Are “Best for Vets” and “Military Friendly Colleges” Rankings Believable?

[Editor's Note: This article is for US servicemembers, veterans, and their families.]

GI Bill benefits are a well-deserved reward for your years of military service. They are also an important, but not endless asset for you and your family to transition back to civilian life and to have a good future. In a 2018 Military Times opinion piece, I suggested 8 tips for choosing a college. Those tips are an important primer, but even more education is necessary to spend your GI Bill funds wisely. Military Times, GI Jobs, and others have compiled “Best for Vets” and “Military Friendly School” lists for servicemembers and veterans, but are their lists credible?

Military Friendly?

Whether you are on post, off post, or surfing online, hucksters are trying to sell you their schools, calling them “military friendly.” Servicemembers, veterans, and their families are inundated with advertisements and recruiting for schools--and often these schools are what I call “subprime,” meaning they have questionable value and use questionable tactics to recruit. These messages appear on billboards, ads at the top of your Google or Bing search, on your feeds on Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social media, in ads embedded in internet articles, and in local newspapers, and magazines in unemployment offices and in grocery stores. And once they get your personal information, subprime schools may end up sending you a slew of texts and phone calls pitching their messages.

Military Times, GI Jobs, and other media produce college rankings specifically for servicemembers, veterans, and their families. This lists have some valuable information, but they should not be used exclusively for making the best college choice. You should be particularly skeptical of advertisements in these and other sources, which may or may not be helpful in making college choices. In some cases, websites posing as informational tools for veterans are actually internet predators.

Military Times’ “Best for Vet” Lists

Military Times (publisher of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Times) produces a “Best for Vets” list that includes separate lists for 4-year colleges, two year colleges, online and non-traditional colleges and vocational colleges. The schools are ranked by factors such as: whether they have a veterans center, military retention rate, military graduation rate, and affordability for people using DOD Tuition Assistance and GI Bill funds.

The Best for Vets four-year college list has schools with value, with University of Texas, Arlington, Colorado State University, University of Nebraska, Omaha, and Syracuse University topping the list. But while these schools may be good for many veterans, high-performing veterans may be better served at highly selective schools like Columbia University, Cornell University, and Stanford. If you have done well on the SAT or ACT and shown promise in your educational work, Warrior-Scholar and Service2School may be important allies.

Military Times’ lists of 2-year schools and vocational schools includes community colleges that have reasonable value, but they may not be the best choice if a student doesn’t plan to stay in the area. The list of online schools does include, Excelsior College, New York state’s college for working adults completing their degrees. Other schools on the online list, however, are particularly troubling (Colorado Technical University and American Intercontinental University, for example). Rather than being best for veterans, some are considered bad actors by organizations looking out for veterans and other consumers. To muddy the waters even more, Military Times accepts advertisements from subprime schools that have the money to post half-page ads in the magazine.

Subprime Colleges

By subprime college, I am referring to schools that have:

• high tuition in relation to community colleges,
• low graduation rates, and
• low student loan repayment rates*

You can find this information at the Department of Education’s College Scorecard.

Subprime schools also spend a great deal of their revenues for advertising, marketing, and recruiting and little on instruction. Subprime schools often sell themselves as accredited, but accreditation, even regional accreditation, sets a low bar for educational quality. These schools have also been called “bad actors” and the “bottom of the barrel.”  The Department of Veterans Affairs GI Bill Comparison Tool provides some information on complaints made to VA. If a school has more than 30 GI Bill complaints, consider another school.

Subprime colleges are often for-profit, but they may also be non-profits or state universities that operate as bad actors. University of Phoenix, DeVry, Colorado Technical Institute, and Purdue University Global (formerly Kaplan University) are glaring examples of subprime schools that have used shady tactics to recruit servicemembers, veterans, and other consumers. 

GI Jobs “Military Friendly Schools”

GI Jobs’ Tier-1 university list includes selective, well-respected schools like Carnegie Mellon, NYU, Columbia University, and University of Connecticut. If you look at the schools by state, you’ll find a much smaller list, which will have schools of varying in quality and value. Unfortunately, the Military Friendly lists you may generate with the filters do not compare the schools as transparently as the Military Times lists. 

Schools that use an outdated Military Friendly logo should be particularly suspect. In this case, the schools may have lost their ranking or designation and are using their most recent award. If the designation was not issued after 2017, the school may be considered subprime. 

Predatory Lead Generators

Do an online search for “military friendly schools” or “GI Bill” and you may find results that are even less helpful than Military Times or GI Jobs: results that may make take you down a wrong turn in your career and college decisions. Scam websites use internet lead generators to take your personal information, to sell you a degree or certificate that won’t be a good investment. In some cases, these lead generators pose as military friendly sites with flags and people in uniform. Lead generators have been fined and shut down for misleading veterans but that has not deterred others from continuing their predatory behavior. 

Sunken Investments

If you have found that the school you went to while in the military is a “bottom of the barrel” college, you have lots of research to do before using your GI Bill benefits. Think twice about investing your GI Bill money into a school that will not lead to gainful employment, even if that means starting over if you have to. You should also contact VA and Veterans Education Success to register any complaints about a school you have attended.

*Unfortunately for consumers, student loan repayment rate has been removed from the new College Scorecard.

Helpful Links

Warrior-Scholar (college preparatory boot camps)

Service2School (free application counseling)

Veteran Mentor Network on LinkedIn

Veterans Education Success (tips in enrolling for college)
8 tips to help vets pick the right college (Military Times)

Ashford University Deceiving Consumers, Violating Department of Defense Regulations

dahneshaulis@gmail.com

Since its inception in 2005, Ashford University has been an overly priced, low value educational institution with questionable ethics and poor student outcomes.  As a result, servicemembers and veterans have filed a disproportionate number of complaints about the school through the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the non-profit Veterans Education Success.[i][ii][iii]

Ashford and its parent company Bridgepoint Education (BPI) have also been the subjects of investigations,[iv] lawsuits, and legal and out-of-court settlements for a continuing series of unethical and illegal business practices: taking advantage of wounded service members[v], falsifying student retention data,[vi] robocalling prospective students,[vii] and deceiving students about private loans.[viii]  All of these practices violated elements of the Department of Defense’s Memoranda of Understanding (“DOD MOU”) signed by one or more Bridgepoint executives in 2011 and 2014.[ix]  

Recently, Ashford University and Bridgepoint have also been under scrutiny by VA for making false statements about the location of the school’s main business location.  While this may not be a violation of the DOD MOU, it does exemplify the company’s repeated unscrupulous behavior[x]

VA’s GI Bill Comparison Tool states that Ashford University has a 16 percent graduation rate and 23 percent student loan repayment rate.  The page carries a warning because of its problems with GI Bill certification in California, and its current lawsuit as a defendant against the State of California. [xi]

According to authors from the US Treasury and Stanford University, Ashford University also carries a 47 percent 5-year cohort default rate (CDR). [xii]

Despite its horrendous record, Ashford University has received hundreds of millions of dollars in DOD TA money and Department of Veterans Affairs GI Bill funds.  According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, almost all of Bridgepoint’s money comes from federal government programs, which also includes Pell Grants and federal student loans in addition to TA and GI Bill funds.[xiii]   

2017 State of California Lawsuit

In its recent 40-page civil complaint against Bridgepoint Education and Ashford University, the Attorney General of California stated that the company and its university systematically deceived consumers, including veterans, through:

(1) a high pressure sales culture,

(2) false or misleading statements concerning financial aid and costs of attendance,

(3) misrepresentations regarding transferability of credits, and

(4) misrepresentations regarding employment prospects.[xiv] [xv]

While all of these items are pertinent to service members and veterans, items 3 and 4 appear most applicable to stipulations in Ashford University’s DOD MOU.[xvi]

In Ashford University’s Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Defense, the school  agreed to provide specific consumer information to servicemembers, including information about financial aid and transferability of credits.  Judging from the State of California’s civil complaint, there is no indication that Ashford was providing this information. 

To the contrary, Bridgepoint and Ashford employees systematically deceived consumers about financial aid and transferability of credits:

False or Misleading Statements Concerning Financial Aid and Costs of Attendance (pp. 11-16 in the State of California’s Civil Complaint)

“In its efforts to lure in prospective students, Ashford systematically made false or misleading statements about students’ ability to obtain federal financial aid and the school’s costs of attendance.”  

“For example, Admissions Counselors commonly told consumers that federal financial aid would cover all their costs of attending Ashford University, or that they would receive certain kinds of federal financial aid, when the Counselors either had no basis, for making those promises.” 

“At the same time, Ashford misrepresented to consumers that it could not be determine final financial aid awards until after enrollment, and then it failed to issue the final awards until it was too late for students to withdraw without liability.  This led many to incur unexpected debts for tuition and fees they owed due to a shortfall in their final award.” 

“In another repeated tactic, Admissions Counselors enticed consumers by telling them that they could use federal financial aid for non-educational expenses, even though federal law prohibits this conduct.” 

“Admissions Counselors also made numerous other representations concerning various aspects of financial aid eligibility, a complex topic on which they were unprepared to provide guidance, as well as the costs of attending Ashford.” 

“Unlike other schools, Ashford does not send financial aid award letters until after a student enrolls, giving Admissions Counselors ample opportunity to make false forecasts about financial aid in their sales pitches to consumers.”

“In one common form of representation, Ashford told prospective students who had not yet filled out a FAFSA or received a financial aid award letter that they would not have to pay any “out of pocket costs.” 

“For many consumers, these kinds of misrepresentations made Ashford University seem more affordable than it actually was….Students ended up owing Ashford unanticipated out-of-pocket balances, or had to take out more loans than they expected.

“Ashford also told students and prospective students that final determinations about financial aid could not be made until after the student enrolled, and it required students to enroll without first receiving a financial aid award letter.  Ashford then waited until students were well into their coursework to send the financial aid award letters.  In reality, it was possible for Ashford to make final determinations prior to enrollment, just as many other colleges and universities do. Waiting to process financial aid until after an enrollment allowed Ashford to prevent prospective students’ financial concerns from getting in the way of Admissions Counselor’s quests to close their sales.”  

Elements of the MOU pertaining to financial aid (pp. 4-5):

f. Before enrolling a Service member, provide each prospective military student with specific information to locate, explain, and properly use the following ED and CFPB tools:

(1)  The College Scorecard which is a planning tool and resource to assist prospective students and their families as they evaluate options in selecting a school and is located at:  http://collegecost.ed.gov/scorecard/.

 (2)  The College Navigator which is a consumer tool that provides school information to include tuition and fees, retention and graduation rates, use of financial aid, student loan default rates and features a cost calculator and school comparison tool.  The College Navigator is located at: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/.

 (3)  The Financial Aid Shopping Sheet which is a model aid award letter designed to simplify the information that prospective students receive about costs and financial aid so they can easily compare institutions and make informed decisions about where to attend school. The Shopping Sheet can be accessed at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/guid/aid-offer/index.html.

 (4)  The “Paying for College” webpage which can be used by prospective students to enter the names of up to three schools and receive detailed financial information on each one and to enter actual financial aid award information.  The tool can be accessed at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/paying-for-college/.

g. Designate a point of contact or office for academic and financial advising, including access to disability counseling, to assist Service members with completion of studies and with job search activities.

(1)  The designated person or office will serve as a point of contact for Service members seeking information about available, appropriate academic counseling, financial aid counseling, and student support services at the educational institution;   (2) The point of contact will have a basic understanding of the military tuition assistance program, ED Title IV funding, education benefits offered by the VA, and familiarity with institutional services available to assist Service members. 

h.  Before offering, recommending, arranging, signing-up, dispersing, or enrolling Service members for private student loans, provide Service members access to an institutional financial aid advisor who will make available appropriate loan counseling, including, but not limited to: 

(1)  Providing a clear and complete explanation of available financial aid, including Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

(2)  Describing the differences between private and federal student loans to include terms, conditions, repayment and forgiveness options. 

(3)  Disclosing the educational institution’s student loan Cohort Default Rate (CDR), the percentage of its students who borrow, and how its CDR compares to the national average.  If the educational institution’s CDR is greater than the national average CDR, it must disclose that information and provide the student with loan repayment data. 

Misrepresentations Regarding Transferability of Credits (pp. 16-23 in the State of California’s Civil Complaint)

“Ashford falsely told consumers that their prior credits would transfer into Ashford University.”

“Ashford also systematically misrepresented the extent to which Ashford University credits can transfer to other universities. Ashford’s Admissions Counselors routinely enticed prospective students with the promise that Ashford University offers them the flexibility to study online at a pace convenient to them, earning credits that they can later apply to other, less flexible, schools that the student was considering.”

“Ashford’s sales teams also told consumers that because Ashford University was regionally accredited, its credits were certain or likely to transfer to other schools….In other instances, Admissions Counselors have stated that Ashford University are accepted at specific schools, such as University of Southern California, UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, and Harvard.” 

“Ashford also made misrepresentations regarding the transfer of credits from ongoing and future casework. Ashford University student and Army Reserve veteran P.M. was deceived by false promises that credits he earned at a community college while attending Ashford University would transfer to Ashford….As P.M. approached graduation at Ashford, he was alarmed to discover that Ashford had capped the amount of credits he could transfer….because Ashford broke its promise to accept all of the community college credits, P.M. had to spend additional time in school at Ashford University to make up for lost credits under the lower housing allowance. As a result he also fell behind in his rent, had to take another job to keep up with the bills, and his credit score suffered. Second, because GI Bill benefits are not unlimited, he wasted some of his veterans’ benefits by spending them on coursework he was unable to put toward a degree.”

This violates the following provision of the Ashford University’s DOD MOU:

“(1) Disclose its transfer credit policies and articulated credit transfer agreements before a Service member’s enrollment.  Disclosure will explain acceptance of credits in transfer is determined by the educational institution to which the student wishes to transfer and refrain from making unsubstantiated representations to students about acceptance of credits in transfer by another institution.” (p.7) 

Misleading and Deceptive Use of "Military Friendly" and "Best For Vets" Logos

Ashford University continues to use logos that are deceptive.  Promotional materials show that Ashford University claims to be "Military Friendly" and "Best For Vets."  But these designations are no longer valid.  

---

[i] http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/PECS-Report-FY14.pdf

http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/PECS-Report-FY15.pdf

[ii] https://www.vets.gov/gi-bill-comparison-tool/profile/21007103#viewWarnings

[iii] Veterans Education Success has reported 113 complaints from servicemembers and veterans regarding Ashford University.  https://static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/5a302b5df9619a75ac81f0b7/1513106270402/Final+Ashford+Memo+%28Public%29.pdf

[iv] Ashford University was a major focus of the PBS/Frontline documentary, College Inc. http://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-college-inc/

In 2011, in Senate Hearings, Senator Harkin referred to Ashford University as “an absolute scam.” https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/11/senate_hearing_on_for_profit_colleges_singes_accreditors_as_well_as_bridgepoint

[v] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-12-30/for-profit-colleges-target-the-military

[vi] https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/feb/11/ticker-suit-charges-bridgepoint-cooked-books/   
https://www.classaction.org/media/fellows-v-bridgepoint-education-inc.pdf

[vii] https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/dec/11/ticker-bridgepoint/

[viii] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/09/12/CFPB-s-Latest-Target-Profit-College-Chain

[ix] https://www.dodmou.com/InstitutionViewSignatureOldSystem/GetVersion1?institutionId=2545

Ashford’s current DOD MOU is in effect until 2019. https://www.dodmou.com/InstitutionViewSignature/GetFile?institutionId=1817

[x] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/5a05926b0d9297cba279c201/1510314604212/Ashford+Report.FINAL.pdf

[xi] https://www.vets.gov/gi-bill-comparison-tool/profile/21007103#viewWarnings

[xii] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ConferenceDraft_LooneyYannelis_StudentLoanDefaults.pdf

[xiii] https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.apps.cironline.org/doe/133.html

[xiv] file:///C:/Users/dahnshaulis/Desktop/Ashford-Bridgepoint-COMPLAINT-Calif.pdf

[xv] Bridgepoint Education is also presumably under investigation by the State Attorneys General in New York and North Carolina.  This is in addition to the company’s settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/11/29/california-attorney-general-sues-for-profit-bridgepoint-education/?utm_term=.def909507b82

[xvi] https://www.dodmou.com/InstitutionViewSignature/GetFile?institutionId=1817