Higher Education Inquirer : Search results for mental health

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

Monday, June 9, 2025

New Jersey Austerity Plan Means $400M Less for Higher Education

New Jersey’s tradition of expanding access to higher education may be facing a serious setback. Governor Phil Murphy’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026 outlines sweeping cuts to the state’s higher education funding, drawing concern from students, educators, and policy advocates alike. The proposal, now under review by the state legislature, slashes hundreds of millions of dollars from public colleges and universities and threatens critical student aid programs.

Among the most notable cuts is an 18% reduction to the Community College Opportunity Grant (CCOG)—a cornerstone of New Jersey’s free community college initiative. The CCOG has helped thousands of lower- and middle-income students attend school tuition-free. If enacted, the cut would strip away aid for approximately 6,000 students, disproportionately impacting first-generation college-goers and working-class families already struggling with rising living costs.

Equally alarming is the proposed elimination of the Summer Tuition Aid Grant (TAG) program. The $20 million program served around 13,000 students in FY 2025, providing essential aid to help them catch up or get ahead during the summer term. Without these funds, students may be forced to delay graduation or take on more debt—if they remain enrolled at all.

Beyond specific aid programs, the broader picture is bleak: the FY 2026 budget calls for a $400 million cut in total higher education funding, a 16.1% decrease that would reverberate across the state’s public four-year institutions and community colleges. This reduction threatens not only academic programs but also critical student services such as mental health support, tutoring, and career counseling.

Advocates warn these cuts could lead to tuition hikes, faculty and staff layoffs, and increased class sizes, undermining the quality and accessibility of public education. The ripple effects would be especially harsh for students from marginalized communities—those already bearing the brunt of economic and racial inequality.

The proposed budget arrives at a time when many families are still recovering from the economic aftershocks of the pandemic, inflation, and student loan resumption. Critics argue that now is the time to double down on investment in higher education, not pull back. Doing so, they say, would not only help individuals thrive but also boost the state’s long-term economic competitiveness.

As of June 9, 2025, the proposal remains under debate in the state legislature. Lawmakers have the opportunity to revise and restore funding before the budget is finalized. Until then, tens of thousands of New Jersey students are left in a state of uncertainty—wondering whether they can afford to stay in school, finish their degrees, or even dream of college in the first place.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue monitoring the budget process and reporting on its implications for students, educators, and the future of public higher education in the Garden State.

Friday, June 6, 2025

Medicaid Cuts Threaten Medical and Mental Health Providers Dependent on Medicaid — and Graduates of Online “Robocolleges”

As states grapple with budget shortfalls and federal funding shifts, Medicaid—the nation’s largest public health insurance program—faces potential cuts that could severely impact medical and mental health providers who depend heavily on Medicaid reimbursements. This looming threat not only jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services but also risks destabilizing the very providers that serve some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States.

Medicaid: A Lifeline for Providers and Patients

Medicaid covers over 80 million Americans, including low-income families, people with disabilities, and seniors. For many medical and mental health providers, Medicaid reimbursements constitute a significant portion of their revenue. Clinics in underserved areas, community health centers, and behavioral health providers often rely on Medicaid funding to stay afloat.

The federal-state partnership funds Medicaid, but states have discretion in determining eligibility and reimbursement rates. When states face fiscal pressures, cutting Medicaid funding or tightening reimbursement rates is often considered a quick fix.

The Domino Effect of Medicaid Cuts

Cuts to Medicaid funding translate directly into lower payments to providers. Unlike private insurance, Medicaid rates are often already low. Further reductions can mean providers lose money on each Medicaid patient treated.

This financial strain can force clinics and mental health programs to:

Reduce services or limit patient intake
Cut staff, including essential behavioral health professionals
Close locations, especially in rural or underserved areas

These outcomes create barriers for patients who already face challenges accessing care. Individuals with serious mental illness, chronic conditions, or disabilities are particularly at risk of losing consistent care.

Impact on Medical Education and Training

Medicaid cuts can also disrupt medical and mental health education programs affiliated with teaching hospitals and universities. These programs often serve Medicaid patients in their clinical training sites. Reduced funding means fewer training opportunities for students and residents, potentially exacerbating workforce shortages in critical health fields.

Mental Health Providers: A Vulnerable Sector

Mental health providers are especially vulnerable to Medicaid cuts. Behavioral health services are frequently underfunded compared to general medical care. Medicaid often serves as the primary payer for mental health treatment, including therapy, psychiatric care, and substance use disorder programs.

Cuts could reduce access to outpatient therapy, crisis intervention, and community-based services, worsening outcomes for people with mental health conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the urgent need for robust mental health infrastructure, and cuts threaten to reverse progress made.

Robocollege Graduates: An Overlooked Impact

Another group at risk from Medicaid cuts are recent graduates of online for-profit colleges, sometimes disparagingly called "robocolleges." These institutions often produce graduates with degrees in healthcare-related fields such as nursing, health administration, or medical assisting.

Many of these graduates rely on Medicaid-funded healthcare settings for employment. Clinics and community health centers that serve Medicaid patients are common entry points for these workers. Cuts in Medicaid funding could lead to reduced hiring or layoffs in these settings, disproportionately affecting graduates struggling to launch their careers.

Moreover, the limited job security and lower wages typical of such entry-level positions compound the economic challenges for these workers, many of whom already face significant student debt and limited career mobility.

Broader Social and Economic Consequences

Limiting access to healthcare and mental health services has far-reaching consequences beyond individual health. Untreated illness can lead to increased hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and interactions with the criminal justice system. These outcomes are far more costly to society than preventative or ongoing care.

Policy Recommendations

To protect the health and stability of vulnerable populations, the providers who serve them, and entry-level healthcare workers including robocollege graduates, policymakers should:

Avoid disproportionate Medicaid cuts that undermine care quality
Invest in community health centers and behavioral health programs
Maintain adequate reimbursement rates to sustain provider networks and employment
Support integrated care models that combine physical and mental health services
Consider workforce development initiatives that support graduates entering Medicaid-funded care settings

Medicaid is a cornerstone of America’s healthcare safety net, especially for medical and mental health providers serving those in greatest need. Cuts to Medicaid funding threaten not only provider viability but the health and well-being of millions—including the newest healthcare workers striving to build careers. As budget debates continue, preserving and strengthening Medicaid funding is essential to ensuring equitable access to quality care and supporting the providers and workforce on the front lines.

Friday, May 23, 2025

HEI Investigation: Campus.edu

In a sector under constant strain, Campus.edu is being heralded by some as the future of community college—and by others as a slick repackaging of the troubled for-profit college model. What many don’t realize is that before it became Campus.edu, the company was known as MTI College, a private, for-profit trade school based in Sacramento, California.

Campus.edu rebranded in 2020 under tech entrepreneur Tade Oyerinde, is backed by nearly $100 million in venture capital. Campus now markets itself as a tech-powered alternative to traditional community colleges—and a lifeline for students underserved by conventional higher ed.

The rebranding, however, raises red flags. While Campus.edu pitches a student-first mission with attractive promises—zero-cost tuition, free laptops, elite educators—the model has echoes of the troubled for-profit sector, with privatization, outsourcing, and digital-first delivery taking precedence over public accountability and academic governance.

The Promises: What Campus.edu Offers

Campus.edu markets itself with a clean, six-step path to success. The pitch is aspirational, accessible, and designed to appeal to working-class students, first-generation college-goers, and those shut out of elite institutions. Here’s what the company promises:

Straightforward Application – A simple application process, followed by matching with an admissions advisor who helps identify a student's purpose and educational fit.
Tech for Those Who Need It – A free laptop and Wi-Fi access for students who lack them, ensuring digital inclusion.
Personal Success Coach – Each student is assigned a personal success coach, offering free tutoring, career advising, and 24/7 access to wellness services.
Elite Educators – Courses are taught live via Zoom by faculty who also teach at top universities like Stanford and Columbia.
Enduring Support – Whether transferring to a four-year college or entering the workforce, Campus promises help with building skills and networks.
More Learning, Less Debt – For Pell Grant-eligible students, Campus markets its programs as costing nothing out-of-pocket, with some students completing degrees debt-free.

It’s a compelling narrative—combining social mobility, digital access, and educational prestige into a neat online package.

Behind the Curtain: MTI College and the For-Profit Legacy

Campus.edu did not rise out of nowhere. It emerged from the bones of MTI College, a long-running, accredited for-profit vocational school. MTI offered hands-on training in legal, IT, cosmetology, and health fields—typical offerings in the for-profit world. The purchase and transformation of MTI into Campus.edu allowed Oyerinde to retain accreditation, avoiding the long and uncertain process of seeking approval for a brand-new college.

This kind of maneuver—buying a for-profit and relaunching it under a new brand—is not new. We’ve seen similar strategies with Kaplan (now Purdue Global), Ashford (now the University of Arizona Global Campus), and Grand Canyon University. What makes Campus.edu unique is the degree to which it blends Silicon Valley aesthetics with the structural DNA of a for-profit college.

Missing Data, Big Promises

Campus.edu boasts high engagement and satisfaction, but as of now, no independent data on student completion, debt outcomes, or long-term career impact is publicly available. The company remains in its early stages, with aggressive growth goals and millions in investor backing—but little regulatory scrutiny.

With investors like Sam Altman (OpenAI), Jason Citron (Discord), and Bloomberg Beta, the pressure to scale is intense. But scale can come at the expense of quality, especially when students are promised the moon.

Marketing Meets Memory

Campus.edu is savvy. Its marketing strikes all the right notes: digital equity, economic mobility, mental health, and student empowerment. It presents itself as the antidote to everything wrong with higher education.

But as its past as MTI College shows, branding can obscure history. And as for-profit operators adapt to a new digital age, it’s essential to distinguish innovation from opportunism. Without transparency, regulation, and democratic oversight, models like Campus.edu could replicate the same old exploitation—with better user interfaces.

The stakes are high. For students already at the margins, a false promise can be more damaging than no promise at all.

Thursday, May 22, 2025

Mental Health for the Working Class: Who’s Behind the Therapy Boom?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, has significantly expanded access to mental health services in the United States, particularly for working-class individuals and families. The expansion of Medicaid and marketplace plans has made therapy and psychiatric care more accessible. However, the infrastructure supporting this mental health revolution is complex, under-resourced, and increasingly influenced by private equity. As more Americans seek care, questions arise about who is delivering that care—and whether the system prioritizes well-being or profits.

The Workforce Patchwork

The delivery of mental health services today relies on a varied network of professionals. In community clinics, federally qualified health centers, and outpatient networks, the bulk of therapeutic care comes from mid-level clinicians: Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSWs), Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs), and Marriage and Family Therapists (MFTs). These are master's-level professionals who carry substantial educational and clinical training but are frequently underpaid and overworked.

Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners have also filled a critical gap, often handling medication management in lieu of psychiatrists, especially in rural and underserved areas. Meanwhile, case managers and peer support workers—some with minimal formal education—are tasked with providing wraparound services like housing support, job placement, and crisis management.

Psychiatrists and doctoral-level psychologists, though highly trained, are in short supply and are often unwilling to accept Medicaid or ACA plan reimbursements. This leaves many lower-income patients with few options for specialized care.

Enter Private Equity

In recent years, private equity (PE) firms have aggressively moved into the mental health space. Attracted by rising demand for services and relatively stable reimbursement streams from public insurance programs, PE investors have acquired numerous outpatient mental health clinics, telehealth platforms, and addiction treatment centers. Research indicates that PE firms now account for as much as a quarter of practices providing behavioral health services in some states (OHSU, 2024).

While this influx of capital has allowed for rapid expansion, it has also introduced new pressures on the workforce. To maximize returns, many PE-backed firms rely heavily on newly licensed clinicians or even graduate students under supervision. In some cases, providers are pushed into independent contractor roles to reduce labor costs and avoid benefit obligations.

Clinicians report being pressured to increase their patient loads, reduce session times, and adhere to standardized scripts or protocols designed for efficiency, not individualized care. Turnover is high, and burnout is common. A 2023 survey by the American Psychological Association found that over 60% of mental health practitioners reported experiencing symptoms of burnout (Therapy Wisdom, 2024).

The Role of Robocolleges in the Mental Health Pipeline

The rise of online, for-profit, and quasi-public "robocolleges"—such as Walden University, Purdue University Global, the University of Phoenix, Capella University, and others—has significantly shaped the labor pipeline for mental health services. These institutions mass-produce degrees in psychology, counseling, and social work, often catering to nontraditional and working adult students with limited time and financial resources.

Programs are designed for scale and efficiency, not necessarily for rigor or clinical depth. Courses are often asynchronous, adjunct-taught, and heavily standardized. Clinical placements and supervision, vital components of a therapist’s training, are sometimes outsourced or inadequately supported—leaving graduates with inconsistent real-world experience.

These institutions also disproportionately enroll students from lower-income and minority backgrounds, many of whom take on significant debt for degrees that may lead to low-paying, high-stress jobs in underfunded clinics or PE-owned mental health companies.

While robocolleges expand access to credentials, they may also contribute to a deprofessionalized, precarious workforce—one in which therapists are underprepared, underpaid, and overextended. Their graduates often fill the lower rungs of the mental health care ladder, working in environments where quality and continuity of care are compromised by systemic churn.

Quality and Equity in the Balance

The result is a mental health system that, while more accessible than in previous decades, is increasingly stratified. Working-class patients often receive care from entry-level or overburdened professionals, while wealthier clients can afford private practitioners who offer more time, continuity, and personalized care.

This imbalance is further complicated by a lack of oversight. Licensing boards and state agencies struggle to monitor the growing number of clinics and telehealth services, many of which operate across state lines or rely on algorithms to triage patients.

Meanwhile, the very people the ACA aimed to help—those juggling low-wage jobs, family stress, and systemic disadvantage—are left in a system where care may be quick, transactional, and occasionally substandard.

The Role of Traditional Higher Education

Traditional colleges and universities play a dual role: they continue to train therapists and counselors in more rigorous academic environments, but they also face growing pressure to "compete" with robocolleges in terms of cost, speed, and flexibility. At the same time, these institutions increasingly outsource student counseling services to external mental health platforms—some of them owned by private equity firms.

Thus, the cycle continues: higher education feeds the mental health system, while also adopting many of its structural compromises.

Conclusion

The expansion of mental health coverage under the ACA is a major public policy achievement. But access alone is not enough. The quality of care, the working conditions of providers, and the growing influence of profit-seeking investors and education mills all demand greater scrutiny.

For working-class Americans, mental health has become another arena where the promise of care often collides with the reality of austerity and privatization. And for those training to enter the profession, especially through robocolleges, the path forward may be just as precarious.

References:

Private Equity’s Inroads Into Mental Health Bring Concern
The State of the Behavioral Health Workforce, November 2024 – HRSA
Private Equity’s Move into Behavioral Health Care and Disparities
Therapist Burnout and Toxic Private Equity in 2025
Private Equity Is Gutting Autism Services – The Nation
OHSU Study: Private Equity Expanding into Mental Health
University of Phoenix and the Business of Selling Degrees
The Cost of a Walden Degree

Monday, May 12, 2025

The (A)Moral Reasoning Behind Clayton Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation

Clayton Christensen’s theory of Disruptive Innovation—hailed by Silicon Valley executives and higher education reformers alike—presents itself as a neutral, even benevolent, framework for understanding technological and organizational change. Yet beneath its managerial gloss lies a lineage and logic deeply rooted in an (a)moral worldview: one that tolerates, if not encourages, alienation, economic insecurity, and the erosion of labor rights in the name of efficiency and market “progress.”

To understand the true implications of Disruptive Innovation, we must situate Christensen’s ideas within a broader intellectual history—one that includes Joseph Schumpeter, Frederick Winslow Taylor, and Herbert Spencer, each of whom advanced theories that exalted economic upheaval while devaluing human costs.

The Schumpeterian Origins of Creative Destruction

Christensen openly acknowledged his debt to Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, who coined the term “creative destruction” to describe the perpetual churn of capitalism—where new industries annihilate the old. Schumpeter viewed this cycle as the engine of economic development, but also one driven by elites: entrepreneurs and innovators were the “heroes” of economic evolution, regardless of the collateral damage.

Christensen adapted this logic but rebranded it in less violent terms. "Disruption" became the friendlier cousin of "destruction," but the underlying mechanism remained the same. When cheaper, simpler products or services overtake established incumbents, it is not just businesses that are disrupted, but the workers, communities, and public institutions tied to them. In higher education, this has meant the unbundling of the university, the rise of for-profits and MOOCs, and a managerial push for scalability over scholarship.

Taylorism and the Machinery of Efficiency

The ghost of Frederick Taylor—father of scientific management—also haunts Christensen’s framework. Taylor’s approach sought to maximize efficiency by breaking down labor into measurable units, stripping workers of autonomy and judgment in favor of systematized control. In Christensen’s world, similarly, incumbents are cast as bloated and inefficient, weighed down by tradition, professional norms, and tenured faculty. Disruptors are lean, data-driven, and contemptuous of established hierarchies.

This emphasis on efficiency over humanistic or moral values creates environments where workers (and students) are seen as inputs in a system, not stakeholders with rights or aspirations. The human costs—underemployment, job precarity, and burnout—are either ignored or reframed as necessary steps toward a more “innovative” future.

Herbert Spencer and the Moral Neutrality of the Market

Christensen’s theory also carries echoes of Herbert Spencer, the 19th-century social theorist who popularized “survival of the fittest” as a way to naturalize social hierarchies under capitalism. Like Spencer, Christensen’s logic treats market competition as a force of nature rather than a human construct. Incumbents fail not because of policy failures or exploitation, but because they were not “fit” to survive disruption.

This Darwinian moral neutrality veils itself in the language of progress, but its effects are often regressive. When applied to higher education, it suggests that if small colleges close, if adjuncts replace professors, if students are reduced to customers—it is not a crisis, but evolution. But evolution, in this framework, comes without ethics, without responsibility, and without mourning for what is lost.

Alienation, Anxiety, and the Crisis of Meaning

The consequences of this ideology are not confined to spreadsheets. They are lived out in alienation, anxiety, and a rising sense of meaninglessness in work and study alike. The relentless focus on disruption undermines stable institutions and communal knowledge, replacing them with temporary gigs and modular credentials. As careers give way to “side hustles” and degrees to “certificates,” students and workers alike are left unmoored.

This moral void is not an accident—it is intrinsic to the theory itself. Disruption is not guided by any vision of the good life, democratic values, or collective well-being. Its only metric is market success. It cannot ask whether the loss of a liberal arts college matters, whether an AI tool improves learning, or whether a precarious worker has a future. It can only ask: is it cheaper? Is it scalable?

Suicide and the Human Toll

In extreme cases, this sense of disposability has life-and-death consequences. Research across sectors shows that economic insecurity and job loss are linked to higher rates of suicide, depression, and addiction. The suicides of Uber drivers, the despair of indebted students, and the mental health crisis on campuses are not anomalies—they are the psychological toll of a system that celebrates disruption but discards the disrupted.

Labor Rights in the Age of Disruption

Against this backdrop, the weakening of labor rights is not just a policy issue—it is a direct consequence of the ideology of disruption. Tenure, unions, benefits, job security—these are seen as “barriers” to innovation. The ideal disruptor has no interest in negotiating with labor; it seeks flexibility, not fairness.

In higher education, this has meant an explosion of adjunct labor, the outsourcing of student services, and the dismantling of shared governance. Disruptive Innovation thus functions not merely as a theory, but as a strategy to sideline labor, redefine value, and transfer risk from institutions to individuals.

Toward a Moral Reckoning

It is time to reckon with the (a)moral underpinnings of Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation. Behind its sleek presentation lies a worldview that rationalizes destruction, devalues dignity, and denies responsibility. Its philosophical lineage—from Schumpeter to Spencer—offers little comfort to those displaced, demoralized, or disappeared in its wake.

If higher education is to survive with its soul intact, it must reject the idea that all disruption is good, that all efficiency is progress, and that human costs are externalities. It must ask not just what works, but for whom—and at what cost.

Tuesday, May 6, 2025

Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run

In a stunning development that has sent ripples through the world of higher education, University of Michigan President Santa J. Ono announced he will step down this summer to take the helm at the University of Florida. The announcement comes just seven months after he signed a lucrative contract extension at U-M—one that brought his salary to $1.3 million per year and was among the most generous in the nation.

Ono’s exit will mark the shortest presidential tenure in University of Michigan history—just two and a half years. And it’s happening at a moment of profound political and institutional tension, with many in Ann Arbor voicing frustration at what they perceive as the university's muted resistance to a suite of controversial measures emanating from the Trump administration.

From Rising Star to Abrupt Exit

When Santa Ono arrived in Ann Arbor in late 2022, he brought with him a sterling academic pedigree and a reputation as a charismatic, student-focused leader. His hiring was seen as a stabilizing move after years of controversy surrounding his predecessor.

But beneath the surface, Ono’s relationship with the university community frayed. Faculty members and students alike cite his increasing absence from public discourse in 2024, particularly as the federal government—under a resurgent Trump administration—moved to slash research funding, roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, and scrutinize university partnerships, including U-M’s involvement with The PhD Project, which aims to diversify business faculty.

“He’s been more or less invisible particularly this year,” said Faculty Senate Chair Derek Peterson. “What we need is a fighter, not a conformer.”

The Florida Move

Ono’s move to the University of Florida has sparked speculation about his motivations. On paper, Michigan is more prestigious, enjoys greater autonomy thanks to a unique governance structure, and has a massive $19.2 billion endowment. Florida, by contrast, is under the thumb of a politically active governor and a centralized board that has exerted pressure on universities to conform to ideological mandates.

Yet the financial allure may have been too great to ignore: reports suggest Florida’s presidential compensation could total $3 million annually—more than double Ono’s current pay.

Brendan Cantwell, a professor of higher education policy at Michigan State University, noted the irony: “He’s leaving a more prestigious, more autonomous institution. That says a lot about the pressures he faced.”

A State Under Fire: The Regressive Politics of Higher Education in Florida

For those familiar with the political climate in Florida, Ono’s move to the University of Florida is far from surprising. Over the past few years, Florida has become a hotbed for right-wing political maneuvering in higher education, with Governor Ron DeSantis spearheading efforts to reshape universities in line with his conservative agenda.

From banning certain books to defunding DEI programs and trying to control academic curriculum, DeSantis has made it clear that higher education in Florida is now a battleground for ideological warfare. His administration has launched aggressive campaigns against what he describes as “woke” politics in academia, citing the need to root out “liberal indoctrination” and promote “freedom” from progressive influences.

Florida’s approach to higher education has included an unprecedented wave of budget cuts to diversity programs, particularly those aimed at supporting historically underrepresented students. The state’s universities are now grappling with the loss of funding for programs designed to increase access for Black, Latino, and Indigenous students. DeSantis has also pushed for "anti-woke" laws that bar universities from offering certain courses or diversity-related initiatives. This is not only affecting the curriculum, but also the very way in which faculty and staff are hired and evaluated.

In 2023, the University of Florida eliminated many of its DEI programs under pressure from the state. The state’s Board of Governors is now actively involved in scrutinizing university curriculums, and its influence extends even to hiring practices, where faculty members are increasingly expected to align with a more conservative view of American history and culture. These moves have drawn ire from academics nationwide, who argue that Florida’s political leadership is attempting to stifle intellectual freedom and academic independence.

Moreover, Florida’s universities face a severe erosion of academic freedom, as DeSantis has sought to impose strict guidelines on speech and research. This includes revising what can and cannot be taught in classrooms and restricting discussions around race, gender, and political identity. The state's newly imposed curriculum laws have made it more difficult for universities to engage in meaningful discourse about topics such as climate change, systemic racism, and gender equality.

For Ono, stepping into this highly charged, politicized environment will represent a dramatic shift from his more moderate, research-focused tenure at Michigan. His leadership will likely be tested not just by university-level challenges but also by the state's political apparatus, which has shown a willingness to intervene in nearly every facet of higher education.

Institutional Challenges Ahead

Ono’s departure leaves U-M with significant challenges. The Board of Regents announced that he will remain in Ann Arbor until an interim president is named—a process that may take weeks. But finding a long-term leader capable of navigating the rapidly shifting higher education landscape could take much longer.

The next president will have to address:

Federal Research Cuts: The loss of federal contracts—particularly from agencies like the National Institutes of Health—has cost Michigan and its peer institutions hundreds of millions of dollars. A $15 million Social Security study was among the casualties. U-M is using endowment funds to plug gaps, but that is not a sustainable strategy.
DEI Backlash and Retrenchment: The university recently shuttered two DEI offices and scaled back programming, citing political and legal risks. While Ono promised to bolster financial aid and mental health support, many faculty and students felt betrayed by the move.
Campus Unrest and Free Speech: Protests over the Gaza war led to harsh disciplinary action against student groups, including the suspension of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE). Critics say the campus has become increasingly authoritarian, and several lawsuits have been filed by terminated employees alleging First Amendment violations.
Board Relations and Governance: U-M’s elected Board of Regents is ideologically divided. While five Democratic regents penned a passionate op-ed in defense of academic independence, the board’s stance on DEI and other political flashpoints appears fractured.

A Bigger Crisis in Public Higher Ed?

Beyond the immediate concerns, the university’s upheaval reflects deeper anxieties about the future of public higher education in America. Declining public trust, rising tuition, and the politicization of universities—especially around issues of race, gender, and free speech—have created an atmosphere of volatility.

While the University of Michigan continues to see strong application numbers, including from international students, enrollment of in-state high school graduates is dropping. The university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free tuition to families earning under $125,000, is a step toward addressing affordability concerns. But will it be enough?

Sandy Baruah of the Detroit Regional Chamber sees a broader mission: “Our research universities all have a responsibility to make the case for higher education. The value of higher ed is critical to the state of Michigan.”

What’s Next?

The Faculty Senate has passed resolutions urging the university to join a “mutual defense pact” with other Big Ten schools to resist political interference and defend academic freedom. But U-M is not obligated to act on those resolutions.

Interim leadership will be announced soon, and the search for a permanent successor will follow. Whoever takes the reins next will need to be a deft political operator—someone capable of rebuilding trust internally while weathering mounting external threats.

In the words of Cantwell: “Whoever they hire has to be prepared to be under intense scrutiny—locally, federally, ideologically. The next leader of Michigan must have both a spine and a strategy.”

As the University of Michigan enters this uncertain chapter, one thing is clear: the battle over the soul of public higher education is far from over.

Friday, April 25, 2025

Madness on Campus: The Unseen Struggles of College Students

College campuses are often portrayed as vibrant places of learning, personal growth, and social exploration. For many, these years are full of excitement, new experiences, and the thrill of shaping one’s future. However, beneath the surface of campus life, a darker reality lurks—a reality that is rarely discussed but increasingly hard to ignore. The mental health struggles of college students have reached a crisis point, and the pressure to succeed academically, socially, and professionally is often pushing students to their breaking point. The “madness” on campus isn’t just about late-night study sessions or the intensity of competitive sports—it’s about the unseen battles many students are facing every day.

The Pressure Cooker of College Life

For today’s college students, the pressure to succeed is more intense than ever. In addition to excelling academically, students are expected to balance internships, extracurriculars, social lives, and the looming uncertainty of their futures. The fear of not measuring up, of failing to secure a job after graduation, or of not living up to parental expectations can be overwhelming. These pressures are compounded by financial burdens, the weight of student loans, and in many cases, the struggle to make ends meet while navigating the high cost of living.

While the modern college experience has evolved to include more support systems than in past generations, the demands placed on students have also grown exponentially. Many students find themselves caught in a cycle of stress and exhaustion, trying to juggle the high expectations placed upon them. Unfortunately, these expectations can be detrimental to their mental health, leading to feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and depression.

The Silent Epidemic: Mental Health on Campus

According to recent surveys, mental health issues among college students have skyrocketed in the past decade. Anxiety, depression, and stress are at all-time highs, with more students reporting feeling overwhelmed and mentally exhausted. A 2023 study from the American College Health Association found that 60% of students felt “overwhelming” anxiety at some point during the previous year, and 40% reported feeling so depressed that it was difficult to function. Despite this, only a small percentage of students are receiving the mental health support they need.

The stigma surrounding mental health remains one of the biggest obstacles to seeking help. Students often feel they must appear “perfect” in order to meet academic and social expectations, and admitting to mental health struggles can feel like an admission of failure. As a result, many students suffer in silence, exacerbating their problems and making it harder to find a way out.

Campus resources, while they exist, are often overwhelmed. Counselors and therapists on many campuses are stretched thin, with waitlists sometimes extending for weeks. This leaves many students without the help they so desperately need. Additionally, the counseling services offered on many campuses are often seen as temporary fixes—band-aid solutions to much deeper, systemic issues that go unaddressed.

The Tragic Consequences of Ignored Struggles

The mental health crisis among college students is not just a matter of academic performance or emotional distress—it has life-and-death consequences. A growing number of tragic stories are emerging from campuses across the nation, with young people taking their own lives in response to their struggles. Suicide is now one of the leading causes of death among college-aged individuals, with an alarming number of students feeling they have no other option.

One heartbreaking example is Riley O’Neill, a talented swimmer at the University of Texas, whose death in 2020 shocked the college community. O’Neill, who had been struggling with depression and the overwhelming pressures of college life, took his own life after feeling isolated and unable to cope with his struggles. His death, like many others, brought attention to the unseen mental health crises occurring on campuses and underscored the urgent need for better mental health resources and support systems for students.

Stories like O’Neill’s are tragic reminders of the real, human toll of mental health struggles on campus. They should serve as a wake-up call for universities to reevaluate how they support their students and to prioritize mental health just as much as academic performance or career success.

Sexual Assault on Campus: An Overlooked Crisis

Another critical issue that often goes unaddressed is sexual assault on college campuses. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), 1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men experience sexual assault while in college. This staggering statistic highlights the reality that sexual violence is an endemic problem on many campuses across the country. Yet, many victims of assault feel isolated, shamed, or even responsible for the violence they’ve experienced. The trauma of sexual assault can have severe, long-lasting effects on mental health, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidal thoughts.

Part of the reason sexual assault continues to be a pervasive issue on campuses is the culture of silence that surrounds it. Victims often feel afraid to come forward, either due to the fear of not being believed, the social stigma, or the complicated legal and institutional processes that often seem to favor the accused rather than the survivor. This fear can lead to underreporting, with many victims choosing to keep their trauma hidden. Additionally, some students may feel the pressure to remain silent due to concerns about their academic and social standing on campus.

It’s crucial that campuses provide safe, supportive environments for students who have experienced sexual assault. Universities must have clear policies and resources in place to support survivors—ranging from accessible counseling services to campus security that is trained to handle these cases with sensitivity and professionalism. Survivors of sexual violence deserve to feel heard, validated, and safe while navigating the aftermath of their experiences.

The Role of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Campus Struggles

In addition to mental health challenges and sexual assault, substance abuse is another issue that is deeply intertwined with the campus experience. Alcohol and drug use are unfortunately common among college students, and for many, partying or experimenting with substances is viewed as an integral part of social life. However, for some, these substances become a coping mechanism for the stress, anxiety, and depression that they are grappling with.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) reports that about 60% of full-time college students between the ages of 18 and 22 drink alcohol, with 40% engaging in binge drinking. Excessive alcohol consumption is often linked to risky behaviors, including unsafe sexual activity, physical injuries, and academic struggles. For students already dealing with mental health issues, alcohol can exacerbate feelings of depression and anxiety, creating a dangerous cycle of dependence and emotional turmoil.

Drugs, including prescription medication misuse, marijuana, and party drugs, are also prevalent on campuses. These substances may be used to self-medicate for anxiety or depression, or they may be part of a social trend. The consequences of substance abuse are severe, ranging from academic failure and legal issues to addiction and overdose. For students in crisis, turning to drugs and alcohol may feel like an escape, but it ultimately only deepens their problems.

Campuses need to take substance abuse seriously by offering programs that promote responsible drinking, early intervention for at-risk students, and support for those struggling with addiction. Universities must also be proactive in educating students about the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, providing resources for students who may need help overcoming addiction, and ensuring that they have a clear path to recovery.

The Months After Graduation: A New Set of Pressures

For many students, the madness doesn’t end when they graduate. In fact, some may argue that it intensifies. The months following graduation bring a new set of challenges and anxieties. While some students quickly find jobs, others face the harsh reality of a competitive job market, uncertainty, and the pressure to establish themselves as successful adults.

Recent graduates often struggle with the transition from the structured environment of college to the ambiguity of the professional world. Many face the disappointment of job rejections or the discouragement of landing positions that don’t align with their degree or career aspirations. The search for meaningful work, combined with the financial strain of student loans, can lead to feelings of failure, depression, and isolation.

This period is especially challenging for students who may have expected to step into a job immediately after graduation or who lack a clear career path. The societal pressure to “have it all figured out” within the first few months of post-graduation life can exacerbate anxiety and self-doubt. Graduates are expected to succeed quickly, to climb the career ladder, and to live independently—yet many are struggling with the emotional fallout from the relentless pressure of college life and the overwhelming uncertainty of the future.

Moreover, the feeling of isolation can be particularly pronounced during this time. Students leave behind the community of friends and professors that supported them through college, and in the midst of job applications, networking, and interviews, they often find themselves feeling disconnected. The support systems that existed in college become harder to access, and many graduates feel like they’re navigating their post-college life alone.

A Call for Compassion and Understanding

The madness on campus isn’t just about the chaos of late-night cramming sessions or the excitement of sports games. It’s about the unseen mental health struggles that affect so many students every day. It’s about creating a system that values students as whole individuals, not just as future professionals or academic performers.

In the face of this crisis, it is imperative that colleges and universities act now. By prioritizing mental health, fostering a culture of compassion, and offering the resources and support that students need, we can ensure that the madness on campus transforms from a chaotic burden to an environment of healing, growth, and well-being. The future of higher education must be one where students are supported in every sense—academically, socially, and emotionally. Only then will we be able to protect our students from the madness that too often consumes them.

Resources for Students Struggling with Mental Health, Sexual Assault, and Substance Abuse:

If you or someone you know is struggling with any of the following issues, here are some resources to reach out to:

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255) – Available 24/7 for confidential support.
Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741 – Free, 24/7 text support for those in crisis.
National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC): www.nsvrc.org – Offers resources and support for sexual assault survivors.
RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network): 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) – National sexual assault hotline offering confidential support and resources.
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA): www.aa.org – Provides support for individuals struggling with alcohol addiction.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): www.drugabuse.gov – Provides resources for students dealing with substance abuse issues.

These resources are here to help students navigate the challenges of mental health, sexual violence, and substance abuse during and after their college years. Don’t be afraid to ask for help—it’s a critical step in finding support and healing.

Saturday, April 19, 2025

Why College Matters: Out of Touch with Social Class Realities

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

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

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

The Financial Reality Gap: Debt and Affordability Concerns

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

Student Debt as a Life-Altering Burden

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

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

The Middle-Class Squeeze

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

The Employment Reality Disconnect

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

Widespread Underemployment

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

The "First Job Trap"

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

Credential Inflation: The Devaluing Degree

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

Degrees as Diminishing Returns

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

Opportunity Costs Unacknowledged

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

The Growing Generational Divide

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

Gen Z's Value Perception Crisis

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

The Civic Disconnection Context

Research on youth disconnection shows broader trends of civic disengagement, with young Americans becoming less connected to community institutions generally1 9. The campaign's framing of higher education as building community connection happens against this backdrop of declining civic participation - context that provides important nuance missing from the survey design.

Mental Health Concerns: The Hidden Cost

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

Student Debt as Mental Health Crisis

Research demonstrates clear links between student loan debt and mental health challenges. Beyond anxiety and depression, the financial burden of education impacts overall wellbeing in ways unacknowledged by the campaign messaging8 16.

Postponed Lives and Dreams

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

Ideological and Cultural Concerns

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

Faculty Ideological Imbalance

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

Conclusion: Bridging the Perception Gap

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

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

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

Citations:

Search This Blog