The Misleading Myth of the College Premium

For decades, the so-called college premium—the idea that earning a college degree guarantees significantly higher lifetime earnings compared to a high school diploma—has been used to sell higher education to the American public. Politicians, economists, and university marketing teams alike have touted the promise of upward mobility through higher education. But this narrative is increasingly misleading, especially for working-class, first-generation, and marginalized students.

The College Premium: Averages vs. Reality

At its core, the college premium is based on averages. Federal and private data sources often claim that college graduates earn, on average, $1 million more over their lifetimes than those with only a high school diploma. But averages conceal enormous variation. They ignore who goes to college, where they go, what they study, and how much they borrow to get there.

That $1 million premium is skewed by high earners—doctors, lawyers, engineers, and business executives who often come from wealthier families and attend elite institutions. Meanwhile, a large and growing number of students graduate with low-paying degrees, insurmountable debt, and job prospects that resemble those of high school graduates from decades past.

Who Gets Misled—and Hurt

Students from working-class backgrounds often attend less selective colleges and universities—regional public schools, underfunded community colleges, or even predatory for-profit institutions. These students are more likely to work while enrolled, take longer to graduate, or drop out altogether. The result: little to no earnings gain, but significant debt burdens. For them, the college premium is often negative.

Systemic racism in the labor market erodes the supposed premium for Black and Latino graduates. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Black college graduates earn roughly 20% less than white peers with the same degrees. They also face higher unemployment rates, especially in economic downturns. When combined with higher average debt loads, the risk-to-reward ratio becomes starkly inequitable.

Not all degrees yield high returns. Many students major in education, social work, or the arts—not because these fields are unworthy, but because they are essential to society. Yet these professions are often undervalued and underpaid. Graduates may find themselves stuck with large student loans and salaries that barely cover basic living expenses. In these cases, the premium barely materializes.

Roughly 40% of college students in the U.S. fail to graduate within six years. These students take on debt but receive none of the (alleged) earnings boost associated with a degree. They are the most vulnerable population—often saddled with loans they can't discharge in bankruptcy and credentials that offer no labor market value.

A Shifting Landscape

The labor market has changed dramatically. Credential inflation means more jobs require degrees without necessarily offering higher pay. Meanwhile, automation, outsourcing, and gig work have made many once-stable jobs insecure. A bachelor’s degree is no longer the ticket to the middle class that it once was, especially for those without access to elite networks and institutions.

At the same time, the cost of college has skyrocketed. Student loan debt now tops $1.7 trillion, and repayment burdens are keeping young adults from buying homes, saving for retirement, or starting families. The financial risks of college now rival the benefits, especially for the very populations who are promised it will change their lives.

Toward a More Honest Conversation

Rather than clinging to the college premium as a universal truth, policymakers, educators, and the public must grapple with its limits. We need transparent data on outcomes by institution, major, race, and income. We must invest in alternative pathways, including apprenticeships, vocational training, and debt-free community college. We must hold bad actors accountable, including for-profit colleges and institutions with high debt-to-earnings ratios. And we must stop blaming individuals for “bad choices” when the system itself is rigged to benefit the privileged few.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate and report on the disparities, disinformation, and systemic failures within U.S. higher education—because transparency and justice matter more than mythology.

MASSIVE RALLIES PLANNED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPPORTING NATIONWIDE “NO KINGS DAY” PROTESTS JUNE 14TH

San Diego, June 6, 2025 – More than 20 San Diego area organizations have come together to organize safe and peaceful marches and rallies in defense of American Democracy on “No Kings Day” June 14, 2025.

The central event will be a large march and rally between 10am and noon at Waterfront Park in downtown San Diego, building on the “Hands Off Our Rights” rally April 5th that drew more than 30-thousand participants.

This coincides with a series of events throughout the county and nationwide to draw attention away from a “Grand Military Parade” estimated to cost as much as $45 million on President Donald Trump’s birthday.

“This is the kind of vanity parade we would expect to see in Russia or North Korea, not in a democracy” said Allison Gill, award-winning podcaster, who will be speaking at the rally.

Officially the “grand parade” is said to honor the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. However, the massive parade of tanks, helicopters and thousands of soldiers in Washington, DC, also takes place on the President’s 79th birthday.

“No matter what the parade is called, our democracy is under attack. Donald Trump and his allies are dismantling democratic institutions to consolidate power and money at the expense of the rest of us. This is not a cause for celebration,” said Wendy Gelernter, one of the event organizers.

Specifically the rally will oppose:

An end to efforts to centralize executive power as laid out in Project 2025

Protection for democratic institutions, civil rights and the rule of law

Transparency, accountability, and truth over chaos, cruelty and corruption

Elected leadership and good governance that serves the people — not personal power, personal enrichment or spectacle.

“It is unconscionable to spend this kind of money when the veterans in our area are being stripped of their benefits to reduce government spending, and budgets are being slashed for health services, food programs for hungry children, and vital medical research at San Diego area universities,” added Misty O’Healy of Indivisible49.

Multiple San Diego County events have been organized in support of the June 14 action. On June 8th, hundreds of people will form a human “No Kings” banner in Ocean Beach. On June 14th, a news conference is scheduled with local Congressional and civic leaders in Waterfront Park at 9:15 ahead of the march there. And more rallies and protests will take place in about a dozen communities throughout the county including Escondido, Chula Vista and Oceanside/Carlsbad. (A complete list can be found at NoKings.org.). “While Donald Trump may be remembered as the most divisive President in American history, he has done a unique and extraordinary job of unifying Americans across San Diego and the Nation who reject his wanna-be authoritarian approach to governance,” said Frances Yasmeen Motiwalla, of Activist San Diego.

Allison Gill concluded ”We overthrew a monarch 250 years ago. And we are not going back!”

More information and a full list of participating organizations can be found at https://takeactionsandiego.org/hub/partners.html

To coordinate media activities day-of, please contact: Mark Sauer, marksauer2@gmail.com, (619) 643-1024

Cambridge Chancellor Candidate Urges UK Universities to Welcome US Academic Exiles

Gina Miller, the high-profile British activist and candidate for Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, is calling on UK universities to seize a rare moment of global academic realignment by welcoming American scholars fleeing political repression and institutional decay in the United States. Miller, who rose to prominence for her legal battles against Brexit, told The Telegraph that Britain’s top institutions—particularly Cambridge—should become havens for academics and students seeking intellectual freedom and safety as Donald Trump’s political resurgence escalates.

“This last year we’ve seen the biggest uptick in U.S. students and academics looking for opportunities outside the country,” said Miller. “Why is Cambridge not making the most of that?”

Her comments arrive as the U.S. faces what many describe as an academic crisis. Donald Trump’s war on higher education has included freezing billions in research funds, shutting off international student visas, dismantling diversity and equity programs, and threatening tenure protections. Scholars have increasingly found themselves under attack—not only from politicians but from coordinated campaigns of harassment, surveillance, and intimidation. The chilling atmosphere has led some to flee, while others are actively exploring exit strategies.

Canada has emerged as the leading destination for these academic exiles. Among them is Dr. Cornel West, the noted philosopher and public intellectual, who accepted a position at the University of Toronto’s Massey College in 2024. West cited political censorship and corporate interference at elite U.S. universities as the primary reasons for his departure. Similarly, sociologist Dr. Saida Grundy left Boston University for McGill University in Montreal after sustained threats and harassment tied to her anti-racist scholarship. Grundy has spoken openly about feeling physically and intellectually safer in Canada.

The University of British Columbia welcomed Dr. Michael Sauder, a tenured sociologist from the University of Iowa, after he resigned in protest of proposed state legislation targeting faculty speech and tenure. In another example, Dr. Janelle Wong, a scholar of American politics and Asian American studies, relocated to York University after a combination of political threats and defunding of federal grants for her research on democracy and racial equity.

These are not isolated moves, but part of a growing wave of flight from U.S. institutions—especially public colleges in Republican-controlled states—where academic freedom is rapidly eroding. What had once seemed like hypothetical fears are now becoming lived realities for faculty, staff, and students.

Miller argues that UK institutions, particularly those with Cambridge’s global stature, should respond to this moment by offering refuge and opportunity. While Canada and Germany have already implemented formal “exile campus” initiatives, British universities have largely stayed silent—perhaps out of concern about being seen as anti-American.

But for Miller, who is undergoing treatment for breast cancer and was persuaded to run by a group of Cambridge faculty, this silence represents a missed moral and strategic opportunity. In her view, Cambridge could not only safeguard endangered scholars but also reinvigorate its intellectual community and global relevance.

She has also pledged to bring her long-standing campaign for transparency and ethical accountability to the university, including a commitment to divest Cambridge’s £4 billion endowment from arms companies. She praised King’s College’s recent decision to cut financial ties with weapons firms and argued that the university must act as a beacon of values as well as knowledge.

Miller has been critical of past chancellors who, she claims, have failed to use their positions to speak on important global issues or promote UK higher education on the world stage. “Why is Cambridge not at Davos, for example?” she asked. “Cambridge has the opportunity to be an ambassador not just for itself, but for the entire sector.”

Her campaign intersects with rising concerns about authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, and the hollowing out of liberal institutions worldwide. She warned that the line between anti-elitism and anti-scholarship is eroding, as exemplified by Trump’s alignment with populist tech leaders while undermining academic expertise.

Miller’s own life story, from her childhood in Guyana to legal triumphs against the British government, reflects the kind of global connectivity she envisions for Cambridge. She also shared a personal connection to the university: the rare cancer she is now battling was genetically profiled by a research team at Cambridge, deepening her admiration for its life-saving scientific work.

“If Cambridge is going to lead, it has to get off the page and into the world,” she said. “It must act now to uphold the values of open inquiry and human progress. If we wait until universities fall to authoritarian control, it will be too late.”

As Trump’s influence reshapes the American university landscape, the choice for UK higher education is stark: retreat inward, or rise to the challenge of global academic leadership. Gina Miller is betting that Cambridge still has the courage—and conscience—to do the latter.

---

For more on academic freedom, global education policy, and higher education in crisis, follow The Higher Education Inquirer.

Investigative Journalism Sheds Light on University of Phoenix Acquisition Attempts

In the realm of higher education, the proposed acquisitions of the University of Phoenix by public institutions have sparked significant debate and scrutiny. Two journalists, Kevin Richert of Idaho Education News and Debra Hale-Shelton of the Arkansas Times, have been at the forefront of reporting on these developments, providing in-depth analyses and uncovering critical details about the respective efforts in Idaho and Arkansas.

Kevin Richert's Reporting on Idaho's Attempted Acquisition

Kevin Richert, a seasoned journalist with over 35 years of experience in Idaho journalism, has extensively covered the University of Idaho's proposed $685 million acquisition of the University of Phoenix. His reporting delved into the financial implications, legal challenges, and public concerns surrounding the deal. Richert highlighted that the University of Idaho had spent over $14 million on legal and consulting fees related to the acquisition, raising questions about fiscal responsibility and transparency. He also brought attention to a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Raúl Labrador concerning the State Board of Education's closed-door meetings, which were central to the approval process. Furthermore, Richert analyzed the potential reputational risks for the University of Idaho, with critics arguing that acquiring a for-profit institution like the University of Phoenix could undermine the university's brand. His diligent pursuit of public records and insistence on governmental transparency have been pivotal in informing the public and fostering accountability.

Debra Hale-Shelton's Investigation into Arkansas's Pursuit

In Arkansas, Debra Hale-Shelton's investigative journalism for the Arkansas Times provided a comprehensive look into the University of Arkansas System's efforts to acquire the University of Phoenix. Her reporting revealed that even after the UA System's board of trustees rejected President Donald Bobbitt's proposal for a nonprofit affiliate to buy the online university, negotiations continued. According to court documents, representatives of the UA System remained engaged in discussions with the University of Phoenix and its financial adviser, Tyton Partners, exploring options to garner support from trustees or bring in external partners for the acquisition. Hale-Shelton's work also uncovered concerns about the lack of transparency and the use of nondisclosure agreements, which raised questions about compliance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Her persistent inquiries and detailed reporting brought to light the complexities and controversies surrounding the proposed deal.

The Impact of Investigative Journalism

The efforts of Kevin Richert and Debra Hale-Shelton underscore the vital role of investigative journalism in holding public institutions accountable. Their meticulous reporting not only informed the public but also prompted discussions about governance, transparency, and the future of higher education. By shedding light on these significant developments, they have contributed to a more informed and engaged citizenry.

U.S. Department of Education OIG's Semiannual Report Highlights Oversight of Pandemic Relief and Student Aid Programs

The U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released its 89th Semiannual Report to Congress, covering activities from April 1, 2024, through September 30, 2024. This report underscores the OIG's commitment to ensuring accountability and integrity in the administration of federal education funds, particularly those allocated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

---

Oversight of Pandemic Relief Funds

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted three significant statutes—the CARES Act (March 2020), the CRRSA Act (December 2020), and the American Rescue Plan (March 2021)—providing over $280 billion to support states, K–12 schools, school districts, and institutions of higher education. The OIG has been tasked with overseeing the proper utilization of these funds.

During the reporting period, the OIG issued nine reports specifically related to pandemic relief aid. These reports aimed to assess compliance with grant requirements and to identify instances of misuse or inefficiency in fund allocation and utilization. The OIG's ongoing audits and reviews are critical in ensuring that pandemic relief funds reach their intended recipients and are used effectively. 

---

Federal Student Aid Program Oversight

The resumption of student loan repayments, following the suspension under the CARES Act, has been a focal point for the OIG. An inspection revealed that the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) needed to establish effective performance measures and indicators to evaluate its performance in returning borrowers to repayment. As of June 30, 2023, there were approximately $1.63 trillion in outstanding loans and 43.4 million total unduplicated recipients. 

---

Disaster Recovery Oversight

Beyond pandemic-related efforts, the OIG continued its oversight of disaster recovery funds allocated in response to hurricanes and wildfires in 2018 and 2019. Nearly $2.9 billion was provided to assist K–12 schools, school districts, and higher education institutions affected by these natural disasters. The OIG's role includes auditing and investigating the management and utilization of these funds to ensure they address the educational needs of impacted students. 

---

Investigative Outreach and Other Activities

The OIG's investigative efforts during this period also encompassed outreach activities aimed at preventing misuse of funds and promoting awareness of compliance requirements. These initiatives are part of the OIG's broader strategy to foster a culture of accountability and transparency within educational institutions and among grant recipients.

---

Conclusion

The 89th Semiannual Report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Education OIG highlights the agency's pivotal role in overseeing the allocation and utilization of substantial federal funds in the education sector. Through audits, inspections, and investigative activities, the OIG strives to ensure that resources are used effectively to support educational institutions and students, particularly in the wake of unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters.

For a comprehensive view of the OIG's findings and activities, the full report is available on the OIG's official website. 

Veterans Left Behind: How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

[Editor's note: Michael S. Hainline is a member of Restore the GI Bill for Veterans.]

Veterans across the country rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) approval system to ensure their education and job training programs are safe, legitimate, and lead to meaningful employment. Yet, thousands have been failed by a system riddled with oversight gaps, conflicting interests, and regulatory loopholes that allow unsafe equipment, poor training, and deceptive schools to remain approved — often at great personal and financial cost to the veterans and taxpayers.

I know this all too well. As a former military police officer who trained as a truck driver in 2016 under a VA-approved program, I was exposed to dangerous, poorly maintained equipment that ultimately caused me to lose the use of my right arm for over a year, a disability I will carry for life. 

Despite repeated complaints to the program staff and the assigned State Approving Agency (SAA), the official body responsible for oversight, my concerns were dismissed, and no corrective action was taken until years later — and only after significant evidence surfaced.

Unsafe Equipment Ignored

During my class, veteran student Mike and I, and non-veteran students Dustin & Richard, discovered that the landing gear on the 1977 Stoughton trailer assigned for training was missing an axle and four wheels. I reported this to the staff, who admitted the equipment was faulty but took no timely corrective action. A veteran student later informed me that the school replaced the landing gear on a similar 1987 Great Dane trailer sometime after our class ended, contradicting official reports submitted to the VA and state approving agencies that claimed no issues existed.

To confirm these claims, I located the trailer used in program advertising and compared photos taken during and after our training. The landing gear had indeed been replaced—freshly painted and altered, as confirmed by Great Dane Trailers’ manufacturer. 

The trucks used for training showed similar problems. According to Vehicle Identification Numbers, three trucks had modifications—such as frame cutting between tandem axles—that Daimler Trucks North America (the manufacturer) neither recommended nor approved. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines were not followed, creating additional safety concerns, per conversations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 

Systemic Oversight Failures

These issues highlight a broader problem: the State Approving Agencies, under contract with the VA, are failing to provide adequate oversight and ensure program quality. The VA Office of Inspector General’s 2018 report (OIG Report #16-00862-179) found that 86% of SAAs did not sufficiently oversee educational programs to ensure only eligible, high-quality programs were approved. The report estimated that without reforms, the VA could improperly pay out $2.3 billion over five years to subpar or fraudulent institutions.

Alarmingly, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is restricted in its ability to question or audit the reports submitted by SAAs. There is no mechanism for veterans to challenge or appeal SAA findings, effectively leaving veterans powerless within a system that is supposed to protect them.

Veteran Service Organizations’ Silence

I sought help from veteran service organizations but found little interest in addressing these critical problems. The American Legion initially responded to my outreach in 2017, engaging in conversations and phone calls. However, within months, communication ceased without explanation. Attempts to meet with American Legion leadership and their legislative contacts, including Dr. Joe Wescott—an influential consultant on veterans’ education—were unsuccessful. Dr. Wescott dismissed concerns about the integrity of the SAA’s targeted risk-based reviews, citing that schools typically fix problems before SAAs visit, and failed to investigate conflicts of interest between report authors and SAA officials.

At the 2024 American Legion convention, a planned meeting between a fellow veteran and Legion leadership was abruptly canceled. Meanwhile, other veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and Veterans Education Success (VES) showed engagement, but the American Legion and Student Veterans of America remained unresponsive.

The American Legion’s own 2016 Resolution #304 warned of the exact issues I and countless other veterans have endured: deceptive practices by some education providers, poor accreditation standards, and underfunded and understaffed SAAs unable to enforce proper oversight.

A Cycle of Scandal

Congressional staff admitted privately that veterans’ education legislation rarely progresses without support from key players like Dr. Wescott and the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA), whose leaders have repeatedly declined to meet with veterans raising concerns. These complex relationships between SAAs, VA officials, veteran groups, and legislators perpetuate a “cycle of scandal” that leaves veterans vulnerable and taxpayers footing the bill.

In 2023, a combat veteran attending the same program I did reported similar frustrations: only one of three trucks was roadworthy, severely limiting practical training time for a full class of students. Despite numerous documented complaints, the NASAA president refused to meet or discuss these issues.

The Human Cost

Beyond financial waste and bureaucratic failures, real human harm occurs. My injury, caused by training on unsafe equipment, robbed me of a year of mobility and continues to affect my life. Thousands of veterans have lost their G.I. Bill benefits, incurred debt for worthless or limited degrees, or been misled about their job prospects after completing programs approved by the very agencies meant to protect them.

The internet is rife with investigative reports exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in VA-approved programs. Headlines like “School Scammers Are Robbing Veterans and the Government Blind” and “For-Profit Colleges Exploit Veterans’ G.I. Bill Benefits” are far too common.

A Call for Reform

Despite these glaring failures, meaningful reform remains elusive. The VA OIG report and numerous investigations call for increased accountability, transparency, and cooperation between the VBA, SAAs, veteran service organizations, and Congress. Veterans deserve a system that genuinely safeguards their education and wellbeing.

My fellow former veteran students and I have organized online and turned to media outlets to break the silence. It’s time for the public and policymakers to hear our stories—not just slogans and “catchy” legislative titles that fail to restore lost benefits or improve program quality.

We veterans demand change—because we have earned more than empty promises and a broken system that leaves us behind.

---

Michael S. Hainline is a veteran and advocate living in Pensacola, Florida. He served in active duty and reserve military components and now works to expose the failures of oversight in VA-approved education and job training programs. He can be reached at hainline1962@gmail.com.

Delinquent and Disillusioned: The Student Loan Crisis Reignites Amid Economic and Policy Failures

Millions of student loan borrowers in the United States are falling behind on payments now that the COVID-era federal loan pause has ended—and the economic and personal consequences are mounting fast. The recent Wall Street Journal article “Millions of Americans Had Their Student-Loan Payments Put on Pause During the Pandemic. Now They Are Back on the Hook Again” paints a sobering picture of what happens when borrowers, many already living paycheck-to-paycheck, are reinserted into a punitive debt system with little warning or preparation.

According to the WSJ report, 5.6 million borrowers were marked newly delinquent in just the first quarter of 2025, as credit reporting resumed and wage garnishment letters started showing up in mailboxes. Delinquency rates surged from 0.7% to 8%, returning to pre-pandemic levels with alarming speed. While this may be a statistical “reversion to the mean” in economic terms, for those affected, it's a hard shock that could derail financial stability for years to come.

A System Ill-Equipped for Restart

The Biden administration’s temporary on-ramp expired in the fall of 2023. Since then, servicers, borrowers, and regulators have all struggled with the logistical and psychological whiplash of rebooting a system that had been on hold for over three years. Meanwhile, the Trump administration—eager to reassert austerity and fiscal discipline—has resumed the aggressive collections practices that defined the pre-pandemic era: wage garnishments, tax refund seizures, and Social Security offsets.

For millions, this reactivation has not come with transparency or support. Many received letters from unfamiliar loan servicers, the result of reshuffling in the student loan servicing industry during the pandemic. As University of Cambridge economist Constantine Yannelis told WSJ, borrowers who graduated during the payment pause may not have ever experienced repayment, and are now blindsided by bureaucratic demands and crumbling credit.

Credit Collapse and Economic Spillover

Among the most concerning revelations: borrowers with once-strong credit profiles are being dragged down. Nearly 2.4 million people with near-prime or prime credit ratings experienced sharp score declines—up to 177 points for those with scores over 720. That drop could shut borrowers out of mortgages, car loans, and even rental opportunities, extending the economic pain well beyond student debt.

Morgan Stanley economists warn that monthly student loan payments will rise by $1 billion to $3 billion, potentially shaving 0.1 percentage point from the 2025 U.S. GDP. While modest at the macroeconomic level, that drop represents hundreds of thousands of families tightening budgets, delaying major purchases, or skipping payments on other essentials.

And the demographic picture of who is struggling directly refutes tired stereotypes. University of Chicago economist Lesley Turner emphasized that those falling behind are not entitled Ivy League grads but disproportionately working-class Americans—especially those who attended for-profit or two-year colleges, or dropped out before earning a degree. Mississippi, where 45% of borrowers are delinquent, stands out as a cautionary tale in both poverty and policy failure.

A Fractured Policy Landscape

What’s happening now is not just a predictable economic phenomenon—it’s the result of a fractured and politically volatile policy environment. Biden’s efforts to implement broad debt relief through the SAVE plan and other targeted forgiveness efforts have been challenged in court and undermined by executive overreach claims. That legal uncertainty left many borrowers falsely optimistic that repayment would be permanently suspended or forgiven, influencing their financial planning.

Meanwhile, the ideological pendulum continues to swing: progressive reforms like income-driven repayment and borrower defense to repayment have been inconsistently applied, undercut by administrative churn and legal ambiguity. Now, under a returning Trump administration, the Department of Education is once again prioritizing collections over compassion.

What Happens Next?

There’s no clear trajectory forward. As Duke economist Michael Dinerstein noted, the path could go in either direction. If borrowers respond to delinquency warnings and enter into income-driven repayment (IDR) plans like SAVE, we may see stabilization. But without real outreach, forgiveness, or structural reform, millions more may default—and carry the economic scars for decades.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we see this moment as a pivotal test—not just of financial resilience, but of our society’s willingness to reckon with an education system that has long promised mobility while delivering debt. The student loan system was broken before COVID. The pause merely masked the underlying rot. Now, with repayments back in motion, the cracks are widening into chasms.

If the U.S. is serious about building a stable middle class, supporting higher education access, and ensuring economic mobility, it must move beyond temporary pauses and court-contested forgiveness. We need durable reform, not debt servitude masquerading as opportunity. Until then, millions of Americans will remain caught in the crossfire between broken promises and broken policies.

---

For ongoing investigations into student debt, contingent labor, and the collapse of trust in U.S. higher education, follow the Higher Education Inquirer. 

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:

1. Straightforward Application – A simple application process, followed by matching with an admissions advisor who helps identify a student's purpose and educational fit.

2. Tech for Those Who Need It – A free laptop and Wi-Fi access for students who lack them, ensuring digital inclusion.

3. Personal Success Coach – Each student is assigned a personal success coach, offering free tutoring, career advising, and 24/7 access to wellness services.

4. Elite Educators – Courses are taught live via Zoom by faculty who also teach at top universities like Stanford and Columbia.

5. Enduring Support – Whether transferring to a four-year college or entering the workforce, Campus promises help with building skills and networks.

6. 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.

A Warning to Colorado State University: Proceed with Caution on Ambow’s HybriU Platform

Colorado State University (CSU), a respected public institution with a strong reputation in research and innovation, is reportedly considering a contract with Ambow Education Holding Ltd. to implement its “HybriU” platform, a hybrid learning technology promising to blend in-person and online education. On the surface, such a partnership might appear to align with CSU’s goals of expanding digital learning and staying competitive in the evolving higher education landscape. But a deeper look reveals serious concerns that warrant public scrutiny and administrative caution.

Ambow’s Controversial Background

Ambow Education, though now marketing itself as a U.S.-based edtech company, has deep and lingering connections to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Founded in China and once listed on the New York Stock Exchange before being delisted in 2014 due to accounting irregularities and shareholder lawsuits, Ambow has struggled to shake off its past. Despite reincorporating in the Cayman Islands and operating out of a U.S. office, Ambow continues to raise red flags for investors and watchdogs alike.

According to public filings and investigative reports, key members of Ambow’s leadership maintain ties to Chinese state-affiliated organizations. Moreover, questions have emerged around data security, educational quality, and transparency in the firm’s current operations—especially through its HybriU platform.

Potential Risks to CSU and Its Stakeholders

1. National Security and Data Privacy: Given Ambow’s ties to China and the ongoing concerns about intellectual property theft and surveillance, CSU may be exposing sensitive institutional and student data to foreign actors. Universities are high-value targets for cyber-espionage, particularly those with defense-related research contracts. Even the perception of a compromised platform could damage CSU’s credibility and funding.

2. Regulatory and Reputational Risk: The U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies have heightened scrutiny of foreign influence in American higher education, especially from China. Entering into a formal relationship with a company like Ambow could place CSU in the crosshairs of federal investigators, jeopardizing federal grants and inviting political backlash.

3. Academic Integrity and Pedagogical Standards: The HybriU platform has yet to demonstrate proven results at scale in U.S. higher education. Partnering with a firm that has not established a strong record of academic excellence or technological reliability could compromise the learning experience for CSU students, particularly in a time when online education still faces skepticism.

4. Precedents and Red Flags: Other universities and investors have backed away from Ambow in the past. Its prior delisting, financial opacity, and ownership structure should be viewed as warning signs. If CSU moves forward with this partnership, it may find itself entangled in legal or financial complications that were avoidable with proper due diligence.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The Higher Education Inquirer urges CSU’s Board of Governors, faculty leadership, and the broader CSU community to fully vet Ambow before committing to any partnership. This includes:

• Demanding full disclosure of Ambow’s ownership, governance, and data-handling practices.

• Consulting with cybersecurity experts and federal authorities about the risks of foreign influence.

• Engaging students, faculty, and IT professionals in a transparent evaluation process.

• Exploring domestic, more secure edtech alternatives that align with CSU’s values and strategic vision.

Conclusion

At a time when public trust in higher education is under strain and geopolitical tensions continue to rise, it is imperative for public institutions like Colorado State University to make decisions that are not only cost-effective but ethically and strategically sound. Partnering with a company like Ambow, without thorough investigation and community input, could pose unacceptable risks.

The CSU community—and the taxpayers of Colorado—deserve better than a gamble on a platform with questionable affiliations. We urge CSU to reconsider.

The Cruelty of Compliance: How the Trump Administration’s FSA Notice Doubles Down on Student Debtors While Privileging the Higher Education Racket

The U.S. Department of Education, under the renewed influence of the Trump Administration and its deep-pocketed friends in the for-profit and debt collection industries, has issued a chilling reminder of just how little it cares for the tens of millions of Americans drowning in student debt. Cloaked in bureaucratic language and peppered with sanctimonious calls for “shared responsibility,” the Department’s latest notice is, in truth, a battle cry in its war to privatize higher education, scapegoat the vulnerable, and enrich corporate cronies at the expense of working families.

Let’s call this what it is: a renewed assault on the student debtor class—the adjunct professors, the first-generation college students, the single mothers, the underemployed graduates who were sold a dream of economic mobility and handed a lifetime of debt servitude.

According to the Department, only 38% of borrowers are current on their loans, and nearly a quarter of all loans are in default or severe delinquency. Rather than treating this figure as evidence of systemic failure—ballooning tuition, predatory lending, lack of loan forgiveness—the Department responds by resuming draconian collection measures like the Treasury Offset Program and Administrative Wage Garnishment. This means that the government will begin seizing tax refunds and garnishing wages of those already pushed to the economic brink.

Worse, the Department has the audacity to wrap this cruelty in the rhetoric of “support” and “outreach.” Borrowers are told that they’ll be reminded of their “repayment obligations” as if they have simply forgotten—not that they’ve been buried under compound interest, stagnating wages, and fraudulent institutions that peddled worthless degrees. The supposed “enhancements” to income-driven repayment plans are little more than PR spin, insufficient to address the tidal wave of suffering inflicted by a broken system.

Then comes the most insulting part: the Department deflects blame onto institutions while simultaneously pressuring them to track down and guilt-trip former students. Colleges are urged to contact former enrollees and remind them they’re obligated to pay. Why? Not out of concern for their welfare—but because high cohort default rates (CDRs) might threaten those institutions' eligibility for federal aid money.

So we see the real game here: this isn’t about protecting students. It’s about protecting the federal loan program as a revenue engine and shielding the reputations of colleges—especially the for-profit diploma mills that flourished under prior Republican administrations. These institutions can continue hiking tuition and churning out underprepared graduates because the government, under Trump and his Department of Education appointees, would rather collect on unpayable loans than hold schools accountable.

Even more dystopian is the Department’s plan to publicly release “loan non-payment rates by institution.” While transparency sounds virtuous, this move will undoubtedly be weaponized—not to shut down abusive schools but to further stigmatize borrowers, especially those from marginalized backgrounds who attended underfunded schools with few resources.

Nowhere in this document is there any meaningful discussion of debt relief, student protections, or reining in college costs. Nowhere is there a reckoning with the fact that federal student aid has been transformed from a tool of opportunity into a tool of coercion. Instead, the Trump Administration signals it is open for business—the business of extracting wealth from the poor and funneling it into the private sector.

This notice is more than a policy update. It is a declaration of values. And those values are clear: Profit over people. Compliance over compassion. Privatization over public good.

The Higher Education Inquirer stands with the debtors. We see through the lies of “fiscal responsibility” and “integrity.” And we will continue to expose every cynical maneuver designed to crush the educated underclass in the name of neoliberal orthodoxy.

To student borrowers: You are not alone. You are not a failure. You are a victim of a system that was never built to serve you.

Here's the actual post from the US Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, dated May 5, 2025:

 

The United States faces critical challenges related to the federal student loan programs. According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Education (Department), only 38% of Direct Loan and Department-held Federal Family Education Loan Program borrowers are in repayment and current on their student loans. We also estimate that almost 25% of the entire portfolio is either in default or a late stage of delinquency. 

Given these challenges, the Department is taking immediate steps to engage student borrowers and support the repayment of their federal student loans. As announced in an April 21, 2025, press release, today, the Department will resume collections on its defaulted federal student loan portfolio with the restart the Treasury Offset Program and, later this summer, Administrative Wage Garnishment. The Department has also initiated an outreach campaign to remind all borrowers of their repayment obligations and provide resources and support to assist them in selecting the best repayment plan for their circumstances. The Department has also launched an enhanced income-driven repayment (IDR) plan process, simplifying how borrowers enroll in IDR plans and eliminating the need for many borrowers to manually recertify their income each year. 

Role of Institutions in Loan Repayment

Maintaining the integrity of the Title IV, Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) loan programs has always been a shared responsibility among student borrowers, the Department, and participating institutions. Although borrowers have the primary responsibility for repaying their student loans, institutions play a key role in the Department’s ongoing efforts to improve loan repayment outcomes, especially as the cost of college set solely by institutions has continued to skyrocket. Institutions are responsible for providing clear and accurate information about repayment to borrowers through entrance and exit counseling, and colleges and universities are responsible for disclosing annual tuition and fees and the net price to students and their families on the costs of a postsecondary education. The financial aid community has demonstrated its commitment to providing direct advice and counsel to students regarding their borrowing, but institutions must refocus and expand these efforts as pandemic flexibilities come to an end.

Under section 435 of the HEA, institutions are required to keep their cohort default rates (CDR) low and will lose eligibility for federal student assistance, including Pell Grants and federal student loans, if their CDR exceeds 40% for a single year or 30% for three consecutive years. The Department reminds institutions that the repayment pause on student loans ended in October 2023, and CDRs published in 2026 will include borrowers who entered repayment in 2023 and defaulted in 2023, 2024, or 2025. The Department further reminds institutions that those borrowers whose delinquency or default status was reset in September 2024 could enter technical default status / be delinquent on their loans for more than 270 days beginning in June and default this summer. As such, we strongly urge all institutions to begin proactive and sustained outreach to former students who are delinquent or in default on their loans to ensure that such institutions will not face high CDRs next year and lose access to federal student aid. 

Outreach to Former Students to Prevent Defaults

Given the urgent need to ensure that more student borrowers enter repayment and stay current on their loans, the Secretary urges each participating institution to provide the following information to all borrowers who ceased to be enrolled at the institution since January 1, 2020, and for whom they have contact information: 

• Remind the borrower that he or she is obligated to repay any federal student loans that have not been repaid and are not in deferment or forbearance;

• Suggest that the borrower review information on StudentAid.gov about repayment options; and 

• Request that the borrower log into StudentAid.gov using their StudentAid.gov username and password to update their profile with current contact information and ensure that their loans are in good standing. 

The Department urges that this outreach be performed no later than June 30, 2025. We do not stipulate how institutions reach out to borrowers, nor the specific information provided, as long as it covers the three categories described above. 

We also encourage institutions to focus their initial outreach on students who are delinquent on one or more of their loans in order to prevent defaults. We will provide additional information in the future to assist schools with identifying and communicating with these borrowers.

Publishing Loan Non-Payment Rates by Institution

The Department is committed to overseeing the federal student loan programs with fairness and integrity for students, institutions, and taxpayers. To that end, the Department believes that greater transparency is needed regarding institutional success in counseling borrowers and helping them get into good standing on their loans. 

The Department maintains data on the repayment status of federal student loan borrowers and in the past has provided information in the College Scorecard about the status of each institution’s borrowers at several intervals after they enter repayment. The Department plans to use this data to calculate rates of nonpayment by institution and will publish this information on the Federal Student Aid Data Center later this month. The Department will provide more information about this publication process soon. 

Thank you for your continued efforts to maintain the integrity of the Title IV, HEA loan programs. The Department values its institutional partners and looks forward to continued collaboration to place borrowers on the path to sustainable repayment of their loans.

Maximus AidVantage

[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

Diminished Consumer Protections

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers' union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

A New Era of Accountability: The Case for Taxing Universities with Legacy Admissions.

As debates around the fairness of college admissions continue to dominate headlines, a growing number of voices are calling for a fundamental change in how universities operate—especially when it comes to legacy admissions. Legacy admissions, a practice where children of alumni are given preferential treatment in the admissions process, have long been a controversial issue. Critics argue that these policies disproportionately benefit wealthy, predominantly white families, perpetuating cycles of privilege and inequality in higher education.

However, a new idea has emerged: what if universities that maintain legacy admissions policies were taxed? This radical proposal seeks to directly address the social and economic disparities that legacy admissions exacerbate. Let’s break down how this concept could work and why it may be an essential step toward greater fairness in higher education.

Legacy Admissions and Their Impact

Legacy admissions are widely seen as a way for universities to maintain strong alumni relations and secure large financial donations. While this may have practical advantages for universities, the social consequences are more troubling. Studies have shown that legacy students tend to come from wealthier backgrounds and are often already overrepresented in the student body of elite institutions.

For example, at Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale, legacy students make up a disproportionately high percentage of the accepted class, despite often having lower academic performance metrics compared to their non-legacy peers. The practice has sparked outrage from students, parents, and activists who argue that it locks out deserving candidates from underrepresented communities, particularly students of color and first-generation college applicants.

The Taxation Proposal

The core of the proposed policy is simple: universities that admit a significant number of legacy students—say, 20% or more of the incoming class—would be required to pay a tax based on the proportion of legacy students admitted. This tax could be structured progressively, with higher taxes imposed on universities with a greater percentage of legacy admits. The funds raised could be earmarked for initiatives aimed at increasing diversity, providing scholarships for underrepresented students, or supporting public universities that offer accessible, low-cost education.

The argument for this approach is rooted in the idea that universities benefiting from preferential admissions policies should be held financially accountable for the social inequality they perpetuate. By taxing legacy admissions, we create an economic incentive for universities to reconsider these outdated practices and move toward a more equitable admissions process.

Economic and Social Benefits

1. Encouraging Diversity: Universities that rely on legacy admissions often argue that they are fostering long-term relationships with alumni and maintaining their traditions. However, the proposed tax would encourage schools to focus more on diversity and accessibility. With the additional tax burden, institutions would likely seek alternative ways to boost their endowments or attract alumni donations, potentially pushing them toward more inclusive, merit-based admissions policies.

2. Supporting Public Institutions: The revenue generated from taxing legacy admissions could be reinvested into public universities, which often face funding shortages and higher tuition rates. These schools serve a larger proportion of low-income and first-generation students, and additional funding could help close the equity gap between public and private universities.

3. Public Accountability: The tax system would provide an additional layer of public accountability for how universities operate, ensuring that schools with large endowments and large alumni bases do not perpetuate systems of privilege at the expense of broader societal equality.

Addressing Concerns

Opponents of this idea will likely argue that taxing universities could have unintended consequences, such as limiting the resources available for financial aid or academic programs. Some may also claim that legacy admissions serve a legitimate purpose in fostering strong alumni networks and ensuring continued donations.

However, these concerns fail to address the larger moral issue at stake: the perpetuation of privilege in higher education. Universities, especially those with large endowments, can afford to innovate and adapt. Many already provide substantial financial aid packages, and the taxes levied on legacy admissions would provide a direct opportunity to reinvest those resources into a more equitable future.

The Path Forward

In many ways, taxing legacy admissions is just one piece of the puzzle. A comprehensive reform agenda would also include revisiting standardized testing practices, increasing transparency in the admissions process, and offering more substantial financial aid packages to students from underrepresented backgrounds. However, the idea of using tax policy to address the inequities embedded in legacy admissions provides a concrete, measurable step forward.

It’s time for universities to evolve and embrace a future where access to higher education is based on merit, not on family connections or wealth. By taxing schools that perpetuate legacy admissions, we can push institutions to confront their role in social inequality and work toward a more inclusive and accessible system for all students.

Trump Backs Down on Threats to International Students, But Students Should Still Be Wary

In a stunning and unexplained reversal, the Trump administration has reinstated the legal statuses of hundreds of international students whose records were recently terminated—an aggressive move many immigration attorneys, advocates, and higher education leaders saw as a politically motivated purge.

Elizabeth D. Kurlan, a Justice Department attorney, announced during a federal hearing on Friday that the administration is restoring the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) records of affected students while Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) crafts a new framework for future terminations.

But for many in the higher education community, this about-face raises more concerns than it resolves.

“Like Somebody Flipped a Light Switch”

International students across the country were stunned Thursday afternoon when their status records were quietly reactivated, often without explanation or notice. “It’s like somebody flipped a light switch on,” said Cleveland-based immigration attorney Jath Shao, whose clients were among those reinstated.

Universities from UC Berkeley to the Rochester Institute of Technology reported sudden, uneven restorations—some students were reinstated, others left in limbo. The randomness of it all has underscored what critics call the administration’s disregard for due process and the human cost of erratic immigration enforcement.

At UC Berkeley, only about half of the impacted students saw their records restored. In Minnesota, immigration attorney David Wilson said that while some of his clients had their statuses reinstated, others remain legally adrift. And even for those reinstated, the problems don’t end there.

Not Fully “Made Whole”

Despite the government’s public pivot, immigration experts warn that the long-term consequences of the status terminations may still follow these students. The terminated statuses, even if reversed, remain part of the official record—and could jeopardize future visa renewals, green card applications, or even employment opportunities.

“The time that they had their SEVIS status terminated could still have harmful effects,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic. “It’s not enough for the federal government to simply restore service records. The government would need to somehow make the students whole.”

What’s more, many students remain trapped inside the United States. Their reinstated statuses do not automatically mean reinstated visas—many of which were revoked in the same sweep. Without valid visas, these students risk being barred from reentry if they leave the country.

A Campaign of Retaliation

Attorneys and student advocates point to what appears to be a pattern of targeted enforcement by ICE. Many of the students who lost their status were flagged for political activism, minor infractions like DUIs, or simply for being out of status during bureaucratic transitions.

“There’s little doubt that this was about sending a message,” said Shao. “By now it’s obvious that the Trump administration spent the four years of Biden plotting their revenge on the immigration system. But once some brave students and lawyers went to the courts — the administration’s defenders were unable or unwilling to explain the rationale.”

The legal pushback may have forced the administration’s hand—for now. But ICE’s authority to terminate SEVIS records remains intact, and a new policy is reportedly in development. Without transparency or oversight, advocates fear a more durable system of punitive enforcement is on the horizon.

Higher Education at the Crossroads

The Trump administration’s crackdown on international students is not happening in a vacuum. It reflects a broader shift toward nationalist, authoritarian governance—one that sees immigrants, universities, and dissent itself as threats to be neutralized.

For U.S. colleges and universities, international students are more than just tuition revenue—they are integral members of the academic and social fabric. Their vulnerability, however, is increasingly evident. And unless institutions begin to use their political and legal capital to protect these students, they risk becoming complicit in a system of silent expulsions and bureaucratic cruelty.