[Editor's note: On October 29, 2025, the Higher Education Inquirer emailed South University for a status update. South University did not respond. On November 1, 2025, Benjamin DeGweck replaced Steven Yoho as CEO and Chancellor.]
South University, a former for-profit college network now operating under nonprofit ownership, is facing a$35 million balloon payment this month on a loan obtained through theFederal Reserve’s Main Street Lending Program. The looming debt and the school’s status onHeightened Cash Monitoring (HCM)raise questions about financial stability and the adequacy of regulatory oversight in the nonprofit higher education sector.
A Heavy Loan Load
According to publicly available financial statements, South University carries more than $35 million in long-term debt maturing this month, part of a $50 million Main Street loan issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The approaching balloon payment represents a major financial test for an institution already under federal scrutiny and struggling with declining enrollment.
Heightened Cash Monitoring—But Limited Oversight
South University is currently listed under Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM) by the U.S. Department of Education, a status that requires extra documentation before federal aid funds are released. While the designation signals potential financial or compliance issues, it does not necessarily result in strong day-to-day oversight.
The school remains accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC)—an accreditor known for minimal intervention in institutional finances unless there is clear evidence of collapse. This means that despite the HCM flag, South University continues to operate with significant autonomy, even as federal and student aid dollars flow through additional administrative checks.
A Complicated Legacy
South University’s story is deeply tied to the rise and fall of the for-profit college industry. Once part of Education Management Corporation (EDMC), the school was sold in 2017 to the ill-fated Dream Center Education Holdings (DCEH). When DCEH collapsed in 2019, the Education Principle Foundation (EPF)—a nonprofit—took over South University and The Art Institutes. South University is now an independent non-profit enterprise.
A Pattern of Fragile Conversions
South University’s precarious position reflects a larger trend: the conversion of failing for-profit schools into nominal nonprofits that rely on tuition, federal aid, and private service contracts to survive. These conversions often preserve the same management structures and business practices while benefiting from the public trust and tax advantages of nonprofit status.
The $35 million balloon payment highlights the risks of these financial engineering strategies—especially when public money is involved but public accountability is weak.
What Comes Next
With the 2025 deadline approaching, South University faces a pivotal decision: refinance the Main Street loan, restructure operations, or seek new capital through other partners.
If the institution falters, students could once again be caught in the aftermath of a sector-wide collapse—echoing the failures of EDMC, DCEH, and the Art Institutes.
For now, South University continues to operate with limited transparency, under a light-touch accreditor, and with a multimillion-dollar federal debt hanging over its future.
Dr. Steven Yoho, Chancellor of South University,
expressed his pride in the university's achievement. "This renewed
accreditation is a testament to the dedication and hard work of our
faculty, staff, and students. It reflects our ongoing commitment to
providing transformative and quality student outcomes that prepare them
for success in a rapidly evolving world. We are proud to maintain the
highest standards in academic quality and student support, and this
accreditation reinforces our position as a leader in higher education."
South could seek another lender to pay off the Main Street Loan. It could also renegotiate its contracts, reduce staffing, and sell off various assets to continue operating. By moving students online, South University could also reduce costs and consolidate operations. It may also be able to increase revenues through increased enrollment and grants.
For a number of years, the US Department of Education has had South University on Heightened Cash Monitoring 1 for disbursement of federal student aid funds.
We have reached out to South University for comment, but have not received a response as of this publishing date. HEI is also waiting on a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request regarding Borrower Defense to Repayment claims, which at some point the school could be liable for.
South University currently educates about 10,000 students, with an estimated 7700 participating online. South also has ground campuses in Atlanta (GA), Virginia Beach (VA), Glen Allen (VA), Round Rock (TX), Columbia (SC), High Point (NC), Montgomery (AL), Orlando (FL), Savannah (GA), Tampa (FL), and Palm Beach (FL). The school has been in operation since 1899.
Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that about 3100 people had been arrested at pro-Palestinian campus protests across the US, noting that 70 schools had arrested or detained people. In addition to arrests, a varying degree of force has been used, including the use of targeted police surveillance, tear gas, and batons.
After those arrests, some schools expelled those protesting students, banned them from campuses, and denied them degrees. Schools also established more onerous policies to stop occupations and other forms of peaceful protest. A few listened to the demands of their students, which included the divestment of funds related to Israel's violent occupation of Palestine.
What can students, teachers, and other university workers learn from these administrative policies and crackdowns? The first thing is to find out what data are out there, and then what information is missing, and perhaps deliberately withheld.
According to a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) database, out of 258 US universities that held protests, only 60 schools resorted to arrests.* Why did these schools, many name-brand schools, use arrests (and other forms of threats and coercion) as a tactic while others did not? A number of states reported no arrests, particularly in the US North, South, and West.
Analyzing the Data For Good Reasons
There appear to be few obvious answers (and measurable variables) to accurately explain this multi-layered phenomenon, something the media have largely ignored. But that does not mean that this cannot be explained to a better extent than the US media have explained it.
It's tempting to look at a few interesting data points (e.g. according to FIRE, Cornell University and Harvard did not have arrests, and neither did Baylor, Liberty University, and Hillsdale College. Six University of California schools had arrests but three did not. And all of the schools that came before the US House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee examining antisemitism (Harvard, Penn, MIT) had arrests after their appearances. The Arizona House had similar hearings in 2023 and 2024 regarding antisemitism and their two biggest schools, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, had arrests.
Missing Data and Analysis
What else can we notice in this pattern about the administrations involved, the trustees, major donors, or the student body? How much pressure was there from major donors and trustees and can this be quantified? Anecdotally, there were a few public reports from wealthy donors who were unhappy with the protests. Who were those 3100 or so students and teachers who were arrested and what if any affiliations did they have? How many of the students who were arrested Jewish, and what side were they on? How many of these schools with arrests had chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Students Supporting Israel? How many schools with these student interest groups did not resort to arrests?
How much communication and coordination was there within schools and among schools, both by administrations and student interest groups? What other possible differences were there between the arrest group and the non-arrest group and are they measurable?
What other dependent variables besides arrests could be or should be be measured (e.g. convictions, fines and sentences, students expelled or banned from campus)? What will become of those who were arrested? Will they be part of a threat database? Will this interfere with their futures beyond higher education? Is it possible to come up with a path analysis or networking models of these events, to include what preceded the arrests and what followed? And what becomes of the few universities that operate more like fortresses today than ivory towers? How soon will they return to normal?
Arrest Group (Source: FIRE)*
4 Arizona State University Yes 8 Barnard College Yes 41 Columbia University Yes 46 Dartmouth College Yes 57 Emory University Yes 59 Florida State University Yes 60 Fordham University Yes 64 George Washington University Yes 78 Indiana University Yes 94 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yes 105 New Mexico State University Yes 106 New York University Yes 110 Northeastern University Yes 111 Northern Arizona University Yes 112 Northwestern University Yes 115 Ohio State University Yes 123 Portland State University Yes 124 Princeton University Yes 140 Stanford University Yes 142 Stony Brook University Yes 155 Tulane University Yes 156 University at Buffalo Yes 161 University of Arizona Yes 163 University of California, Berkeley Yes 165 University of California, Irvine Yes 166 University of California, Los Angeles Yes 169 University of California, San Diego Yes 170 University of California, Santa Barbara Yes 171 University of California, Santa Cruz Yes 176 University of Colorado, Denver Yes 177 University of Connecticut Yes 181 University of Florida Yes 182 University of Georgia Yes 184 University of Houston Yes 187 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Yes 189 University of Kansas Yes 194 University of Massachusetts Yes 197 University of Michigan Yes 198 University of Minnesota Yes 206 University of New Hampshire Yes 207 University of New Mexico Yes 208 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Yes 209 University of North Carolina, Charlotte Yes 212 University of Notre Dame Yes 215 University of Pennsylvania Yes 216 University of Pittsburgh Yes 220 University of South Carolina Yes 221 University of South Florida Yes 222 University of Southern California Yes 225 University of Texas, Austin Yes 226 University of Texas, Dallas Yes 231 University of Utah Yes 233 University of Virginia Yes 236 University of Wisconsin, Madison Yes 242 Virginia Commonwealth University Yes 243 Virginia Tech University Yes 247 Washington University in St Louis Yes 248 Wayne State University Yes 257 Yale University Yes
Non-arrest Group (Source: FIRE)*
1 American University No 2 Amherst College No 3 Appalachian State University No 5 Arkansas State University No 6 Auburn University No 7 Bard College No 9 Bates College No 10 Baylor University No 11 Berea College No 12 Binghamton University No 13 Boise State University No 14 Boston College No 15 Boston University No 16 Bowdoin College No 17 Bowling Green State University No 18 Brandeis University No 19 Brigham Young University No 20 Brown University No* 21 Bucknell University No 22 California Institute of Technology No 23 California Polytechnic State University No 24 California State University, Fresno No 25 California State University, Los Angeles No 26 Carleton College No 27 Carnegie Mellon University No 28 Case Western Reserve University No 29 Central Michigan University No 30 Chapman University No 31 Claremont McKenna College No 32 Clark University No 33 Clarkson University No 34 Clemson University No 35 Colby College No 36 Colgate University No 37 College of Charleston No 38 Colorado College No 39 Colorado School of Mines No 40 Colorado State University No 42 Connecticut College No 43 Cornell University No 44 Creighton University No 45 Dakota State University No 47 Davidson College No 48 Denison University No 49 DePaul University No 50 DePauw University No 51 Drexel University No 52 Duke University No 53 Duquesne University No 54 East Carolina University No 55 Eastern Kentucky University No 56 Eastern Michigan University No 58 Florida International University No 61 Franklin and Marshall College No 62 Furman University No 63 George Mason University No 65 Georgetown University No 66 Georgia Institute of Technology No 67 Georgia State University No 68 Gettysburg College No 69 Grinnell College No 70 Hamilton College No 71 Harvard University No* 72 Harvey Mudd College No 73 Haverford College No 74 Hillsdale College No 75 Howard University No 76 Illinois Institute of Technology No 77 Illinois State University No 79 Indiana University Purdue University No 80 Iowa State University No 81 James Madison University No 82 Johns Hopkins University No 83 Kansas State University No 84 Kent State University No 85 Kenyon College No 86 Knox College No 87 Lafayette College No 88 Lehigh University No 89 Liberty University No 90 Louisiana State University No 91 Loyola University, Chicago No 92 Macalester College No 93 Marquette University No 95 Miami University No 96 Michigan State University No 97 Michigan Technological University No 98 Middlebury College No 99 Mississippi State University No 100 Missouri State University No 101 Montana State University No 102 Montclair State University No 103 Mount Holyoke College No 104 New Jersey Institute of Technology No 107 North Carolina State University No 108 North Dakota State University No 109 Northeastern Illinois University No 113 Oberlin College No 114 Occidental College No 116 Ohio University No 117 Oklahoma State University No 118 Oregon State University No 119 Pennsylvania State University No 120 Pepperdine University No 121 Pitzer College No 122 Pomona College No 125 Purdue University No 126 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute No 127 Rice University No 128 Rowan University No 129 Rutgers University No 130 Saint Louis University No 131 San Diego State University No 132 San Jose State University No 133 Santa Clara University No 134 Scripps College No 135 Skidmore College No 136 Smith College No 137 Southern Illinois University, Carbondale No 138 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville No 139 Southern Methodist University No 141 Stevens Institute of Technology No 143 SUNY at Albany No 144 SUNY College at Geneseo No 145 Swarthmore College No 146 Syracuse University No 147 Temple University No 148 Texas A&M University No 149 Texas State University No 150 Texas Tech University No 151 The College of William and Mary No 152 Towson University No 153 Trinity College No 154 Tufts University No 157 University of Alabama, Birmingham No 158 University of Alabama, Huntsville No 159 University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa No 160 University of Alaska No 162 University of Arkansas No 164 University of California, Davis No 167 University of California, Merced No 168 University of California, Riverside No 172 University of Central Florida No 173 University of Chicago No 174 University of Cincinnati No 175 University of Colorado, Boulder No 178 University of Dayton No 179 University of Delaware No 180 University of Denver No 183 University of Hawaii No 185 University of Idaho No 186 University of Illinois, Chicago No 188 University of Iowa No 190 University of Kentucky No 191 University of Louisville No 192 University of Maine No 193 University of Maryland No 195 University of Memphis No 196 University of Miami No 199 University of Mississippi No 200 University of Missouri, Columbia No 201 University of Missouri, Kansas City No 202 University of Missouri, St Louis No 203 University of Nebraska No 204 University of Nevada, Las Vegas No 205 University of Nevada, Reno No 210 University of North Carolina, Greensboro No 211 University of North Texas No 213 University of Oklahoma No 214 University of Oregon No 217 University of Rhode Island No 218 University of Rochester No 219 University of San Francisco No 223 University of Tennessee No 224 University of Texas, Arlington No 227 University of Texas, El Paso No 228 University of Texas, San Antonio No 229 University of Toledo No 230 University of Tulsa No 232 University of Vermont No 234 University of Washington No 235 University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire No 237 University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee No 238 University of Wyoming No 239 Utah State University No 240 Vanderbilt University No 241 Vassar College No 244 Wake Forest University No 245 Washington and Lee University No 246 Washington State University No 249 Wellesley College No 250 Wesleyan University No 251 West Virginia University No 252 Western Michigan University No 253 Wheaton College No 254 Williams College No 255 Worcester Polytechnic Institute No 256 Wright State University No
*Media sources indicate that in 2023, 2 graduate students were arrested at Harvard, and more than 40 people were arrested at Brown University.
State Universities are using Google Ads to boost enrollment numbers.
(Updated November 28, 2022)
While for-profit colleges, community colleges, and small private schools received the most attention in the first iteration of the College Meltdown, regional public universities (and a few flagship schools) have also experienced financial challenges, reorganizations, and mergers, enrollment losses, layoffs and resignations, off-campus learning site closings and campus dorm closings, lower graduation rates, and the necessity to lower admissions standards. They are not facing these downturns, though, without a fight.
State universities, for example, are attempting to maintain or boost their enrollment through marketing and advertising--sometimes with the assistance of helpful, yet sometimes questionable online program managers (OPMs) like 2U and Academic Partnerships and lead generators such as EducationDynamics.
Academic Partnerships claims to serve 50 university clients. HEI has identified 25 of them.
Google ads also follow consumers across the Web, with links to enrollment pages. And enrollment pages include cookies to learn about those who click onto the enrollment pages. Schools share the information that consumers provide with Google Analytics and Chartbeat.
A pop-up Google Ad for Penn State World Campus
Advanced marketing will not improve institutional quality directly but it may raise awareness of these state schools to targeted audiences. Whether this becomes predatory may be an issue worth examining.
In order to stay competitive, state universities have to have a strong online presence and spend an inordinate amount of money on marketing and advertising. Ohio University and other schools now offer programs that are 100 percent online.
State universities have joined for-profit colleges in the television advertising space.
Despite marketing and enrollment appeals like this, we believe the financial situation could worsen at non-flagship state universities when austerity is reemployed--something likely to happen during the next economic downturn.
Aaron Klein at the Brookings Institution calls this significant (and dysfunctional) out-of-state enrollment pattern as The Great Student Swap.
State Universities with more than 4000 foreign students include UC San Diego, University of Illinois, UC Irvine, University of Washington, Arizona State University, Purdue University, Ohio State University, Michigan State University, and UC Berkeley.
People fortunate enough to attend large state universities as undergrads may feel alienated by large and impersonal classrooms led by graduate assistants and other adjuncts. There are also significant and often under-addressed social problems related to larger universities, including hunger, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, hazing and sexual assault.
EducationDynamics is a lead generator for "robocolleges" such as Purdue University Global and University of Arizona, Global Campus.
Purdue University Global has used questionable marketing and advertising.
The Higher Education Inquirer has already noticed the following schools in the Summer and Fall 2022 that received media scrutiny for lower enrollment, financial problems, or labor issues:
The BRICS alliance—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—has emerged as both an economic and educational bloc. While the U.S., U.K., and Europe still dominate in global higher education prestige, the BRICS countries are investing billions to expand their universities’ reach, attract international students, and challenge Western dominance in research and rankings.
The Top BRICS Universities
Recent rankings—such as the “Three University Missions” framework compiled by the Association of Ranking Compilers (ARC)—consistently place Chinese and Russian universities at the top of the BRICS hierarchy.
China: Peking University, Tsinghua University, Fudan University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) consistently place among the world’s top institutions.
Russia: Lomonosov Moscow State University and Saint Petersburg State University lead, followed by Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology and Novosibirsk State University.
India: Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bangalore and IITs (Bombay, Delhi, Madras) stand out in engineering and science.
Brazil: The University of São Paulo (USP) and Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp) are Latin America’s strongest performers.
South Africa: The University of Cape Town, University of the Witwatersrand, and Stellenbosch University remain the leading African universities.
China dominates numerically, with more than 200 universities represented in BRICS rankings—far ahead of Russia (161), India (93), Brazil (55), and South Africa (fewer than 20).
Beyond Rankings: What BRICS Universities Teach
Most leading BRICS universities are heavily STEM-oriented, training future engineers, medical professionals, and scientists. This is no accident. Just as Western universities in the so-called “Golden Years of Capitalism” prepared students for the industrial revolution, BRICS institutions are preparing for the next epoch—artificial intelligence, robotics, and 5G technologies.
In China and Russia, billionaires exist, but unlike in the United States, they do not dominate university governance. The state, particularly the Party in China, sets the agenda. Education here is not a marketplace of private donors and endowments, but a tool of statecraft and long-term economic planning.
This contrasts sharply with the United States, where higher education has been weaponized as a savior narrative against China—but where the system is riddled with debt, tuition inflation, and the casualization of faculty labor. In China, university education can be tuition-free, with no debt burdens, and designed to produce graduates with immediately usable skills.
International Students and Global Reach
One of the most striking shifts is in international student enrollment, where China has become a global hub. It now hosts the third-largest number of foreign students in the world, behind only the U.S. and U.K. Unlike in the West, international students in China disproportionately choose humanities programs—over 200,000 enrolled compared to fewer than 20,000 in the U.S.
Other BRICS nations are making slower progress. Russia has seen international enrollments grow, with Ural Federal University reporting a twelvefold increase in BRICS-country students since 2012. Brazil, India, and South Africa host far fewer foreign students but are experimenting with scholarship and exchange programs to grow.
Scholarship initiatives—especially linked to China’s Belt and Road Initiative—play a central role. In 2024, 200 Ethiopian students received full scholarships to study in Chinese universities. Institutions like Harbin Institute of Technology and Beijing Institute of Technology have become magnets for students from Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East.
Extraction and Education
The rise of BRICS education cannot be separated from the global economy of extraction—extraction of minerals, extraction of information, extraction of labor, and even extraction through surveillance and coercion. The knowledge economy in BRICS nations increasingly aims to produce technologies and machines that can help, hurt, or kill—from medical robotics to military drones.
Humanities, once central to shaping citizens and culture, risk being sidelined into boutique programs or small schools, little more than hobbies for the privileged. The future of higher education, in BRICS and globally, is being reoriented toward what capitalism demands: technical skills to maintain permanent war, digital economies, and resource exploitation.
Institutional Networks and Alliances
Beyond rankings and enrollments, BRICS has established its own inter-university cooperation networks:
BRICS Network University (BRICS-NU): A joint initiative promoting academic mobility, joint research, and shared degree programs. It is now expanding to BRICS+ countries such as Egypt, Iran, and the UAE.
BRICS+ Universities Association (BUA): Formed in 2023 to boost student recruitment and global visibility of BRICS institutions.
These alliances are designed not only to strengthen BRICS solidarity but also to present an alternative to Western-dominated institutions like the Ivy League, Oxbridge, and the Russell Group.
Why BRICS Universities Matter
For students in the Global South, BRICS universities increasingly represent a viable alternative to costly degrees in the U.S. or U.K. The lower tuition, growing prestige, and geopolitical alignment with emerging powers make these schools attractive.
For governments, higher education has become a strategic tool of soft power. China in particular is using its universities to deepen ties with Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America. Russia also leverages education as diplomacy, especially among post-Soviet states.
But the deeper issue is that education everywhere is now shaped by global capitalism, not just national priorities. If there is to be resistance—whether to debt peonage in the U.S. or to authoritarian technocracy in China—it will need to be international, much like labor struggles have had to cross borders.
Looking Ahead
With Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE joining BRICS+ in 2024–25, the bloc’s educational footprint will grow even larger. Universities in Cairo, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi could soon be ranked alongside Peking University and Lomonosov Moscow State.
Singapore, while not a BRICS member, remains an important comparison point: its National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) routinely rank above all but the very top Chinese universities.
As the 21st century unfolds, the global higher education order is no longer confined to the West. The BRICS countries—and their universities—are carving out a new, contested space in the knowledge economy. Whether this space leads to emancipation or further domination is an open question. For now, it looks less like the liberal dream of the university and more like the epoch of the robot, alongside permanent war.
