Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by date for query Veterans. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Veterans. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Apollo Wants Investors to Buy Back the University of Phoenix. They Shouldn’t. (David Halperin)


Having failed to complete deals to sell the troubled giant for-profit University of Phoenix to major state universities in Arkansas and Idaho — after people in those states got cold feet — the school’s owner, private equity behemoth Apollo Global Management, just before the holiday weekend announced an initial public offering for the school. 

Phoenix’s parent company had been publicly traded until AGM and two other firms took the company private in 2017. Now they have gone back to Wall Street to re-sell the school to investors. 

But should investors want to buy this operation? The presence of the heavily-advertised University of Phoenix in the college market has been bad for U.S. students, taxpayers, and the economy, because it has led many students to enroll in a school that often deceives people, and often leaves students with heavy debts and without the careers they sought — when they could be using taxpayer support and their own money to enroll in better value programs. 

Moral and macro-economic concerns aside, it’s not even clear that buying Phoenix will be good for investor bottom lines. 

The University of Phoenix, which has received tens of billions from federal taxpayers for student grants and loans — at times more than $2 billion in a single year — has faced numerous law enforcement investigations and actions for its deceptive recruiting of veterans, military service members, and other students across the country.

Most notably, in 2019, Phoenix reached a record $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which claimed the school had lured students with false claims about partnerships with major employers. Phoenix ran ads falsely indicating that the school had deals with companies including AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and the American Red Cross to create job opportunities for its students and tailor school programs for such jobs, when that was not the case. The deceptive claim went to the heart of prospective students’ motivations for enrolling. Andrew Smith, then the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at the time of the agreement, “Students making important decisions about their education need the facts, not fantasy job opportunities that do not exist.”

And last year California’s attorney general reached a settlement with Phoenix to resolve allegations that the school’s aggressive recruitment tactics directed at military students violated consumer protection laws. 

The now almost entirely online school did a two-year dance with the University of Idaho that drew immense criticism from lawmakers, executive branch officials, newspaper editorial boards, and others in that state before the deal was finally called off in June.

Bloomberg reported earlier this year that an IPO might value the University of Phoenix operation, which had $810 million in revenue for 2023-24 (81 percent of that from federal taxpayer dollars), at $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion. And the new Trump administration has signaled in multiple ways that it is reducing protections for students against predatory college abuses, a development that may make investors more willing to buy a piece of a school like Phoenix.

But new federal legislation requires schools to provide some financial value for students. Also, state attorneys general, who have curbed and even slayed a number of for-profit giants over a decade, are watching; the media understands this issue, as it did not in the last wild west era fifteen years ago; and more potential students are wary after a generation of abuses.

So it may end up being much tougher to thrive in the predatory college business than some might think. 


David Halperin
Attorney and Counselor
Washington, DC  

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

Monday, August 25, 2025

HEI Resources Fall 2025

 [Editor's Note: Please let us know of any additions or corrections.]

Books

  • Alexander, Bryan (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.  
  • Alexander, Bryan (2023).  Universities on Fire. Johns Hopkins Press.  
  • Angulo, A. (2016). Diploma Mills: How For-profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Apthekar,  Bettina (1966) Big Business and the American University. New Outlook Publishers.  
  • Apthekar, Bettina (1969). Higher education and the student rebellion in the United States, 1960-1969 : a bibliography.
  • Archibald, R. and Feldman, D. (2017). The Road Ahead for America's Colleges & Universities. Oxford University Press.
  • Armstrong, E. and Hamilton, L. (2015). Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Harvard University Press.
  • Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College CampusesUniversity of Chicago Press. 
  • Baldwin, Davarian (2021). In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities. Bold Type Books.  
  • Bennett, W. and Wilezol, D. (2013). Is College Worth It?: A Former United States Secretary of Education and a Liberal Arts Graduate Expose the Broken Promise of Higher Education. Thomas Nelson.
  • Berg, I. (1970). "The Great Training Robbery: Education and Jobs." Praeger.
  • Berman, Elizabeth P. (2012). Creating the Market University.  Princeton University Press. 
  • Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education. Monthly Review Press.
  • Best, J. and Best, E. (2014) The Student Loan Mess: How Good Intentions Created a Trillion-Dollar Problem. Atkinson Family Foundation.
  • Bledstein, Burton J. (1976). The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. Norton.
  • Bogue, E. Grady and Aper, Jeffrey.  (2000). Exploring the Heritage of American Higher Education: The Evolution of Philosophy and Policy. 
  • Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace : The Commercialization of Higher Education.  Princeton University Press. 
  • Bousquet, M. (2008). How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low Wage Nation. NYU Press.
  • Brennan, J & Magness, P. (2019). Cracks in the Ivory Tower. Oxford University Press. 
  • Brint, S., & Karabel, J. The Diverted Dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press. (1989).
  • Cabrera, Nolan L. (2024) Whiteness in the Ivory Tower: Why Don't We Notice the White Students Sitting Together in the Quad? Teachers College Press.
  • Cabrera, Nolan L. (2018). White Guys on Campus: Racism, White Immunity, and the Myth of "Post-Racial" Higher Education. Rutgers University Press.
  • Caplan, B. (2018). The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. Princeton University Press.
  • Cappelli, P. (2015). Will College Pay Off?: A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You'll Ever Make. Public Affairs.
  • Cassuto, Leonard (2015). The Graduate School Mess. Harvard University Press. 
  • Caterine, Christopher (2020). Leaving Academia. Princeton Press. 
  • Carney, Cary Michael (1999). Native American Higher Education in the United States. Transaction.
  • Childress, H. (2019). The Adjunct Underclass: How America's Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students, and Their Mission University of Chicago Press.
  • Cohen, Arthur M. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Collins, Randall. (1979/2019) The Credential Society. Academic Press. Columbia University Press. 
  • Cottom, T. (2016). Lower Ed: How For-profit Colleges Deepen Inequality in America
  • Domhoff, G. William (2021). Who Rules America? 8th Edition. Routledge.
  • Donoghue, F. (2008). The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities.
  • Dorn, Charles. (2017) For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America Cornell University Press.
  • Eaton, Charlie.  (2022) Bankers in the Ivory Tower: The Troubling Rise of Financiers in US Higher Education. University of Chicago Press.
  • Eisenmann, Linda. (2006) Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945–1965. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
  • Espenshade, T., Walton Radford, A.(2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.
  • Faragher, John Mack and Howe, Florence, ed. (1988). Women and Higher Education in American History. Norton.
  • Farber, Jerry (1972).  The University of Tomorrowland.  Pocket Books. 
  • Freeman, Richard B. (1976). The Overeducated American. Academic Press.
  • Gaston, P. (2014). Higher Education Accreditation. Stylus.
  • Ginsberg, B. (2013). The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All Administrative University and Why It Matters
  • Giroux, Henry (1983).  Theory and Resistance in Education. Bergin and Garvey Press
  • Giroux, Henry (2022). Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance. Bloomsbury Academic
  • Gleason, Philip (1995). Contending with Modernity: Catholic Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. Oxford U.
  • Golden, D. (2006). The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys its Way into Elite Colleges — and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.
  • Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream.
  • Graeber, David (2018) Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Simon and Schuster. 
  • Groeger, Cristina Viviana (2021). The Education Trap: Schools and the Remaking of Inequality in Boston. Harvard Press.
  • Hamilton, Laura T. and Kelly Nielson (2021) Broke: The Racial Consequences of Underfunding Public Universities
  • Hampel, Robert L. (2017). Fast and Curious: A History of Shortcuts in American Education. Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Johnson, B. et al. (2003). Steal This University: The Rise of the Corporate University and the Academic Labor Movement
  • Keats, John (1965) The Sheepskin Psychosis. Lippincott.
  • Kelchen, Robert. (2018). Higher Education Accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Kezar, A., DePaola, T, and Scott, D. The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University. Johns Hopkins Press. 
  • Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street: The Transformation of For-profit Higher Education
  • Kozol, Jonathan (2006). The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Crown. 
  • Kozol, Jonathan (1992). Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. Harper Perennial.
  • Labaree, David F. (2017). A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Labaree, David (1997) How to Succeed in School without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education, Yale University Press.
  • Lafer, Gordon (2004). The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press.  
  • Loehen, James (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me. The New Press. 
  • Lohse, Andrew (2014).  Confessions of an Ivy League Frat Boy: A Memoir.  Thomas Dunne Books. 
  • Lucas, C.J. American higher education: A history. (1994).
  • Lukianoff, Greg and Jonathan Haidt (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.
  • Maire, Quentin (2021). Credential Market. Springer.
  • Mandery, Evan (2022) . Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us. New Press. 
  • Marti, Eduardo (2016). America's Broken Promise: Bridging the Community College Achievement Gap. Excelsior College Press. 
  • Mettler, Suzanne 'Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream. Basic Books. (2014)
  • Morris, Dan and Harry Targ (2023). From Upton Sinclair's 'Goose Step' to the Neoliberal University: Essays in the Transformation of Higher Education. 
  • Newfeld, C. (2011). Unmaking the Public University.
  • Newfeld, C. (2016). The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them.
  • Paulsen, M. and J.C. Smart (2001). The Finance of Higher Education: Theory, Research, Policy & Practice.  Agathon Press. 
  • Rosen, A.S. (2011). Change.edu. Kaplan Publishing. 
  • Reynolds, G. (2012). The Higher Education Bubble. Encounter Books.
  • Roth, G. (2019) The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press
  • Ruben, Julie. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University Of Chicago Press. (1996).
  • Rudolph, F. (1991) The American College and University: A History.
  • Rushdoony, R. (1972). The Messianic Character of American Education. The Craig Press.
  • Selingo, J. (2013). College Unbound: The Future of Higher Education and What It Means for Students.
  • Shelton, Jon (2023). The Education Myth: How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy. Cornell University Press. 
  • Simpson, Christopher (1999). Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. New Press.
  • Sinclair, U. (1923). The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education.
  • Stein, Sharon (2022). Unsettling the University: Confronting the Colonial Foundations of US Higher Education, Johns Hopkins Press. 
  • Stevens, Mitchell L. (2009). Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Harvard University Press. 
  • Stodghill, R. (2015). Where Everybody Looks Like Me: At the Crossroads of America's Black Colleges and Culture. 
  • Tamanaha, B. (2012). Failing Law Schools. The University of Chicago Press. 
  • Tatum, Beverly (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria. Basic Books
  • Taylor, Barret J. and Brendan Cantwell (2019). Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status and Student Opportunity. Rutgers University Press.
  • Thelin, John R. (2019) A History of American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
  • Tolley, K. (2018). Professors in the Gig Economy: Unionizing Adjunct Faculty in America. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Twitchell, James B. (2005). Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld. Simon and Schuster.
  • Vedder, R. (2004). Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much.
  • Veysey Lawrence R. (1965).The emergence of the American university.
  • Washburn, J. (2006). University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education
  • Washington, Harriet A. (2008). Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. Anchor. 
  • Whitman, David (2021). The Profits of Failure: For-Profit Colleges and the Closing of the Conservative Mind. Cypress House.
  • Wilder, C.D. (2013). Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities. 
  • Winks, Robin (1996). Cloak and Gown:Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961. Yale University Press.
  • Woodson, Carter D. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro.  
  • Zaloom, Caitlin (2019).  Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost. Princeton University Press. 
  • Zemsky, Robert, Susan Shaman, and Susan Campbell Baldridge (2020). The College Stress Test:Tracking Institutional Futures across a Crowded Market. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Activists, Coalitions, Innovators, and Alternative Voices

 College Choice and Career Planning Tools

Innovation and Reform

Higher Education Policy

Data Sources

Trade publications

Friday, August 22, 2025

The Right-Wing Roots of EdTech

The modern EdTech industry is often portrayed as a neutral, innovative force, but its origins are deeply political. Its growth has been fueled by a fusion of neoliberal economics, right-wing techno-utopianism, patriarchy, and classism, reinforced by racialized inequality. One of the key intellectual architects of this vision was George Gilder, a conservative supply-side evangelist whose work glorified technology and markets as liberating forces. His influence helped pave the way for the “Gilder Effect”: a reshaping of education into a market where technology, finance, and ideology collide, often at the expense of marginalized students and workers.

The for-profit college boom provides the clearest demonstration of how the Gilder Effect operates. John Sperling’s University of Phoenix, later run by executives like Todd Nelson, was engineered as a credential factory, funded by federal student aid and Wall Street. Its model was then exported across the sector, including Risepoint (formerly Academic Partnerships), a company that sold universities on revenue-sharing deals for online programs. These ventures disproportionately targeted working-class women, single mothers, military veterans, and Black and Latino students. The model was not accidental—it was designed to exploit populations with the least generational wealth and the most limited alternatives. Here, patriarchy, classism, and racism intersected: students from marginalized backgrounds were marketed promises of upward mobility but instead left with debt, unstable credentials, and limited job prospects.

Clayton Christensen and Michael Horn of Harvard Business School popularized the concept of “disruption,” providing a respectable academic justification for dismantling public higher education. Their theory of disruptive innovation framed traditional universities as outdated and made way for venture-capital-backed intermediaries. Yet this rhetoric concealed a brutal truth: disruption worked not by empowering the disadvantaged but by extracting value from them, often reinforcing existing inequalities of race, gender, and class.

The rise and collapse of 2U shows how this ideology plays out. Founded in 2008, 2U promised to bring elite universities online, selling the dream of access to graduate degrees for working professionals. Its “flywheel effect” growth strategy relied on massive enrollment expansion and unsustainable spending. Despite raising billions, the company never turned a profit. Its high-profile acquisition of edX from Harvard and MIT only deepened its financial instability. When 2U filed for bankruptcy, it was not simply a corporate failure—it was a symptom of an entire system built on hype and dispossession.

2U also became notorious for its workplace practices. In 2015, it faced a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit after firing an enrollment director who disclosed her pregnancy. Women workers, especially mothers, were treated as expendable, a reflection of patriarchal corporate norms. Meanwhile, many front-line employees—disproportionately women and people of color—faced surveillance, low wages, and impossible sales quotas. Here the intersections of race, gender, and class were not incidental but central to the business model. The company extracted labor from marginalized workers while selling an educational dream to marginalized students, creating a cycle of exploitation at both ends of the pipeline.

Financialization extended these dynamics. Lenders like Sallie Mae and Navient, and servicers like Maximus, turned students into streams of revenue, with Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities (SLABS) trading debt obligations on Wall Street. Universities, including Purdue Global and University of Arizona Global, rebranded failing for-profits as “public” ventures, but their revenue-driven practices remained intact. These arrangements consistently offloaded risk onto working-class students, especially women and students of color, while enriching executives and investors.

The Gilder Effect, then, is not just about technology or efficiency. It is about reshaping higher education into a site of extraction, where the burdens of debt and labor fall hardest on those already disadvantaged by patriarchy, classism, and racism. Intersectionality reveals what the industry’s boosters obscure: EdTech has not democratized education but has deepened inequality. The failure of 2U and the persistence of predatory for-profit models are not accidents—they are the logical outcome of an ideological project rooted in conservative economics and systemic oppression.


Sources

Sunday, August 17, 2025

As the Market Soars, Main Street Feels the Pinch: Dollar Tree and the Rising Cost of Survival

While Wall Street celebrates record highs, Main Street grapples with rising costs that strain household budgets. Dollar Tree, once synonymous with affordability, has seen its pricing structure evolve significantly. In 2021, the company increased its baseline price from $1 to $1.25, and by 2025, introduced items priced up to $10 in select stores.

For residents in food deserts—areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food—stores like Dollar Tree serve as essential sources for groceries. However, these stores often stock predominantly ultra-processed foods, contributing to dietary challenges. A study by Tufts, Harvard, and the USDA found that while dollar store food purchases scored low on the Healthy Eating Index, households shopping there didn’t significantly differ in overall diet quality from those shopping primarily at grocery stores.

The expansion of dollar stores in low-income communities has been linked to exacerbating food insecurity. These stores often lack fresh produce and healthy staples, leading to diets high in processed foods. Research indicates that small food retailers are less likely than supermarkets to sell healthy staple foods, further entrenching food insecurity in these areas.

Despite the financial gains reflected in the stock market, the affordability gap widens for working-class families. Economic gains at the top do not trickle down to the communities that need them most. As investment portfolios swell, the affordability gap grows, and the promise of basic necessities remains increasingly out of reach. For working-class families and those living in under-resourced neighborhoods, the soaring market feels less like a sign of prosperity and more like a reminder of growing inequality.

In addition to rising costs, recent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are further impacting low-income households. A new law backed by the Trump administration and signed in July 2025 is set to reduce SNAP benefits for 2.4 million Americans by expanding work requirements to additional groups, including parents of children aged 14 and up, adults aged 55–64, veterans, former foster youth, and homeless individuals. The legislation requires these groups to work, volunteer, or participate in job training for at least 80 hours per month to qualify. This expansion is expected to shift more costs to states and redistribute resources, increasing income for middle- and high-income households while reducing benefits for low-income households.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes that people in food-insecure households spend roughly 45% more on medical care annually than those in food-secure households. SNAP participation has been linked to improved health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. For instance, early access to SNAP among pregnant mothers and in early childhood improved birth outcomes and long-term health as adults. Elderly SNAP participants are less likely than similar non-participants to forgo their full prescribed dosage of medicine due to cost.

The reduction or loss of SNAP benefits can lead to increased food insecurity and poorer health outcomes. A study published in Health Affairs found that the loss of SNAP benefits was associated with food insecurity and poor health in working families with young children. The study indicated that reduced benefits were associated with greater odds of fair or poor caregiver and child health.

As the affordability gap widens and access to essential resources becomes more challenging, the combination of rising costs and reduced support systems underscores the growing inequality faced by working-class families and communities in need.


Sources:

Thursday, August 14, 2025

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

Tuesday, August 12, 2025

What Other Countries Get Right About Education—and Why the U.S. Falls Behind

As the American education system grapples with a growing crisis—marked by student debt, political interference, declining public trust, and chronic underfunding—other countries are demonstrating alternative paths that yield better results. While the United States remains home to some of the world’s most prestigious universities, its broader education system is increasingly characterized by inequity, inefficiency, and disconnection from the labor market. In contrast, nations such as Finland, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and Canada have implemented policies that prioritize equity, access, and workforce alignment in ways that have delivered tangible outcomes.

In Finland, public education is built around the principle of equality rather than competition. Teachers are required to hold advanced degrees and are granted significant autonomy in how they teach. Unlike the U.S., which is mired in a culture of standardized testing and punitive accountability, Finland trusts its educators and limits high-stakes assessments. Public universities in Finland are tuition-free, and students receive financial support for living expenses. The country’s emphasis on student well-being, professional respect for educators, and a curriculum that encourages critical thinking rather than rote learning makes it a global model for equitable education.

Germany offers a sharp contrast to the U.S. model of expensive higher education and weak vocational systems. Public universities are tuition-free for both domestic and international students, and the country’s dual education system blends classroom learning with paid apprenticeships. Rather than treating vocational training as a fallback option, Germany integrates it into mainstream education policy, offering real pathways to stable employment. The connection between education and labor markets is tightly managed, with active collaboration between government, industry, and unions.

South Korea and Singapore, while distinct in culture and governance, share a commitment to education as a national priority. South Korea has achieved one of the world’s highest rates of tertiary education attainment. Its students consistently perform at the top of international assessments, despite valid concerns about student stress and overwork. Singapore’s education system is centrally coordinated, with rigorous teacher training, continuous professional development, and a clear link between education outcomes and national economic planning. The city-state’s universities are heavily subsidized, and its skills-based institutions are designed in partnership with industry to meet changing economic demands.

In the Nordic countries, including Norway and Denmark, higher education is entirely tuition-free and students receive generous living stipends. The goal is not just to provide access but to ensure that students can complete their education without incurring debt. These countries invest heavily in public education across all levels, and their systems are marked by low inequality, high achievement, and strong social trust. The education system is treated as a foundation for social mobility and economic stability, rather than a competitive market.

Canada and the Netherlands offer relatively affordable higher education systems, stronger public support, and less bureaucratic complexity than the U.S. Canada, in particular, has implemented income-contingent repayment plans that are far simpler and more humane than the U.S. federal loan system. Public colleges and universities in these countries are better funded and more integrated with labor market strategies, avoiding the vast disparities seen across the American higher education landscape.

Meanwhile, the U.S. faces a fragmented system shaped by decades of disinvestment, privatization, and ideological battles over curriculum and governance. Public colleges and universities are under pressure to behave like businesses, raising tuition and relying on contingent labor. For-profit institutions have preyed on low-income and working-class students, especially veterans and single parents, with little federal oversight. Student debt has ballooned past $1.7 trillion, with no end in sight. Vocational training remains underdeveloped and stigmatized, while community colleges—despite their potential—are chronically underfunded and politically neglected.

America’s approach to education is defined more by markets than mission. The result is a system that exacerbates inequality and leaves millions of students in precarious positions, both financially and professionally. By contrast, other nations demonstrate that education can be a universal right, a public investment, and a national strategy—not just a private commodity.

It is tempting to attribute these international successes to cultural differences or smaller populations. But the truth is that many of these countries made deliberate political and economic choices to fund education fully, support students comprehensively, and plan systems around long-term social needs rather than short-term political gain. The United States has the resources to do the same. The question is whether it has the political will.

Understanding what others are doing better is not about mimicry, but about imagining what is possible. The U.S. does not lack talent, ambition, or innovation. What it lacks is a coherent vision for education that serves the many, not the few. Other countries are proving every day that another path is not only possible—it is already working.

Sources:

OECD Education at a Glance Reports

PISA 2022 Results

UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Reports

Center for American Progress

The Century Foundation

Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS)

Education International Reports on Finland and Germany

Saturday, August 9, 2025

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:

Saturday, August 2, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decades of Systemic Corruption

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

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

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

The Trump-Hegseth Department of Defense

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

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

The Evidence Is Overwhelming

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

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

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

The Cost of Inaction

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

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

We Don’t Need Another Report

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

The Department of Defense should immediately:

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

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

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

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

Friday, August 1, 2025

“We Can’t Make It Here Anymore” Still Rings True

More than twenty years after James McMurtry released We Can’t Make It Here Anymore, the song’s haunting verses continue to echo across the American landscape. Originally written during the early 2000s under the weight of offshoring, union busting, and post-9/11 disillusionment, McMurtry’s protest ballad has aged not with irrelevance but with renewed urgency.

McMurtry wrote about Vietnam veterans pushed aside by a society eager to forget its mistakes. Today, those veterans have been replaced by men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—some with missing limbs, some with invisible wounds, many with few job prospects. The system still tells them “thanks for your service” while it sends their factories overseas, their benefits into the shredder, and their children into debt servitude at for-profit colleges or underfunded public universities.

The song’s refrain—“And the banks run the loan game, and the dollar jumps the track”—has only deepened in meaning in the era of trillion-dollar student loan burdens and the financialization of everything from housing to higher education. Entire zip codes have been gutted by opioid overdoses, job loss, and rising suicide rates. The technology is flashier now, but the despair McMurtry chronicled feels even more entrenched. The “big boys” still “don't like to lose,” and the factories are still “boarded up,” not just in Michigan and West Virginia, but now in the shadows of elite universities, where campuses flourish while surrounding communities falter.

Higher education, the supposed equalizer, has played its own part in this disillusionment. Where once it held the promise of upward mobility, it now too often offers low-wage adjunct jobs, debt without degrees, and institutions more concerned with branding and endowments than student welfare. McMurtry sings, “The doctor can't be reached, he has moved back to LA,” and in 2025, that’s still true—except now the doctor’s been replaced by a telehealth AI, and the local hospital has been bought out by a hedge fund.

We Can’t Make It Here Anymore is not nostalgia. It is indictment. It is reportage. It is prophecy. And like Woody Guthrie before him, McMurtry tells a story corporate media would rather ignore.

The song’s last verse ends not with hope, but with observation:
“Will work for food, will die for oil, will kill for power and to us the spoils.”
Two decades later, the empire has not changed course. It has just changed spokespeople.

The names may change—NAFTA to USMCA, Halliburton to BlackRock—but the machinery grinds on. And McMurtry’s anthem remains a soundtrack for those who never made it out of the wreckage, for the veterans of war and labor still trying to make it here.

Sources

  • James McMurtry, We Can’t Make It Here Anymore, 2004

  • U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

  • National Student Legal Defense Network

  • Higher Education Inquirer archives