How University of Arizona Global Campus’ Online Recruitment Ads Drain Its Finances (Jeremy Bauer-Wolf)

In 2020, the University of Arizona acquired Ashford University, an online for-profit college that a California court later found guilty of having deceived students about job prospects, transfer opportunities, and degree costs.

Feeling pressured to better compete in the online education market — especially as Arizona State University broadened its virtual options — University of Arizona leaders recast Ashford as the University of Arizona Global Campus, or UAGC.

Administrators pledged to rehabilitate UAGC and abandon the exploitation that landed the former Ashford in legal hot water. UAGC, as its president said in 2022, is “well-positioned to provide adult learners with affordable college credentials that can better prepare them for careers in a rapidly evolving global economy.”

But beneath the rebranding efforts, problems remain. The University of Arizona has spent massively on marketing UAGC, as an audit that consultancy EY conducted last year revealed, a hallmark tactic of predatory for-profit institutions that dress up their junk degrees as prestigious offerings.

UAGC runs extensive and expensive ad campaigns on Google and Facebook, yet fewer than 1% of those reached enroll. This amounts to the university paying $11,521 for every student enrolled from those campaigns, the audit shows.

For context, this is almost as much as the University of Arizona’s in-state tuition and fees per student in the 2023-24 academic year, which federal data estimates to be about $13,000.

And one higher ed consultancy, RNL, found that in 2022, the median cost of recruiting an undergraduate student, minus personnel expenses, was only $1,652 for a four-year private college and $282 at a four-year public institution (though proponents of online education argue this is comparing apples to oranges).

But ultimately, UAGC’s investment has not improved enrollment. It continues to bleed, as it did in Ashford’s later days, dropping from about 107,000 students in fiscal year 2015 to 51,000 in fiscal year 2023.

Criticism from some of the University of Arizona’s faculty has also erupted. In the waning days of 2024, Nolan Cabrera, a professor at the university’s Center for the Study of Higher Education, wrote a public warning to students, urging them not to enroll in UAGC.

Cabrera told New America in a later interview he went public with his criticisms to protect students — and the University of Arizona’s reputation. UAGC, he said, is only hurting students with poor-quality programs, draining resources and sullying its standing as a top-class, R1 institution.

Blake Naughton, UAGC’s vice provost for academic affairs, teaching, and learning for online initiatives said in an emailed statement that “accreditors, government agencies, and other external reviewers” recognize “UAGC’s commitment to the quality of its degree programs.”

“UAGC has developed an innovative model that is validated through reaffirmations of quality by UAGC’s institutional and programmatic accreditors, which includes Quality Matters certification representing the gold standard in online courses, and enthusiastic partnerships with businesses and military employers,” Naughton said. “Further, UAGC faculty are leaders in the scholarship of online teaching and learning, regularly publishing and presenting on the efficacy of its ‘quality at scale’ model.”

The Creation of UAGC

Those inside and out of University of Arizona — state officials, faculty, college students and their advocates — were immediately skeptical of UAGC’s potential quality and value when the university acquired Ashford in 2020. The deal was a complex one that involved the University of Arizona creating a new nonprofit entity, which bought Ashford for $1. In return, UAGC would provide almost 20% of annual tuition revenue to Ashford’s former parent company, Zovio, though that arrangement later fell apart in 2022.

Before the acquisition, Ashford followed the blueprint of one of the most notorious for-profit colleges in American history: the University of Phoenix. Andrew S. Clark — an executive who contributed to the University of Phoenix’s rise — and the company he later worked for, Bridgepoint, replicated deceptive practices around credit transfers, financial aid, and recruitment at Ashford.

In 2017, California’s attorney general alleged Ashford misled prospective students about their chances of securing financial aid, the cost of attendance, the transferability of credits, and how well its programs prepared them for certain careers. The attorney general also accused it of deceiving investors and the public by exaggerating the percentage of working alumni who said their degree helped them in their current jobs.

This complaint was still unresolved by the time University of Arizona acquired it in 2020.

In 2022, the court ruled against Ashford and Zovio. The judge in the case was persuaded by estimates that Zovio made roughly 1.2 million misleading calls to potential students from March 2009 to April 2020.

The University of Arizona painstakingly crafted a public relations campaign to try to cleave UAGC’s reputation from Ashford’s. This was despite widespread concerns among its faculty and staff about Ashford, Cabrera said in an interview.

The administration never truly responded to those fears that Ashford was still peddling poor-quality education, he said. In fact, negotiations surrounding Ashford were so secretive that University of Arizona representatives who were involved with them signed non-disclosure agreements, obfuscating details of the deal, Cabrera argued. (The University of Arizona has said because Zovio was a publicly traded company, the institution “was required to undertake its work on a confidential and ‘need to know’ basis.”)

“You know the old adage, ‘you get what you pay for’?,” Cabrera said, referring to the $1 price tag of the acquisition. “That should tell you everything you need to know.”

UAGC has maintained an anemic graduation rate, only reaching 15% to 20% after the University of Arizona’s acquisition, according to the audit. The University of Arizona’s graduation rate stands between 60% to 70%. The retention rate of full-time students has also only improved modestly, from 24% in 2019 to 30% in 2022, according to federal data.

Mitch Zak, a University of Arizona spokesperson, said in a statement that it and UAGC have different academic models, thus their graduation rates aren’t comparable.

“The majority of UAGC students are working adults and military service members with varying priorities and responsibilities, which results in their taking fewer courses per year than traditional U of A students,” Zak said. “Non-traditional online students nationwide are not expected to graduate in the same timeframe as traditional university undergraduates.”

Recent news reports have also detailed how, like Ashford’s graduates, some UAGC students have said they can’t find sound jobs after leaving and alleged that the institution misled them about the value and cost of their degrees.

Cabrera said the University of Arizona’s leaders have not prioritized improving student outcomes, but rather an online education arms race and particularly beating out Arizona State, reflecting the longstanding rivalry between the two most prominent public universities in the state.

Cabrera said the two institutions are in constant competition — in public college rankings, like U.S. News & World Report’s, in enrolling more students, and other peripheral aspects of their academics, such as who employs more Nobel Prize laureates.

But if the University of Arizona’s leadership was so worried about its reputation, it shouldn’t have scooped up Ashford, Cabrera argued. Its association with Ashford and its shoddy education demeans the value of a University of Arizona degree, too, he said.

Zak pushed back against Cabrera’s allegation, saying that “priority is to ensure that UAGC is meeting the needs of its students, most of whom could not access traditional higher education.”

He also separately in his statement criticized Cabrera, saying the professor is not an expert in online education and did not reach out to UAGC leaders or faculty “to learn more about the differences between the U of A and UAGC as well as the complexities associated with providing access to higher education to working professionals.”

Major Marketing Costs

Amid this firestorm, UAGC’s enrollments continue to slip.

Zak argued this decline “was expected and planned for during the transitional period” as the institution works to integrate the former Ashford into the University of Arizona. He said UAGC is trying to lift enrollment, including through programs that help stopped out students return to college.

Still, the enrollment downturn raises questions in particular about the efficiency of its marketing efforts.

While the analysis doesn’t reveal the full extent of UAGC’s marketing splurge, it likely devotes hundreds of millions of dollars to it, based on figures in the EY audit. A similar institution to UAGC, the University of Maryland Global Campus, also dropped $500 million on just two six-year advertising contracts, according to a separate audit.

UAGC is investing significantly in lead generation, a strategy colleges have tried for more than a decade. They pay for advertisements to appear on webpages, particularly social media platforms, that typically summarize a program and also try to entice prospective students to click a new link for more information.

That ad takes prospects to a separate webpage, where they can fill in their name and other information, becoming a “lead” that a college can try to convince them to enroll.

Yet UAGC’s use of lead generation has been astonishingly fruitless, the audit shows.

Fewer than 1% of students reached through UAGC’s top five paid marketing sources, including Google and Facebook, actually enroll. The numbers concerning Facebook are particularly bleak — only 0.5% of prospective students end up enrolling at UAGC after clicking an advertisement on the platform. The auditor said this means it effectively costs the university more than $34,000 in marketing dollars just for one person to enroll from Facebook.

Even UAGC’s most successful lead generation source — Google search ads — converted just 3% of prospects, with each enrollment costing more than $7,500.

These figures are even more staggering considering UAGC pays to find 85% of its prospects, according to the audit. By contrast, Arizona Online — the university’s self-created online program, which still operates, in parallel to UAGC — buys just 50% of its student leads.

Zak said that UAGC has since “refined” its marketing to “prioritize efficiency and effectiveness,” but did not go into greater detail.

“UAGC has implemented a targeted approach in alignment with its mission of serving non-traditional learners,” Zak said. “UAGC is focused on retention and success and focuses on students who are most likely to benefit from a flexible and supportive learning environment. UAGC leverages data analytics, audience segmentation, and advanced tracking mechanisms to help improve conversion rates and reduce marketing costs.”

He later said that UAGC serves nontraditional students like working adults, military members and first-generation college attendees.

“Reaching those students in a competitive marketplace requires a different approach than traditional four-year universities,” Zak said.

The University of Arizona has faced budget problems broadly and last year said it had a $177 million budget deficit, which it has since reduced significantly.

But for all the university’s publicity efforts around UAGC, prospective students recognize Arizona Online as part of the institution’s brand, more so than UAGC, the audit said. Maintaining both platforms has actually spurred “market confusion,” according to the audit.

To remedy this, the University of Arizona has angled to integrate UAGC and Arizona Online, and Zak pointed to a university statement last year that said the audit findings validate this merger.

Still, this “confusion” underscores broader marketing challenges, like relying heavily on lead generation, a strategy UAGC has leaned into despite the fact that experts have said it’s inefficient to boost enrollment.

In part, that’s because institutions don’t recognize that students won’t make life-altering choices, like where to attend college, based on what’s essentially a pop-up ad, two marketing experts wrote in a 2022 essay.

“Prospective students prudently take their time researching your programs’ offerings in addition to many others,’” they wrote. “They are not naïve, impatient or easily persuaded by glitzy ads and copy. They spend many months researching and deliberating.”

Worse, lead generation can be used for nefarious or even predatory recruitment efforts. Some lead generation companies, for instance, have caught consequences from the Federal Trade Commission, particularly those that target current and former military members.

What To Do Now?

Thus far, the University of Arizona Global Campus is a failed experiment, Cabrera said. He was inspired to publish his concerns about UAGC publicly after students enrolled in its programs began to reach out to him.

Students were distressed. They told him in emails and direct messages on social media that UAGC faculty in education programs couldn’t guide them properly. He said he lost count of how many students contacted him — he estimated more than 20 over an 18-month period.

“For all the political bickering, real students are getting hurt, real students getting harmed here,” Cabrera said. “They’re making a bet, but students are getting hurt in the process.”

The University of Arizona declined to comment on the UAGC students who contacted Cabrera. UAGC faculty later wrote a public rebuttal to Cabrera, arguing his piece was based on his “rather than on facts and thus lacked the academic rigor of factual data from credible sources.”

But the UAGC faculty piece did not refute specifically any data Cabrera cited, including numbers from the EY audit.

In Zak’s emailed statement, he said UAGC students “have access to academic support teams, career services, student access and wellness support teams, and a combination of tools, technology, and guidance to help them progress.”

Cabrera remains unconvinced.

He said the University of Arizona’s leaders have not fulfilled their promise to purge the educational sins of Ashford. The reality is that enrollment continues to plummet, while UAGC’s exorbitant spending on lead generation, with little return, highlights a systemic issue: UAGC, Cabrera said, has seemingly prioritized its push for new students over reforming Ashford’s remnants, which is still making headlines.

This month, the U.S. Department of Education announced it would cancel $4.5 billion in loans for 261,000 students who attended Ashford. And last year, the Education Department discharged $72 million in loan obligations for more than 2,300 former Ashford students.

In light of some of the continued problems, the University of Arizona should reassess its fundamentals of online education. It should prioritize meeting the core principles of academic quality and comprehensive student support over marketing its new venture. A stronger focus on student needs would drive more meaningful outcomes and enhance the university’s reputation in the online education space.

As Cabrera suggested, without a realignment of priorities, UAGC risks being an expensive endeavor with little impact. Its reliance on extensive marketing campaigns, like flashy Facebook ads, may eventually draw attention but will struggle to make up for the gaps in delivering long-term value to students.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.] 

The Academic Job Search Season: Stress, Survival, and Structural Problems

Every fall, the job search season kicks into high gear. For many academics—graduate students, contingent faculty, and even mid-career professionals—the process is exhausting. Updating résumés, scouring job boards, crafting cover letters, and collecting references has become a ritual of stress. Career guides and webinars offer tips, but they rarely address the structural issues that make academic job hunting such a fraught experience.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is marketing its own “September Collection” of advice: five free articles on managing applications, jump-starting an industry job search, applying outside academe, and coping with the increasingly common “tandem job search” faced by Ph.D. couples. On the surface, this content promises guidance and expert insight. Yet beneath the tips lies a deeper reality: academia’s labor market is in crisis.

The Disappearing Job Market

Managing job applications has become an overwhelming task because the number of secure academic positions has shrunk dramatically. Tenure-track lines are scarce, and adjunctification has normalized poverty wages and instability for tens of thousands of scholars. According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), three out of four faculty positions are now contingent—part-time, non-tenure-track, or adjunct. Many of these jobs pay less than minimum wage once preparation, grading, and commuting are factored in.

Meanwhile, universities continue to produce Ph.D.s at record levels, ensuring a glut of qualified applicants for every rare tenure-track posting. The advice to “manage your applications” often masks this reality: candidates are competing for scraps in a system that treats intellectual labor as disposable.

Beyond the Ivory Tower: Exits and Exile

Several of the Chronicle’s highlighted articles focus on leaving academia altogether. Job seekers are told how to “jump-start” industry careers or apply for jobs “outside of academe.” This is not just pragmatic advice—it reflects a broader shift.

Universities have become credential mills, producing far more advanced degree holders than the system can absorb. In 2022, the U.S. awarded over 55,000 doctoral degrees—yet fewer than 10,000 tenure-track positions opened nationwide. The so-called “two-body problem” for dual-academic couples has become a euphemism for professional exile: one or both partners must give up their academic careers or live apart indefinitely.

Debt and Desperation

The situation is compounded by the student debt crisis, which affects graduate students as well as undergraduates. Graduate borrowing accounts for 40% of all federal student loan debt, often exceeding $100,000 for Ph.D.s in the humanities and social sciences. Job seekers enter the market already burdened with debt, only to find themselves competing for contingent jobs that pay less than $25,000 a year.

In contrast, BRICS countries such as China are producing graduates without debt, often tuition-free, and with state-backed pathways into science, engineering, and medical professions. The U.S. system, by comparison, looks less like a ladder of opportunity and more like a trap of financial servitude.

The Role of Billionaires

Adding insult to injury, billionaire donors and corporate interests increasingly shape U.S. higher education. From the Koch network funding business and policy schools, to tech billionaires investing in “disruptive” ed-tech, private wealth dictates academic priorities. The result is a university system aligned with corporate needs—STEM fields for industry pipelines, financialized research, and administrative expansion—while the humanities and social sciences are starved of funding.

Job seekers are told to adapt to this market logic. Attend career fairs. Build transferable skills. Manage stress. But the real dysfunction lies in the fact that billionaires and trustees wield more power over universities than faculty and students combined.

From Individual Struggle to Collective Fight

The Chronicle’s Fall Virtual Career Fair, scheduled for October 15th, is framed as a solution: networking, résumé reviews, stress management. Yet these offerings treat the problem as one of individual navigation, not systemic collapse.

If there is to be resistance, it will not come from résumé workshops or LinkedIn polls about “workplace dysfunction.” It will come from collective struggle: graduate unions, adjunct organizing, debt strikes, and alliances across borders. Just as workers once had to fight internationally against the globalized forces of capital, academic workers will need to see their struggle as more than seasonal job stress.

The job search season is not just a stressful ritual—it is a symptom of a broken, financialized system. For many, the harsh truth is this: the problem isn’t your résumé. It’s the university itself.

---

Sources

• American Association of University Professors (AAUP), The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2022–23

• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Doctor’s Degrees Conferred by Post-Secondary Institutions

• Brookings Institution, Graduate Student Debt: Dimensions and Policy Implications, 2020

• Coalition on the Academic Workforce, A Portrait of Part-Time Faculty Members, 2012

• The Chronicle of Higher Education, Career Resources and Virtual Fairs, 2024

• Inside Higher Ed, Adjuncts and the Academic Labor Crisis

Coalition for Mutual Liberation at Cornell University

WHO WE ARE

The Coalition for Mutual Liberation (CML) is a broad-based coalition of over 40 organizations on Cornell University's Ithaca Campus and in the surrounding community. Many of these orgnizations are publicly members of CML; the others wish to remain anonymous.
 

COALITION MEMBERS

The Arab Graduate Student Association
Asian Pacific Americans for Action
The Basic Needs Coalition
Black Students United
The Buddhist Sangha
The Cadre Journal
Climate Justice Cornell
Cornell Progressives
Ithaca Ceasefire Now
Jewish Voice for Peace at Cornell
The Mass Education Campaign
The Muslim Educational and Cultural Association
El Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx at de Aztlán
Native American and Indigenous Students at Cornell
The People’s Organizing Collective Cornell, United Students Against Sweatshops Local 3
The South Asian Council
Students for Justice in Palestine
Young Democratic Socialists of America

OUR MISSION

Our mission is to educate, empower, and organize our community to take action against imperialism, settler colonialism, and all other forms of oppression. Our struggles are deeply interconnected, and it is only through our collective resistance that we will achieve mutual liberation.

OUR FOCUS

Today, we join international humanitarian organizations, political leaders, scholars, activists, and most recently the state of South Africa incondemning Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people. We come together in solidarity with the people of Palestine in particular because Palestine is among the clearest manifestations of American economic and military hegemony—the force that perpetuates imperialism, racism, white supremacy, transphobia, homophobia, as well as religious- and gender-based violence across the world's historically exploited nations and populations.

DIVESTMENT DEMANDS

We find Cornell University complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people through its endowment investments in weapons manufacturers and military technology developers, its corporate and institutional partnerships with the producers of these technologies, and its lack of screening procedures and transparency around these ties. Cornell must take immediate action to sever its ties with the US-backed Israeli siege on Palestine which has already left more than 30,000 Palestinians dead. We demand:

1. Divestment from any company complicit in genocide, apartheid, or systematic cruelty against children perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, in accordance with Cornell's 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration. As outlined in Cornell's 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration, the Board of Trustees must consider divestment from companies whose actions constitute "genocide, apartheid, or systemic cruelty to children." By doing business with Israel as it conducts its genocide, responsibility for these three morally reprehensible actions fall on the shoulders of the following weapons companies: BAE Systems, Boeing, Elbit Systems, General Dynamics, L3Harris Technologies, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, and ThyssenKrupp. In order for Cornell to abide by its own divestment standards and precedents for divestment (in the cases of the Sudanese genocide and the fossil fuels industry), the university must immediately liquidate all of its holdings in the companies listed above and enact a moratorium on all investments in arms manufacturers that supply weapons, munitions, and other military supplies to Israel.

2. The termination of all corporate partnerships with companies complicit in the genocide, apartheid, or systematic cruelty towards children perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Cornell currently maintains corporate partnerships with a number of weapons companies whose products have been used against civilians in Gaza. These companies include BAE Systems, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin. Cornell Systems Engineering also partners with RTX (Raytheon), which is described as being “an extended part of the Cornell Systems Engineering community.” Cornell’s partnerships with these weapons companies amounts to complicity in the genocide of the Palestinian people. We are therefore calling on Cornell University to sever their corporate partnerships with these companies as soon as possible. We call on Cornell University to begin this process immediately and to have fully dissolved these partnerships by the end of the 2024 calendar year.

3. A comprehensive ban on the research and development of any technologies used by the Israeli Offensive Forces at the Jacobs Cornell-Technion Institute in New York City. The Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, a partnership between Cornell University and the Israel Institute of Technology (Technion), is part of Cornell Tech, a campus for graduate research in New York City. Independently of Cornell Tech, Technion researches and develops geospatial, intelligence, and weapons technologies used by the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Cornell Tech’s publicly stated founding purpose is “to advance technology as a means to a better quality of life for all communities [...] around the world.” Its “Diversity and Inclusion” mission includes “[engaging] in research that promotes justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion” and “[educating and training] ethical technology leaders of the future.” In light of Technion’s numerous connections to Israel’s occupation and genocide in Palestine, Cornell Tech’s supposed commitment to ethical and just technological development rings hollow. We demand a comprehensive ban on the research and development of any technologies used by the Israel Offensive Forces at the Cornell Tech/Technion Campus in New York City.

As Israel continues its relentless genocide in Gaza and further militarizes its occupation of the West Bank, the world watches as Palestinians are displaced, starved, and killed every day. The horrors of Israel’s siege on Gaza are broadcast in full display across multiple news outlets and social media platforms, and yet, the American institutions that fuel this violence refuse to act.

Thirty years ago, when over fifty other universities across the country divested from South African apartheid, Cornell faltered in its commitment to humanity and never severed its ties with a state dependent on the perpetuation of horrific racial violence. Today, the global community once again stands at a crossroad—Cornell University has the opportunity to do what it couldn’t three decades ago.

Cornell University must make a choice: to toe the line drawn by a foreign nation and remain complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people, or to establish itself as a leader among elite educational institutions by being the first to materially recognize the Palestinian right to life and dignity.

We envision a future for Cornell University that does not fund and partner with the corporate entities responsible for the decimation of an entire people, their cultural artifacts, and the land they inhabit. The Board of Trustees must have the courage and moral fortitude to cut ties with Israel’s unrelenting campaign of violence against Palestine so that Cornell may truly do the greatest good.

For more information about our divestment demands, the companies listed as divestment targets, Cornell's complicity in Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people, and Cornell's violation of its own standards, procedures, and values, see CML's full Divestment Report. 

DEMANDS FROM LIBERATED ZONE

Cornell students, staff, faculty, and community members join the cross-campus wave of organizers establishing liberated zones in solidarity with Gaza. The campers' ongoing act of nonviolent resistance will include teach-ins, art builds, and other activities to highlight the urgency with which Cornell must act in response to the Israeli government's genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. Students from across the globe have joined together to protest the genocide in Gaza during which the Israeli Offensive Forces have murdered over 34,000 Indigenous Palestinians in under seven months. Students are organizing in outrage that Palestinian universities have been obliterated with weapons funded and developed through Cornell University's partnerships and investments. Distinctly, the Cornell University Board of Trustees adopted a commitment in 2016 to divest from companies engaged in "genocide, apartheid, and systematic cruelty against children.” Cornell's failure to divest is not only a violation of the university's stated policies, but also an act of genocide denialism.

Cornell’s refusal to cut ties to Palestinian genocide reflects its history of profiteering from the violent dispossession of Indigenous Peoples across North America. Cornell is the largest beneficiary of the Morrill Act of 1862, which redistributed Indigenous land as public domain to states to establish and endow land-grant institutions. Through the dispossession, Cornell accrued nearly 1 million acres of land, some of which it sold for profit, and some to which it currently retains the rights. Today, Cornell showcases its land-grant status—its status as an institution supposedly dedicated to the promotion of practical disciplines such as agriculture, mining, and engineering—to signal its commitment to accessible higher education and mask its refusal to provide reparations or restitution to the 251 tribal nations affected by land-grant dispossession. Cornell's settler colonial project in the United States is the foundation for its settler colonial interests in Palestine. Through this encampment, students highlight Cornell's role in dispossession and genocide across the globe.

The encampment on the oldest commons on Cornell's campus invites all members of the community to support the students' demands that Cornell University:

1. Acknowledge its role in the national genocide of Indigenous Peoples through the Morrill Act and its sale of 977,909 acres of Indigenous land; return all mineral interests to Tribal Nations dispossessed by the Morrill Act; provide restitution for the dispossessed nations; provide restitution for the Cayuga Nation; establish an Indigenous Studies department; and return surplus land in New York state to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Lenni Lenape, and their descendants who have been forced out of New York.

2. Annually disclose a comprehensive account of its endowment and land holdings, and divest from entities involved in “morally reprehensible activities,” in accordance with Cornell’s 2016 Standard to Guide Divestment Consideration.

3. End profit-generating partnerships, volunteer arrangements, and other significant corporate and academic affiliations with institutions involved in “morally reprehensible activities,” including but not limited to the dissolution of the Jacobs-Technion Cornell Institute and all other partnerships with the Technion Israel Institute of Technology.

4. Call for an unconditional, permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

5. Establish a Palestinian Studies program housed in the College of Arts and Sciences, along with an accredited minor that is available to all undergraduate and graduate students. Representatives from Cornell’s chapter of “Students for Justice in Palestine” and “Cornell Collective for Justice in Palestine” must serve on the committees that oversee the hiring of the program’s faculty.

6. Publicly acknowledge and protect anti-Zionist speech, viewpoints, and histories in both religious and academic contexts. Recognize the legitimate and historical claim that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

7. Remove all police from campus, beginning with the elimination of police presence at demonstrations. Replace police with an emergency response team composed of healthcare workers and first responders trained in de-escalation. A majority of team members must be providers who share lived experiences and identities with Cornell’s diverse student body.

8. Ensure total legal and academic amnesty for all individuals involved with the Liberated Zone and related demonstrations.
 

POINTS OF UNITY

1. The principal contradiction of our world is that between the exploited nations and the exploiters in the imperial core: imperialism.

2. The underdevelopment of the exploited nations was and is the dialectical necessity for the development of the exploiters.

3. Capitalism has always been a global, racialized system—primitive accumulation could not have occurred without genocide, enslavement, and ecocide.

4.Imperialism creates a stratification that rewards some proletarians as settlers and/or citizens, thus forming a labor aristocracy.

5. The labor aristocracy’s wages and incorporation into the nation-state allow them to benefit from the exploitation of the low-waged labor of the exploited nations, intensifying imperialism in the form of unequal exchange.

6. Unequal exchange precludes the universality and internationalism of the proletariat, and hinders the solidarity of the “workers of the world”.

7. Imperialism manifests itself in a variety of other ways today, in sanctions regimes, indebtedness, military intervention, nuclear aggression, extractivism, and other forms.

8. Capitalism cannot be defeated globally while imperialism persists—without anti-imperialism, efforts at socialism in the exploiting nations can only produce social imperialism.

9. The obligation of revolutionaries today is to challenge imperialism by any means necessary. In the exploiting nations, that primarily means acting in solidarity with anti-imperialist movements in the exploited nations.

10. Solidarity cannot be simply symbolic—it must be material; it must be something we can hold in our hands.
 

CONTACT US
Information address: cml.information@proton.me
Press address: cml.press@proton.me

The University of California Meltdown: Trump’s Extortion Meets Years of Student Suppression

University of California (UC) President James Milliken has sounded an alarm over what he calls one of the “gravest threats” in the institution’s 157-year history. In testimony before state lawmakers, Milliken outlined a looming financial crisis sparked by sweeping federal funding cuts and unprecedented political demands from the Trump administration.

The UC system — spanning 10 campuses, five medical centers, and serving hundreds of thousands of students and patients — receives more than $17 billion in federal funds annually. That includes $9.9 billion in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, $5.7 billion in research dollars, and $1.9 billion in student financial aid. According to Milliken, much of this funding is now at risk.

Already, UCLA alone has seen more than $500 million in research grants cut. On top of that, the administration has levied a $1.2 billion penalty against the system, alleging that UCLA and other campuses failed to adequately address antisemitism.

“These shortfalls, combined with the administration’s punitive demands, could devastate our university and cause enormous harm to our students, our patients, and all Californians,” Milliken warned. He has requested at least $4 to $5 billion annually in state aid to blunt the impact of federal cuts.

More Than a Budget Fight

The Trump administration has tied federal funding to sweeping political conditions, including:

• Release of detailed admissions data.

• Restrictions on protests.

• Elimination of race-related scholarships and diversity hiring.

• A ban on gender-affirming care for minors at UCLA health centers.

Critics argue that these conditions amount to political blackmail, undermining both academic freedom and healthcare access.

California Governor Gavin Newsom denounced the federal measures as “extortion” and “a page out of the authoritarian playbook.” Thirty-three state legislators urged UC leaders “not to back down in the face of this political shakedown.”

Protesters in the Crossfire

Yet while UC leaders frame themselves as defenders of free inquiry, many students and faculty who have protested war, racism, and inequality have found themselves silenced by the very system that now claims victimhood.

• 2011 UC Davis Occupy Protest: Images of police casually pepper-spraying seated students went viral, symbolizing the university’s harsh response to peaceful dissent.

• 2019 UC Santa Cruz Graduate Worker Strike: Graduate students demanding a cost-of-living adjustment were fired, evicted, or disciplined rather than heard.

• 2022 UC Irvine Labor Strikes: Workers organizing for fair pay and job security faced heavy-handed tactics from administrators.

• 2023–24 Gaza Encampments: UC campuses, including UCLA and UC Berkeley, called in police to dismantle student encampments protesting U.S. and UC complicity in Israel’s war in Gaza. Dozens of students were arrested, suspended, or disciplined for their participation.

These incidents show a pattern: UC celebrates academic freedom in official statements, but clamps down when protests threaten its ties to corporate donors, political interests, or foreign governments.

As one Berkeley student put it during the Gaza protests: “The university claims it’s under attack from Trump’s censorship — but it censors us every single day.”

UC’s Own Accountability Problem

Beyond silencing dissent, UC has been unresponsive to many Californians on broader issues: rising tuition, limited in-state enrollment, reliance on low-paid adjuncts, and partnerships with corporations that profit from student debt and labor precarity. For many working families, UC feels less like a public institution and more like an elite research enterprise serving industry and politics.

This contradiction makes the current crisis double-edged. UC is indeed being targeted by the Trump administration, but it also faces a legitimacy crisis at home.

Looking Ahead

Milliken, who took office as UC President on August 1, is lobbying state lawmakers to commit billions annually to offset federal cuts. But UC’s survival may hinge not only on political deals in Sacramento, but also on whether it can rebuild trust with the Californians it has too often sidelined — including the protesters and whistleblowers who have been warning for years about its drift away from public accountability.

The larger struggle, then, is not just UC versus Washington. It is about whether a public university system can still live up to its mission of serving the people — not corporations, not politicians, and not the wealthy few who hold the purse strings.

---

Sources:

• University of California Office of the President

• California State Legislature records

• Statements from Gov. Gavin Newsom

• U.S. Department of Justice communications

• Higher Education Inquirer archives on UC protest suppression and public accountability

• Coverage of UC Davis pepper-spray incident (2011), UC Santa Cruz COLA strike (2019), UC Irvine labor strikes (2022), Gaza encampment crackdowns (2023–24)

When college choice is a fraud

Students are targeted and lied to by subprime colleges and they are often treated with indifference by public education.

In 2014, USC graduate student Constance Iloh and her advisor Dr. William Tierney examined the "rational choices" behind college choice. Their subjects were more than 130 students who had chosen either a community college or for-profit college for a vocational nursing or surgical technician associate’s degree.

Rational choice, a common theory in mainstream economics, refers to the theory that individuals make decisions to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. By talking to focus groups, the researchers hoped to find out why students chose a $30,000 for-profit education lasting 13 months or a $5,000 public program taking two years to finish. Both schools had graduation rates of about 30%.

In the Iloh and Tierney study, students who chose for-profit colleges said that community colleges presented too many barriers and that their schools offered more convenience and accessibility in scheduling and location. With accelerated schedules, for-profit students thought they could graduate earlier than if they attended a community college--which was important as they weighed important family obligations.

Some for-profit college students also believed their education was superior to a community college because it offered more "hands on" opportunities. The researchers did not dig deeper though, to investigate how the students came up with their ideas.

Although most of the students were probably women, and many were working-class people and people of color, the researchers did not discuss important race, class, and gender issues. The researchers also ignored examining cross-culturally: what other nations have done to make higher education more effective, socially just, and democratic, or even how various states in the United States have made college free or low cost to its citizens.

"Rational choice" in US education, however, must be examined in a society affected by deindustrialization and deskilling of work, government austerity and the defunding of public education, neoliberalism, structural racism, increasing economic inequality and reduced intergenerational social mobility, social myths perpetuated by predatory marketing, and ultimately--difficult choices caused by "the injuries of class."

The truth is, millions of hard working low-wage workers (including single mothers, disabled military veterans, struggling immigrants, people with learning challenges or those who have had fewer educational opportunities) may be looking for the most obvious way to achieve the American Dream, whether it's from a message in their email inbox or a friendly voice at the other end of the telephone.

But that's the essence of the for-profit con--something that Iloh and Tierney downplay.  There are subprime schools regularly trolling for the most vulnerable people.

The researchers also fail to recognize that some for-profit students continue along the more financially expensive route, even after realizing they've made a bad choice, believing they have sunk too much into their investment to quit--and knowing that their credits won't transfer.

Theories of Sunken Investment, Time Discounting, and Asymmetric Information may be useful in understanding the difficult personal choices that working class people face--but theories of justice must also be utilized.

Sadly, this study really shows the dysfunctional nature of US education in general. Whether a working class student chooses a for-profit college, community college, or public or private university, he or she is taking on significant risks of either not graduating, taking on enormous debt, subjecting family members to debt obligations, or being taken away from important family interests.

Dr. Tierney is not an objective researcher (no researcher is). He is a tenured professor at an elite university who believes for-profit colleges have a role in American neoliberal society. And he has colleagues who have profited from this line of thinking. Tierney believes for-profit schools have problems, but that they can be reformed. With the poor state of many subprime for-profit colleges and community colleges, it's difficult to imagine how educational reform is possible.

To make better informed choices, working-class people surely need to learn about the myths of college and the sales pitches that are used to hook unsuspecting prospects. But even that is not enough. Without social justice, fairness, and access in society, people will be compelled to pray and make the best of unjust and limited "rational" choices.

"If we expect to increase the rate of degree completion, we must invest in early childhood education and enhance the quality of precollegiate education, especially for students who are African American, Hispanic, and low income" --Diane Ravitch

An earlier version of this article is available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/college-choice-rational-dahn-shaulis?trk=mp-author-card

U.S. Government Targets Student Activism: Over 300 Visas Revoked Amid Escalating Deportations

In a controversial move, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Thursday that the State Department had revoked the visas of more than 300 students, a number that is expected to rise. This action is part of the White House’s growing crackdown on foreign-born students, many of whom have been involved in political activism, particularly related to pro-Palestinian protests that have been sweeping college campuses.

Rubio made it clear that the government’s focus is on what he referred to as “these lunatics” – individuals who, according to him, are using their student visas not for education but for activism. His statements, made during a visit to Guyana, came amid reports of increasing detentions and deportations of students from countries like Iran, Turkey, and Palestine.

"It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas," Rubio said, underscoring the administration’s intent to target those engaging in political activism. Some of these arrests have taken place in dramatic fashion, with students detained by masked immigration agents and sent to detention centers, often far from their homes, with limited explanation.

Among the high-profile cases is that of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national studying in the U.S. on a student visa. Ozturk was arrested earlier this week in Somerville, Massachusetts, and is currently being held in a Louisiana detention facility. Her arrest follows her involvement in a Tufts University student newspaper article that called on the institution to divest from companies with ties to Israel and to acknowledge what she referred to as the Palestinian genocide. Importantly, Ozturk’s essay did not mention Hamas, yet her arrest has raised concerns over the broader political targeting of students engaged in activism.

Many of the students caught up in this crackdown are believed to have been involved in the pro-Palestinian protests that gained momentum on campuses last year. While the administration has not provided specific reasons for targeting these students, far-right pro-Israel groups have compiled lists of individuals they accuse of promoting anti-U.S. or anti-Israel sentiments. These lists have reportedly been shared with U.S. immigration authorities, further intensifying the political climate surrounding these detentions.

The move is part of a larger agenda by the Trump administration to clamp down on the activities of legal permanent residents and student visa holders. Immigration experts warn that such actions undermine the fundamental American right to free speech and assembly, particularly in academic settings.

Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, described the current situation as "uniquely disturbing," stating that it sends a message to the brightest minds around the world who traditionally chose to study in the U.S. for its openness and intellectual freedom. The message, he argues, is now one of rejection.

The administration's actions are said to be guided by an immigration provision dating back to the Cold War, which allows the revocation of visas if a student's activities are seen as posing "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Some of the students targeted, including Ozturk, have had their visas revoked under this justification, despite no clear evidence of criminal activity.

Other notable individuals caught in the crosshairs include Alireza Doroudi, a doctoral student from Iran at the University of Alabama, and Badar Khan Suri, an Indian graduate student at Georgetown University. Both have been detained without clear charges, sparking concerns over whether their arrests are retaliatory measures for their political views. Suri, for instance, was allegedly detained for spreading Hamas propaganda, although he has denied such claims.

This wave of detentions and visa revocations also extends to other students like Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia University student who participated in protests. Despite being a legal permanent resident, Chung now faces deportation. Similarly, Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian student at Columbia, was detained by ICE after allegedly overstaying her student visa.

The increasing number of student arrests and deportations is drawing the attention of human rights advocates, who argue that these actions are a direct attack on free speech. Samah Sisay, one of the attorneys representing detained students, expressed concern that the government's actions are not only targeting specific political views but are also intended to intimidate future student activists.

This crackdown is also raising questions about the role of U.S. universities in protecting their students. In one high-profile case, Columbia University agreed to implement significant changes after President Trump threatened to withdraw $400 million in federal research funding over accusations that the university was not doing enough to address harassment of Jewish students.

As these events unfold, the future of student activism in the U.S. appears increasingly uncertain. If these trends continue, more students may face the loss of their visas, deportation, or even criminal charges related to their political beliefs and actions on campus. The implications for free speech, academic freedom, and international student exchange are profound, and advocates are calling for a reassessment of policies that allow such widespread and seemingly arbitrary actions against students.

In the face of this growing repression, one thing is clear: the United States is now sending a strong message to the world about what it will and will not tolerate in its universities. Whether that message will stifle the tradition of academic activism remains to be seen.

U.S. Visa Suspensions Under Trump Administration Derail Dreams of Ecuadorian Students (Primicias)

In a sharp blow to international academic mobility, the Trump administration has suspended student visa interviews across U.S. embassies and consulates, leaving thousands of foreign students—including many from Ecuador—in limbo. The policy, though not enshrined in law, is already having profound effects on individuals and institutions alike.

For students like Valeria, a 23-year-old from Quito, the consequences are deeply personal. After receiving her acceptance letter from a university in Pennsylvania and paying her tuition, Valeria now finds herself unsure whether she can even enter the country. “I called the consulate, contacted five immigration attorneys—even my university doesn’t know what’s going on,” she told Primicias. “Nobody can tell me if I’ll be allowed in or deported.”

Valeria’s uncertainty stems from an executive directive that halts interviews for F-1 (academic), M-1 (vocational), and J-1 (exchange visitor) visas—crucial legal pathways for hundreds of thousands of international students entering the U.S. annually. Though the suspension is being framed as temporary, it has already disrupted the educational futures of prospective students worldwide, including many from Latin America.

“This is not a symbolic gesture,” warned U.S.-based immigration consultant Pablo Acosta. “It’s an executive decision with immediate and real-life consequences.”

A Chilling Effect on International Education

International students are more than just a demographic. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), over one million international students were enrolled in U.S. higher education institutions during the 2022–2023 academic year. They represented about 5.6% of the total U.S. college student population and contributed more than $38 billion to the American economy, according to data from NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Each institution, on average, hosts about 400 international students, although figures vary significantly depending on size and global ranking. This flow of students not only brings financial support but enriches academic life and sustains graduate programs in STEM, business, and other high-demand fields.

The suspension of visa interviews threatens to destabilize this ecosystem.

Looking Elsewhere: Canada and Europe

The Trump administration’s restrictive stance is driving many Ecuadorian students to look north to Canada or across the Atlantic to Europe. José Villamar, a student from Guayaquil who had planned to study environmental engineering in Texas, described how the suspension has frozen his plans. “Without the visa interview, the university can’t issue my I-20. Everything is on hold.”

Visa advisors are now encouraging students to consider alternatives. “The advantage of Canada is its consistency,” explained Norman Ordóñez, a visa consultant in Ecuador. “You can study, work, and eventually apply for residency. The U.S. is putting that dream on hold. Meanwhile, countries like Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands are becoming more attractive due to their transparent pathways and financial aid programs.”

Collateral Damage: U.S. Higher Ed and the Global Reputation

While the Trump administration frames its policy as a national security and immigration control measure, it risks damaging the global reputation of U.S. higher education. Inconsistency, unpredictability, and politicization of visa policy undermine institutional planning and student confidence.

In interviews with Primicias, affected students expressed despair over losing control of their futures for reasons far beyond their efforts. “The hardest part isn’t changing countries,” said Valeria. “It’s giving up on a dream for reasons that have nothing to do with your hard work.”

The Higher Education Inquirer sees this as part of a broader pattern of hostility toward international engagement within U.S. academia, especially under right-wing populist regimes. The long-term consequences could include a decline in enrollment, brain drain, and weakened international partnerships.

As global education becomes more competitive, the United States may find that once-burned students and institutions don’t easily return.

---

For more on this developing story and others impacting international education, student rights, and global equity in higher education, follow The Higher Education Inquirer. 

Remembering Gainful Employment Regulations

In the mid-2010s, the U.S. Department of Education introduced the Gainful Employment (GE) regulations—a landmark attempt to hold career-focused educational programs accountable for their graduates' ability to earn a living wage. These regulations aimed to protect students from for-profit colleges and vocational programs that left them burdened with crippling debt and poor job prospects. However, over the past several years, political forces have consistently worked to weaken or outright undo these regulations, often in ways that raise concerns about the future of higher education and student protections.

The story of Gainful Employment begins in earnest during the Obama administration, when the Department of Education sought to curb the rapid growth of for-profit colleges that had been criticized for enrolling vulnerable students with promises of high-paying jobs, only to see them graduate into financial struggles. The GE rules were designed to measure whether students at these institutions were able to repay their loans based on their post-graduation earnings. If a program failed to meet certain thresholds, it would lose access to federal student aid, a lifeline for many struggling institutions.

Initially, the regulations were celebrated by consumer advocates and organizations that had long criticized the for-profit education sector for exploiting students. The Department of Education estimated that the GE rules could save taxpayers billions of dollars while protecting students from enrolling in programs that didn't deliver a return on their investment. In theory, if schools couldn't demonstrate that their graduates earned enough to repay their student loans, they would be incentivized to either improve their offerings or face the consequences of losing federal funding.

However, soon after the GE regulations were finalized, they came under fierce political attack.

The Political Pushback

In 2017, with the change in presidential administrations, the Trump administration began rolling back a number of regulations designed to protect students, including the GE rules. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a long-time critic of what she saw as excessive government regulation in education, spearheaded efforts to delay and ultimately repeal the regulations. Her argument was that the rules were overly burdensome for schools, especially those providing vocational training, and that they unfairly penalized schools whose graduates may not have had high earnings but were nonetheless gaining valuable skills.

But DeVos wasn’t alone in her opposition. The for-profit college industry, which had faced heightened scrutiny under the Obama-era regulations, mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign to dismantle the GE rules. Aided by influential trade groups like the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), the industry argued that the GE regulations undermined their ability to serve students, particularly those in underserved communities who might not have access to traditional four-year colleges or universities.

The political power of the for-profit sector, combined with the new administration’s deregulatory agenda, resulted in an effort to sideline the GE regulations. DeVos delayed the effective date of the rules and pushed back the enforcement deadlines, making it clear that the regulations were no longer a priority for the Department of Education. In 2019, the Department even went as far as to propose a new version of the rules that was far less stringent, ultimately rolling back the original GE provisions.

The Legal and Political Maneuvering

The political attacks on the GE rules weren’t just limited to administrative delays. Conservative lawmakers played a central role in undermining the regulations as well. In 2017, Congress included provisions in the budget bills that prevented the Department of Education from enforcing or implementing the GE rules. These provisions were not just about defunding enforcement—they were about making the regulations essentially toothless, rendering them ineffective in holding schools accountable for their graduates' financial success.

This legal maneuvering was supported by arguments from Republican lawmakers that the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of telling students and schools what a "good" or "bad" educational program looks like. They framed the issue as a matter of personal choice and freedom, with education viewed primarily as a private market rather than a public good that needs oversight. The rhetoric around personal choice was particularly potent when paired with claims of excessive governmental overreach and bureaucratic red tape, which found a receptive audience in a Congress eager to reduce the size and scope of federal regulation.

Reversals, Delays, and Legal Back-and-Forth

By 2020, the Trump administration had all but dismantled the original Gainful Employment rules, but their story was far from over. As soon as President Biden took office in 2021, there were hopes that the GE regulations might be resurrected and enforced more strictly. However, the political hurdles to reinstating the rules were significant. Biden’s administration, despite its promises to reform higher education, faced intense lobbying from powerful for-profit college associations and other stakeholders who feared the financial consequences of stricter regulations.

By the end of 2022, the Biden administration had made a step toward strengthening the GE regulations, proposing new rules to bring back accountability measures—but they faced obstacles as well. The continuing political and legal challenges surrounding the GE regulations are a testament to the deep entrenchment of vested interests within the higher education landscape. Critics argue that, while the Biden administration’s changes represented progress, they still fell short of the original intent and fail to fully restore the protections for students that had been so dramatically weakened under the Trump era.

The Impact on Students and the Future of Higher Education

For students, the reversal of the GE regulations has had profound consequences. According to research, when educational programs fail to provide students with the skills necessary to secure well-paying jobs, the result is often long-term financial instability, and this issue disproportionately affects low-income students, first-generation college-goers, and students of color.

Without robust regulations to hold programs accountable, the for-profit sector can continue to expand unchecked, marketing programs that may leave students with massive debt but few prospects for a secure future. The constant legal and political battles around the GE rules show just how difficult it can be to enact lasting change in an industry as influential as higher education. As long as lobbying power and political maneuvering continue to shape policy, the promise of education as a tool for social mobility and economic security will remain out of reach for many Americans.

Is it safe for international students to attend US universities? Here's a list of alternatives.

In recent decades, the United States has been a top destination for international students, offering world-class universities, diverse academic programs, and a global reputation for innovation and research. Yet in recent years, many prospective international students and their families are asking a difficult question: Is it still safe to attend US universities?

This concern isn't unfounded. Safety for international students isn't just about crime rates—it includes factors like political climate, visa policies, healthcare access, racism and xenophobia, campus support, and overall quality of life. Let’s explore these factors and how they compare to alternatives like Canada, the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands.

---

The United States: A Complex Landscape

Safety on Campus:
Many US universities are located in relatively safe college towns and invest heavily in campus security. However, the rise in mass shootings—including those at or near educational institutions—has sparked fear among both domestic and international students. While statistically rare, the prevalence of gun violence in the US is significantly higher than in other developed nations.

Political and Social Climate:
Under recent administrations, shifting immigration policies and fluctuating visa rules have made the US a less predictable destination. While the Biden administration has worked to stabilize student visa policies, uncertainty remains. Reports of xenophobic incidents have also raised alarms, particularly for students from Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds.

Healthcare Concerns:
The US has no universal healthcare system. International students are often required to purchase private insurance, which can be expensive and confusing. Access to mental health services, though improving, varies widely by institution.

Post-Graduation Opportunities:
The US still offers compelling Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM extensions for international students looking to work post-graduation, but the pathway to long-term work or permanent residency remains complicated.

---

Alternatives Worth Considering

Canada

• Pros: Politically stable, comparatively easier immigration pathways, high-quality universities (e.g., University of Toronto, McGill), and widespread public support for international students.

• Safety: Low crime rates and almost no gun violence.

• Work & Immigration: Canada has one of the most international-student-friendly post-graduation work permit programs. Many students transition to permanent residency with relative ease.

United Kingdom

• Pros: Rich academic heritage, home to globally ranked institutions (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial), English-speaking environment.

• Safety: Urban areas face petty crime but gun violence is rare.

• Work & Immigration: Recent changes allow graduates to stay for up to 2 years post-study (3 years for PhDs), a significant improvement over prior policies.

Australia

• Pros: High academic standards, English-speaking, growing international student population, welcoming attitude.

• Safety: Generally safe, though some cities report instances of racial tension.

• Work & Immigration: Australia offers generous post-study work visas and clearer paths to permanent residency compared to the US.

Germany

• Pros: No or low tuition at many public universities, strong engineering and technical programs, growing English-taught courses.

• Safety: Very low crime, excellent public infrastructure.

• Work & Immigration: Post-study work options are available, and Germany is actively recruiting skilled graduates into its workforce.

France

• Pros: Prestigious institutions (e.g., Sorbonne, Sciences Po), growing number of English-language programs, rich culture.

• Safety: Urban areas may experience occasional unrest, but campuses are generally safe.

• Work & Immigration: Non-EU students can work part-time and stay for a period after graduation. The government has signaled increasing openness to skilled international graduates.

Ireland

• Pros: English-speaking, welcoming culture, growing reputation in tech and pharma education, strong ties to US multinationals with Irish HQs.

• Safety: One of the safest countries in Europe with low crime rates.

• Work & Immigration: Students can work part-time and stay up to two years post-graduation (Graduate Stay Back Visa). Ireland also offers a relatively smooth path to work visas and longer-term residency.

Netherlands

• Pros: Known for its high quality of life, wide selection of English-taught programs (especially at the master’s level), and a progressive, inclusive society.

• Safety: Very safe, well-regulated cities with strong infrastructure and low crime.

• Work & Immigration: Offers a one-year "Orientation Year" visa after graduation for job-seeking. The Netherlands has a growing demand for international talent, particularly in tech, business, and engineering.

---

Making the Right Choice

For many students, the US remains attractive for its research opportunities, innovation hubs, and alumni networks. But safety, cost of living, mental health support, and post-graduation outcomes are now more significant factors than ever.

Choosing where to study abroad is deeply personal—and increasingly strategic. Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands all offer strong alternatives that may be more welcoming and stable in today’s climate.

Prospective international students should weigh these factors carefully, consult with advisors, and consider long-term goals—educational, professional, and personal—when making their decisions.

Shrouded in Silence: The Problem with Nondisclosure Agreements in Higher Education (DC Whistleblower)

Nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, are quietly undermining the values that higher education claims to uphold—truth, accountability, and the free exchange of ideas. Used by colleges, universities, and education-related nonprofits, these legal tools have become instruments of control. Rather than fostering environments of transparency and ethical responsibility, NDAs are used to conceal wrongdoing, silence dissent, and protect powerful individuals and institutions from public scrutiny.

This issue is not abstract to me. Years ago, while working for a Washington, DC-based nonprofit that claimed to serve the public interest, I was forced to sign an NDA. What I believed would be an opportunity to contribute to meaningful education reform turned into a lesson in how institutions manipulate legal agreements to suppress criticism. I was not allowed to speak publicly about unethical behavior I observed—behavior that directly affected low-income students and underpaid labor. That experience has stayed with me, and it mirrors the stories I now hear from others across higher education.

In today’s academic landscape, NDAs are often imposed on staff, faculty, and students at vulnerable moments—after reporting sexual harassment, exposing fraud, or simply trying to leave a toxic workplace. Institutions frame these agreements as standard procedure, offering settlements or severance in exchange for permanent silence. The reality is coercive: speak up and risk losing not just financial security, but career prospects and professional reputation.

Faculty and staff on contingent contracts—especially adjuncts—are easy targets for this kind of legal intimidation. Graduate students, already caught in exploitative labor arrangements, are often silenced through similar means. Survivors of sexual assault who report misconduct are sometimes pushed into signing NDAs as part of resolution agreements, which then prevent them from warning others or publicly critiquing the institution's response. Even undergraduate students who face institutional failure or discrimination can find themselves legally bound to stay silent.

NDAs have also become standard practice in for-profit and quasi-profit education operations. Employees at a number of edtech companies have described being pressured into signing agreements that prohibit them from disclosing questionable practices, including deceptive marketing, inflated job placement claims, and the targeting of vulnerable students for high-interest loans. Some are warned explicitly that any public statements—even years later—could bring legal consequences.

What makes NDAs so dangerous in education is their impact on public knowledge and democratic accountability. Institutions that receive millions or even billions in federal and state funding are able to hide systemic issues from lawmakers, regulators, journalists, and the public. Whistleblowers, once silenced, are effectively erased from the narrative. Patterns of abuse continue, protected by layers of legal language and institutional inertia. Journalists investigating misconduct in higher education—including those of us at The Higher Education Inquirer—frequently encounter potential sources who decline to speak on the record due to NDAs. The agreements don’t just silence individuals—they distort the historical and ethical record.

The use of NDAs also undermines government oversight. Agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education rely on insiders to report fraud and abuse related to Title IV funding. But when those insiders are bound by NDAs, they are forced to weigh the public interest against the threat of lawsuits. In this way, NDAs shield not only bad actors but also fraudulent systems that disproportionately harm students from working-class, Black, and Brown communities.

Legislative responses have so far been piecemeal. A few states have passed laws restricting NDAs in sexual misconduct settlements, but these measures rarely address the broader use of NDAs in cases of fraud, labor violations, or institutional abuse. Nor do they cover students, faculty, or contractors who are pressured into silence outside of formal settlements.

We need stronger federal protections for whistleblowers in education. We need laws that prohibit the use of NDAs by institutions that receive public funds. Accrediting bodies must stop ignoring the use of legal intimidation as a governance practice. And we need a cultural shift in higher education—a collective refusal to treat silence as professionalism.

As someone who once signed away my voice under legal pressure, I understand the fear and isolation that NDAs produce. But I also believe that silence, when coerced, is not consent—it’s complicity enforced by power. And in a system as dependent on public trust and democratic ideals as education, that silence comes at a cost we can no longer afford to ignore.

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.

The Functional Poverty of US Higher Education

In 1971, sociologist Herbert J. Gans published The Positive Functions of Poverty, a provocative essay that argued poverty persists not due to a lack of solutions, but because it benefits powerful institutions. Over fifty years later, his thesis haunts U.S. higher education, which does not merely reflect inequality but actively relies on it. The system functions less as an engine of mobility and more as a mechanism for managing and monetizing the poor.

Today, poverty is not an accident of the US higher education system—it is a prerequisite for its operation.

Poverty as Institutional Legitimacy

Colleges and universities frequently promote themselves as pathways out of poverty, showcasing stories of Pell Grant recipients and first-generation students to validate their missions. These narratives help secure federal funding, private donations, and political goodwill. Yet the vast majority of poor students never cross the commencement stage. Instead, their presence serves to bolster institutional credibility while masking the reality of systemic failure.

Programs like TRIO, GEAR UP, and Promise scholarships function not to eliminate poverty, but to manage it. They offer modest hope while ensuring the system continues undisturbed.

Poor Students as a Revenue Stream

The financial foundation of higher education rests heavily on low-income students. For-profit colleges, many of them reincarnated under new branding or partnerships, depend almost entirely on federal aid and student loans tied to impoverished enrollees. These institutions aggressively recruit students with big promises and deliver little in return. Graduation rates remain dismal, while student debt mounts.

Private student lenders have filled the remaining gaps left by federal aid caps and rising tuition. Fintech platforms like SoFi, College Ave, and Earnest offer loans with complex terms and minimal consumer protections, particularly to vulnerable students desperate for access. For many borrowers, this creates a lifetime of indebtedness for a credential that may never yield a return.

The Administrative Industry of Poverty

A burgeoning sector of higher education administration is devoted to managing the symptoms of poverty. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices—now under political assault—often oversee food banks, mental health outreach, and “resilience” programming for first-gen students. Meanwhile, a growing HR specialty has emerged to “track and support” the poor.

These staffers may act with sincere intention, but their existence also reveals the transactional nature of institutional concern. Without poor students to manage, their roles—and the bureaucracies behind them—would shrink. Food insecurity and academic struggle have become normalized to the point that colleges maintain food pantries as a permanent feature of campus life.

Exploiting the Educated Underclass

As sociologist Gary Roth has observed, higher education produces a surplus of credentialed workers with no corresponding demand. These graduates, often from poor backgrounds, return to campus as adjunct faculty, graduate assistants, or gig workers—essential but expendable.

Their labor sustains the system at low cost. They teach core courses, staff libraries, and support faculty research while earning poverty wages themselves. The promise of education becomes a loop of unfulfilled mobility.

Poor Students as Research Subjects

Low-income students are not only sources of revenue and labor—they are also the subjects of academic research. Entire disciplines, from sociology to education and public health, have been built upon the study of poverty. Yet few researchers challenge the institutional structures that perpetuate the very inequalities they document.

Faculty careers flourish. Tenure is won. Grants are secured. The students themselves often see no tangible benefit from this knowledge production.

Reinforcing the Myth of Meritocracy

Elite universities use a handful of poor students to validate the myth of meritocracy. These “success stories” are amplified through PR campaigns, donor appeals, and glossy admissions brochures. They function as symbolic proof that the system works—even as the vast majority of poor students are shunted into lower-tier institutions with fewer resources and worse outcomes.

The truth is clear: wealth remains the strongest predictor of educational success in the United States.

Stratification by Design

The U.S. higher education system is structured to reproduce class hierarchy. Community colleges and regional public universities disproportionately enroll poor and working-class students. Flagship publics and elite privates cater to the children of the professional and ruling classes.

This credentialing hierarchy maintains social order while offering just enough upward mobility to justify its existence.

Political Utility: Blame the Poor

When institutions face financial shortfalls or declining enrollment, they often scapegoat the poor. Students are labeled unprepared, unmotivated, or emotionally fragile. Rarely are structural causes—such as rising tuition, defunded public services, or predatory loan systems—acknowledged.

Neoliberal reforms and conservative attacks on “woke” education continue to target vulnerable populations, obscuring the institutional failures that drive inequity.

Private Equity and the Monetization of Student Housing

One of the latest frontiers in the commodification of poverty within higher education is campus-adjacent real estate. Private equity (PE) firms are aggressively acquiring student housing near flagship state universities, turning basic shelter into another site of financial extraction.

Evidence of PE Expansion:
Private equity firms such as Investcorp, Rockpoint, and KKR have amassed significant portfolios of student housing near schools like the University of Florida, University of Texas at Austin, and College of Charleston. These acquisitions are not random—they target institutions with large, stable enrollment and limited new housing supply.

Rents on the Rise:
In cities like Tampa, rents increased by 49% from 2019 to 2023—a jump partly attributed to institutional investors, although the exact role of PE firms in driving this increase is contested. Still, anecdotal reports and advocacy groups point to rising rents, increased fees, and aggressive management practices following PE takeovers.

Housing Scarcity as Leverage:
While it's difficult to isolate private equity's influence from broader housing shortages and enrollment growth, it's clear that PE is exploiting structural constraints—just as for-profit colleges exploit financial aid loopholes. Where public universities fail to build sufficient housing, private investors step in, profiting from desperation.

A System That Needs Poverty

Herbert Gans argued that poverty survives because it serves essential functions for society’s powerful institutions. In American higher education, this dynamic is not theoretical—it is lived reality. Colleges and universities don’t just educate the poor; they extract value from them at every level.

From student loans and real estate speculation to adjunct labor and administrative bloat, the system is built around managing—not eradicating—poverty.

Until higher education confronts its own complicity in perpetuating structural inequality, it will remain what it is today: an industry that feeds on hope, and thrives on hardship.

Sources
Gans, Herbert J. “The Positive Functions of Poverty.” American Journal of Sociology, 1971.
Roth, Gary. The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press, 2019.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
U.S. Department of Education, College Scorecard
Private Equity Stakeholder Project
RealPage Analytics
Advocacy reports on student housing and rent inflation
Higher Education Inquirer FOIA research files