Does higher ed still make sense for students, financially? (Bryan Alexander)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

Is a college degree still worth it?

The radio program/podcast Marketplace hosted me as a guest last week to speak to the question.  You can listen to it* or read my notes below, or both.  I have one reflection at the end of this post building on one interview question.

One caveat or clarification before I get hate mail: the focus of the show was entirely on higher education’s economics.  We didn’t discuss the non-financial functions of post-secondary schooling because that’s not what the show (called “Marketplace”) is about, nor did we talk about justifying academic study for reasons of personal development, family formation, the public good, etc.  The conversation was devoted strictly to the economic proposition.

The hosts, Kimberly Adams and Reema Khrais, began by asking if higher ed still made financial sense.  Yes, I answered, for a good number of people – but not everyone.  Much depends on your degree and your institution’s reputation.  And I hammered home the problem of some college but no degree.  The hosts asked if that value proposition was declining.  My response: the perception of that value is dropping.  Here I emphasized the reality, and the specter, of student debt, along with anxieties about AI and politics.  Then I added my hypothesis that the “college for all” consensus is breaking up.

Next the hosts asked me what changing (declining) attitudes about higher education mean for campuses.  I responded by outlining the many problems, centered around the financial pressures many schools are under.  I noted Trump’s damages then cited my peak higher education model.  Marketplace asked me to explain the appeal of alternatives to college (the skilled trades, certificates, boot camps, etc), which I did, and then we turned to automation, which I broke up into AI vs robotics, before noting gender differences.

Back to college for all: which narrative succeeds it?  I didn’t have a good, single answer right away.  We touched on a resurgence of vocational technology, then I sang the praises of liberal education.  We also talked about the changing value of different degrees – is the BA the new high school diploma? Is a master’s degree still a good idea?  I cited the move to reduce degree demands from certain fields, as well as the decline of the humanities, the crisis of computer science, and the growing importance of allied health.

After my part ended, Adams and Khrais pondered the role of higher education as a culture war battlefield.  Different populations might respond in varied ways – perhaps adults are more into the culture war issues, and maybe women (already the majority of students) are at greater risk of automation.

So what follows the end of college for all?

If the American consensus that K-12 should prepare every student for college breaks down, if we no longer have a rough agreement that the more post-secondary experience people get, the better, the next phase seems to be… mixed.  Perhaps we’re entering an intermediary phase before a new settlement becomes clear.

One component seems to be a resurgence in the skilled trades, requiring either apprenticeship, a short community college course of study, or on the job training.  Demand is still solid, at least until robotics become reliable and cost-effective in these fields, which doesn’t seem to be happening in at least the short term.  This needs preparation in K-12, and we’re already seeing the most prominent voices calling for a return to secondary school trades training.  There’s a retro dimension to this which might appeal to older folks. (I’ve experienced this in conversations with Boomers and my fellow Gen Xers, as people reminisce about shop class and home ec.)

A second piece of the puzzle would be businesses and the public sector expanding their education functions.  There is already an ecosystem of corporate campuses, online training, chief learning officers, and more; that could simply grow as employers seek to wean employees away from college.

A third might be a greater focus on skills across the board. Employers demand certain skills to a higher degree of clarity, perhaps including measurements for soft skills.  K-12 schools better articulate student skill achievement, possibly through microcredentials and/or expanded (portfolio) certification. Higher education expands its use of prior learning assessment for adult learners and transfer students, while also following or paralleling K-12 in more clearly identifying skills within the curriculum and through outcomes.

A fourth would be greater politicization of higher education.  If America pulls back from college for all, college for some arrives and the question of who gets to go to campus becomes a culture war battlefield.  Already a solid majority of students are women, so we might expect gender politics to intensify, with Republicans and men’s rights activists increasingly calling on male teenagers to skip college while young women view university as an even more appropriate stage of their lives.  Academics might buck 2025’s trends and more clearly proclaim the progressive aims they see postsecondary education fulfilling, joined by progressive politicians and cultural figures.  Popular culture might echo this, with movies/TV shows/songs/bestsellers depicting the academy as either a grim ideological factory turning students into fiery liberals or as a safe place for the flowering of justice and identity.

Connecting these elements makes me recall and imagine stories.  I can envision two teenagers, male and female, talking through their expectations of college. One sees it as mandatory “pink collar” preparation while the other dreads it for that reason.  The former was tracked into academic classes while the latter appreciated maker space time and field trips to work sites. Or we might follow a young man as he enters woodworking and succeeds in that field for years, feeling himself supported in his masculinity and also avoiding student debt, until he decides to return to school after health problems limit his professional abilities.  Perhaps one business sets up a campus and an apprenticeship system which it codes politically, such as claiming a focus on merit and not DEI, on manly virtues and traditional culture. In contrast another firm does the same but without any political coding, instead carefully anchoring everything in measured and certified skill development.

Over all of these options looms the specter of AI, and here the picture is more muddy.  Do “pink collar” jobs persist as alternatives to the experience of chatbots, or do we automate those functions?  Does post-secondary education become mandatory for jobs handling AIs, which I’ve been calling “AI wranglers”?  If automation depresses the labor force, do we come to see college as a gamble on scoring a rare, well paying job?

I’ll stop here.  My thanks to Marketplace for the kind interview on a vital topic.

*My audio quality isn’t the best because I fumbled the recording. Sigh.

The Confidence Crisis: Why Young Workers Are Losing Faith in the Job Market

In May 2025, worker confidence in the U.S. labor market sank to its lowest point in nearly a decade. Glassdoor reports that only 44.1% of employees expressed a positive six-month business outlook, citing mounting economic instability, tariff threats, and rising layoffs. For entry-level workers—the newest entrants into the workforce—the numbers were even worse: just 43.4% expressed confidence, the lowest since Glassdoor began tracking this data in 2016.

These numbers reflect more than just a cyclical downturn—they point to a deeper structural issue at the heart of the U.S. economy and higher education system.

Layoffs Rising, Job Growth Slowing

According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, U.S.-based employers cut 93,816 jobs in May, a 47% increase over the same month last year. Meanwhile, the U.S. added just 139,000 jobs, down from April’s total of 147,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Despite headlines touting “full employment,” many workers—especially younger ones—see fewer opportunities and reduced mobility.

The Collapse of Upward Mobility

For recent college graduates, the path from education to employment is increasingly blocked. Hiring has slowed across multiple sectors, particularly in roles that were once considered reliable entry points into the professional world. According to Daniel Zhao, lead economist at Glassdoor, “The low hiring environment we’re in right now means it’s hard for young grads to get onto the career ladder in the first place.”

For those who do land jobs, internal advancement has become more difficult. Companies are not promoting or hiring at the same rates as before, and competition has intensified as experienced workers, displaced by layoffs, vie for the same positions.

As Zhao notes, this creates “more bunching at the bottom of the career ladder,” further reducing the chances for advancement. The result is a stagnant and oversaturated early-career labor market that undermines the basic assumption that education leads to mobility.

The Rise of the Educated Underclass

This moment underscores what sociologist Gary Roth has called the emergence of an “educated underclass”—a growing segment of workers with college degrees who find themselves in precarious, low-wage, or unstable employment. The promise that higher education guarantees success in the labor market has unraveled for many, replaced by a cycle of job insecurity, career stagnation, and rising debt.

Colleges and universities continue to promote degree attainment as the key to upward mobility, yet millions of graduates are discovering that the market does not need, or will not absorb, their skills at a level commensurate with their education. What began as a student debt crisis is now a broader economic phenomenon: the creation of a surplus class of credentialed workers whose aspirations exceed the system’s capacity to deliver.

This “educated underclass” is not simply the result of poor individual choices or bad timing—it is a structural outcome of a labor market and education system misaligned with one another and increasingly shaped by financialized logics. As more employers demand degrees for routine work, and as automation and outsourcing reduce the number of stable middle-class jobs, the role of college becomes less about opportunity and more about gatekeeping and economic sorting.

Higher Education’s Complicity

The current crisis also raises hard questions about the higher education industry itself. Institutions have continued to expand enrollment and raise tuition, fueling a multi-trillion-dollar student debt industry, while offering little accountability for post-graduation outcomes. Marketing campaigns still sell the dream of transformation through education—even as graduates enter a labor market defined by instability, underemployment, and diminished returns on investment.

A System in Crisis

The ongoing decline in worker confidence, especially among the young, may signal not just temporary economic anxiety, but a legitimacy crisis for both the labor market and the education system that feeds it. As job cuts increase and growth stagnates, more Americans—especially those carrying degrees and debt—are beginning to question the rules of the game.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we continue to track the rise of the educated underclass, the erosion of labor market mobility, and the complicity of institutions that have sold debt-financed credentials as a ticket to the middle class. The gap between educational promise and economic reality has become too large to ignore.

Disruption to Power: SoFi’s Ascendance in the Student Loan Industrial Complex

In the shadow of America’s $1.6 trillion student debt crisis, a once-disruptive fintech startup has transformed into a dominant force in the education-finance nexus. SoFi, short for Social Finance, Inc., began in 2011 as a Stanford alumni experiment to refinance student loans for well-off students. Today, it is a publicly traded financial firm with a national bank charter, major marketing campaigns, and increasing influence in Washington, D.C.

SoFi presents itself as a modern financial ally, promising to help borrowers achieve independence and long-term wealth. But beneath its sleek branding lies a business model that benefits most from refinancing the federal student debt of high-earning professionals. This approach has left millions of vulnerable borrowers behind—those who don’t attend elite institutions, who work in low-paying or public-service jobs, or who are first-generation students with higher default risks.

The core of SoFi’s business depends on moving borrowers out of the federal student loan system, where they’re entitled to income-driven repayment plans and possible loan forgiveness. Once these loans are refinanced with SoFi, those protections vanish. Private loans with SoFi offer no forgiveness options, limited hardship forbearance, and terms that shift with the whims of the financial markets. While this may work for doctors and lawyers with stable incomes, it’s a precarious arrangement for most Americans saddled with educational debt.

Over the past few years, SoFi has done more than just expand its loan offerings. It has aggressively stepped into the political arena. In 2023, the company sued the U.S. Department of Education, arguing that the federal student loan payment pause hurt its profits by reducing demand for refinancing. This legal move highlighted SoFi’s priorities and sparked public criticism, especially from borrower advocates who saw the company as putting its bottom line above public relief.

SoFi’s lobbying efforts have expanded alongside its ambitions. As federal policymakers debated student loan forgiveness and payment pause extensions, SoFi worked behind the scenes to influence the outcome in its favor. The company also lobbied to shape regulations around its other financial services, including personal loans, investing products, and even cryptocurrency offerings.

In 2022, SoFi reached a major milestone when it received a national bank charter. This shift allowed the company to operate more like a traditional bank, accepting deposits and issuing loans directly. While this expanded SoFi’s profit potential, it also blurred the lines between the fintech startup it once was and the entrenched financial institutions it claimed to disrupt.

Despite its diversification into broader financial services, student loan refinancing remains a major part of SoFi’s revenue. That core product reflects a broader trend in American higher education: a two-tiered system where financial tools are increasingly tailored to those who are already advantaged. SoFi’s ideal borrower is someone with high credit, high income, and a degree from a prestigious school. Meanwhile, millions of others—disproportionately Black and Latino borrowers, women, first-generation students, and those who left school without graduating—remain stuck in cycles of debt that SoFi has little incentive to address.

While legacy loan servicers like Navient and Nelnet have faced criticism and regulatory scrutiny, newer fintech players like SoFi have largely avoided such attention. With their slick apps, celebrity endorsements, and polished messaging, they appear modern and benevolent. But their growing influence over student lending policy and their efforts to shape federal loan programs raise serious concerns about whose interests they truly serve.

As political debates continue over the future of student debt relief, SoFi is positioning itself to thrive no matter the outcome. Its success tells a larger story about the privatization of higher education finance and the quiet consolidation of power by private firms in what was once seen as a public good.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to report on the forces reshaping higher ed finance. In the case of SoFi, the question remains: is this innovation—or exploitation?

The Missing 377,000: Gaza’s Grim Arithmetic, the Mirage of Humanitarian Aid—and the Crackdown on Campus Dissent

Original reporting sourced from 21st Century Wire, with data from Dr. Yaakov Garb’s 2025 report published on the Harvard Dataverse

A groundbreaking new report authored by Dr. Yaakov Garb, Professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and hosted on the Harvard Dataverse, reveals a brutal arithmetic behind Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. According to Garb’s spatial and demographic analysis, the number of Palestinians likely killed or missing in the Gaza Strip now exceeds 300,000. That figure—derived from Israel’s own internal data—calls into question the official death tolls promoted in mainstream media and reveals a staggering discrepancy: 377,000 people are unaccounted for.

These numbers expose more than just a humanitarian crisis. They reveal a calculated architecture of control, cloaked in the language of aid but functioning as an extension of military occupation. Yet as these truths emerge through academic and investigative channels, another battle is being waged—on college campuses across the U.S. and Europe—where students who dare to speak out are increasingly being targeted for suppression.

Gaza’s Disappeared

The report shows that prior to the 2023-25 siege, Gaza’s population was approximately 2.227 million. Israeli Defense Forces estimate that the three main populated enclaves now contain only 1.85 million people:

• Gaza City: 1 million

• Mawasi: 0.5 million

• Central Gaza: 0.35 million

That leaves 377,000 Gazans whose whereabouts are unknown. While some may be displaced or trapped in inaccessible areas, the report strongly implies that the missing are dead—many likely buried under rubble, dismembered beyond recognition, or perished from starvation and disease in isolation.

This number dwarfs commonly cited death tolls and challenges the sanitized statistics reported in international media. It is not the product of speculation, but of direct analysis of Israeli military data. What Garb calls a “demographic horror story” is also a legal and moral reckoning.

Humanitarian Aid as Military Strategy

The second key finding of the report is that Israel’s so-called humanitarian aid compounds—constructed with U.S. support and operated in part by private American security firms—function not as relief centers, but as militarized zones that restrict access, surveil civilians, and enable violence.

These compounds are located in Israeli-declared “buffer zones” where civilians risk death for attempting entry. Their design funnels desperate Palestinians through chokepoints devoid of shade, water, or toilets—what the report identifies as a “fatal funnel” meant to control crowds, not serve them.

These installations stand in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which requires occupying powers to ensure food and medical supplies reach the civilian population, or allow independent humanitarian groups to do so. Instead, Israel has obstructed neutral aid groups and replaced them with a system that uses the language of humanitarianism to justify a regime of control and dispossession.

Repression at Home: Silencing Student Dissent

While Garb’s report meticulously documents atrocities abroad, a parallel strategy of repression has emerged within the borders of liberal democracies: the systematic persecution of student protestors who speak out against Israeli actions in Gaza.

On university campuses across the United States, Europe, and beyond, students demanding an end to the siege and accountability for war crimes are being surveilled, suspended, expelled, doxxed, and in some cases arrested. Faculty members who support these students have also faced retaliation, including denial of tenure, contract non-renewal, and public vilification.

Major donors and political actors have increasingly intervened in university affairs, pressuring administrations to equate protest with antisemitism, despite the fact that many of these student groups include Jewish activists and operate under clear human rights frameworks. What is being punished is not hate speech—but dissent.

University leaders, once guardians of free inquiry, now act as enforcers of ideological conformity, chilling debate and flattening moral nuance in the name of institutional stability. The persecution of protestors is not just a betrayal of academic freedom—it is a continuation of the same campaign of silence that allows mass death abroad to proceed without scrutiny.

The Disappeared, Here and There

In Gaza, the disappeared number in the hundreds of thousands. In the West, those who try to name this horror are disappeared in different ways: stripped of platforms, denied scholarships, pushed out of academic spaces. These twin silences—one enforced through military might, the other through institutional discipline—serve the same purpose: to protect power from accountability.

Dr. Garb’s report concludes with a searing indictment: “If an attacker (occupier) cannot adequately and neutrally feed a starving population in the wake of a disaster it is ongoingly creating, it is obligated to allow other humanitarian agencies to do so.” This obligation has not been met. Instead, it has been replaced by the architecture of impunity—built from rubble in Gaza, and maintained through repression in the halls of higher education.

If we fail to confront this architecture—if we allow it to be draped in the language of aid and the robes of civility—then we are complicit in its violence.

---

Primary Source:
Garb, Yaakov. 2025. The Israeli/American/GHF ‘aid distribution’ compounds in Gaza: Dataset and initial analysis of location, context, and internal structure. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/QB75LB

With acknowledgments to 21st Century Wire and the journalists and students who refuse to be silent.

China Select Committee Launches AI Campaign with Legislation to Block CCP-Linked AI from U.S. Government Use

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

June 25, 2025

Contact:

Alyssa Pettus

Brian Benko

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the House Select Committee on the China opens its landmark hearing, “Authoritarians and Algorithms: Why U.S. AI Must Lead,” Committee leaders are unveiling new bipartisan legislation to confront the CCP’s growing exploitation of artificial intelligence.

Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) today announced the House introduction of the “No Adversarial AI Act”— bipartisan legislation also being championed in the Senate by Senators Rick Scott (R-FL) and Gary Peters (D-MI). The bill would prohibit U.S. executive agencies from acquiring or using artificial intelligence developed by companies tied to foreign adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party. The House legislation is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Select Committee members, including Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and Darin LaHood (R-IL). 

 

“We are in a new Cold War—and AI is the strategic technology at the center,” said Chairman Moolenaar. “The CCP doesn’t innovate—it steals, scales, and subverts. From IP theft and chip smuggling to embedding AI in surveillance and military platforms, the Chinese Communist Party is racing to weaponize this technology. We must draw a clear line: U.S. government systems cannot be powered by tools built to serve authoritarian interests.”

What the No Adversarial AI Act Does:

• Creates a public list of AI systems developed by foreign adversaries, maintained and updated by the Federal Acquisition Security Council.
• Prohibits executive agencies from acquiring or using adversary-developed AI—except in narrow cases such as research, counterterrorism, or mission-critical needs.
• Establishes a delisting process for companies that can demonstrate they are free from foreign adversary control or influence.

 

“Artificial intelligence controlled by foreign adversaries poses a direct threat to our national security, our data, and our government operations,” said Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi. “We cannot allow hostile regimes to embed their code in our most sensitive systems. This bipartisan legislation will create a clear firewall between foreign adversary AI and the U.S. government, protecting our institutions and the American people. Chinese, Russian, and other adversary AI systems simply do not belong on government devices, and certainly shouldn’t be entrusted with government data.”

Senator Rick Scott said, “The Communist Chinese regime will use any means necessary to spy, steal, and undermine the United States, and as AI technology advances, we must do more to protect our national security and stop adversarial regimes from using technology against us. With clear evidence that China can have access to U.S. user data on AI systems, it’s absolutely insane for our own federal agencies to be using these dangerous platforms and subject our government to Beijing’s control. Our No Adversarial AI Act will stop this direct threat to our national security and keep the American government’s sensitive data out of enemy hands.”

The legislation marks a major action in the Select Committee’s AI campaign, which aims to secure U.S. AI supply chains, enforce robust export controls, and ensure American innovation does not fuel authoritarian surveillance or military systems abroad.

 

Today’s hearing and legislation continues the series of new proposals and messaging the Committee will roll out this summer to confront the CCP’s exploitation of U.S. innovation and prevent American technology from fueling Beijing’s AI ambitions.

The Hidden Crisis of Functional Unemployment in the U.S.: A Wake-Up Call for Higher Education and Policy Leaders

 A recent article by Hugh Cameron in Newsweek brings urgent attention to a labor market crisis that conventional statistics obscure: millions of Americans are “functionally unemployed.” While the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a headline unemployment rate of 4.2 percent, the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) paints a far bleaker picture. 

According to LISEP, 24.3 percent of working-age Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or trapped in poverty-wage jobs.

True Rate of Unemployment Tells a Different Story

This alternative measurement, known as the True Rate of Unemployment (TRU), includes people who are officially jobless, those seeking full-time work but only finding part-time jobs, and those earning less than a livable income—defined here as $25,000 annually before taxes. Based on that definition, more than 66 million Americans fall under the category of functionally unemployed. These are not edge cases or statistical outliers; they represent a quarter of the working population, living with economic insecurity and eroded opportunities.

The findings challenge the conventional wisdom promoted by policymakers and education leaders, particularly the long-standing belief that higher education is a guaranteed pathway to upward mobility. In reality, the American credential system continues to churn out degrees while failing to deliver economic stability to millions of graduates. Students are told that education is the answer, yet the outcome for many is low-wage or precarious work, often coupled with lifelong debt. The disconnect between academic credentials and actual job quality has become impossible to ignore.

LISEP’s data also reveals significant disparities along racial and gender lines. While 23.6 percent of White Americans are functionally unemployed, that number rises to 26.7 percent for Black Americans and 27.3 percent for Hispanic Americans. The divide is even more striking along gender lines: nearly 30 percent of women fall into this category, compared to 19.3 percent of men. These disparities reflect deep systemic inequities that persist across labor markets and educational access.

Gene Ludwig, chair of LISEP, warned that the stagnation of living-wage employment is pushing working families to the brink. Wages are not keeping pace with inflation, and the jobs being created often don’t pay enough to lift people out of poverty. This is the unspoken backdrop to much of the current political discourse around jobs and education: a structurally flawed economy that leaves millions with few viable options, regardless of their education level or work ethic.

Critics of the TRU metric, including labor economist David Card, argue that the Bureau of Labor Statistics already publishes supplemental indicators that capture underemployment and low wages. But LISEP’s integrated approach offers a broader, more accessible view of economic well-being—one that challenges overly simplistic narratives about a “strong” labor market. Whether or not policymakers embrace the TRU as a primary indicator, the conditions it reveals are real and worsening for many.

Uncomfortable Truths

This data forces higher education to confront uncomfortable truths. If degrees are no longer reliable gateways to decent jobs, what is the purpose of mass credentialing? Why do we continue to promote the college-to-career pipeline when the pipeline increasingly empties into dead-end or unstable work? These are not abstract questions. They strike at the heart of what higher education claims to offer in exchange for rising tuition, student loan debt, and years of sacrifice.

The United States faces a reckoning. LISEP’s report may not change the way official statistics are presented, but it exposes the growing distance between public optimism and private hardship. The challenge now is to ensure that educational institutions, labor advocates, and policymakers move beyond slogans and begin addressing the structural rot beneath the surface of the labor market. That means rethinking the function of education, redefining economic success, and rebuilding an economy where work—and learning—actually pays off.

See the Sweet v McMahon Borrower Defense Case Tomorrow Live

 The next episode of Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona), "THE CLOCK IS TICKING," will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025. 

Judge Alsup is BACK. He wants updates. He wants answers. And he’s asking one thing — will the deadlines be met? Join in for the next drama episode in this six-year battle for justice!

Deets Below: 

Sweet v. McMahon: The Clock Is Ticking
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM ET / 11:00 AM PT

Zoom Courtroom – (https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1605814655...

) Passcode: 791667 

Cue Law & Order Theme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4-aEGvqQM

). 

Borrowers are still waiting. Judge Alsup wants answers. The DOE is back in court. Will justice finally be delivered? Tune in. Speak up. This hearing will be fire!

#SweetJustice #LoanDischarge #TheClockIsTicking 

Report issues for class/post-class members to sweet@ed.gov and CC PPSL at info@ppsl.org 

Starbucks Workers United Spreading Like Wildfire (Starbucks Workers United)

 

We’re on day 4 of our 5 days of ULP strikes, and the SBWU strike lines keep spreading! Baristas are fired up and ready to fight for a fair contract and protest hundreds of unfair labor practices – and as each day passes, more and more workers are walking off the job. Today, we’re out in 3 new cities: Boston, Portland, and Dallas! Here are the 13 cities we’re holding anchor pickets in: LA:  10am PST @ 3241 N Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA Seattle: 1pm PST @ 1124 Pike St, Seattle WA Chicago: 12pm CST @ 5964 N Ridge Ave, Chicago, IL Denver: 12pm MST @ 2700 S Colorado Blvd, Denver, CO Columbus: 12pm EST @ 7176 N High St, Worthington, OH Pittsburgh: 8am EST @ 5932 Penn Cir S. Pittsburgh, PA St. Louis: 12pm CST @ 8023 Dale Ave, Richmond Heights MO Philadelphia: 9am EST @ 1528 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA Brooklyn: 9am EST @ 325 Lafayette, Brooklyn, NY Long Island: 1pm EST @ 914 Old Country Rd, Garden City, NY Dallas: 11am CST @ 1445 West University Drive, Denton TX Portland: 10am PST @ 9350 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy, Beaverton OR Boston: 10am EST @ 470 Washington St, Brighton MA If you’re able to join your local picket line, workers would love supplies like: hand-warmers, food, water, hot beverages, and energetic vibes! Don’t forget to bring your own picket sign! Don’t live near a picket line? We still need you! Striking baristas are calling on allies to flyer as many not-yet union Starbucks as possible. Workers across the country are infuriated over the paltry 2% raise, and SBWU gives not-yet union baristas a path to increase their wages. But in order to win, we need not-yet union stores to get in the fight. We’re asking allies to flyer these stores and talk to baristas about the union. Show us your solidarity: register your canvassing event, attend an anchor strike line near you, and DO NOT cross the picket line! Onward, Lilly

Karen Kelsky and The Professor Is In — A Lifeline for Academics Navigating a Broken System

In an era when academia feels more like a gauntlet than a pathway to discovery, Karen Kelsky and her business The Professor Is In have become a critical resource for scholars seeking clarity, survival, and agency within the increasingly precarious world of higher education.

Kelsky, a former tenured professor turned consultant, brings both authority and empathy to her work. With hard-won experience from inside the academy and a fearless critique of its toxic structures, she guides graduate students, postdocs, adjuncts, and even early-career faculty through the brutal and often demoralizing job market. Whether through her blog, her popular book, or one-on-one consulting, Kelsky offers practical advice with an edge of realism that many in the field desperately need.

What distinguishes The Professor Is In is its unapologetic honesty. Kelsky does not peddle false hope about a tenure-track system that is shrinking year by year. Instead, she helps clients develop marketable application materials, strategize their careers, and even consider life outside the ivory tower—without shame or illusion. Her business fills a gaping void left by institutions that fail to adequately prepare scholars for the job market they will actually face.

Moreover, Kelsky has used her platform to address systemic abuses in academia, including racism, sexism, and exploitation. Her amplification of the #MeTooPhD movement brought attention to widespread harassment and power imbalances that still pervade graduate education. Her advocacy is not just about individual career advancement—it’s about exposing the rot within the system and pushing for transformation.

For readers of the Higher Education Inquirer, many of whom are concerned with the exploitation of contingent labor, student debt, and the corporatization of universities, Kelsky’s work is both affirming and mobilizing. She names the dysfunction, helps people navigate it, and encourages a broader conversation about what higher education should be.

While The Professor Is In may not be able to fix the systemic failures of academia on its own, Karen Kelsky has carved out a space of support, strategy, and solidarity. For countless academics trying to make sense of a disorienting professional landscape, that space has become indispensable.

McDonald’s Faces National Boycott as Economic Justice Movement Builds Momentum

McDonald’s, the fast-food titan with global reach and billion-dollar profits, is the latest corporate target in an escalating campaign of economic resistance. Starting June 24, grassroots advocacy organization The People's Union USA has called for a weeklong boycott of the chain, citing the need for “corporate accountability, real justice for the working class, and economic fairness.”

Branded the Economic Blackout Tour, the campaign seeks to channel consumer power into political and structural change. According to The People’s Union USA, Americans are urged to avoid not only McDonald’s restaurants but also fast food in general during the June 24–30 protest window. Previous actions have focused on companies like Walmart, Amazon, and Target—corporate behemoths long criticized for their low wages, union-busting tactics, and monopolistic behavior.

John Schwarz, founder of The People’s Union USA, has emerged as a vocal critic of corporate greed. In a recent video statement, Schwarz accused McDonald’s and its peers of dodging taxes and lobbying against wage increases. “Economic resistance is working,” he declared. “They’re feeling it. They’re talking about it.”

The movement is tapping into deep and widespread frustration—fueled by stagnant wages, rising living costs, and mounting corporate profits. While many Americans struggle with student loan debt, inadequate healthcare, and job insecurity, companies like McDonald’s have been accused of shielding their profits offshore and benefiting from political influence in Washington.

This is not the first time McDonald’s has come under fire. The company has faced criticism from labor rights groups for paying low wages, offering unpredictable schedules, and relying heavily on part-time or precarious employment. More recently, pro-Palestinian activists have also launched boycotts, citing alleged ties between McDonald’s franchises and Israeli military actions in Gaza.

As part of the current boycott, The People's Union USA is pushing for a broader shift in spending—away from multinational corporations and toward local businesses and cooperatives. In line with previous actions, the group is also encouraging Americans to cut back on streaming, online shopping, and all fast-food purchases during the boycott period.

With Independence Day on the horizon, Schwarz and his allies are framing the protest as not just economic, but patriotic. “It’s time to demand fairness,” Schwarz said, “and to use our economic power as leverage to fight for real freedom—the kind that includes fair wages, democratic workplaces, and tax justice.”

While McDonald’s has not released an official response to the boycott, a 2019 letter from company lobbyist Genna Gent suggested the chain would not actively oppose federal minimum wage increases. For Schwarz and his supporters, such declarations ring hollow without meaningful action.

The July target for The People’s Union USA? Starbucks, Amazon, and Home Depot—three more corporate giants with long histories of labor disputes and political entanglements. The next wave of boycotts will extend throughout the entire month, further testing the staying power and impact of this new consumer-led resistance.

At a time when higher education, particularly the for-profit and online sectors, often channels students into low-wage service jobs with crushing debt, these campaigns raise larger questions about the role of universities in perpetuating corporate power and economic inequality.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to follow these developments, especially as they intersect with issues of labor, student debt, corporate influence, and the broader fight for economic justice in the United States.

Cornell Grad Union Turmoil: Miscommunication, Mistrust, and Muddled Messaging

A storm is brewing at Cornell University, and it's not about grades or research deadlines. Instead, it’s a tangled fight over dues, deductions, and the real meaning of union representation. What began as a landmark moment for graduate student labor has devolved into a confusing and frustrating ordeal—marked by unclear messaging, clashing narratives, and growing mistrust.

At the center of this dispute is a disagreement over the nature of the union contract ratified by the Cornell Graduate Students United (CGSU-UE Local 300). Many graduate workers believe they voted on a contract that clearly offered three options: join the union and pay dues, decline membership but pay an agency fee, or claim a sincerely held religious belief and donate the equivalent amount to one of three designated charities. This religious exemption is grounded in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) definition, which can include moral or ethical beliefs.

Despite this seemingly open-shop structure, union leadership has continued to claim that they won a union shop agreement. A flyer circulated by CGSU recently declared, “We did not fight so hard for union shop just for Cornell to deny its implementation.” But many students say that this doesn’t match the actual text of the contract they voted on. A growing number are asking how a union shop can exist when the contract explicitly allows for a charitable opt-out. One graduate student wrote online, “Union shop was never won. You told us to vote for the contract that explicitly had an open shop.”

Further compounding the confusion is the union’s omission of the charitable opt-out in key communications. According to student posts on Reddit, CGSU has failed to mention this third option in emails and on its website, where it only refers to the options of paying dues or agency fees. Reddit user hexaflexarex noted that while the contract technically isn’t a union shop, the requirement that charitable donations match union dues makes it functionally similar. Still, they criticized the union for not being more transparent, and pointed out that Cornell is now refusing to process payroll deductions because of this lack of clarity.

Cornell’s position, as interpreted from internal correspondence, appears to be that CGSU’s failure to advertise the religious exemption violates the agreement. The university has suspended all payroll deductions—meaning neither dues nor agency fees are being collected—until the union adequately informs workers of their options and provides the proper authorization forms. But questions remain about who is responsible for issuing those forms. Some students say CGSU has already sent out union card-signing forms, which authorize dues deductions. Others argue the union has not clearly made the forms available or has not clarified how the religious opt-out process works.

The r/Cornell subreddit has become a hotspot for dissecting the situation, with graduate students passionately debating everything from contract law to the ethics of organized labor. Some say the union is bungling its responsibilities. Others argue Cornell is seizing on a technicality to undermine the union. One user pointed out that the union’s religious exemption clause is actually broader than what is required by law, potentially making the “open shop” argument even stronger. Another user, VeganRiblets, noted that the contract refers vaguely to EEOC definitions instead of explicitly stating “moral or ethical beliefs,” which has led to unnecessary confusion. “Cornell made a mistake by not insisting on more explicit language,” they said. “Not that it excuses the union’s misleading messaging, but this could have been avoided.”

Tensions are high. The union says it is merely implementing the strongest union shop clause it could within legal boundaries, given the restrictions imposed by Supreme Court rulings like Janus v. AFSCME. Critics say the union overpromised and underdelivered, misleading its members and failing to communicate its strategy. One grad student summed up the frustration: “That email chain is very helpful though. Good to know that the union leadership communicates just as poorly with the admin as they do with bargaining unit members.”

Others accuse the union of focusing too heavily on political causes outside the scope of labor negotiations, and squandering bargaining leverage that could have been used to secure better pay or healthcare. Meanwhile, the administration is accused of stonewalling and weaponizing ambiguity to avoid honoring the financial commitments in the contract.

Even the most engaged students seem unsure what exactly they signed up for. A recent post perhaps captured the bewilderment best: “We’re all here to get PhDs. I am certain we are smart enough to figure this out.” But even PhD students need clarity and honesty. At this point, both the union and the university have failed to provide either. If Cornell’s graduate labor movement is going to move forward, it must start with a simple step: telling the truth, plainly and completely, to the people it represents.

COLLEGE MANIA! America’s Legal High for Families

In America, the pursuit of a college degree has become more than just a step toward a stable future—it’s a culturally sanctioned high, a ritual of aspiration, and a national obsession. “College mania,” as we call it, doesn’t just grip students. It draws in entire families, especially parents who never had the opportunity to attend college themselves. For them, college is a dream they couldn’t fulfill—so they pass it on to their children like a sacred torch.

In today’s America, college mania ranks alongside the thrill of legal marijuana, the rush of sports betting, or the intense puzzle-solving of escape rooms. But while those highs are seen as distractions or vices, the college high is viewed as noble. It’s the American Dream repackaged for the 21st century, and it’s addictive.

The Parents’ Fix

Many parents, especially from working-class or immigrant backgrounds, have internalized the belief that college is the only legitimate path to a better life. Even if they never attended themselves—or perhaps because they didn’t—they want their children to have “more.” More options. More money. More dignity. More safety.

For them, college is the ultimate symbol of success. It’s a way out of generational struggle, an antidote to low-wage work and economic precarity. These parents attend college fairs they don’t understand, cry during campus tours, and invest their savings—and sometimes retirement funds—into test prep, tutoring, and private admissions consultants.

And why wouldn’t they? The entire system—from high school counselors to state and federal policymakers—tells them that college is not just a good idea, but a moral imperative. Not sending your child to college becomes a form of parental failure.

From Hope to Hysteria

College mania often starts early. Children are told in elementary school that their GPA will “matter someday.” By middle school, they’re crafting résumés. High school becomes a war zone of advanced placement courses, volunteer hours, and résumé-building internships. College becomes the grand finale—and parents are cast as both financiers and emotional support staff for the show.

The process has become so intense that some parents—often those who didn’t go to college themselves—feel powerless, swept up in a world of rankings, deadlines, jargon, and predatory loan offers. Many turn to social media for answers, which only fuels the pressure with glossy images of Ivy League acceptance letters and first-day dorm selfies.

The high hits when the letter of acceptance comes. The name-brand college. The merit scholarship. The status symbol. But what comes next isn’t always a soft landing.

The Come-Down

Just like legal highs, the rush of college mania fades fast. Students often find themselves isolated, overwhelmed, or stuck in majors that don’t translate into real employment. Debt piles up. Mental health declines. Parents—who only wanted the best—find themselves watching their children struggle with uncertain futures despite the promise they were sold.

And in the background, an entire industry profits: textbook publishers, loan servicers, admissions consultants, and real estate developers building luxury student housing. Parents and students carry the emotional and financial burden. Institutions rarely do.

The Illusion of Escape

College is marketed as an escape room for the working class—a solvable puzzle with a promised reward at the end. But unlike escape rooms, there are no clues, no guaranteed exit, and often no prize. The thrill comes from trying. The letdown comes from realizing that the door might not open at all.

And yet, families return to the game, generation after generation. College remains the one culturally approved addiction—an expensive, emotionally loaded, legally protected gamble on the future.

College Mania: The American Fixation

College mania isn’t just about education—it’s about class mobility, identity, parental love, and social status. It’s a dopamine rush wrapped in moral virtue, sanctioned by school boards and senators alike. For parents who never went to college, the dream lives on not in themselves, but in their kids. The dream is still alive—but the system surrounding it is broken, bloated, and often brutal.

Until we can rethink what education means—and who it's really for—college mania will continue to dominate American family life. And like all highs, it will leave too many people coming down hard.

—
The Higher Education Inquirer documents the myths, markets, and mechanisms of higher education in the United States.

House Select Committee Seeks Answers to Chinese Communist Party -Linked Bioagent Smuggling at the University of Michigan

WASHINGTON, D.C. — This week, Chairman Moolenaar of the Select Committee on China, Chairman Walberg of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Chairman Babin of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology sent two letters investigating the potential agroterrorism incident in Michigan earlier this month.

The first urges the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation to review grants awarded to two University of Michigan professors whose labs hosted Chinese nationals recently charged by the Department of Justice with smuggling biological materials.

"The Committees found that Jian and Liu conducted research under the supervision of, or in concert with, UM professors funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). It is our position that Chinese researchers tied to the PRC defense research and industrial base have no business participating in U.S. taxpayer-funded research with clear national security implications—especially those related to dangerous biological materials," says the first letter.

The letter reveals that the Chinese nationals were tied to professors who received approximately $9.6 million in federal research funding.

The second requests information directly from the University of Michigan regarding its oversight, compliance practices, and any internal reviews related to those individuals. It comes after previous research security concerns were raised regarding the university's relationships to the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Earlier this year, the university announced it had closed its joint institute with Shanghai Jiao Tong University following a letter from Chairman Moolenaar that outlined the school's ties to Chinese military modernization efforts.

"We are deeply alarmed about recent reports and related criminal charges involving Chinese nationals with direct ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) allegedly smuggling dangerous biological materials into the United States for use at UM laboratories," the letter writes. "Given the recent criminal charges within the span of a week, the Committees have respectfully urged the NIH and NSF to initiate a full review of any grants related to these incidents. To support this effort, we request that UM produce all documents and records of any due diligence, investigations, or other reviews—conducted by or on behalf of UM—concerning conflicts of interest or commitment involving any UM faculty, researchers, or individuals granted access to UM facilities."

The letters were signed by twenty-five Members of Congress from the three committees.

Read the letter to the National Institute of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) here.

Read the letter to the University of Michigan here.

Then They Came For My Dumb Ass (Ted Rall)

 

WATCH LIVE: UN Security Council holds emergency meeting after U.S. airstrikes on Iran (PBS News Hour)

 

Jeffrey Sachs EXPOSES Israel–U.S.–Iran War Plot: Shocking Claims Uncovered (Times Now World)

Renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs has launched a scathing critique of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, placing the blame squarely on Washington’s alliance with Israel’s far-right leadership. Speaking at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, Sachs claimed that American interference—encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—has devastated the region. He cited covert operations like the CIA’s Timber Sycamore as catalysts behind the Syrian civil war and accused Israel of pushing for armed conflict with Iran after having allegedly promoted six previous wars.

Tracking the Elusive Truth: The Higher Education Inquirer Seeks Decades of Bankruptcy Loan Forgiveness Data

In a modest but potentially revealing inquiry, the Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Department of Education asking for a count of the number of student loans discharged in bankruptcy from 1965 to 2024. The request, dated June 10, 2025, was acknowledged the same day by the Department’s FOIA Service Center under FOIA Request No. 25-03954-F.

“The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting a count of the number of student loans forgiven in bankruptcy per year from 1965 to 2024.”

It’s a simple request with profound implications. While the nation debates student loan forgiveness through executive action and legislative reforms, the forgotten path of bankruptcy discharge—once a legally viable option for debt relief—has been quietly buried over the past several decades.

A Timeline of Restriction: The Death of Bankruptcy Relief

When the Higher Education Act of 1965 established federal student loans, they were treated like other forms of consumer debt. Borrowers could, in principle, discharge them through bankruptcy just like credit card debt or medical bills.

But that began to change in the late 1970s, as concerns over potential abuse of the system gained traction in Congress. In 1976, a new law prohibited the discharge of federal student loans in bankruptcy within the first five years of repayment unless the borrower could prove “undue hardship”—a vague standard that was rarely met.

From there, the restrictions only grew tighter:

• 1990: The waiting period for dischargeability was extended to seven years.

• 1998: The option to discharge federal student loans in bankruptcy for any reason other than “undue hardship” was eliminated entirely. This meant student loan borrowers had to meet the strict and often inaccessible hardship standard at all times.

• 2005: Under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), Congress extended the “undue hardship” requirement to most private student loans as well—effectively removing nearly all forms of bankruptcy relief from the table for student debtors.

These changes did not result from clear evidence of widespread abuse. Rather, they were fueled by myths of “deadbeat graduates” walking away from their obligations and by lobbying from banks, guaranty agencies, and debt collection firms that profited from non-dischargeable debt. Meanwhile, evidence of hardship among borrowers grew, especially for those who attended predatory for-profit colleges or dropped out without a degree.

The Brunner Barrier

The biggest obstacle for borrowers remains the so-called “Brunner test,” a three-prong legal standard established in a 1987 court case, Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. It requires borrowers to prove:

1. They cannot maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay the loans,

2. Their financial situation is unlikely to improve, and

3. They made a good-faith effort to repay the loans.

Many judges interpreted these criteria narrowly, creating a virtually insurmountable hurdle. Borrowers with severe disabilities, advanced age, or long-term unemployment have been denied relief even when destitute.

What We Still Don’t Know

Despite these legal developments and the hardship they created, data on how many people have succeeded in discharging their student loans through bankruptcy remains remarkably scarce. Advocacy groups and journalists have long questioned why no federal agency tracks this information in a clear, public-facing format.

That’s what prompted the Higher Education Inquirer’s FOIA request—an effort to establish a factual baseline. We asked the Department of Education for an annual count of bankruptcy discharges involving student loans over a 60-year period, from 1965 to 2024.

The Bureaucratic Wall

According to the Department’s FOIA Service Center, the average processing time for such requests is currently 185 business days—about nine months. While the Department did not ask for clarification immediately, it reserves the right to do so within ten business days. Failure to respond to such a request would result in administrative closure of the FOIA—yet another form of delay that keeps the public in the dark.

This bureaucratic stonewalling is part of a larger pattern. While the Department of Education has been quick to announce student loan forgiveness programs under executive orders or settlement agreements, it remains reluctant to shine a light on longstanding failures—especially the erosion of legal remedies like bankruptcy.

A Step Toward Truth and Accountability

The public deserves a clear view of the history and consequences of stripping bankruptcy protections from student borrowers. It’s not just a legal matter—it’s a story of systemic neglect, political pressure, and financial exploitation. Without access to historical data, reform remains a guesswork operation and accountability remains elusive.

We at the Higher Education Inquirer will continue to press for answers. If and when the FOIA request is fulfilled, we will publish the data and conduct a thorough analysis, year by year. We believe that exposing the truth about student loan bankruptcy isn’t just a matter of curiosity—it’s a step toward justice.

If you have experience with student loan bankruptcy, data that could assist our investigation, or simply want to share your story, contact us at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.