The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth*)

For the last decade already, access to a college education has been shrinking. This is unprecedented for the United States, in which expanding access has always presupposed that enrollments grow faster than population. This has been true in all but a handful of years ever since annual data were compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. During the major expansion of higher education during the 1950s and 60s -- when for the first time large numbers of students from working class backgrounds entered the collegiate system, college enrollments outpaced population by a factor of eight. Even as recently as the first decade of this century, enrollments increased four times faster than population growth. The current crisis began in 2010, with enrollments expected to remain flat for another ten years or more, even though the population continues to grow.[i] The college educated will shrink as a portion of the population at large.

If access is declining, so too are the chances for upward mobility. The future has narrowed. Stagnant enrollments put into reverse some of the signature accomplishments upon which the educational community and the nation at large have prided themselves. Two groups in particular have been hit hard. Much attention has been given to the decline in black student enrollment, generally attributable to a rollback of affirmative action policies and a pronounced increase in racist incidents. Less noticed has been the decline in white student participation, which has fallen by a similar percent over the last decade.[ii] For both black people and white people, access is shrinking.

This decline compounds the difficulties which college graduates already face. Since the early 1990s, one-third of the graduates with bachelor’s degrees have found themselves in jobs for which a college education is not necessary.[iii] Here too, upward mobility in terms of the types of work available, compensation, and possible career paths forward has been foreclosed. This in turn produces a ripple effect on everyone without a four-year degree. The underemployed college graduates crowd into employment fields that they had hoped to avoid, which in turn exerts downward pressure on wages across the board. If college attendance was once motivated by the desire to get ahead and improve one’s circumstances, it has increasing become a negative motivation. You go to college in order to avoid the even-more difficult fates that await those with less schooling. 

The dream of education as a lever of social transformation is over. This dream was never fully grounded in reality anyway, but whatever it stood for in the past no longer fits the current situation. Collegiate institutions have become temporary warehouses for the children of the middle and working classes. Graduation dumps them into an economic cul-de-sac in which appropriate jobs are lacking. Student debt makes this situation all the more disturbing. Since the pandemic, even underemployment has begun to look good, so scarce have jobs become. Richard Fariña’s Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me (1966) takes on a new poignancy. 

---

[i] Annual enrollment data begins in 1947; U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 303.10 (2019). For population 1790-1930: U.S. Census Bureau, Bicentennial Edition: Historical Statistics of the United States, A 6-7; for population 1940-2020: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Censuses.

[ii] Between the peak year of enrollment in 2010 and 2018, black student enrollment declined by 18%, while white student enrollment declined by 19%; U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics, Table 306.10 (2019). Also see: Ben Miller, ‘It’s Time to Worry About College Enrollment Declines Among Black Students’, 28 September 2020, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/reports/2020/09/28/490838/time-worry-college-enrollment-declines-among-black-students/; Kevin Carey, ‘A Detailed Look at the Downside of California’s Ban on Affirmative Action’, The New York Times, 21 August 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/21/upshot/00up-affirmative-action-california-study.html.

[iii] Federal Reserve Bank of New York, ‘The Labor Market for Recent College Graduates: Underemployment’, 17 July 2020, https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market/college-labor-market_underemployment_rates.html.

*Gary Roth is the author of "The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility." 

Understanding the Challenges of U.S. Higher Education for Canadian Students: Debt, Credentialing, and Cross-Border Policies

Each year, thousands of Canadian students choose to study in the United States, attracted by diverse programs and research opportunities. According to Statistics Canada, nearly 27,000 Canadians were enrolled in U.S. institutions during the 2021–2022 academic year. However, pursuing U.S. education presents distinct financial and regulatory challenges that are often overlooked.

Navigating Student Debt
While Canadian students have access to government-backed loans in Canada, studying in the U.S. means contending with higher tuition fees and limited eligibility for U.S. federal student loans. Canadian borrowers frequently turn to private lenders or Canadian banks offering international education loans, often with higher interest rates and complex repayment terms.

A 2022 report by the Canadian Federation of Students found that Canadian students studying abroad carry an average debt of CAD 35,000 (~$26,000 USD), a significant portion attributable to international tuition and living costs. Currency exchange rate fluctuations can further increase repayment burdens.

Credential Recognition and Employment Barriers
Degrees earned in the U.S. are generally recognized in Canada, but some regulated professions pose barriers. For example, the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board requires Canadian-specific certification, and healthcare professionals must undergo additional licensing exams. The Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials reports that about 15% of Canadian graduates from U.S. institutions experience delays or difficulties in credential recognition.

This disconnect can impact employment prospects and wage potential. According to a 2023 Statistics Canada survey, roughly 20% of Canadian graduates from foreign universities reported underemployment or working outside their field within two years of graduation.

Impact of Cross-Border Policies
U.S. visa and work authorization policies such as Optional Practical Training (OPT) affect Canadian students’ ability to gain practical experience in the U.S. after graduation. Although Canadians benefit from streamlined visa processes compared to other international students, recent tightening of U.S. immigration policies has created uncertainty.

Moreover, tax treaties and healthcare coverage differences complicate financial planning for Canadian students in the U.S. Understanding these policies is essential for managing both academic and post-graduation transitions.

Why Canadian Students Should Stay Informed
Canadian students and families investing in U.S. education need clear information on financial aid options, credentialing processes, and immigration regulations. HEI’s investigative reporting offers insights into these complexities, helping prospective students make informed decisions and avoid financial pitfalls.

---

Sources:

• Statistics Canada, “Canadian Students Enrolled Abroad,” 2022

• Canadian Federation of Students, “Student Debt Report,” 2022

• Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC), 2023

• Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board guidelines

• Statistics Canada, “Underemployment Among International Graduates,” 2023

• U.S. Department of State, Visa Policies and OPT Guidelines

The Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity: Rethinking—and Challenging—America’s Economic Narrative

In a political moment defined by economic confusion, precarity, and widening inequality, the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) has positioned itself as one of the most forceful critics of how the U.S. government measures economic well-being. Founded in 2019 by Eugene “Gene” Ludwig—banking regulator, financier, and longtime critic of official labor statistics—the institute argues that the traditional indicators used by policymakers, economists, and the media no longer reflect the lived experience of most working and middle-class Americans.

LISEP’s core mission is straightforward: to replace or supplement conventional economic indicators with metrics that measure whether ordinary people can live decent, stable, self-supporting lives. In place of headline unemployment levels that minimize underemployment and wage suppression, LISEP developed the True Rate of Unemployment (TRU). Instead of accepting the Consumer Price Index as an indicator of affordability, it created the True Living Cost (TLC). And to evaluate whether households can achieve a baseline level of dignity, the institute introduced its Minimal Quality of Life Index (MQL).

Taken together, these indicators paint a sobering picture. LISEP’s most recent TRU data suggests that nearly one in four Americans—far more than the official unemployment rate—remains functionally unemployed or trapped in low-wage, unstable work. Its analysis of living costs shows that basic necessities such as housing, childcare, food, healthcare, and digital access are rising at rates that far outpace reported inflation. Its income distribution research finds that the bottom 60% of households fall severely short of the after-tax income required to meet even minimal quality-of-life thresholds.

In a time when both parties often claim economic success—pointing to record stock markets, low headline unemployment, and steady GDP growth—LISEP argues that these triumphal narratives obscure the steady erosion of working-class security.

But LISEP’s work does more than diagnose hardship; it challenges the legitimacy of the economic story that the United States tells about itself. That is precisely why its metrics have garnered attention—and controversy.
Methodological Innovations and the Pushback They Attract

Economists, policymakers, labor advocates, and academics have responded to LISEP’s work with a mixture of praise and skepticism. Some see LISEP as filling a critical gap—offering metrics that better capture the realities of gig workers, part-time workers, workers with unpredictable hours, and families priced out of life’s essentials. Others argue that LISEP’s approach risks injecting subjectivity into economic measurement and complicating long-established statistical frameworks.

One major point of debate centers on LISEP’s definition of unemployment. Traditional unemployment statistics only count individuals actively seeking work. LISEP’s TRU metric, by contrast, includes the underemployed, part-time workers who want full-time jobs, and discouraged workers who have given up looking. Critics argue that combining these groups creates a metric that resembles a policy argument more than a neutral measurement. Supporters counter that ignoring these groups produces an artificially rosy portrait of economic health and undervalues persistent structural inequality.

LISEP’s True Living Cost and Minimal Quality of Life indices face a different critique: they define “necessities” more broadly than some economists are comfortable with. Including internet access, basic technology, early childhood education, and modern transportation standards is, according to LISEP, essential to functioning in the 21st-century economy. Critics contend that because these standards go beyond subsistence, the metrics risk shifting from measuring need to measuring aspiration. The institute responds that “subsistence” is not an acceptable measure of human dignity in a wealthy nation.

Other scholars raise questions about transparency. While LISEP publishes summaries and explanations of its methodologies, some economists argue that its approaches would require broader independent replication and peer review to become standard tools. Yet others note that the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself has long used imperfect methods that were never designed to measure well-being—only labor market participation.

Where supporters and skeptics agree is on one point: LISEP has forced a deeply needed conversation about what economic dignity means in the United States today.
Why LISEP Matters for Higher Education and Public Policy

For institutions of higher learning—especially those that produce the economists, policymakers, and journalists who shape public discourse—LISEP’s challenge to economic orthodoxy is a call to scrutiny and humility. Universities continue to rely on traditional metrics in research, teaching, and policy labs, even when these metrics fail to capture the economic and social pressures facing students and their families.

Students at community colleges, regional publics, and underfunded institutions live the realities LISEP describes: multiple jobs, unpredictable hours, rising food and housing insecurity, and persistent underemployment after graduation. Yet their struggles are too often minimized by conventional indicators that suggest a thriving labor market.

If academia takes LISEP’s work seriously, it could shift research priorities, reshape debates on student debt, influence regional economic development strategies, guide labor-market forecasting, and elevate the experiences of the most economically vulnerable students.

For policymakers, LISEP’s metrics offer a different foundation for assessing whether economic growth is reaching ordinary people. They provide tools for evaluating whether wages are livable, whether childcare is accessible, whether housing is affordable, and whether the economy produces stable, family-supporting jobs. If adopted or even partially embraced, LISEP’s indicators could inform legislation on minimum wage, labor protections, social services, tax reform, cost-of-living adjustments, and more.

The institute’s broader message is simple: the United States cannot address inequality if it continues to celebrate misleading statistics.
A New Economic Narrative

Whether LISEP becomes a permanent influence or a dissenting voice will depend on how policymakers, journalists, and academic economists respond. If its metrics remain on the margins, they will serve as a moral indictment of traditional measures that ignore the reality of economic insecurity. If they are adopted, they could trigger a profound reevaluation of American economic policy—one grounded not in aggregate success but in shared prosperity.

LISEP insists that a healthy economy is not one that grows on paper but one that allows ordinary people to live decently. That premise alone places the institute on the front lines of the battle over how the United States understands its own economic health.
Sources



Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, “True Rate of Unemployment (TRU),” 2025, lisep.org.
Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, “True Living Cost (TLC),” 2025, lisep.org.
Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, “Shared Economic Prosperity (SEP) Measure,” 2025, lisep.org.
PR Newswire, “Majority of Americans Can’t Achieve a Minimal Quality of Life, According to New Ludwig Institute Research,” May 12, 2025.
Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, “Wage Inequality Grows With Low-Income Workers Losing Ground,” Press Release, April 16, 2025.

Why College Matters: Out of Touch with Social Class Realities

Serve Marketing's Why College Matters media campaign stacks the deck in favor of higher education and expects consumers to believe the story they tell. The problem with this campaign, and its anonymous funders, is that for many folks, college (and life after college) is problematic at best and oppressive at worst. 

 

The Higher Education Disconnect: What Survey Results Miss About Americans' Real Concerns

The Why College Matters campaign presents data suggesting Americans' perceptions of higher education can be positively influenced through messaging. However, when compared with broader research on Americans' attitudes toward higher education, significant disconnects emerge. This analysis examines the gaps between the campaign's focus and the well-documented concerns Americans have about today's college experience.

The Financial Reality Gap: Debt and Affordability Concerns

The Why College Matters campaign notably avoids addressing one of the most pressing issues facing Americans considering higher education: the financial burden. This omission creates a fundamental disconnect with public sentiment.

Student Debt as a Life-Altering Burden

Recent research shows that 70% of middle-income Americans believe student loans are impacting their ability to achieve financial prosperity5. The psychological burden is equally significant, with 54% of student borrowers experiencing mental health challenges directly attributed to their debt load, including anxiety (56%) and depression (approximately 33%)8.

The campaign's focus on abstract benefits like "growing America's economic prosperity" fails to acknowledge that for many individuals, the immediate economic reality is far less promising. Student borrowers report delaying major life milestones including starting families, purchasing homes, and pursuing careers they're passionate about due to debt constraints8.

The Middle-Class Squeeze

While the campaign targets adults without college degrees as a key demographic, it misses that middle-class families face particularly acute challenges. These families often find themselves in a precarious position - too wealthy to qualify for significant need-based aid but not wealthy enough to comfortably afford college expenses13. This "middle-class squeeze" represents a significant disconnect between survey messaging and lived experience.

The Employment Reality Disconnect

Perhaps the most striking omission in the campaign's framing is the reality of post-graduation employment outcomes, which directly contradicts the economic benefit messaging.

Widespread Underemployment

Research from the Burning Glass Institute reveals a sobering statistic: 52% of recent four-year college graduates are underemployed a year after graduation, holding jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree14. Even more concerning, 45% still don't hold college-level jobs a decade after graduation14. This creates a fundamental disconnect when the campaign emphasizes workforce development without acknowledging this reality.

The "First Job Trap"

The survey frames higher education as broadly beneficial for workforce development but fails to address what researchers call the "first job trap." Data shows that 73% of graduates who start their careers in below-college-level jobs remain underemployed a decade after graduation14. This presents a significantly different picture than the campaign's simplified message about maintaining a skilled workforce.

Credential Inflation: The Devaluing Degree

The campaign messaging presumes that increased educational attainment inherently produces positive outcomes, without addressing the phenomenon of credential inflation that undermines this assumption.

Degrees as Diminishing Returns

Credential inflation refers to the declining value of educational credentials over time, creating a scenario where jobs that once required a high school diploma now demand bachelor's degrees, and positions that required bachelor's degrees now require master's or doctorates11. This creates a paradoxical situation where more education is simultaneously more necessary yet less valuable - a nuance entirely absent from the campaign narrative.

Opportunity Costs Unacknowledged

The campaign frames college primarily through its benefits, without acknowledging significant opportunity costs identified in research. These include delayed savings, fewer years in the workforce, postponement of family formation, and accumulation of debt11. This one-sided framing creates a disconnect with the lived experience of many Americans weighing these very real tradeoffs.

The Growing Generational Divide

The campaign's focus on adults aged 35-64 misses a critical demographic: younger generations who express the most skepticism about higher education's value.

Gen Z's Value Perception Crisis

Only 39% of Gen Z respondents in one study said advancing their education is important to them, and 46% don't believe college is worth the cost15. This represents a fundamental shift in attitude that the campaign's methodology doesn't capture, creating another disconnect between messaging and emerging social reality.

The Civic Disconnection Context

Research on youth disconnection shows broader trends of civic disengagement, with young Americans becoming less connected to community institutions generally19. The campaign's framing of higher education as building community connection happens against this backdrop of declining civic participation - context that provides important nuance missing from the survey design.

Mental Health Concerns: The Hidden Cost

Perhaps the most significant omission in the campaign's messaging is the documented mental health impact of the higher education experience, particularly related to financial strain.

Student Debt as Mental Health Crisis

Research demonstrates clear links between student loan debt and mental health challenges. Beyond anxiety and depression, the financial burden of education impacts overall wellbeing in ways unacknowledged by the campaign messaging816.

Postponed Lives and Dreams

The psychological impact of delayed life milestones due to educational debt creates stress that extends far beyond graduation. Student borrowers report putting their lives on hold - a reality that contradicts the campaign's emphasis on "keeping alive the American dream"8.

Ideological and Cultural Concerns

The campaign notably avoids addressing concerns about campus culture and ideological homogeneity that research shows are significant factors in changing attitudes toward higher education.

Faculty Ideological Imbalance

Research from Harvard University reveals striking ideological homogeneity among faculty, with 37% identifying as "very liberal" and just 1% as "conservative"12. This imbalance contributes to perceptions of higher education as disconnected from the values of many Americans - particularly explaining why the campaign struggled to persuade conservative Americans that "higher education plays a critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy."

Conclusion: Bridging the Perception Gap

The Why College Matters campaign demonstrates that positive messaging can improve abstract perceptions of higher education's value. However, for these improved perceptions to translate into meaningful change in Americans' relationship with higher education, campaigns must address the substantive concerns documented in research.

The disconnects identified here - regarding debt, employment outcomes, credential inflation, generational attitudes, mental health impacts, and ideological concerns - represent real issues that significantly impact Americans' decisions about higher education. Any campaign seeking to genuinely improve perceptions of higher education's value must engage with these realities rather than focusing solely on abstract benefits.

Simply improving "feelings" about higher education without addressing concrete problems risks further widening the gap between institutional messaging and public experience - potentially eroding rather than building trust in higher education as an institution.

Citations:

1. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/disconnected-places-and-spaces/
2. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1876&context=aspubs
3. https://stevenschwartz.substack.com/p/degree-inflation-undermining-the
4. https://eab.com/about/newsroom/press/2024-first-year-experience-survey/
5. https://www.newsweek.com/student-loans-hindering-american-prosperity-survey-1839337
6. https://www.burningglassinstitute.org/research/underemployment
7. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/2024/06/03/colleges-and-universities-new-mandate-rebuild-public-trust
8. https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/3658639-majority-of-student-loan-borrowers-link-mental-health-issues-to-their-debt/
9. https://measureofamerica.org/youth-disconnection-2024/
10. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=aysps_dissertations
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_inflation
12. https://fee.org/articles/harvard-faculty-survey-reveals-striking-ideological-bias-but-more-balanced-higher-education-options-are-emerging/
13. https://www.aaup.org/article/college-financing-and-plight-middle-class
14. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/academics/2024/02/22/more-half-recent-four-year-college-grads-underemployed
15. https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-value-of-college-higher-education-student-debt-tuition-2023-12
16. https://lbcurrent.com/opinions/2024/09/04/debts-dilemma-student-loans-and-its-effects-on-mental-health/
17. https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/national-poll-economic-hardships-american-middle-class-true-cost-of-living-press-release
18. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Anatomy-of-College-Tuition.pdf
19. https://www.cis.org.au/publication/degree-inflation-undermining-the-value-of-higher-education/
20. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/05/14/third-first-year-students-experience-bias-targeting
21. https://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/newsroom/2023/10/survey-reveals-areas-of-fragmentation-and-common-ground-in-a-complicated-america.html
22. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/post/regardless-of-the-cost-college-still-matters/
23. https://www.richardchambers.com/education-inflation-bad-for-education-bad-for-business/
24. https://www.aaup.org/article/data-snapshot-whom-does-campus-reform-target-and-what-are-effects
25. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2007/has-middle-america-stagnated
26. https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/lmijoy/why_cant_they_just_lower_tuition/
27. https://www.reddit.com/r/highereducation/comments/177qjtk/degree_inflation_is_a_huge_problem/
28. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/2025/03/06/survey-presidents-point-drivers-declining-public-trust
29. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/18/facts-about-student-loans/
30. https://stradaeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Talent-Disrupted.pdf
31. https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4375280-its-clear-colleges-today-lack-moral-clarity/
32. https://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2013/01/debt
33. https://center-forward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/39370-Center-Forward-Student-Loans-Survey-Analysis-F04.11.23.pdf
34. https://www.highereddive.com/news/half-of-graduates-end-up-underemployed-what-does-that-mean-for-colleges/710836/
35. https://jamesgmartin.center/2019/07/exposing-the-moral-flaws-in-our-higher-education-system/
36. https://www.freedomdebtrelief.com/learn/loans/how-student-loans-affect-mental-health/
37. https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-income-level
38. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/careers/2024/07/01/how-concerning-underemployment-graduates
39. https://www.thefire.org/facultyreport
40. https://www.ellucian.com/news/national-survey-reveals-59-college-students-considered-dropping-out-due-financial-stress

Forecasting the U.S. College Meltdown: How Higher Education Inquirer’s 2016 Warnings Played Out, 2016–2025 (Glen McGhee)

In December 2016, the Higher Education Inquirer published a set of 18 predictions warning of an ongoing “U.S. College Meltdown.” At the time, these warnings ran counter to the dominant narrative promoted by university leaders, accreditation agencies, Wall Street analysts, and much of the higher education press. College, readers were assured, remained a sound investment. Institutional risks were described as isolated, manageable, or limited to a small number of poorly run schools.

Nearly nine years later, that confidence has collapsed.

A comprehensive review of publicly available data, investigative journalism, court records, and government reports shows that 17 of the Higher Education Inquirer’s 18 predictions—94.4 percent—have been fully or partially confirmed. What was once framed as speculation now reads as an early diagnosis of a system already in advanced decline.

This article is not a victory lap. It is an accounting—of warnings ignored, of structural failures compounded, and of a higher education system reshaped less by learning than by debt, austerity, and financial engineering.

The Growth of Student Debt

In 2016, total student loan debt stood at approximately $1.4 trillion. By 2025, it had surpassed $1.8 trillion, despite repeated claims that the crisis was stabilizing. Millions of borrowers cycled in and out of forbearance, delinquency, and default, often unaware of the long-term consequences of capitalization, interest accrual, and damaged credit.

Temporary relief programs—pandemic pauses, income-driven repayment plans, and selective forgiveness—offered short-term breathing room while failing to address the underlying cost structure of higher education. Legal challenges and administrative reversals further destabilized borrower expectations, reinforcing the sense that student debt had become a permanent feature of American life rather than a transitional burden.

The Higher Education Inquirer warned in 2016 that student loans would increasingly function as a disciplinary mechanism, constraining career choice, delaying family formation, and suppressing economic mobility. That warning has proven prescient.

Graduate Underemployment and the Erosion of the Degree Premium

Another core prediction concerned the labor market. While headline unemployment numbers often appeared strong, the quality of employment deteriorated. By the early 2020s, a majority of recent four-year college graduates were underemployed—working in jobs that did not require a degree or offered limited advancement.

Wages stagnated even as credential requirements rose. Employers demanded more education for the same roles, while offering less stability in return. The result was a generation of graduates caught between rising expectations and diminishing returns.

This shift exposed a contradiction at the heart of the modern university: institutions continued to market degrees as pathways to prosperity, even as internal data increasingly showed that outcomes varied dramatically by institution, major, race, and class.

Enrollment Decline and the Demographic Cliff

The enrollment downturn predicted in 2016 arrived in waves. First came post–Great Recession skepticism. Then demographic decline reduced the number of traditional college-age students. Finally, the pandemic accelerated distrust, remote learning fatigue, and financial strain.

By the mid-2020s, enrollment losses were no longer cyclical. They were structural.

Colleges responded not by rethinking pricing or mission, but by cutting costs. Programs were eliminated, faculty positions left unfilled, and student services hollowed out. In rural and working-class regions, entire communities lost anchor institutions that had served as employers, cultural centers, and pathways to upward mobility.

Institutional Debt, Financialization, and Risk Shifting

One of the most underreported developments has been the rise of institutional debt. Facing declining tuition revenue, many colleges turned to bond markets to finance operations, capital projects, or refinancing. This strategy delayed collapse but increased long-term vulnerability.

The Higher Education Inquirer warned that debt-financed survival strategies would transfer risk downward—onto students through higher tuition, onto staff through layoffs, and onto local governments when institutions failed. That pattern has repeated itself across the country.

Meanwhile, elite universities with massive endowments continued to expand, insulate themselves from risk, and benefit from tax advantages unavailable to less wealthy institutions.

Closures, Mergers, and Asset Stripping

Since 2016, well over one hundred colleges have closed, merged, or been absorbed. Many closures were preceded by years of warning signs: declining enrollment, deferred maintenance, accreditation scrutiny, and emergency fundraising campaigns.

In some cases, institutions sold land, buildings, or entire campuses to survive. In others, boards pursued mergers that preserved branding while eliminating local governance and jobs.

These were not isolated failures. They were the predictable outcome of a system that prioritized growth, prestige, and financial metrics over resilience and public accountability.

The Limits of Reform and the Failure of Oversight

Perhaps the most sobering confirmation of the 2016 analysis is not any single data point, but the broader failure of reform. Despite abundant evidence of harm, regulatory responses remained fragmented and reactive. Accreditation agencies rarely intervened early. Federal enforcement was inconsistent. Media coverage often framed crises as unfortunate anomalies rather than systemic outcomes.

The Higher Education Inquirer argued in 2016 that the greatest risk was not collapse itself, but normalization—the slow acceptance of dysfunction as inevitable. That normalization is now visible in policy debates that treat mass underemployment, lifelong debt, and institutional instability as the cost of doing business.

A Crisis Foretold

The U.S. college meltdown did not arrive as a single dramatic event. It unfolded slowly, unevenly, and predictably—through spreadsheets, bond prospectuses, enrollment dashboards, and borrower accounts.

The accuracy of these forecasts underscores a deeper truth: the crisis was foreseeable. It was documented. It was warned about. What was missing was the willingness to act.

The Higher Education Inquirer published its predictions in 2016 not to provoke fear, but to provoke accountability. Nine years later, the record is clear. The meltdown was not an accident. It was a choice—made repeatedly, by institutions and policymakers who believed the system could absorb unlimited strain.

It could not.

---

Sources
LendingTree; EducationData; Inside Higher Ed; Higher Ed Dive; Forbes; NPR; Brookings Institution; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

The Hidden Crisis of Functional Unemployment in the U.S.: A Wake-Up Call for Higher Education and Policy Leaders

 A recent article by Hugh Cameron in Newsweek brings urgent attention to a labor market crisis that conventional statistics obscure: millions of Americans are “functionally unemployed.” While the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a headline unemployment rate of 4.2 percent, the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) paints a far bleaker picture. 

According to LISEP, 24.3 percent of working-age Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or trapped in poverty-wage jobs.

True Rate of Unemployment Tells a Different Story

This alternative measurement, known as the True Rate of Unemployment (TRU), includes people who are officially jobless, those seeking full-time work but only finding part-time jobs, and those earning less than a livable income—defined here as $25,000 annually before taxes. Based on that definition, more than 66 million Americans fall under the category of functionally unemployed. These are not edge cases or statistical outliers; they represent a quarter of the working population, living with economic insecurity and eroded opportunities.

The findings challenge the conventional wisdom promoted by policymakers and education leaders, particularly the long-standing belief that higher education is a guaranteed pathway to upward mobility. In reality, the American credential system continues to churn out degrees while failing to deliver economic stability to millions of graduates. Students are told that education is the answer, yet the outcome for many is low-wage or precarious work, often coupled with lifelong debt. The disconnect between academic credentials and actual job quality has become impossible to ignore.

LISEP’s data also reveals significant disparities along racial and gender lines. While 23.6 percent of White Americans are functionally unemployed, that number rises to 26.7 percent for Black Americans and 27.3 percent for Hispanic Americans. The divide is even more striking along gender lines: nearly 30 percent of women fall into this category, compared to 19.3 percent of men. These disparities reflect deep systemic inequities that persist across labor markets and educational access.

Gene Ludwig, chair of LISEP, warned that the stagnation of living-wage employment is pushing working families to the brink. Wages are not keeping pace with inflation, and the jobs being created often don’t pay enough to lift people out of poverty. This is the unspoken backdrop to much of the current political discourse around jobs and education: a structurally flawed economy that leaves millions with few viable options, regardless of their education level or work ethic.

Critics of the TRU metric, including labor economist David Card, argue that the Bureau of Labor Statistics already publishes supplemental indicators that capture underemployment and low wages. But LISEP’s integrated approach offers a broader, more accessible view of economic well-being—one that challenges overly simplistic narratives about a “strong” labor market. Whether or not policymakers embrace the TRU as a primary indicator, the conditions it reveals are real and worsening for many.

Uncomfortable Truths

This data forces higher education to confront uncomfortable truths. If degrees are no longer reliable gateways to decent jobs, what is the purpose of mass credentialing? Why do we continue to promote the college-to-career pipeline when the pipeline increasingly empties into dead-end or unstable work? These are not abstract questions. They strike at the heart of what higher education claims to offer in exchange for rising tuition, student loan debt, and years of sacrifice.

The United States faces a reckoning. LISEP’s report may not change the way official statistics are presented, but it exposes the growing distance between public optimism and private hardship. The challenge now is to ensure that educational institutions, labor advocates, and policymakers move beyond slogans and begin addressing the structural rot beneath the surface of the labor market. That means rethinking the function of education, redefining economic success, and rebuilding an economy where work—and learning—actually pays off.

Neoliberalism and the Global College Meltdown

Over the past four decades, neoliberalism has reshaped higher education into a market-driven enterprise, producing what can only be described as a global College Meltdown. Once envisioned as a public good—a tool for civic empowerment, social mobility, and national progress—higher education in the United States, the United Kingdom, and China has been transformed into a competitive market system defined by privatization, debt, and disillusionment.

The United States: From Public Good to Profit Engine

Nowhere has neoliberal ideology had a more devastating effect on higher education than in the United States. Beginning in the 1980s, with the Reagan administration’s cuts to federal grants and the expansion of student loans, higher education funding shifted from public investment to individual burden. Universities adopted corporate governance models, hired armies of administrators, and marketed education as a private commodity promising personal enrichment rather than collective advancement.

The results are visible everywhere: tuition inflation, student debt exceeding $1.7 trillion, and the proliferation of predatory for-profit colleges. Elite universities transformed into financial behemoths, hoarding endowments while relying on contingent faculty. Meanwhile, working-class and minority students were lured into debt traps by institutions that promised upward mobility but delivered unemployment and despair.

The U.S. College Meltdown—a term that describes the system’s moral and financial collapse—is a direct consequence of neoliberal policies: deregulation, privatization, and austerity disguised as efficiency. The profit motive replaced the public mission, and the casualties include students, adjuncts, and the ideal of education as a democratic right.

The United Kingdom: Marketization and Managerialism

The United Kingdom followed a similar trajectory under Margaret Thatcher and her successors. The introduction of tuition fees in 1998 and their tripling in 2012 marked the formal triumph of neoliberal logic over public investment. British universities became quasi-corporate entities, obsessed with league tables, branding, and global rankings.

The result has been mounting student debt, declining staff morale, and a hollowing out of intellectual life. Faculty strikes over pensions and pay disparities underscore a deeper crisis of purpose. Universities now function as rent-seeking landlords—building luxury dorms for international students while cutting humanities departments. The logic of “student-as-customer” has reduced education to a transaction, and accountability has been redefined to mean profit margin rather than social contribution.

The UK’s College Meltdown mirrors that of the U.S.—a story of financialization, precarious labor, and the erosion of public trust.

China: Neoliberalism with Authoritarian Characteristics

At first glance, China seems to defy the Western College Meltdown. Its universities have expanded rapidly, producing millions of graduates and investing heavily in research. But beneath this apparent success lies a deeply neoliberal structure embedded in an authoritarian framework.

Since the 1990s, China’s higher education system has embraced competition, rankings, and market incentives. Universities compete for prestige and funding; families invest heavily in private tutoring and overseas degrees; and graduates face a saturated labor market. The result is mounting anxiety and unemployment among young people—known online as the “lying flat” generation, disillusioned with promises of meritocratic success.

The Chinese model fuses state control with neoliberal marketization. Education serves as both an instrument of national power and a mechanism of social stratification. In this sense, China’s version of the College Meltdown reflects a global truth: the commodification of education leads to alienation, regardless of political system.

A Global System in Crisis

Whether in Washington, London, or Beijing, the pattern is strikingly similar. Neoliberalism treats education as an investment in human capital, reducing learning to a financial calculation. Universities compete like corporations; students borrow like consumers; and knowledge becomes a tool of capital accumulation rather than liberation.

This convergence of economic and ideological forces has created an unsustainable higher education bubble—overpriced, overcredentialized, and underdelivering. Across continents, graduates face debt, underemployment, and despair, while universities chase rankings and revenue streams instead of justice and truth.

Toward a Post-Neoliberal Education

Reversing the College Meltdown requires more than reform; it demands a new philosophy. Public universities must reclaim their civic mission. Education must once again be understood as a human right, not a private investment. Debt forgiveness, reinvestment in teaching, and democratic governance are essential first steps.

Neoliberalism’s greatest illusion was that markets could produce wisdom. The College Meltdown proves the opposite: when education serves profit instead of people, it consumes itself from within.

---

Sources:

• Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos (2015)

• David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005)

• Tressie McMillan Cottom, Lower Ed (2017)

• The Higher Education Inquirer archives on the U.S. College Meltdown

• BBC, “University staff strikes and student debt crisis,” 2024

• Caixin, “China’s youth unemployment and education anxiety,” 2023

U‑6 Unemployment Rate Inching Up: A Broader Look at Labor Market Strain

The U‑6 unemployment rate, the broadest measure of labor underutilization reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is showing signs of upward pressure. Unlike the headline U‑3 rate, which only includes those actively seeking work, the U‑6 figure captures a more complete picture of employment. It includes discouraged workers, marginally attached individuals, and those working part-time for economic reasons.

According to the most recent data from the BLS and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the U‑6 rate inched up from 7.7 percent in June 2024 to a recent peak of 8.0 percent in February 2025. Since then, it has remained elevated, recording 7.9 percent in March and 7.8 percent in both April and May. The June 2025 figure dropped slightly to 7.7 percent but remains among the highest levels seen since 2023.

The U‑6 rate tends to rise when more people are involuntarily working part-time or when marginally attached workers reenter the job search but fail to secure full-time employment. These dynamics suggest that while headline unemployment may appear stable—hovering around 4.1 percent in June—the underlying labor market may be more fragile than it seems.

This persistence in underemployment raises concerns about the quality of jobs available, wage stagnation, and economic resilience, particularly for lower-income workers and those in precarious positions. A growing number of Americans want full-time employment but are unable to find it. Others are technically outside the labor force but remain discouraged or marginally attached to it.

In the broader context, the U‑6 rate serves as a counterbalance to optimistic economic narratives. The apparent stability in the U‑3 rate masks lingering vulnerabilities, especially as sectors like retail, hospitality, and education continue to rely heavily on part-time labor or are facing budgetary constraints. For those watching the post-pandemic economy, particularly in relation to student debt, workforce readiness, and higher education policy, these indicators suggest a structural weakness in job creation and labor absorption.

The gradual rise of U‑6 is not just a statistical footnote. It signals that the labor market is not fully healed and that a portion of the population remains economically sidelined. It is a metric worth monitoring as debates around economic recovery, fiscal policy, and employment strategies continue.

For readers of the Higher Education Inquirer, this trend reinforces the need to consider broader employment conditions when evaluating the health of the U.S. economy, particularly for recent graduates, contingent faculty, and other workers navigating a precarious job landscape.

Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), U‑6 Unemployment Rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
TradingEconomics, U‑6 Unemployment Rate: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/u6-unemployment-rate

How College Destroyed the Labor Market (Damon Cassidy)

Underemployment, low wage jobs, and bullsh*t jobs are an important part of the US economy. And the higher education system does not appear to have done much to change this depressing reality. While this video may represent a distortion of US history and society, it should not be ignored. Skepticism about higher education is real, and for good reason, especially for the working class. There are also good points made in this video, including the federal and corporate de-funding of vocational education and crushing student loan debt. 

To understand what can be done, the US needs to look at what more progressive nations have done with education at all levels, and how education is tied to the larger economy and to Quality Of Life. Being able to reform the American system is a challenge, however, when vested interests (corporations and their government surrogates) work to keep the existing system of inequality and injustice in place.

Related links: 

The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth) 

A People's History of Higher Education in the US 

Student Loan Debt

Wealth and Want

US Department of Education Projects Increasing Higher Ed Enrollment From 2024-2030. Really? (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

The US Department of Education (ED) continues to paint rosy projections about higher education enrollment despite harsh economic and demographic realities--and increasing skepticism about the value of college degrees.  

Image from Digest of Education Statistics (2022) 

Since 2011, higher education enrollment has declined every year--a more than decade long trend. The Covid pandemic of 2020 to 2022 made matters worse with domestic and foreign enrollment-- (temporarily) ameliorated by government bailouts and untested online education.  Foreign enrollment continues to languish. And the enrollment cliff of 2026, a ripple effect of the 2008 Great Recession, is now just around the corner. 

ED is projecting enrollment losses in 2022 and 2023, but why is it projecting enrollment gains from 2024 to 2030?  Apparently, one of the problems is with old and faulty Census projections made during the Trump era that were not corrected.

Based on these Census numbers and other factors, the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) projects increases in high school graduation numbers.  The Western Interstate Commission for Higher (WICHE), in contrast, projects declines in high school graduates starting about 2025. (see graph below). 

For ED, relying on overly optimistic projections for high school graduates creates a statistical train wreck that's made even worse by what's not in their formula.  

Popular opinion about college has been declining for years, and there is no indication that attitudes will improve.  A growing number of younger folks have joined the "educated underclass," becoming disaffected by underemployment and oppressive student loan debt.  While progressive policies could change attitudes, deep skepticism about the value of education is an important statistical wildcard.

This is not the first time that the Higher Education Inquirer has questioned overly optimistic US Department of Education projections. While NCES has updated projections from time to time, it seems to have relied too much on the past and been too slow to change.  

Related link:  Millennials are the first generation to prove a college degree may not be worth it, and Gen Z may be next (Chloe Berger, Forbes/Yahoo Finance)

Related link: America’s Colleges & Universities Awarded $12.5 Billion In Coronavirus Bailout – Who Can Get It And How Much (Adam Andrzejewski, Forbes)

Related link: Online Postsecondary Education and Labor Productivity (Caroline Hoxby)

Related link: U.S. Universities Face Headwinds In Recruiting International Students (Michael T. Nietzel, Forbes)

Related link: Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education (Nathan Grawe)

Related link Why U.S. Population Growth Is Collapsing (Derek Thompson, The Atlantic)

Related link: Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2021 (Federal Reserve)

Related link: Many US States Have Seen Enrollment Drops of More Than 20 Percent (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis) 

Related link: Community Colleges at the Heart of the College Meltdown

Related link: Projections of Education Statistics to 2028 (NCES)

Related link: US Department of Education Fails to Recognize College Meltdown (2017)

Related link: Revising Indicators of the College Meltdown during the Panic of 2020

Related link: The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth, 2020)

Related link: College Meltdown 2.0

Related link: College Meltdown 2.2: Who's Minding the Store?