College Meltdown Fall 2025

The Fall 2025 semester begins under intensifying pressure in U.S. higher education. Institutions are responding to long-term changes in enrollment, public funding, demographics, technology, and labor markets. The result is a gradual disassembly of parts of the postsecondary system, with ongoing layoffs, program cuts, and institutional restructuring across both public and private sectors.

The Destruction of ED

In a stunning turn, the U.S. Department of Education has undergone a massive downsizing, slashing nearly half its workforce as part of the Trump administration’s push to dismantle the agency entirely. Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the move as a “final mission” to restore state control and eliminate federal bureaucracy, but critics warn of chaos for vulnerable students and families who rely on federal programs. With responsibilities like student loans, Pell Grants, and civil rights enforcement now in limbo, Higher Education Institutions face a volatile landscape. The absence of centralized oversight has accelerated the fragmentation of standards, funding, and accountability—leaving colleges scrambling to navigate a patchwork of state policies and shrinking federal support.

AI Disruption: Academic Integrity and Graduate Employment 

Artificial Intelligence has rapidly reshaped higher education, introducing both powerful tools and profound challenges. On campus, AI-driven platforms like ChatGPT have become ubiquitous—92% of students now use them, and 88% admit to deploying AI for graded assignments. This surge has triggered a spike in academic misconduct, with detection systems struggling to keep pace and disproportionately flagging non-native English speakers Meanwhile, the job market for graduates is undergoing a seismic shift. Entry-level roles in tech, finance, and consulting are vanishing as companies automate routine tasks once reserved for junior staff. AI-driven layoffs have already claimed over 10,000 jobs in 2025 alone, and some experts predict that up to half of all white-collar entry-level positions could be eliminated within five years. For recent grads, this means navigating a landscape where degrees may hold less weight, and adaptability, AI fluency, and human-centered skills are more critical than ever.

Unsustainable Student Loan Debt and Federal Funding 

A recent report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) highlights the depth of the crisis: more than 1,000 colleges could lose access to federal student aid based on current student loan repayment rates—if existing rules were fully enforced. The findings expose systemic failures in accountability and student outcomes. Many of these colleges enroll high numbers of low-income students but leave them with unsustainable debt and limited job prospects.

Institutional Cuts and Layoffs Across the Country

Job losses and cost reductions are increasing across a range of universities.

Stanford University is cutting staff due to a projected $200 million budget shortfall.
University of Oregon has announced budget reductions and academic restructuring.
Michigan State University is implementing layoffs and reorganizing departments.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center is eliminating positions to manage healthcare operating costs.
Harvard Kennedy School is reducing programs and offering early retirement.
Brown University is freezing hiring and reviewing academic offerings.
Penn State University System is closing three Commonwealth Campuses.
Indiana public colleges are merging administrative functions and reviewing low-enrollment programs.

These actions affect not only employees and students but also local communities and regional labor markets.

Enrollment Decline and Demographic Change

Undergraduate enrollment has fallen 14.6% since Fall 2019, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Community colleges have experienced the largest losses, with some regions seeing more than 20% declines.

The “demographic cliff” tied to declining birth rates is now reflected in enrollment trends. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) projects a 15% decline in high school graduates between 2025 and 2037 in parts of the Midwest and Northeast.

Aging Population and Shifts in Public Spending

The U.S. population is aging. By 2030, all baby boomers will be over 65. The number of Americans aged 80 and older is expected to rise from 13 million in 2020 to nearly 20 million by 2035. Public resources are being redirected toward Social Security, Medicare, and elder care, placing higher education in direct competition for limited federal and state funds.

State-Level Cuts to Higher Education Budgets

According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), 28 states saw a decline in inflation-adjusted funding per student in FY2024.

The California State University system faces a $400 million structural deficit.
West Virginia has reduced academic programs in favor of workforce-focused realignment.
Indiana has ordered cost-cutting measures across public campuses.

These reductions are leading to fewer courses, increased workloads, and, in some cases, higher tuition.

Closures and Mergers Continue

Since 2020, more than 100 campuses have closed or merged, based on Education Dive and HEI data. In 2025, Penn State began closing three Commonwealth Campuses. A number of small private colleges—especially those with enrollments under 1,000 and limited endowments—are seeking mergers or shutting down entirely.

International Enrollment Faces Obstacles

The Institute of International Education (IIE) reports a 12% decline in new international student enrollment in Fall 2024. Contributing factors include visa delays and tighter immigration rules. Students from India, Nigeria, and Iran have experienced longer wait times and increased rejection rates. Graduate programs in STEM and business are particularly affected.

Increased Surveillance and Restrictions on Campus Speech

Data from FIRE and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) show increased use of surveillance tools on campuses since 2023. At least 15 public universities now use facial recognition, social media monitoring, or geofencing. State laws in Florida, Texas, and Georgia have introduced new restrictions on protests and diversity programs.

Automated Education Expands

Online Program Managers (OPMs) such as 2U, Kaplan, and Coursera are running over 500 online degree programs at more than 200 institutions, enrolling more than 1.5 million students. These programs often rely on AI-generated content and automated grading systems, with minimal instructor interaction.

Research from the Century Foundation shows that undergraduate programs operated by OPMs have completion rates below 35%, while charging tuition comparable to in-person degrees. Regulatory efforts to improve transparency and accountability remain stalled.

Oversight Gaps Remain

Accrediting agencies continue to approve closures, mergers, and new credential programs with limited transparency. Institutions are increasingly expanding short-term credential offerings and corporate partnerships with minimal external review.

Cost Shifts to Students, Faculty, and Communities

The ongoing restructuring of higher education is shifting costs and risks onto students, employees, and communities. Students face rising tuition, fewer available courses, and increased reliance on loans. Faculty and staff encounter job insecurity and heavier workloads. Outside the ivory tower, communities will lose access to educational services, cultural events, and local employment opportunities tied to campuses.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to report on the structural changes in U.S. higher education—grounded in data, public records, and the lived experiences of those directly affected.

Sources:
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), U.S. Census Bureau, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), Institute of International Education (IIE), Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Government Accountability Office (GAO), The Century Foundation, Stanford University, University of Oregon, Penn State University System, Harvard Kennedy School, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Education Dive Higher Ed Closures Tracker, American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Scam Alert: American Financial Solutions and Borrower Defense to Repayment

[Editor's Note: The Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a Freedom of Information Request F-2025-02034 for any Federal Trade Commission consumer complaints against American Financial Solutions. We expect student loan relief scams to grow over the next few years as federal government oversight is reduced.]

American Financial Solutions (AFS) positions itself in social media as a lifeline for student loan borrowers, offering help with programs like Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR), PSLF, closed-school discharge, teacher loan forgiveness, and income-driven repayment. They advertise a “95 percent success rate,” more than $25 million in loans discharged, and over 10,000 clients helped. AFS promotes a three-step approach: a free consultation, documentation collection, and federal application submission—with implied guarantees of approval. They even suggest that discharges can occur in as little as 12 to 36 months.

Behind this polished marketing is a disturbing reality. When contacted directly, AFS quoted a $1,500 fee to file a Borrower Defense claim. The Department of Education provides this service for free, which makes the fee an unnecessary financial burden on people already struggling with debt. Worse still, AFS representatives falsely claimed that approval would be “guaranteed” because the borrower’s school was named in the Sweet v. Cardona settlement. That is not how the Sweet settlement worked, and no private company can guarantee outcomes in federal relief programs.

AFS also collects a troubling amount of data from borrowers. According to its own disclosures, the company asks for names, contact information, educational histories, student loan details, financial information, and documentation of borrowers’ school experiences. It also stores communications and any additional information provided. Beyond that, the company automatically harvests website usage data, including IP addresses, device and operating system information, pages visited, time spent on the site, referring websites, and even search terms. This means that vulnerable borrowers are not only charged excessive fees but also exposed to unnecessary risks regarding their personal and financial data.

While AFS presents itself as a nonprofit credit counseling agency with A+ BBB accreditation, consumer complaints suggest a lack of transparency and responsiveness. One unresolved 2024 complaint alleged billing issues, with the consumer insisting they were not liable for a debt and had no contract, while the company failed to respond. Independent review platforms show a mix of praise and criticism, with some clients reporting successful debt management experiences, but others raising questions about hidden costs, communication problems, and misleading claims.

The bigger problem is that AFS fits a well-documented pattern of predatory practices in the student loan relief industry. Over the past decade, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have repeatedly shut down companies that charged for free government services, misrepresented their powers, and lied about forgiveness guarantees. In one case, the CFPB shut down Student Aid Institute, only to see its operator resurface under a new name and steal more than $240,000 from borrowers. In another, Monster Loans and its associates were sued for defrauding over 23,000 borrowers. The FTC has also acted against multiple operations that bilked millions of dollars from borrowers by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. Even Navient, a major loan servicer, agreed in 2024 to pay $120 million after deceiving borrowers about repayment options.

The risks to borrowers are increasing as federal oversight weakens. In 2025, reports revealed that the CFPB planned to scale back enforcement of student loan cases, leaving state regulators—who often lack resources—to fill the gap. Critics warned this would create “open season” for scammers. Against that backdrop, companies like AFS are free to charge high fees, collect sensitive data, and make deceptive promises while vulnerable borrowers remain unprotected.

American Financial Solutions is not a solution. It is part of the problem, a business model that profits by charging people for free services, misrepresenting the law, and exposing them to new risks. Unless stronger oversight and enforcement are restored, borrowers will continue to be victimized first by predatory schools and then by predatory “relief” companies cashing in on their desperation.

---

Sources

American Financial Solutions marketing claims. amerifisolutions.com
AFS data collection disclosure (website policy provided by user)
Better Business Bureau profile. bbb.org
BBB consumer complaint (2024). bbb.org
Trustpilot reviews. trustpilot.com
ConsumerAffairs reviews. consumeraffairs.com
BestCompany review. bestcompany.com
CuraDebt expert analysis. curadebt.com
Federal Trade Commission. “American Financial Benefits Center Refunds.” ftc.gov
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Seeks Ban Against Operator of Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Reboot.” consumerfinance.gov
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Takes Action Against Operators of an Unlawful Student Loan Debt Relief Scheme.” consumerfinance.gov
Federal Trade Commission. “FTC Acts to Stop Scheme that Bilked Millions out of Student Loan Borrowers.” ftc.gov, December 2024
Federal Trade Commission. “Student Loan Debt Relief Scam Operators Agree to be Permanently Banned.” ftc.gov, May 2025
Time Magazine. “Navient Settlement: Student Loan Borrowers to Receive Payments.” time.com, 2024
The Guardian. “Brad Lander: CFPB Cuts Create Open Season for Fraudsters.” theguardian.com, May 2025

College Prospects, College Targets

In the old American dreambook, a “college prospect” was a young person with ambition and promise—a student looking for a campus where they could grow intellectually, socially, and economically. But in today’s reality, “prospect” is an industry term, a sales category. In enrollment management suites across the country, prospective students aren’t just applicants; they’re targets.

[Image from Brown University, August 2025]

Higher education—whether elite, public, or for-profit—now runs on sophisticated marketing pipelines. The same predictive analytics used by corporations, political campaigns, and even law enforcement are deployed to track, segment, and convert students into paying customers. Colleges buy and sell student data from standardized test companies, online lead generators, and high school surveys. They follow “prospects” through their clicks, their campus visits, their FAFSA submissions—nudging them toward a deposit with personalized emails, algorithmically timed text messages, and calculated financial aid offers.

This is not about education first. It’s about yield rates, tuition revenue, and net tuition per student. For working-class families, first-generation students, and those from marginalized backgrounds, this targeting can be especially dangerous. The glossy brochures and “student success” slogans conceal the hard realities: inflated tuition, debt burdens that can last decades, and career outcomes far less rosy than advertised.

The for-profit sector perfected this playbook. Schools like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and the Art Institutes honed high-pressure recruiting scripts, built massive lead databases, and saturated social media feeds with ads promising quick career training and big paydays. When many of these institutions collapsed under federal scrutiny, their tactics didn’t disappear—they spread. Today, public universities and elite private schools use their own version of the same system, dressed up in more respectable branding.

At the top end of the prestige ladder, “targets” have a different profile. Elite schools scout “development prospects”—wealthy families whose applications are accompanied by the potential for multimillion-dollar gifts. The student is both a potential enrollee and a future donor pipeline. Recruitment here is less about financial aid and more about legacy admissions, networking dinners, and quiet tours with the president.

What all this targeting has in common is an imbalance of information. Colleges know almost everything about their prospects—income bands, likely majors, ability to pay—while students and families often have only the marketing copy and a sticker price. In this environment, independent, transparent information is a rare form of defense.

That’s where tools like TuitionFit and the CollegeViability app come in—not as recruitment aids, but as counterintelligence for families.

• TuitionFit collects and shares real financial aid offers from students across the country. This allows families to see what schools are actually charging students with similar academic and financial profiles—not just the “average” cost schools advertise. By revealing the hidden discounting game, TuitionFit helps families avoid overpaying and resist the psychological pressure of “limited-time offers” from admissions officers.

• The CollegeViability app compiles public financial data from the U.S. Department of Education and other sources to create an at-a-glance picture of an institution’s fiscal health. It tracks enrollment trends, tuition dependency, debt loads, and other risk factors—warning signs that a college might be on the verge of closing or slashing programs. Families who use it can see trouble coming long before the next headline about a sudden campus shutdown.

These are not small benefits. Every year, thousands of students are lured into institutions that overpromise and underdeliver. Some are blindsided by mid-program closures. Others graduate into underemployment with six figures of debt. Without tools like TuitionFit and CollegeViability, many would walk into these situations blind.

The troubling truth is that higher education’s recruitment machine treats students the same way a corporate sales funnel treats customers—and sometimes the way a military intelligence operation treats enemy assets. Prospects are acquired, qualified, engaged, and converted. They are ranked by “propensity to enroll,” courted by carefully timed contact, and celebrated in quarterly revenue reports.

The people making the targeting decisions rarely bear the costs of a bad outcome. If a student drops out with debt and no degree, it’s a personal tragedy, not a liability on the college’s balance sheet. If a school shutters with no warning, students and their families are left scrambling while administrators move on to new posts elsewhere.

College should be more than a precision-marketed capture. It should be a transparent, good-faith exchange where both sides have access to the same essential facts. Right now, that balance doesn’t exist—and the gap is being exploited.

Families who want to survive the recruitment gauntlet must treat it for what it is: a sales process backed by data analytics, designed to maximize institutional revenue, not student outcomes. That means using every independent resource available, asking hard questions, and refusing to be rushed into decisions.

In the end, the difference between being a college prospect and a college target might be whether you’re armed with real information—or just hope.

Sources:

• The Century Foundation, College Admissions and the Business of Enrollment Management

• U.S. Senate HELP Committee, For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success

• The Hechinger Report, How Colleges Use Big Data to Target Students

• TuitionFit, About

• CollegeViability, Institutional Health Indicators

The Rise of Ghost Students: AI-Fueled Fraud in Higher Education

Colleges across the United States are facing an alarming increase in "ghost students"—fraudulent applicants who infiltrate online enrollment systems, collect financial aid, and vanish before delivering any academic engagement. The problem, fueled by advances in artificial intelligence and weaknesses in identity verification processes, is undermining trust, misdirecting resources, and placing real students at risk.

What Is a Ghost Student?

A ghost student is not simply someone who drops out. These are fully fabricated identities—sometimes based on stolen personal information, sometimes entirely synthetic—created to fraudulently enroll in colleges. Fraudsters use AI tools to generate admissions essays, forge transcripts, and even produce deepfake images and videos for identity verification.

Once enrolled, ghost students typically sign up for online courses, complete minimal coursework to stay active long enough to qualify for financial aid, and then disappear once funds are disbursed.

Scope and Impact

The scale of the problem is significant and growing:

• California community colleges flagged approximately 460,000 suspicious applications in a single year—nearly 20% of the total—resulting in more than $11 million in fraudulent aid disbursements.

• The College of Southern Nevada reported losing $7.4 million to ghost student fraud in one semester.

• At Century College in Minnesota, instructors discovered that roughly 15% of students in a single course were fake enrollees.

• California's overall community college system reported over $13 million in financial aid losses in a single year due to such schemes—a 74% increase from the previous year.

The consequences extend beyond financial loss. Course seats are blocked from legitimate students. Faculty spend hours identifying and reporting ghost students. Institutional data becomes unreliable. Most importantly, public trust in higher education systems is eroded.

Why Now?

Several developments have enabled this rise in fraud:

1. The shift to online learning during the pandemic decreased opportunities for in-person identity verification.

2. AI tools—such as large language models, AI voice generators, and synthetic video platforms—allow fraudsters to create highly convincing fake identities at scale.

3. Open-access policies at many institutions, particularly community colleges, allow applications to be submitted with minimal verification.

4. Budget cuts and staff shortages have left many colleges without the resources to identify and remove fake students in a timely manner.

How Institutions Are Responding

Colleges and universities are implementing multiple strategies to fight back:

Identity Verification Tools
Some institutions now require government-issued IDs matched with biometric verification—such as real-time selfies with liveness detection—to confirm applicants' identities.

Faculty-Led Screening
Instructors are being encouraged to require early student engagement via Zoom, video introductions, or synchronous activities to confirm that enrolled students are real individuals.

Policy and Federal Support
The U.S. Department of Education will soon require live ID verification for flagged FAFSA applicants. Some states, such as California, are considering application fees or more robust identity checks at the enrollment stage.

AI-Driven Pattern Detection
Tools like LightLeap.AI and ID.me are helping institutions track unusual behaviors such as duplicate IP addresses, linguistic patterns, and inconsistent documentation to detect fraud attempts.

Recommendations for HEIs

To mitigate the risk of ghost student infiltration, higher education institutions should:

• Implement digital identity verification systems before enrollment or aid disbursement.

• Train faculty and staff to recognize and report suspicious activity early in the semester.

• Deploy AI tools to detect patterns in application and login data.

• Foster collaboration across institutions to share data on emerging fraud trends.

• Communicate transparently with students about new verification procedures and the reasons behind them.

Why It Matters

Ghost student fraud is more than a financial threat—it is a systemic risk to educational access, operational efficiency, and institutional credibility. With AI-enabled fraud growing in sophistication, higher education must act decisively to safeguard the integrity of enrollment, instruction, and student support systems.

---

Sources

• CrossHackers: https://www.crosshackers.com/fake-enrollments

• SF Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/community-college-financial-aid-fraud-20325192.php

• SFGate: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/ghost-students-creating-problem-calif-colleges-20311708.php

• Eye on Yavapai College: https://www.eyeonyavapaicollege.com/administration/fraudsters-attacking-colleges-using-ghost-online-enrollment-schemes

• Star Tribune: https://www.startribune.com/ghost-students-the-new-enrollment-fraud-scheme-minnesota-two-year-colleges-are-fighting/601329524

• Campus Reform: https://www.campusreform.org/article/ghost-students-invading-campuses-scamming-millions-of-dollars-away-and-blocking-out-real-undergrads/28295

• University Business: https://universitybusiness.com/what-can-institutions-do-about-the-rise-of-ghost-students

• JD Supra: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/steps-colleges-should-take-to-bust-3949980

• Get VerifiNow: https://www.getverifinow.com/the-ghost-student-problem

• Intellicheck: https://www.intellicheck.com/resource-library/the-rise-in-ghost-students-how-fraudsters-use-fake-identities

Some Conservatives May Be Right About Immigration and Labor: A Closer Look at a Shared Problem

Immigration debates often feature the refrain that new arrivals are “more American than us” and the advice that struggling workers should “just learn to code.” While these narratives may offer comfort, they obscure deeper realities shaping the American labor market—and on this issue, some conservatives’ frustrations reflect real challenges.

It’s important to remember that Native Americans and African Americans have faced centuries of systemic discrimination and continue to endure economic and social inequities. This article does not minimize that history but focuses on the current frustrations of working-class white Americans who feel left behind.

For decades, both the political Right and neoliberal forces have contributed to the erosion of good-paying jobs across sectors, including higher education. Universities have increasingly relied on foreign labor programs, such as the H-1B visa, to hire international faculty and staff. This practice helps institutions keep labor costs down by paying lower wages compared to American workers, and it allows universities greater control—since many foreign employees’ immigration status depends on their employer, making it harder for them to challenge poor working conditions or demand better pay.

At the same time, higher education has seen a dramatic rise in adjunct and contingent faculty positions, often paid poorly and lacking job security or collective bargaining power. These labor strategies reflect a broader neoliberal trend toward weakening worker protections and maximizing institutional flexibility and control.

In the tech sector, companies like Amazon and Microsoft have filed tens of thousands of visa applications for entry- and mid-level positions paid below prevailing wages, further intensifying job competition. Employers are not legally required to demonstrate that qualified Americans are unavailable before hiring foreign workers—a key fact often overlooked.

This combination of labor importation, job cuts, and anti-labor policies fuels economic anxiety among working-class Americans, especially younger voters. Recent polls show a notable shift toward Republicans driven in part by concerns about immigration and job security.

Yet politicians and the media largely avoid scrutinizing these practices, unwilling to challenge corporate and institutional interests that benefit from them. The quiet growth of foreign labor programs and the erosion of worker rights receive far less attention than federal workforce reductions, which are framed as threats to American values.

This is not a critique of immigration or immigrants’ contributions. Instead, it calls for honest discussion about how bipartisan policies and institutional practices—including in higher education—have reshaped the labor market to the detriment of many Americans.

Meaningful solutions will require rebuilding worker protections, enforcing fair hiring practices, and creating economic opportunities for all. Acknowledging the shared frustrations across political lines can open pathways for progress.

---

Sources:

• The Hill, "Visa Bonds Pilot Program and Corporate Use of H-1B Visas," 2025

• Labor Department Office of Foreign Labor Certification Data, 2025

• Interview with Howard University Professor Ron Hira, H-1B expert

• Yale Youth Poll, 2025

• Statements from Microsoft, Amazon, and other corporations, 2025

• Higher Education labor reports on adjunct faculty, foreign labor, and collective bargaining, 2024–25

EANGUS: Nonprofit Shill for University of Phoenix

The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), which claims to advocate for enlisted National Guard members, has long presented itself as a supporter of military families and career advancement. However, its ongoing partnership with for-profit institutions like the University of Phoenix raises serious questions about whose interests the organization truly serves.

On August 13, the University of Phoenix announced the winners of the 2025 EANGUS Future Phoenix Scholarship, which awards full tuition for bachelor’s or master’s programs to current enlisted National Guard servicemembers and their immediate family members. The winners—Nitasa Freund, Isabella Hunsicker, and John Wellington—were celebrated in press materials that emphasized the school’s commitment to veteran students.

University of Phoenix framed the scholarships as a way to “empower our members to turn their service-driven experience into academic achievement,” while EANGUS Executive Director John Gipe described the partnership as helping military members “step forward not just for the individual, but for the communities they continue to serve.”

But the reality behind these programs is far less altruistic. University of Phoenix, owned by the for-profit Apollo Global Management, has a long history of predatory recruitment practices targeting military and veteran populations. The school has faced multiple federal investigations and lawsuits over deceptive marketing, inflated job placement claims, and aggressive enrollment tactics that funnel servicemembers into costly, high-debt programs.

EANGUS’s role in promoting scholarships to the University of Phoenix illustrates how military associations can be co-opted by for-profit educational interests. By lending credibility and direct access to servicemembers, EANGUS effectively functions as a shill, steering military personnel and their families toward programs that often prioritize corporate profit over educational quality or genuine career outcomes.

Scholarship recipients’ stories, highlighted in University of Phoenix press materials, are framed as evidence of success. Nitasa Freund, a National Guard Staff Sergeant, is pursuing a master’s in criminal justice; John Wellington, a 101st Signal Battalion Company First Sergeant, is returning to higher education after decades of service; and Isabella Hunsicker is studying psychology. These narratives, while compelling, mask the broader systemic risks associated with enrolling in high-cost for-profit programs that may saddle veterans with unmanageable debt.

For an organization that claims to represent the interests of enlisted service members, EANGUS’s alignment with a for-profit education juggernaut raises ethical concerns. Military families seeking higher education deserve advocacy that prioritizes transparency, quality, and long-term outcomes—not promotion of institutions with a documented history of exploiting the very population they claim to serve.

As for-profit colleges continue to target veterans and military families, it is incumbent on military associations, watchdogs, and policymakers to scrutinize partnerships that appear charitable on the surface but may perpetuate financial harm behind the scenes. EANGUS’s ongoing collaboration with University of Phoenix is a stark reminder that even well-intentioned organizations can become complicit in corporate profiteering when oversight and accountability are lacking.

Sources:

• University of Phoenix Press Release, August 13, 2025

• EANGUS Official Website

• Apollo Global Management, University of Phoenix corporate information

• Government Accountability Office and Department of Education reports on for-profit colleges

Jin Huang, Higher Education’s Harry Houdini

Ambow CEO Has Repeatedly Slipped Through the Fingers of Shareholders and Regulators

In the opaque world of for-profit higher education, few figures have evoked the mixture of fascination and alarm generated by Jin Huang, CEO—and at times interim CFO and Board Chair—of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. Huang has repeatedly navigated financial crises, regulatory scrutiny, and institutional collapse with a Houdini-like flair. Yet the institutions under her control—most notably Bay State College and NewSchool of Architecture & Design—tell a far more troubling story.

---

Ambow’s Financial Labyrinth

Ambow, headquartered in the Cayman Islands with historic ties to Beijing (former address: No. 11 Xinyuanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China), has endured years of financial instability. As early as 2010, the company pursued ambitious acquisitions in the U.S. education market, including NewSchool and eventually Bay State College, often relying on opaque financing and cross-border investments.

By 2013, allegations of sham transactions and kickbacks forced Ambow into liquidation and reorganization. Yet the company repeatedly avoided delisting and collapse. Financial reports reveal a recurring pattern: near-catastrophe followed by minimal recovery. In 2023, net revenue fell 37.8% to $9.2 million with a $4.3 million operating loss. By 2024, Ambow reported a modest $0.3 million net income, narrowly avoiding another financial crisis. 

---

Early Years: 2010–2015

From 2010 to 2015, Ambow aggressively pursued U.S. acquisitions and technology projects while expanding its presence in China. The company leveraged offshore corporate structures and relied heavily on PRC-linked investors. Huang’s leadership style during this period prioritized expansion and publicity over sustainable governance, leaving institutions financially vulnerable.

Despite claims of educational innovation, Ambow’s track record in these years included multiple warnings from U.S. regulators and questionable accounting practices that would later contribute to shareholder lawsuits and delisting from the NYSE in 2014.

---

Bay State College: Closed Doors, Open Wounds

Acquired in 2017, Bay State College in Boston once enrolled over 1,200 students. By 2021, enrollment had collapsed, despite millions in federal COVID-era relief. In 2022, the Massachusetts Attorney General secured a $1.1 million settlement over misleading marketing, telemarketing violations, and inflated job-placement claims.

Accreditation probation followed, culminating in NECHE’s withdrawal of accreditation in January 2023. Eviction proceedings for over $720,000 in unpaid rent preceded the college’s permanent closure in August 2023. Bay State’s demise exemplifies the consequences of Ambow’s pattern: the CEO escapes, the institution collapses, and students and faculty are left in the lurch.

---

NewSchool of Architecture & Design: Stabilization in San Diego

NewSchool, Ambow’s other U.S. acquisition, has faced persistent challenges. Enrollment has dropped below 300 students, and the school remains on the U.S. Department of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring list. Leadership instability has been chronic: five presidents since 2020, with resignations reportedly tied to unpaid salaries and operational dysfunction.

As of 2025, lawsuits with Art Block Investors, LLC have been settled, and NewSchool is now housed in three floors of the WeWork building in downtown San Diego. Despite receiving a Notice of Concern from regional accreditor WSCUC, the college remains operational but financially precarious.

---

Questionable Credentials and Leadership Transparency

Huang has claimed to hold a PhD from the University of California, but investigation reveals no record of degree completion. This raises further concerns about leadership credibility and transparency. Ambow’s consolidated executive structure—Huang serving simultaneously as CEO, CFO, and Board Chair—exacerbates governance risks.

While headquartered in Cupertino, California, Ambow continues to operate with ties to Chinese interests. SEC filings from the PRC era acknowledged that the Chinese government exerted significant influence on the company’s business operations. Ambow has also expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners.

---

HybriU and the EdTech Hype

In 2024, Ambow launched HybriU, a hybrid learning platform promoted at CES and the ASU+GSV conference. Marketing materials claim a 5-in-1 AI-integrated solution for teaching, learning, connectivity, recording, and management, including immersive 3D classroom projections.

Yet there is no verifiable evidence of HybriU’s use in actual classrooms. A $1.3 million licensing deal with a recently formed Singapore company, Inspiring Futures, is the only reported commercial transaction. Photos on the platform’s website have been traced to stock images, and the “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology introduced in China in 2021 has not demonstrated measurable results in U.S. education settings.

Reports suggest that Ambow may be in preliminary talks with Colorado State University (CSU) to implement HybriU. HEI has not confirmed any formal partnership, and CSU has not publicly acknowledged engagement with the platform. Any potential relationship remains unverified, raising questions about the legitimacy and scope of Ambow’s outreach to U.S. universities.

Ambow’s 2025 press release promotes HybriU as a transformative global learning network, but HEI’s review finds no verified partnerships with accredited U.S. universities, no independent validation, and continued opacity regarding student outcomes or data security.

---

Financial Oversight and Auditor Concerns

Ambow commissioned a favorable report from Argus Research, but its research and development spending remains minimal—$100,000 per quarter. Prouden CPA, the current auditor based in China, is new to the company’s books and has limited experience auditing U.S. education operations. This raises questions about the reliability of Ambow’s financial reporting and governance practices.

---

The Illusion of Rescue

Jin Huang’s repeated escapes from regulatory and financial peril have earned her a reputation akin to Harry Houdini. But the cost of each act is borne not by the CEO, but by institutions, faculty, and students. Bay State College is closed. NewSchool remains operational in a WeWork facility but teeters on financial fragility. HybriU promises innovation but offers no proof.

Ambow’s trajectory demonstrates that a company can survive on hype, foreign influence, and minimal governance, while leaving the real consequences behind. Any unconfirmed talks with CSU highlight the ongoing risks for U.S. institutions considering engagement with Ambow. For regulators, students, and higher education stakeholders, Huang’s Houdini act is less a marvel than a warning.

---

Sources

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education Facing NYSE Delisting.” May 2022.

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education and NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” October 2023.

• Higher Education Inquirer. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design Lawsuits.” March 2025.

• Boston Globe. “Bay State College Faces Uncertain Future.” January 3, 2023.

• Inside Higher Ed. “Two Colleges Flounder Under Opaque For-Profit Owners.” October 18, 2022.

• Inside Higher Ed. “Bay State College Loses Accreditation Appeal.” March 21, 2023.

• GlobeNewswire. “Ambow Education Announces Full-Year 2024 Results.” March 28, 2025.

• Ambow Education Press Releases and SEC Filings

• Wikipedia. “Bay State College.” Accessed August 2025.

• Wikipedia. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” Accessed August 2025.

Make America Crash Again (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

The United States faces a complex mix of economic, social, and environmental challenges that, if left unaddressed, could lead to a significant downturn. These challenges include ongoing financial speculation, escalating climate impacts, regulatory rollbacks, rising isolationism, expanding surveillance, immigration enforcement policies, tariff conflicts, and the shifting global balance with the rise of BRICS nations. Alongside these issues, the growing student debt crisis and institutional vulnerabilities compound the nation’s fragility.

Financial markets continue to carry risks linked to speculative activity, which could destabilize critical sectors. The student loan debt, now over $1.7 trillion and affecting millions, limits economic opportunities for many Americans. Particularly concerning are the high-cost, for-profit education models that leave students burdened without clear paths to stable employment. This financial strain reflects broader systemic weaknesses that threaten sustained growth.

Climate change has begun to have immediate effects, with increasing natural disasters disrupting communities and infrastructure. Reduced environmental regulations have intensified these risks, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations and increasing economic costs.

The rollback of regulatory protections in finance, environment, and education has allowed risky practices to grow while reducing oversight. This shift has raised the chances of economic shocks and deepened social inequalities.

Trade disputes and reduced international cooperation have weakened key economic and diplomatic relationships. At the same time, BRICS countries are expanding their influence, altering the global economic landscape in ways that require careful attention.

The expansion of surveillance programs and strict immigration enforcement have raised concerns about civil liberties and community trust. These pressures threaten the social cohesion needed to address larger systemic issues.

Recent reporting by the Higher Education Inquirer shows that the student debt crisis and speculative financial pressures in higher education mirror and magnify these broader challenges. The sector’s increasing reliance on debt financing not only affects students but also contributes to wider economic fragility (HEI 2025).

Earlier analysis emphasized that these trends were predictable outcomes of longstanding policy decisions and economic structures (HEI 2020).

             [Analysis of US Economic Downturns for duration and population impact]

Preventing a serious downturn requires coordinated action on multiple fronts. Strengthening regulations is necessary to reduce financial risks and protect consumers. Effective climate policies are essential, particularly those focused on vulnerable communities. Reforming higher education financing to reduce unsustainable debt burdens can ease economic pressures. Restoring international cooperation and fair trade practices will help rebuild economic and diplomatic relationships. Protecting civil rights and fostering social trust are crucial to maintaining social cohesion.

These issues are deeply interconnected and require comprehensive approaches.

Sources

Higher Education Inquirer, Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming...Again (June 2025): https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/06/lets-pretend-we-didnt-see-it-comingagain.html
Higher Education Inquirer, The US Working‑Class Depression: Let’s All Pretend We Couldn’t See It Coming (May 2020): https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2020/05/lets-all-pretend-we-couldnt-see-it.html
Federal Reserve, Consumer Credit Report, 2025
U.S. Department of Education, Student Loan Debt Statistics, 2025
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Sixth Assessment Report, 2023
Council on Foreign Relations, The BRICS and Global Power, 2024

Trumpism, Neoliberalism, and the Abandoned Majority

In the ongoing battle between Trumpism and neoliberalism, much of the mainstream narrative paints these forces as diametrically opposed. In reality, while they clash on culture-war rhetoric and political branding, both camps operate in ways that protect entrenched wealth and power—especially within higher education.

Trumpism, with its populist veneer, frames itself as a rebellion against “the establishment.” Yet Donald Trump’s policies in office—including massive corporate tax cuts, deregulation favoring billionaires, and the rollback of labor protections—aligned closely with neoliberal orthodoxy. His administration stacked the Department of Education with for-profit college lobbyists and dismantled borrower protections, leaving indebted students vulnerable to predatory lending.

Neoliberalism, as embodied by centrist Democrats and much of the university establishment, champions “meritocracy” and global competitiveness, but often functions as a machine for upward wealth transfer. University leaders such as Princeton’s Christopher Eisgruber, Northwestern’s Michael Schill, Harvard’s Claudine Gay, Stanford’s Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Texas A&M’s M. Katherine Banks, and reformist chancellors Andrew Martin of Washington University in St. Louis and Daniel Diermeier of Vanderbilt oversee institutions that cut faculty jobs, outsource labor, and raise tuition, all while securing lucrative corporate and donor partnerships. These leaders, regardless of political branding, manage universities as if they were hedge funds with classrooms attached.

In both cases, the non-elite—students burdened by soaring debt, adjunct professors lacking job security, and underpaid university workers—remain locked in systems of extraction. Trumpist politicians rail against “liberal elites” while quietly protecting billionaire donors and for-profit education interests. Neoliberal university leaders publicly oppose Trumpism but maintain donor networks tied to Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and global finance, reinforcing the same structural inequality.

This false binary obscures the shared economic agenda of privatization, commodification, and concentration of wealth and power within elite institutions. For the working class and the educated underclass, there is no true champion—only differing marketing strategies for the same system of exploitation.

---

Sources

• Henry A. Giroux, Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education (Haymarket Books, 2014)

• David Dayen, “Trump’s Fake Populism,” The American Prospect

• Jon Marcus, “The New College Presidents and Their Corporate Mindset,” The Hechinger Report

• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid, “Borrower Defense to Repayment Reports”

• New York Times coverage of Claudine Gay, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Michael Schill, and M. Katherine Banks’ administrative records

Silencing Higher Education: Trump’s War on Discourse About Genocide in Palestine

Academic institutions have long served as crucibles of free thought and protest. Yet under President Trump’s second term, universities have become battlegrounds in a sweeping campaign that conflates advocacy around the genocide in Gaza with antisemitism—and weaponizes Title VI and Title IX to stifle dissent. This article outlines the administration’s tactics, war crimes ramifications, and the universities ensnared so far.

---

War Crimes at Issue: Gaza Protests and U.S. Reaction

The conflict in Gaza has seen mounting allegations of genocide against Israel—claims underscored by protests on dozens of U.S. campuses. In response, the Trump administration has launched a social media “catch-and-revoke” system that uses AI to flag pro-Palestinian speech, leading to visa revocations and deportations—even targeting legal residents and green-card holders. Over 1,000 visa revocations were reported by mid-April 2025, rising to nearly 2,000 by mid-May—many later overturned by courts.

Activists such as Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University legal resident arrested during a protest, and Mohsen Mahdawi, detained during a citizenship interview, have been caught up in these actions—both cases widely criticized for infringing First Amendment rights. These responses reflect a concerted effort to equate peaceful protest with national-security threats under the guise of combating antisemitism.

---

Title VI Enforcement: Chilling Academic Freedom

Under a January 29, 2025 Executive Order, Trump directed federal agencies to squash antisemitism—including speech critical of Israel—by enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against universities.

In March 2025, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities, warning of enforcement investigations over alleged antisemitism during pro-Gaza protests. This has had an unmistakable chilling effect on faculty, students, and campus activism.

---

Institutions Targeted and Financial Punishments

The administration’s pressure tactics have taken several forms.

Columbia University saw $400 million in federal grants and contracts canceled, tied to agencies including the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. The university received an ultimatum to change discipline policies, suspend or expel protestors, ban masks, empower security with arrest authority, and restructure certain academic departments by March 20—under threat of permanent funding loss. Columbia ultimately settled for $200 million and restored funding.

George Washington University was accused by the DOJ of being “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic harassment during spring 2024 protests, especially affecting Jewish, American-Israeli, and Israeli students and faculty, and was given a deadline of August 22 to take corrective action.

UCLA recently had $584 million in federal funding suspended over similar antisemitism-related accusations and affirmative action concerns.

Harvard University is in settlement talks over nearly $500 million in frozen federal funding, negotiating compliance with federal guidelines in exchange for restoring money. Harvard also faces a separate Title VI/IX complaint over $49 million in DEI grants, with claims of race- and sex-based discrimination.

Other institutions under investigation include Johns Hopkins, NYU, Northwestern, UC Berkeley, University of Minnesota, and USC.

---

Legal Backlash and Academic Resistance

Universities and academic organizations have begun to push back.

The AAUP has filed suit against Trump’s executive orders on DEI, calling them vague, overreaching, and chilling to speech. Some institutions, including Harvard, have resisted enforcement efforts, defending academic freedom and constitutional rights—even as they weigh risks to federal funding.

Legal experts argue that Title VI enforcement in this context may be unconstitutional if motivated by ideological suppression rather than actual antisemitism.

---

The Battle for Free Speech and Human Rights

Trump’s strategy effectively conjoins criticism of genocide and advocacy for Palestinian rights with civil rights violations—casting a chilling effect across campuses nationwide. The consequences are profound.

Academic autonomy is undermined when universities must trade institutional integrity for compliance with politically driven mandates. Student activism, especially from international and Palestinian voices, faces existential threats via visa policies and deportation tactics. Human rights accountability is sidelined when federal power is used to muzzle discourse about atrocities abroad.

---

Sources:

• Harvard, Trump Administration Near Deal for $500 Million Settlement

• Trump administration says George Washington University violated law over Jewish students, faculty

• Why Harvard Decided to Challenge Donald Trump

• Columbia University Faces Ultimatum from Trump Administration

• UCLA Funding Suspended by Trump Administration

The Trumpian Apocalypse: How Administrative Reinterpretation Exposed the Fiction of Democratic Higher Education (Glen McGhee)

The Trump administration’s surgical use of administrative reinterpretation did not simply dismantle higher education’s most visible equity programs — it stripped away the legitimacy claims the sector has relied upon for over a century. In doing so, it revealed something more unsettling than policy reversals: the democratic higher education Americans thought they knew never truly existed.

No sweeping new laws were required. No constitutional amendments. The transformation came through the withdrawal of federal complicity in maintaining a carefully cultivated fiction — a legitimacy performance in which inclusion and meritocracy were projected as foundational values, while exclusion and class reproduction were embedded in the architecture.

Equity Promises Without Structural Protection

The much-publicized “Dear Colleague” letter that accused colleges of violating civil rights law “each time they considered race” laid bare the core contradiction: the same institutions that marketed themselves as engines of inclusion were designed, from inception, to sort, stratify, and exclude. The fact that entire diversity and equity initiatives could vanish overnight through reinterpretation of existing statutes proves they were never structurally embedded. They were tolerated when politically expedient, discarded when they became politically inconvenient.

Programs that genuinely challenged the hierarchy — Durham Tech’s Hope Renovations training women for the trades, the Bulls Academy opening pharmaceutical careers to Black and Hispanic workers — were eliminated without legal resistance. Their removal revealed the sector’s true operating principle: “talent development” was always subordinate to talent sorting.

The Budget Axe and the “Chaos Tax”

When $31 billion in Title IV funding disappeared through budget reconciliation — a process requiring only a simple majority — the fragility of higher education’s federal compact was exposed. For community colleges, which had long claimed an “integral role” in local economies, this was a rude awakening. No amount of social necessity translated into political protection.

The fallout produced what insiders now call the “chaos tax” — institutional leaders devoting their days to survival drills rather than educational missions. That presidents of community colleges needed emergency coalitions just to interpret shifting federal obligations underscored the truth: institutional autonomy was never real, only a bureaucratic convenience allowed by Washington.

Civil Rights as a Tool of Authoritarianism

Perhaps the most shocking revelation was that statutory authority already existed to erase equity programs using the very civil rights laws meant to protect them. The administration’s use of Title VI to dismantle diversity initiatives inverted the democratic intent of the statute, showing that the framework for authoritarian control was baked into the law from the beginning.

Elite universities and community colleges alike were subject to the same redefinitions. Harvard’s prestige and billion-dollar endowment proved no more protective than a rural community college’s role in workforce development. The supposed binary between elite and democratic higher education collapsed into a single truth: neither had the structural autonomy necessary to resist political capture.

The Collapse of the Meritocratic Narrative

TRIO programs for first-generation students, adult education for immigrants, and work-study opportunities for low-income students were dismissed as “relics of the past.” Such rhetoric reframes decades of access expansion — from the GI Bill to community college growth — not as permanent democratic commitments, but as temporary political accommodations.

Seen in this light, the Trump administration did not destroy democratic higher education — it exposed its nonexistence. The sector’s dependence on federal tolerance, rather than embedded democratic principle, made authoritarian capture a matter of timing, not possibility.

The Trumpian Apocalypse

What we are witnessing is more than a partisan policy shift; it is what can only be called a “Trumpian Apocalypse” — an unveiling that forces recognition of the fragility and contingency of higher education’s democratic image. The apocalypse here is revelatory: myths of meritocracy, stability, and institutional resilience dissolve under the reality that these institutions were always bureaucratically dependent and politically vulnerable.

This revelation exceeds the sector’s ability to respond, even its ability to conceptualize the rupture. For generations, Americans were conditioned to see colleges and universities as permanent fixtures of civil society — stable, meritocratic, autonomous. The rapid evaporation of protections and programs has shown that this stability was never structural, only circumstantial.

What remains is not just a policy vacuum, but an ontological crisis. Higher education must now confront the truth that its democratic character was never intrinsic, only performed — and that once the performance ceased to serve the state, it was abandoned without ceremony.

---

Sources

• U.S. Department of Education, “Dear Colleague Letter” on Title VI compliance (2025)

• Congressional Budget Office, Title IV Funding Reductions via Budget Reconciliation (2025)

• Program case studies: Durham Tech’s Hope Renovations; Bulls Academy workforce development initiative

• Historical analysis of the GI Bill and community college expansion, American Council on Education archives

• Interviews with community college presidents involved in Education for All coalition (2025)

• Harvard University endowment and diversity program litigation filings, 2024–2025

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

HEI's Most Popular Recent Articles

Across the Higher Education Inquirer’s most-read articles, including List of Schools with Strong Indicators of Misconduct, Evidence for Borrower Defense Claims, The Hidden Crisis: Debt and Inequality Among Ph.D. Graduates, and Chinese College Meltdown: Credential Inflation and the Crisis in Higher Education Employment, a distinct pattern emerges that reflects HEI’s core commitment to exposing power imbalances and illuminating the hidden costs embedded in higher education.

Central to these stories is an unwavering focus on accountability and uncovering misconduct. The reporting calls out institutions with clear signs of unethical behavior and scrutinizes leaders who prioritize profit and prestige over student welfare, as seen in pieces like Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run. This unflinching stance resonates with readers who crave transparency and truth amid a landscape often clouded by spin and silence.

Economic and structural inequality threads through much of the coverage, connecting personal financial struggles to systemic failures. From the burden of debt weighing on Ph.D. graduates in The Hidden Crisis: Debt and Inequality Among Ph.D. Graduates to the growing problem of credential inflation devaluing degrees as detailed in Degrees of Discontent: Credentialism, Inflation, and the Global Education Crisis, these narratives reveal higher education as a tool of economic stratification rather than a guaranteed path to opportunity. Readers see their own hardships reflected in this broader critique of entrenched power and privilege.

The Higher Education Inquirer situates these contemporary crises within broader historical and global contexts. Stories like Camp Mystic: A Century of Privilege, Exclusion, and Resilience Along the Guadalupe and the coverage of global credential inflation emphasize that these challenges are neither new nor isolated. They are manifestations of ongoing systems of class and racial stratification shaped by layered policies and politics.

Political and institutional power, from conservative attacks on intellectualism highlighted in Trump’s War on Intellectualism Is a Threat to Democracy—But Elite Universities Aren’t Innocent Victims to liberal administrations’ partial debt relief programs covered in Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Student Loan Forgiveness and Borrower Assistance Actions (US Department of Education), is examined with a critical eye. Avoiding partisan cheerleading, HEI’s articles assess outcomes and motivations alike, revealing how all sides often fall short of addressing the real needs of those most affected by higher education’s shortcomings.

A direct, investigative tone defines HEI’s reporting style. The publication favors evidence over euphemism, facts over empty rhetoric, and is unafraid to “name names” or challenge elite narratives. This clear-eyed approach attracts readers hungry for unvarnished truth and meaningful accountability.

The stories’ appeal also lies in their specificity and depth. Rather than abstract generalizations, these articles deliver carefully documented accounts focused on named institutions, individuals, and policies. This grounded approach builds credibility and fosters sharing among activists, academics, borrowers, and advocates.

Together, these elements form the distinctive formula behind the Higher Education Inquirer’s most impactful work—breaking through misinformation, challenging entrenched interests, and centering the lived realities behind the headlines.

---

Sources:
Higher Education Inquirer archives, reader engagement analytics, public reports on higher education misconduct, debt and credential inflation studies, political analysis of education policy, community feedback from borrower and academic advocacy groups.

The Higher Education Inquirer: Investigating the Dark Corners of U.S. Higher Ed

For nearly a decade, the Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has cultivated a reputation for relentless, independent journalism in a field often dominated by press-release rewrites and trade-conference boosterism. In 2024 and 2025, that commitment has been on full display, with a series of investigations that not only expose institutional negligence and corporate greed, but also demand structural change.

Following the Money: GI Bill Loopholes and Veteran Betrayal

One of HEI’s most impactful 2025 stories examined how billions in GI Bill funds—more than Pell Grants or state scholarships—are diverted to for-profit and low-performing nonprofit institutions. Despite promises of career advancement, many veterans end up underemployed and in debt. The reporting points to deliberate policy gaps, such as the weakened 90–10 rule, that incentivize predatory recruitment over educational quality.

Student Debt Transparency: A FOIA Offensive

HEI has also launched an ambitious Freedom of Information Act campaign to shed light on the federal student loan portfolio and on how rarely student loan debt is discharged through bankruptcy. Requests to the Department of Education seek data going back to 1965—records that could help quantify decades of policy drift away from borrower relief.

The FOIA strategy doesn’t stop at the Department of Education. HEI has queried the Securities and Exchange Commission for complaint data against online program managers 2U and Ambow Education, bringing corporate accountability into sharper focus.

Beyond the Campus: Immigration, Religion, and Geopolitics

While student debt remains a central concern, HEI has broadened its investigative reach. In March 2025, it filed a FOIA with the State Department for details on more than 300 revoked student visas, a move to illuminate opaque policies that can upend lives without public explanation.

Other pieces have examined the rise of Christian cybercharter schools, warning of a drift toward ideological indoctrination in taxpayer-funded education. Internationally, HEI has scrutinized the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s U.S. media tour, questioning the intersection of higher education, faith-based advocacy, and political agendas.

Why This Work Matters

What makes HEI’s journalism unique is its sustained follow-through. Many outlets publish a single exposé and move on. HEI revisits stories months or years later, tracking the real-world consequences of policy changes and institutional behavior. This persistence has helped keep public attention on issues like the Corinthian Colleges collapse and the broader failure to deliver promised student debt relief.

By pairing data-driven reporting with insider accounts and whistleblower input, HEI not only documents abuse but also lays out pathways for reform. In a higher education system where financialized logic often outweighs student welfare, that combination is increasingly rare—and increasingly necessary.

---

Sources:

• Higher Education Inquirer

• Higher Education Inquirer – GI Bill Reform

• University Leadership Central

• Student Affairs Connection