Re‑examining the K–12 Pipeline: Perception, Inequality, and the Role of Gatekeeping Technology

As colleges and universities strategize around recruitment, retention, and preparing students for success, understanding what happens “upstream” in K–12 education is increasingly vital. Recent polling on parental attitudes, reporting on educational inequality, and analysis of AI-powered test prep all point to a pipeline shaped not just by skills and readiness, but also by resources, technology, and social stratification.

Only a minority of U.S. adults, roughly 35 percent, report satisfaction with K–12 education overall. Among parents, satisfaction is much higher when asked about their own child’s schooling, with approximately 74 percent expressing approval. Nonetheless, when parents consider whether schools are adequately preparing students for life after high school—whether for college or careers—only about 30 percent feel the system is doing enough. This gap between local satisfaction and systemic concern is widening, reflecting growing anxiety about the broader preparedness of students entering higher education.

Reporting in “The Ghosts Are Real: Savage Inequalities” (Higher Education Inquirer, August 2025) emphasizes that many K–12 students face systemic disparities based on socioeconomic status, geography, school funding, and access to advanced courses. These inequalities do not just affect student satisfaction; they shape readiness and opportunity. Students from under-resourced schools often lack the foundational knowledge, coursework, and support structures that wealthier peers take for granted. In “AI‑Driven SAT Prep and the System That Creates It: Savage Inequalities and the Gatekeeping of Opportunity” (HEI, July 2025), the influence of AI-powered test prep platforms is highlighted as a further layer of stratification. While these tools provide personalized study plans, analytics, and large question banks, their cost places them out of reach for many students, giving further advantage to those who are already privileged and widening the gap in college admissions.

Historical dispossession and structural inequality further shape the pipeline. The HEI article “Wealth and Want Part 3: Dispossession, Inequality, Underfunding, and Debt” (September 2024) documents how underfunding and marginalization of certain communities begins long before college. Under-resourced K–12 schools, coupled with systemic underfunding of higher education institutions serving marginalized populations, including HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and community colleges, perpetuate cycles of disadvantage. Students from these schools often arrive at college less prepared academically and socially, facing limited counseling, fewer advanced courses, and persistent achievement gaps.

These dynamics carry profound implications for Higher Education Institutions. Many incoming students, particularly those from under-resourced schools, will arrive with gaps in content knowledge, test preparation, academic strategies, and the informal cultural capital necessary to navigate higher education successfully. Institutions must carefully consider admissions practices, potentially placing less weight on standardized test scores and more emphasis on potential, context, and growth. Academic support must extend beyond the classroom to include mentorship, advising, financial aid counseling, test preparation assistance, and orientation programs that teach self-management and the implicit norms of college success.

AI-powered prep tools present both opportunities and ethical challenges. While they can enhance learning for some, HEIs must be mindful of inequities in access, offering partnerships, affordable alternatives, or institutional support to prevent further entrenchment of privilege. Investments upstream, including partnerships with K–12 districts, teacher professional development, curriculum alignment, and advocacy for equitable school funding, are essential to improve readiness and outcomes.

Transparency is equally important. Institutions can build trust with families by publishing outcomes disaggregated by background, including test scores, graduation rates, retention, and success relative to socioeconomic status, first-generation status, and K–12 school resources.

The K–12 pipeline is no longer solely about academic preparation. It is shaped by perceptions, resource inequality, technological gatekeeping, and historical disparities. Parents may believe their own children are doing well, but systemic challenges persist, with many students arriving at college without equal preparation. AI-driven tools may accentuate rather than mitigate these inequities. For Higher Education Institutions, the responsibility extends beyond admission: they must act as active agents of change, addressing inequities through support, advocacy, and upstream partnerships to ensure the pipeline is equitable and opportunity is genuinely accessible to all students.

---

Sources

• The Hill. Parents’ views on K–12 education show satisfaction with child’s school but concern about broader system (2025).

• Higher Education Inquirer. “The Ghosts Are Real: Savage Inequalities” (August 2025).

• Higher Education Inquirer. “AI‑Driven SAT Prep and the System That Creates It: Savage Inequalities and the Gatekeeping of Opportunity” (July 2025).

• Higher Education Inquirer. “Wealth and Want Part 3: Dispossession, Inequality, Underfunding, and Debt” (September 2024).

• Higher Education Inquirer. “A People’s History of Higher Education in the U.S.” (June 2023).

• Additional polling and public opinion reports (Gallup, EdChoice, etc.)

Ivory Towers and Pharma Profits: How Higher Education Fuels Big Pharma’s Bottom Line

As public outrage grows over the astronomical cost of prescription drugs, a quieter but equally consequential dynamic demands scrutiny: the entanglement of higher education institutions with the pharmaceutical industry. Universities—especially those with medical schools and biomedical research centers—have become indispensable players in Big Pharma’s pipeline. While these partnerships often promise innovation and public benefit, they also raise troubling questions about academic independence, ethical boundaries, and the commodification of publicly funded science.

Medical Education: A Curriculum Under Influence

Medical schools are tasked with training future physicians in evidence-based care. Yet many institutions maintain financial ties with pharmaceutical companies that risk compromising the integrity of their curricula. Faculty members often receive consulting fees, research grants, and honoraria from drug manufacturers. In some cases, industry-sponsored materials and lectures are integrated into coursework, subtly shaping how students understand disease treatment and drug efficacy.

This influence extends beyond the classroom. Continuing medical education (CME), a requirement for practicing physicians, is frequently funded by pharmaceutical companies. Critics argue that this model incentivizes the promotion of branded drugs over generics or non-pharmaceutical interventions, reinforcing prescribing habits that benefit corporate interests more than patient outcomes.

University Research: Innovation or Outsourcing?

Academic research is a cornerstone of pharmaceutical development. Universities conduct early-stage investigations into disease mechanisms, drug targets, and therapeutic compounds—often funded by public grants. Pharmaceutical companies then step in to commercialize promising discoveries, assuming control over clinical trials, regulatory approval, and marketing.

While this division of labor can accelerate drug development, it also shifts the locus of control. Universities may prioritize research that aligns with industry interests, sidelining studies that lack commercial appeal. Moreover, corporate sponsors can exert influence over publication timelines, data interpretation, and intellectual property rights. The result is a research ecosystem where profit potential increasingly dictates scientific inquiry.

Case Studies: The University-Pharma Nexus in Action

Harvard University Harvard Medical School has faced scrutiny over the financial relationships between its faculty and pharmaceutical companies. A 2009 investigation by The New York Times revealed that more than 1,600 Harvard-affiliated physicians had financial ties to drug and medical device makers. The controversy sparked student protests and led to reforms requiring faculty to disclose industry ties and limiting pharma-funded materials in classrooms.

Harvard’s research enterprise is deeply intertwined with Big Pharma. Its partnership with Novartis in developing personalized cancer treatments—particularly CAR-T cell therapy—illustrates how academic science feeds into high-cost commercial therapies. While the treatment represents a breakthrough, its price tag (often exceeding $400,000 per patient) raises questions about the public’s return on investment.

Yale University Yale’s collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on PROTACs (proteolysis-targeting chimeras) showcases the university’s role in pioneering new drug technologies. Under the agreement, Yale and GSK formed a joint research team to advance PROTACs from lab concept to clinical candidate. GSK gained rights to use the technology across multiple therapeutic areas, while Yale stood to receive milestone payments and royalties.

Yale’s Center for Clinical Investigation (YCCI) saw an 850% increase in industry-sponsored trials between 2006 and 2019. To address concerns about equity, YCCI launched the Cultural Ambassador Program to diversify trial participation. While this initiative promotes inclusivity, it also serves the interests of pharmaceutical sponsors seeking broader demographic data for regulatory approval.

University of Bristol (UK) The University of Bristol has maintained a decade-long partnership with GSK, spanning vaccine development, childhood disease research, and oral health. GSK funds PhD studentships and undergraduate placements and collaborates on data integrity initiatives. While the partnership aims to improve global health outcomes, it also serves GSK’s need to secure early-stage innovation and talent.

Temple University Temple’s Moulder Center for Drug Discovery Research exemplifies the shift toward academic-led drug discovery. Pharmaceutical companies increasingly rely on centers like this to conduct early-stage research, reducing their own financial risk. As patents expire and blockbuster drugs lose exclusivity, pharma firms turn to universities to replenish their pipelines—often with taxpayer-funded science.

ETH Zurich (Switzerland) ETH Zurich has become a hub for synthetic organic and medicinal chemistry, attracting partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms. Researchers at ETH conduct foundational work that pharma companies later commercialize. This reflects a broader trend: the outsourcing of riskier, cost-intensive research to academic institutions, often without proportional public benefit.

The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers

Beyond research and education, elite university medical centers have long been implicated in systemic inequality and exploitation. As detailed in The Dark Legacy of Elite Medical Centers, these institutions have historically treated marginalized and low-income patients as expendable research subjects. The term “Medical Apartheid,” coined by Harriet Washington, captures the racial and class-based exploitation embedded in American medical history.

The disparities extend to labor conditions as well. Support staff—often immigrants and people of color—face low wages, poor working conditions, and job insecurity, despite being essential to hospital operations. Meanwhile, early-career researchers and postdocs, many from working-class backgrounds, endure long hours and precarious employment while driving the innovation that fuels Big Pharma’s profits.

Even diversity initiatives at these institutions often fall short, focusing on optics rather than structural reform. As the article argues, “The institutional focus on ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ often overlooks the more significant structural issues, such as the affordability of education, the class-based access to healthcare, and the economic barriers that continue to undermine the ability of disadvantaged individuals to receive quality care.”

Technology Transfer and Patents: The Profit Pipeline

Many universities have established technology transfer offices to manage the commercialization of academic discoveries. These offices negotiate licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies, often securing royalties or equity stakes in exchange. While such arrangements can generate substantial revenue—especially for elite institutions—they also entangle universities in the profit-driven logic of the pharmaceutical market.

This entanglement has real-world consequences. Drugs developed with public funding and academic expertise are frequently priced out of reach for many patients. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which allows universities to patent federally funded research, was intended to spur innovation. But critics argue it has enabled the privatization of public science, with universities acting as gatekeepers to life-saving treatments.

Ethical Crossroads: Transparency and Reform

The growing influence of Big Pharma in higher education has prompted calls for greater transparency and accountability. Some institutions have implemented conflict-of-interest policies, requiring faculty to disclose financial ties and limiting industry-sponsored events. Student-led movements have also emerged, demanding reforms to ensure that education and research serve the public good rather than corporate profit.

Yet systemic change remains elusive. The financial incentives are substantial, and the boundaries between academia and industry continue to blur. Without robust oversight and a recommitment to academic independence, universities risk becoming complicit in a system that prioritizes shareholder value over human health.

Rethinking the Role of Higher Ed and Medicine

Higher education institutions occupy a unique position in society—as centers of knowledge, innovation, and public trust. Their collaboration with Big Pharma is not inherently problematic, but it must be guided by ethical principles and a commitment to transparency. As the cost of healthcare continues to rise, universities must critically examine their role in the pharmaceutical ecosystem and ask whether their pursuit of profit is undermining their mission to serve the public.

The legacy of elite university medical centers is not just about innovation—it’s also about inequality. Until these institutions confront their role in perpetuating racial and class-based disparities, their contributions to public health will remain compromised.

Sources:

• The Dark Legacy of Elite University Medical Centers

• Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health: Pharma and Digital Innovation in China

• Harvard Business School Case Study: Novartis and Personalized Cancer Treatment

• Yale Law School: Pharmaceutical Public-Private Partnerships

• GSK and Yale PROTAC Collaboration Press Release

• Yale Center for Clinical Investigation Case Study

• University of Bristol and GSK Case Study

• Pharmaphorum: Universities and Pharma Companies Need Each Other

• Chemical & Engineering News: The Great Pharmaceutical-Academic Merger

We Remember

On this day, Americans pause to remember the lives lost and the trauma endured on September 11, 2001. But remembrance is not only about history—it is also about recognizing the ongoing threats that shape our daily lives, both at home and abroad.

Many college students today are too young to remember 9/11, the Great Recession, Hurricane Katrina or the Iraq-Afghanistan War. In just a few years, the next generation will similarly lack first-hand memory of Covid-19 or the Trump era. For them, history can feel abstract—a collection of dates and headlines rather than lived experience. Yet the consequences of these events—economic instability, public health crises, climate disasters, and political polarization—still define the world they inherit.

The aftermath of 9/11 illustrates how misinformation and disinformation can create far-reaching harm. In the years following the attacks, false claims about weapons of mass destruction and distorted narratives about Iraq’s connections to terrorism were used to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. This decision cost hundreds of thousands of lives, destabilized the Middle East, and diverted resources from domestic priorities—all while enriching defense contractors, private security firms, and energy interests. The lesson is clear: unchecked narratives, especially when amplified by power and profit motives, can have catastrophic consequences.

Today, the dangers we face are as complex as they are insidious. Beyond external threats, Americans contend with the corrosive influence of economic powerhouses whose actions ripple through every corner of society. Bankers, corporate CEOs, and venture capitalists wield enormous influence over the economy, often prioritizing profit over the well-being of workers, consumers, and communities. Their speculative ventures and risky gambles—what one could call a “casino economy”—have repeatedly endangered livelihoods, magnified inequality, and destabilized markets.

The consequences of these decisions are tangible. In the United States, student loan debt has reached more than $1.8 trillion, and millions of college graduates find themselves trapped in jobs that fail to match their skills or aspirations. Housing costs, medical expenses, and inflation compound the economic squeeze, leaving working families vulnerable while the wealthiest accumulate unprecedented fortunes.

Internationally, threats are equally complex. Global supply chains remain fragile, climate change intensifies natural disasters, and geopolitical conflicts threaten stability. Yet the U.S. response is often shaped by elite interests—defense contractors, multinational banks, and energy conglomerates—that profit from chaos while ordinary citizens bear the cost.

Remembering September 11 is a reminder that security cannot be measured only in military terms. True security encompasses economic fairness, access to healthcare, and political accountability. Without confronting the greed, unchecked power, and manipulation of information that dominate our society, the vulnerabilities that allowed past tragedies to occur remain.

For younger Americans, whose direct memories of past crises are limited, understanding these patterns is critical. The threats of today—both domestic and international—are not only external but internal, arising from concentrated wealth, influence, and the ability to shape narratives, from decisions made in boardrooms, newsrooms, and venture capital offices, that affect millions who have no voice in those decisions.

September 11 should remind us that vigilance is ongoing. It is a day to reflect, yes, but also to act—to demand transparency, equity, and responsibility in the institutions that govern our lives. Only by addressing these threats can Americans truly honor the past while securing a safer and more just future for the generations that follow.

---

Sources:

• U.S. Federal Reserve, Household Debt and Credit Report, Q2 2025

• Institute for College Access & Success, Student Debt Data (2025)

• Oxfam, Inequality in the U.S. 2024–25

• Global Financial Stability Report, International Monetary Fund (2025)

• World Bank, Global Economic Prospects (2025)

• 9/11 Commission Report (2004)

• National Security Archive, Iraq War Intelligence and Disinformation

Choosing the Right College as a Veteran: An Update for 2025

In 2018, Military Times published a guide titled “8 Tips to Help Vets Pick the Right College.” While the intent was good, the higher education landscape has shifted dramatically since then — and not for the better. For-profit colleges have collapsed and rebranded, public universities are raising tuition while cutting services, and predatory practices continue to target veterans with GI Bill benefits.

Meanwhile, agencies like the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) — tasked with protecting veterans — have too often failed in their oversight. Investigations have revealed FOIA stonewalling, regulatory rollbacks, and a revolving door between government and industry. Veterans are left to navigate a minefield of deceptive recruiting, inflated job-placement claims, and programs that leave them indebted and underemployed.

Here’s what veterans need to know in 2025.

---

1. Don’t Trust the Branding

Colleges love to advertise themselves as “military friendly.” This phrase is meaningless. It’s often nothing more than a marketing slogan used to lure GI Bill dollars. The fact that a school has a veterans’ center or flags on campus tells you little about program quality, affordability, or long-term value.

---

2. Look at the Numbers, Not the Sales Pitch

Use College Scorecard and IPEDS data to examine:

• Graduation and completion rates

• Typical debt after leaving school

• Loan default and repayment statistics

• Earnings of graduates in your intended field

If a school avoids publishing these numbers or makes them hard to find, that’s a red flag.

---

3. Understand the Limits of Oversight

The VA’s GI Bill Comparison Tool and DOD “oversight” portals may look official, but they are incomplete and sometimes misleading. The VA has even restored access to schools after proven misconduct under political pressure. DOD contracts with shady for-profit providers continue despite documented abuse.

Oversight agencies are not independent referees — too often, they are captured regulators.

---

4. Seek Independent Evidence

Avoid relying on large, national veteran nonprofits. Many of these organizations accept funding from schools, corporate partners, or government agencies with vested interests.

Instead, veterans should:

• Check state attorney general enforcement actions and FTC press releases.

• Read independent investigative journalism (such as the Higher Education Inquirer or Project on Predatory Student Lending).

• Ask tough questions of alumni — especially those who dropped out or ended up in debt.

---

5. Watch Out for Job Placement Claims

Schools often boast of “high job placement rates” without clarifying what that means. Some count temporary or part-time work unrelated to your field. If a program promises guaranteed employment, demand written proof.

---

6. Don’t Chase Prestige

Big-name universities are not automatically better. Some elite schools partner with for-profit online program managers (OPMs) that deliver low-quality, high-cost programs to veterans and working adults. Prestige branding doesn’t guarantee fair treatment.

---

7. Weigh Community Colleges and Public Options

Community colleges can be a safer starting point, offering affordable tuition, transferable credits, and practical programs. Some state universities provide strong veteran support at the local level, even when national oversight is weak.

---

8. Build and Rely on Grassroots Networks

Large veteran organizations at the national level often fail to protect veterans from predatory colleges. Veterans are better served by:

• Local veteran groups that are independent and community-based

• Direct peer networks of fellow veterans who have attended the schools you’re considering

• Public libraries, grassroots councils, and smaller veteran meetups not tied to corporate or political funding

• Sharing experiences through independent media when official channels fail

---

Protect Yourself, Protect Others

Veterans have long been targeted by predatory colleges because their GI Bill benefits represent guaranteed federal money. DOD, VA, and large national veteran groups have too often enabled this exploitation.

The best defense is independent evidence, grassroots testimony, and investigative journalism. By asking hard questions, demanding transparency, and supporting one another at the local level, veterans can avoid the traps that continue to ensnare far too many.

For those who have been targeted and preyed upon, please consider joining the Facebook group, Restore GI Bill for Veterans.  

---

Sources:

• Military Times: 8 Tips to Help Vets Pick the Right College (2018)

• Higher Education Inquirer – DOD coverage

• Higher Education Inquirer – VA coverage

• U.S. Department of Education, College Scorecard & IPEDS

• State Attorney General enforcement actions & FTC press releases

TuitionFit: Bringing Real Transparency to College Pricing

In today’s unpredictable higher education marketplace, TuitionFit, created by Mark Salisbury, offers something that colleges and universities have refused to provide—clear and honest information about what students actually pay. By gathering and anonymizing financial aid offers that students submit voluntarily, TuitionFit makes visible the hidden world of tuition discounting, where sticker prices are inflated but rarely reflect reality.

The statistics show just how broken and confusing the system has become. For the 2024–25 academic year, private nonprofit colleges awarded institutional grants that equaled 56.3 percent of the published sticker price for first-time, full-time undergraduates and 51.4 percent for all undergraduates. In other words, more than half of published tuition is an illusion. Despite average published tuition of $11,610 at public four-year in-state colleges and $43,350 at private nonprofit institutions, the real net tuition and fees that students pay is far lower. At public four-year schools, inflation-adjusted net tuition has fallen from $4,340 in 2012–13 to $2,480 in 2024–25, while net tuition at private nonprofits has gradually declined from $19,330 in 2006–07 to $16,510 in 2024–25. Families who see terrifying sticker prices often don’t realize that the average all-in, post-aid cost of a four-year degree is closer to $30,000.

These numbers also reveal deep inequities. At very selective private institutions in 2019–20, low-income students paid about $13,410 after aid, while wealthier peers often paid nearly $39,250. Such disparities are rarely explained by colleges themselves, who prefer to mask their discounting practices with vague averages and opaque award letters.

This is why TuitionFit is so important. Instead of navigating by distorted averages or marketing spin, students and families can see what peers with similar academic and financial profiles are actually paying. That knowledge provides leverage in negotiating aid offers and choosing institutions that will not leave them with crushing debt. In an era when sticker prices continue to climb while net prices quietly decline, TuitionFit brings clarity at the individual level.

The Higher Education Inquirer commends Salisbury and TuitionFit for providing a measure of transparency in a system that thrives on opacity. While it cannot by itself resolve the structural inequities of American higher education finance, it arms students and families with something they desperately need: the truth.

Baylor’s Debt Trap: How “Predatory Inclusion” Exploited Working Class Families

Stephen Burd’s report, “A Case of Predatory Inclusion at Baylor University” (New America), exposes how Baylor steered low-income families into crippling debt through its heavy use of Parent PLUS loans. These federal loans—uncapped and offered without serious consideration of family income—became Baylor’s enrollment weapon of choice, enabling the university to build prestige, rise in rankings, and fund its expansion.

Burd’s framing of predatory inclusion cuts to the core of higher education’s contradictions. Baylor marketed itself as an accessible Christian institution while pushing financial products that trapped vulnerable families in long-term, high-risk debt. Enrollment management firms and internal strategists ensured that this system disproportionately affected those least able to repay.

The piece also places Baylor’s behavior in historical context: a small Baptist school transforming into a national powerhouse through sports, branding, and strategic manipulation of financial aid. It’s a reminder that universities often chase prestige at the expense of their mission.

Importantly, Burd acknowledges Baylor’s attempts to pivot. The Baylor Benefit Scholarship, which covers tuition for students from families earning under $50,000, along with a $1.5 billion campaign that created 870 endowed scholarships, show that reforms are possible. Still, these changes only came after years of exploitative practices that harmed families who trusted the institution.

Where Burd is strongest is in diagnosing the ethical failures of financial aid strategies that masquerade as opportunity. Where the piece is thinner is in mapping the broader systemic nature of the problem. Baylor is not an outlier—similar tactics are common across U.S. higher ed. But Burd’s phrase “predatory inclusion” is a valuable addition to the critical lexicon, one HEI readers should embrace and apply far beyond Waco, Texas.

For those tracking the political economy of higher education, the message is clear: inclusion without support is exploitation. Baylor’s case should be a rallying cry to demand transparency, rein in the misuse of Parent PLUS loans, and expose enrollment management practices that prey on working-class and poor families.

---

Sources

• Stephen Burd, A Case of Predatory Inclusion at Baylor University, New America, June 2025. Link

• Eric Hoover, “How Baylor Used Parent PLUS Loans to Climb the Rankings,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 25, 2025.

• Josh Mitchell and Andrea Fuller, “Baylor University’s Big Bet on Parent Debt,” Wall Street Journal, October 2021.

Lee Zeldin as EPA Administrator: A Deregulatory Revolution and Its Risks

Lee Michael Zeldin’s January 2025 confirmation as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has triggered the most sweeping rollback of environmental protections in the agency’s history. Installed during President Trump’s second term, Zeldin’s tenure is marked by a radical deregulatory agenda that favors economic growth and fossil fuel interests over climate science, public health, and environmental justice.

---

Deregulation as Doctrine

Within weeks of taking office, Zeldin unveiled the “Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative,” a deregulatory blitz that erased 31 major environmental rules in a single day. This initiative aims to dismantle longstanding safeguards in pursuit of what Zeldin terms “energy realism” — a euphemism for expanding fossil fuel production and reducing regulatory hurdles.

Key actions include:

• Repealing vehicle emissions standards that had helped reduce greenhouse gases and urban pollution

• Weakening pollution controls on coal and natural gas power plants

• Narrowing the scope of the Clean Water Act, reducing protections for rivers, wetlands, and drinking water sources

• Fast-tracking permits for oil, gas, and mining projects, often at the expense of environmental review

Environmental advocates warn these rollbacks jeopardize public health and the environment by prioritizing short-term corporate profits over scientific evidence.

---

Climate Denial by Policy: The Endangerment Finding Under Siege

Perhaps the most consequential move is Zeldin’s effort to repeal the 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” which legally classified greenhouse gases as harmful to public health under the Clean Air Act. This ruling underpinned decades of federal climate regulation.

Zeldin claims repealing it will save $54 billion annually in compliance costs, calling it a “correction of regulatory overreach.” Legal experts and scientists counter that overturning the finding would strip the federal government of its ability to enforce climate protections and likely violate established legal precedents. Lawsuits challenging the repeal are already in preparation.

---

Budget Cuts and the Gutting of EPA Science

Zeldin’s deregulatory campaign is matched by a dramatic downsizing of the EPA itself. The Trump administration’s 2025 budget slashed the agency’s funding by 55%, gutting its scientific capacity.

Among the casualties:

• Cancellation of $3 billion in climate justice block grants aimed at addressing environmental disparities in low-income communities

• Elimination of clean energy funding for rooftop solar programs

• Cuts to Superfund site cleanups and environmental justice research

The Office of Research and Development, the EPA’s scientific core, has been dismantled, with thousands of staff reassigned or laid off. The agency now emphasizes “state collaboration” and “industry efficiency,” shifting regulatory power to often under-resourced states and industry self-policing.

---

Conspiracies, Culture Wars, and Science Under Siege

Zeldin’s EPA has also ventured into controversial territory, endorsing investigations into weather modification and “geoengineering transparency,” areas often linked to conspiracy theories. Internally, climate education materials are under review, and there are reports of pressure on universities to defund or redirect climate research away from contentious topics.

This ideological shift threatens to politicize science and erode the integrity of federal partnerships with academic institutions.

---

Implications for Higher Education

Though the EPA does not directly govern education policy, its policies and budget cuts send shockwaves through higher education, especially at public and land-grant universities focused on environmental science and agriculture.

• EPA grant funding for climate and environmental research faces severe cuts, jeopardizing ongoing projects and future STEM initiatives.

• Scientific partnerships between universities and the EPA are imperiled, risking a loss of federal research infrastructure.

• Climate policy education is increasingly vulnerable to ideological scrutiny and defunding pressures.

• Programs designed to encourage STEM participation among underserved communities are at risk of collapse without federal support.

These trends threaten to dismantle vital components of the STEM pipeline and undermine America’s ability to educate the next generation of environmental scientists and policymakers.

Lee Zeldin’s EPA represents a historic pivot away from climate action and environmental protection toward deregulation, austerity, and ideological control. The long-term consequences for public health, environmental justice, and higher education remain deeply uncertain — but the alarm bells are ringing loud.

Sources

• Environmental Protection Agency. “Administrator Zeldin Announces Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative.” epa.gov. March–July 2025.

• Winston & Strawn LLP. “EPA Launches Historic Deregulatory Plan.” March 2025.

• The Washington Post. “EPA Moves to Overturn Endangerment Finding.” July 29, 2025.

• Associated Press. “Democrats Say EPA Budget Cuts May Kill People.” July 2025.

• The Guardian. “EPA Halts $3 Billion Climate Justice Program; Lawsuit Looms.” August 5, 2025.

• The Week. “How the EPA Plans to Nullify Climate Science.” July 2025.

• New York Post. “Zeldin Aims to Cut ‘Woke’ Climate Spending, Slash Energy Costs.” July 2025.

• Times Union (Albany). “Editorial: EPA’s Dangerous Ignorance.” July 2025.

• CNN Interview. “Zeldin Defends Record, Faces Tough Questions.” July 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 Campuses. University 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

• Academe Blog
• Adjunct Crisis
• Adjunct Nation
• American Federation of Teachers Adjunct-Contingent Faculty Caucus
• Bryan Alexander (Futurist)
• Campus News (New York)
• Clery Center
• Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor
• College Futures Foundation (California, K-20)
• College is a Risky Business (Thomas B. Walsh)
• College Promise (Free Community College)
• College Tuition Advisory Services (CTAS)
• College Viability App (Gary Stocker)
• Con Job: Stories of Adjunct and Contingent Faculty
• Confessions of a College Professor (Professor Doom)
• Debt Collective
• Deep Thoughts on Higher Education (Jeff Doyle) 
• Diane Ravitch (K-12)
• EdTrust
  
• Higher Ed Not Debt
• Higher Education Labor United  
  
• Higher Education Strategy Associates
• I Am Ai
• ITT Tech Warriors
• Jim Wolfston and the Social Mobility Index (CollegeNet)
  
• Jonathan Kozol (K-12)
• Kelchen on Education
  
• National Consumer Law Center
• New Faculty Majority (Adjuncts)
• New Laws For America (Bob Hertz)
• Outside the Law School Scam
• Presidents Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration 
• Project on Predatory Student Lending
  
• Randall Collins (Credentialism and Credential Inflation)
• Remaking the University
• Republic Report (David Halperin)
• Saving For College (Mark Kantrowtitz)
• SEIU Faculty Forward (Adjuncts)
• Steve Foerster (Technologist and Educator)
• Strike Debt Portland
• Student Borrower Protection Center
• Student Debt Crisis
• Student Loan Justice
• Terri Givens (Radical Empathy)
• The Best Classroom is the Struggle (Joshua Sooter) 
• TuitionFit (Mark Salisbury)
• Whistleblower Revolution (Heidi Weber)
• Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor
• Wrench in the Gears: A Skeptical Parent's Thoughts on Digital Curriculum (K-12)

 College Choice and Career Planning Tools

• Modern States (free college credits)
  
• College Promise
• TuitionFit 
• College Viability App
• College Scorecard (NCES) 
• Washington Monthly College Rankings 
• Apprenticeship Finder (US Department of Labor)
• FinAid
• College Navigator (NCES)
• Best Value Colleges (PayScale)  
• Hechinger Report College Fitness Tracker
  
• NBC News Investigation: Certificate schools are leaving many students in debt and unable to find jobs
• 2/3s of US Employees Regret Their College Degrees (CBS News)
• The Future of Work Won't Be About College Degrees (CNBC, Stepane Kasriel)
• Student Loan Meltdown (Dave Ramsey)
• Permanent Underemployment for College Grads (Burning Glass Technologies)
• College Is A Risky Proposition For The Working Class (Jon Marcus, Hechinger Report)
• Apprenticeships are a trending alternative to college — but there’s a hitch (Jon Marcus, Hechinger Report) 
• 15 Things College Doesn't Teach You
• Best Colleges for Social Mobility (CollegeNet)
• The Case Against Higher Education (Bryan Caplan)
• College May Not Pay Off For Everyone (Liberty Street Economics/NY FED)
• Online Education Has Questionable Outcomes (IHE)
• Colleges Where Most Students Borrow and Few Repay (TICAS)
• Broke, Busted, and Disgusted Trailer (Student Loan Debt)
• The Confusing Information Colleges Provide Students About Financial Aid (The Atlantic)
• College Affordability and Transparency Center (ED)
• Public College Dropout Factories (Third Way)
• Outcomes By Major (NY FED)
• Third Way
• GI Bill Comparison Tool (VA)
• 8 Tips to Help Vets Pick the Right College (Military Times)
• Warrior Scholar (For Veterans)
• Service to School (For Veterans)
• Peer Advisors for Veteran Education (PAVE)

Innovation and Reform

• Faculty Focus
  
• Strategies for Improving Student Success (Inside Higher Education)
• CUNY ASAP 
  
• Gap Year Basics (NYU)
• Union Plus Free College 
  
• Maryland Student Loan Debt Relief Tax Credit
• Canceling Student Loan Debt Would Grow Economy and Add Jobs (Levy Institute)
• Beyond Tuition: Promises for Affordability, Quality, and Accountability in Higher Education (Center for American Progress)
• Georgia State Turnaround (CHE)
• Spelman Health Initiative (IHE)
• University of Kansas: BA In Three Years
• Shady Grove: Nine Campuses in One (WAPO)  
  

Higher Education Policy

• Veterans’ Education Advocates Celebrate Closure of the 90/10 Loophole
• College Transparency Act (Senate Bill 800)
• Dropping Gainful Employment Rules Gives Billions to Subprime Colleges (Inside Higher Education)
• ED Announces Steps to Hold Institutions Accountable for Taxpayer Losses
• FTC Head Says Supreme Court Ruling Puts More Than $2 Billion for Cheated Consumers at Risk (Brent Kendall, WSJ)
• GAO Report Regarding Online Program Managers
• How to Stop Sudden College Closures (Century Foundation)
• Improving Outcomes Data for Online Programs (Robert Kelchen, Inside Higher Education)
• Spelman College Replaces NCAA Sports with Wellness Programs
• Strengthening Rural Anchor Institutions: Federal Policy Solutions for Rural Public Colleges and the Communities They Serve (Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges)
• The Distributional Effects of Student Loan Forgiveness (BFI Working Paper, Sylvain Catherine and Constantine Yannelis)
• The for-profit college system is broken and the Biden administration needs to fix it (Brookings)
• The Impact of a National Program of Free Tuition at Public Community Colleges and Free Tuition for Most Students at Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities on College Enrollments, Graduations, and the Economy (Robert Shapiro and Isaac Yoder)
• Three Things Policymakers Can Do to Protect Online Students (Century Foundation)  
  

Data Sources

• American Association of Colleges and Universities  
  
• American Association of State Colleges and Universities
• American Indian Higher Education Consortium
• Academic Labor Force Trends (AAUP)
• Century Foundation 
  
• Closed Schools Report (US Department of Education)
• College Closing Projections (EY)
• College Costs Increasing Over Time (College Board)
• College Debt Inhibits Home Buying (CNBC)
• Complete College America
  
• Debt by Degrees (Pro Publica)
• Department of Defense
• Education Statistics by Institution
• Enrollment Numbers 
• Excelencia in Education
• Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity
  
• Growing Inland Achievement 
• Hechinger Report
• Heightened Cash Monitoring
• Long-term Student Loan Default Rates
• Lumina Foundation 
  
• National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO)
• National Assessment of Educational Progress
  
• National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA)
• National Center for Education Statistics
• NCES Blog
  
• National Student Clearinghouse 
• Predicting College Closures and Financial Distress (Philadelphia Federal Reserve)
  
• School Counselor Numbers (ASCA)
• Scientists Leaving Academia in Droves
• Starving the Beast: The Battle to Disrupt and Reform America’s Public Universities
• State by State College Debt (TICAS)
• Student Loan Debt By State (Urban Institute)
• Student Loan Debt Clock
• Student Loan Debt Inhibits Home Buying (CNBC)
• Student Loan Default Projections (Brookings)
• Subprime Colleges (David Halperin)
• The 74: America's Education News Source
  
• Third Way Reports
• Tracking College Closures (Hechinger Report) 
  
• Transfer Credit Problems (GAO)
• United Negro College Fund
  
• University Business Officers Reports
• US Financial Aid (2024 Annual Report) 
  
• Veterans Affairs (GI Bill)

Trade publications

• Chronicle of Higher Education
• Diverse Issues in Higher Education 
• EdSurge
  
• Higher Ed Dive
• Inside Higher Ed

College Meltdown Fall 2025

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

The Destruction of ED

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

AI Disruption: Academic Integrity and Graduate Employment 

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

Unsustainable Student Loan Debt and Federal Funding 

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

Institutional Cuts and Layoffs Across the Country

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

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

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

Enrollment Decline and Demographic Change

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

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

Aging Population and Shifts in Public Spending

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

State-Level Cuts to Higher Education Budgets

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

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

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

Closures and Mergers Continue

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

International Enrollment Faces Obstacles

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

Increased Surveillance and Restrictions on Campus Speech

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

Automated Education Expands

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

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

Oversight Gaps Remain

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

Cost Shifts to Students, Faculty, and Communities

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

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

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