Does China Need US Universities for Its Elite Students?

For decades, U.S. universities have served as the finishing school for China’s elite. Children of Communist Party officials, wealthy businesspeople, and top scientists have often ended up at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, or the Ivy League, polishing their English and acquiring the cultural capital necessary for global finance, diplomacy, and technology. At the same time, thousands of middle-class Chinese families have made enormous financial sacrifices to send their children abroad, betting on an American degree as a ticket to upward mobility.

But the question today is whether China still needs U.S. universities to educate its elite.

Shifting Global Power Dynamics

The rise of China’s own research universities has complicated the old narrative. Institutions such as Tsinghua University and Peking University now rank among the top in the world in science, engineering, and AI research. China produces more STEM graduates annually than any other country, and its funding for science and technology rivals that of the U.S. While U.S. universities still command prestige, their monopoly on global academic excellence has weakened.

Politics and National Security

Relations between Washington and Beijing have soured, and U.S. policymakers increasingly view Chinese students as potential security risks. Visa restrictions on STEM fields, FBI investigations into Chinese scholars, and rhetoric about intellectual property theft have chilled the academic exchange. For Chinese elites, the risks of having children in the U.S. — politically and reputationally — are higher than in the 1990s or 2000s.

Yet at the same time, political figures like Donald Trump have openly courted the financial benefits of Chinese enrollment. Trump has said that China can send 600,000 students to the United States — a number that would far exceed current levels — underscoring the contradiction between security anxieties and the revenue-driven priorities of American higher education.

Meanwhile, China has invested heavily in partnerships with Europe, Singapore, and even African nations to build alternative networks of elite education. For some families, sending a child to Oxford or ETH Zurich carries less geopolitical baggage than Harvard or MIT.

The Prestige Factor

Yet prestige is not easily replicated. An Ivy League degree still carries enormous weight, especially in global finance, law, and diplomacy. American universities remain unmatched in their ability to offer “soft power” — connections, cultural fluency, and credibility in international markets. For Chinese elites with ambitions beyond national borders, U.S. universities still provide networking opportunities that cannot be fully duplicated in Beijing, Shanghai, or Shenzhen.

China’s Billionaires Build Private Universities to Challenge Stanford

In recent years, a number of China’s wealthiest business leaders have begun pouring billions into the creation of new private universities. Their ambitions are not modest: to build research institutions that can compete directly with the world’s most elite schools—Stanford, MIT, Oxford, and Harvard.

At first glance, such aspirations sound quixotic. Building a university brand that rivals Stanford typically takes a century of reputation, research, and networking. Yet, in China, examples already exist to show that rapid ascent is possible.

Westlake and Geely as Proof-of-Concept

Westlake University, founded in Hangzhou just seven years ago by leading biologists, is already outperforming global top 100 schools in specific fields, including the University of Sydney and the University of North Carolina. Its model—deep pockets, aggressive recruitment of top scientists, and a narrow focus on high-impact fields—demonstrates that prestige can be manufactured in years rather than generations.

Geely Automotive Group, meanwhile, established its own university to train engineers, feeding talent directly into one of the world’s largest car manufacturers. Today, Geely ranks among the ten biggest automakers worldwide, with its university playing a central role in workforce development.

A Stanford Model with Chinese Characteristics

The parallel to Stanford is intentional. Stanford thrived not only because of academic excellence but because it was embedded in Silicon Valley, benefiting from venture capital, defense contracts, and a culture of entrepreneurship. China’s industrialists are attempting something similar: building universities adjacent to industrial clusters and pairing them with massive R&D investments.

For billionaires, these institutions serve dual purposes: they act as innovation engines and as political insurance policies. In an era when Beijing has cracked down on tech moguls and capital excesses, aligning one’s fortune with education and national advancement offers a form of protection.

Political Constraints and Academic Freedom

The long-term question is whether these billionaire-founded institutions can sustain the openness and intellectual risk-taking that has characterized Stanford and MIT. While China’s system excels in applied sciences and technology, political controls may limit innovation in social sciences and fields that thrive on dissent, debate, and unconventional thinking.

Still, if the aim is dominance in biotech, engineering, AI, and materials science, the model may succeed. In fact, Westlake’s rapid climb already suggests mid-tier Western universities could soon find themselves leapfrogged by Chinese institutions less than a decade old.

A Changing Balance

So, does China need U.S. universities for its elite? The answer is complicated.

• Yes, for families who want global reach, especially in finance, technology entrepreneurship, and diplomacy. The cultural capital of an American education still matters.

• No, for families satisfied with domestic prestige and security. China’s own universities — both traditional public institutions and billionaire-backed ventures — increasingly provide sufficient training for leadership roles.

What is clear is that U.S. universities can no longer assume a steady flow of Chinese elite students. The market has shifted, the politics have hardened, and the prestige gap has narrowed. For American higher education, already struggling with enrollment cliffs and financial strain, this shift could have serious consequences.

---

Sources:

• Institute of International Education, Open Doors Report

• Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), “Chinese STEM Students in the U.S.”

• Times Higher Education World University Rankings

• South China Morning Post, Why China’s super-rich are spending billions to set up universities

• Guangming Daily, Hello, Westlake University

• CGTN, Westlake University established in Hangzhou

• Geely Automotive Group, Overview

• KE Press Global, China's Billionaires Are Building Universities to Drive Innovation and Stay Politically Favorable

Universities (and Thousands of International Students) Gaming the Visa System

We are following a story first exposed by two Bloomberg journalists about universities that are taking unfair advantage of the US visa system. The program is called Day 1 CPT. 

The CPT (Curricular Practical Training) program has been around for decades, but has evolved over time to give foreigners the ability to work immediately in the US. The student visa system is managed by the Immigration and Custom Enforcement's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). A 244 page list of the certified schools is here.

According to the Bloomberg article, "By exploiting a federal on-the-job-training rule, people from India, China and elsewhere can work full time while completing most classes online and showing up in person only a few times a year."

The article listed Harrisburg University of Science and Technology (Pennsylvania-Middle States), University of the Cumberlands (Kentucky-SACS), Trine University (Indiana, Michigan,Virginia-HLC), Campbellsville University (Kentucky, California, Illinois, Florida-SACS), Westcliff University (California-WSCUC), and New England College (New Hampshire-NECHE). All of these colleges and universities in the Bloomberg article are regionally accredited. 

Other Schools that Issue Day 1 CPT Visas

HEI has located a number of other schools that issue Day1 CPT visas: Sofia University (California), Saint Peter's University (New Jersey), McDaniel College (Maryland), Monroe College (New York), Sullivan University (Kentucky), National Louis University (Illinois, Florida), Dallas Baptist University (Texas), California Institute of Advanced Management (California), Tennessee Wesleyan University (Tennessee), Humphreys University (California), International Technical University (California), Ottawa University (Kansas, Arizona, Wisconsin),  Computer Systems Institute (Illinois, Massachusetts), St. Francis College (New York), University of Fairfax (Virginia), and American National University (Virginia).

The F-1 Student Visa System  

The US issues more than 400,000 F-1 student visas each year, but the number that are Day 1 CPT visas is unknown--because Day 1 CPT visas are not issued directly by the government. Instead, they are authorized by the Designated School Official (DSO) at the student's university. 

While the actual authorization for Day 1 CPT is typically handled by the Designated School Official (DSO) at the student's university, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) sets the overall guidelines and regulations governing the program.

The number of Day 1 CPT visas issued each year depends on the number of students enrolled in eligible programs at universities that offer Day 1 CPT and the number of those students who meet the eligibility criteria and apply for work authorization.  

For some, this gets an untold number of foreigners the opportunity to game the system: getting to work immediately in the US while waiting to win the visa lottery.  And when some win, they quit going to school.  

Larger Questions of Fairness and Justice

Bloomberg indicated that this legal (but questionable) visa scheme began in 2014, but did not mention whether the students' employers were complicit or actively involved in gaming the system. 

They also failed to mention the much larger issue of the federal government issuing so many F-1 student visas, while large numbers of American born students are denied access to state universities and private schools that receive federal funds. 

F-1 visa holders also compete with domestic students for good jobs after graduation, potentially leading to lower wages and reduced opportunities for U.S. citizens.

College Meltdown 2.0

College Meltdown 2.0 is distinctly different than the College Meltdown that started in 2010. 

The first wave of the College Meltdown (2010-2021) resulted in a slow and steady drop in overall US college enrollment, with dramatic losses among for-profit colleges and community colleges. Corinthian Colleges, ITT Educational Services, and Education Management Corporation were three large for-profit chains to close. Small private liberal arts schools and regional universities also experienced losses.  More folks were moving into the growing educated underclass.  

Elements of College Meltdown 2.0 include publicly held corporations.  Click on the image to see the chart (Source: Seeking Alpha) 

College Meltdown 2.0 comes as the Coronavirus becomes more manageable.  However US fascism continues to advance, student loan debt is slowly approaching $2 trillion, and the 2026 enrollment cliff is just a few years away.  This new wave includes remnants of for-profit colleges like National American University, Stratford University, South University, the Art Institutes, University of Phoenix (owned by Apollo Global Management), Career Education Corporation (aka Perdoceo), and DeVry University (owned by Cogswell Education) as well as national accreditor ACICS. 

The largest element of College Meltdown 2.0 is federal student loan debt, which appears to be rising to an unsustainable level--as it hamstrings the lives of millions of families.  When mandatory student loan payments resume (scheduled for May 1), long-term default rates may range from 30 and 50 percent.  It also appears that at least $500 billion of the Federal Student Aid (FSA) student loan portfolio will be unrecoverable.  

College Meltdown 2.0 also involves online program managers (OPMs) that service elite schools (2U), regional universities (Academic Partnerships), and subprime robocolleges (Zovio-University of Arizona Global and Graham Holdings-Kaplan-Purdue University Global). 

Student loan servicers and private student loan companies (Maximus, Navient, Sallie Mae, Nelnet), publishers and other edtech enterprises (EducationDynamics, Chegg, Barnes & Noble Education, Coursera, and Guild Education) are implicated or at least entangled in the mess.  Higher education accreditors and student loan asset-backed securities (SLABS) are also worth monitoring.  

Related link: 2U Virus Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities

Related link: How University of Phoenix Failed. It's a Long Story. But It's Important for the Future of Higher Education.

Related link: The Colbeck Scandal (South University and the Art Institutes)

Related link: Navient and the Zombie SLABS Meltdown (Bill Harrington*)

Related link: The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

Related link: Coursera IPO Reveals Bleak Future for Global Labor

Related link: Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs

Moolenaar, Walberg Call on Duke to Terminate China-Based Campus Over National Security Risks (House Select Committee on China)

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Moolenaar, Walberg Call on Duke to Terminate China-Based Campus Over National Security Risks

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Select Committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) are calling on Duke University President Vincent Price to end the Duke Kunshan University (DKU) in China. Through its partnership with Chinese entities, DKU enabled the CCP to access sensitive U.S. technology, including Department of Defense-funded research into advanced camera systems—now used to surveil Tiananmen Square and track millions of people across China. The university has also allowed American students to be exploited in CCP propaganda and showcases imagery of DKU students participating in military-style training on its website. This partnership raises serious concerns about research security, academic freedom, technology transfer, and the manipulation of U.S. students for authoritarian purposes. In their letter, Moolenaar and Walberg write: “DKU, established in 2018 in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), now enrolls over 3,000 students across undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs and specializes in high-technology fields with direct military applications, including data science, artificial intelligence, and materials science. As part of these programs, many DKU students spend time at Duke University, gaining access to federally funded U.S. research. Given the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) well-documented efforts to exploit academic openness, this partnership creates a direct pipeline between U.S. innovation and China’s military-industrial complex…" “…Students were coached to recite “I love China” in Mandarin on camera, while others were repeatedly pressed to “sa[y] what they wanted [students] to say” about Chinese climate policies. Students described feeling “used” as part of a “traveling circus” that was “paraded in front of local press”—their faces later appearing on state media. This was not education but exploitation: a calculated component of Xi Jinping’s “50,000 Initiative” with “no genuine cultural exchange.” Your university’s partnership with Wuhan University directly facilitated the use of these American students as pawns for CCP propaganda." Additional Background: DKU was established as a joint institute between Duke and Wuhan University in 2018.  Wuhan University conducts research in at least five designated defense research areas, trains People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cyber warfare specialists, and plays a central role in China’s Beidou satellite system, which supports missile guidance and military intelligence operations. In February, Duke student Jacqueline Cole wrote an article for the North Carolina news site The Assembly detailing how she and her fellow students were used for CCP propaganda purposes during a DKU-sponsored trip to China. Finally, in a report released in September of 2024, titled “CCP on the Quad,” the House Select Committee on China and the House Education and Workforce Committee listed 21 American universities that have STEM focused joint institutes with Chinese universities. The report identified concerns about Defense Department funded research furthering the PRC's national security goals in areas including high-performance explosives, drone operation networks, nuclear and high-energy physics, artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and hypersonics. So far, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of California -Berkeley, the University of Michigan, and Oakland University are universities named in the report that have ended their joint institutes.

Campus closures, mergers, cuts, and crises at the start of 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

How are colleges and universities responding to financial pressures?

Today, while Trump continues to flood the zone, I want to establish a sense of what the higher education baseline was before he cut loose.  As the new administration goes even more energetically after academia I’d like to share some data about our sector’s standing.

Last year I tracked cuts and crises afflicting dozens of campuses.  I posted roughly every months, noting program cuts, institutional mergers, and campus closures, as well as financial crises likely to cause same: March 1, March 20, March 28, April, May, June, July, September, November. Today I’ll continue that line for the reasons I’ve previously given: to document key stories in higher education; to witness human suffering; to point to possible directions for academia to take.  In addition, I want to help paint a picture of the world Trump is starting to attack.

Some caveats: I’m doing this in haste, between the political chaos and a stack of professional deadlines, which means the following will be more telegraphic than usual.  I may well have missed some stories, so please let me know in comments.

Closing colleges and universities

Philadelphia’s University of the Arts closed in 2024. Now different actors are angling for its physical remains.  Temple University purchased an iconic building, Quadro Bay bought another, and while more bids appear.

Mergers

Gannon University (Catholic, Pennsylvania) and Ursuline College (Catholic, Ohio) agreed to merge by this December.  The idea is to synthesize complementary academic offers and provide institutional stability, it seems.

Seattle University (Jesuit, Washington state) and the Cornish College of the Arts (private, Washington) also agreed to merge.  As with the Lake Erie schools, one motivation is to expand curricular offerings:

Emily Parkhust, Cornish’s interim president, said the deal opens new doors for the tiny school’s nearly 500 students.

“This strategic combination will allow our students opportunities that we simply weren’t able to offer and provide at a small arts college,” she said. “Such as the opportunity to take business classes, computer courses, pursue master’s degree programs, engage in college sports — and even swim in a pool.”

Financial problems also played a role: “Cornish declared it was undergoing a financial emergency in 2020, and this year, Seattle University paused hiring as it faces a $7.5 million deficit.”

The Universidad Andres Bello (Universidad Andrés Bello; private, Chile) purchased Post University (for-profit, Connecticut).

Campuses cutting programs and jobs

In this series I’ve largely focused on the United States for the usual reasons: the sheer size and complexity of the sector; limited time. But in my other writing I’ve noted the epochal crisis hitting Canadian higher education, as the nation’s decision to cut international enrollment has struck institutional finances.   Tony Bates offers a good backgrounder.  Alex Usher’s team set up an excellent website tracking the resulting retrenchment.

British higher education is also suffering, partly for the reasons that nation’s economy is hurting: negative effects of Brexit, energy problems stemming from the Ukraine war, and political fecklessness. For one example I find the University of Hull (public research) which is combining 17 schools into 11 and ending its chemistry program, all for financial reasons. Cardiff University (Prifysgol Caerdydd; public research) cut 400 full time jobs, also for financial reasons:

Vice-Chancellor Professor Wendy Larner defended the decision to cut jobs, saying the university would have become “untenable” without drastic reforms.

The job role cuts are only a proposal, she said, but insisted the university needed to “take difficult decisions” due to the declining international student applications and increasing cost pressures.

Prof Larner said the university is not alone in its financial struggles, with most UK universities grappling with the “broken” funding system.

Back in the United States, Sonoma State University (public university, part of California State University system) announced a massive series of cuts.

“approximately 46 university faculty – both tenured and adjunct – will receive notice that their contracts will not be renewed for 2025-26. Additional lecturers will receive notice that no work will be available in fall 2025… Four management positions and 12 staff positions also will be eliminated.”

The university will shut down a group of departments: “Art History, Economics; Geology; Philosophy; Theater and Dance; and Women and Gender Studies.”

(These are the kind of cuts I’ve referred to as “queen sacrifices,” desperate moves to cut a school’s way to survival.  The term comes from chess, where a player can give up their most powerful piece, the queen. In my analogy tenured faculty represent that level of relative power.)

There will be some consolidation (“The college also plans to merge the Ethnic Studies departments (American Multicultural Studies, Chicano and Latino Studies, and Native American Studies) into one department with one major”) along with ending a raft of programs:

Administrative Services Credential in ELSE; Art History BA; Art Studio BFA; Dance BA; Earth and Environmental Sciences BA; Economics BA; Education Leadership MA; English MA; French BA; Geology BS; German Minor; Global Studies BA; History MA; Interdisciplinary Studies BA; Interdisciplinary Studies MA; Philosophy BA; Physical Science BA; Physics BA; Physics BS; Public Administration MPA; Spanish MA; Theatre Arts BA; Women and Gender Studies BA.

Additionally, and unusually, SSU is also ending student athletics: “The University will be removing NCAA Division II athletics entirely, involving some 11 teams in total.”

What lies behind these cuts?  My readers will not be surprised to learn that enrollment decline plays a role, but might be shocked by the decline’s size: “SSU has experienced a 38% decrease in enrollment.”

More cuts: St. Norbert College (Catholic, liberal arts, Wisconsin) is planning to cut faculty and its theology department. (I posted about an earlier round of cuts there  in 2024.)  Columbia College Chicago (private, arts) will terminate faculty and academic programs.  Portland State University (Oregon) ended contracts for a group of non-tenure-track faculty.

The University of New Orleans (public research) will cut $2.2 million of administration and staff.

The University of Connecticut (public, land grant) is working on closing roughly two dozen academic programs.  According to one account, they include:

master’s degrees in international studies, medieval studies, survey research and educational technology; graduate certificates in adult learning, literacy supports, digital media and design, dementia care, life story practice, addiction science and survey research; a sixth-year certificate in educational technology, and a doctoral degree in medieval studies.

It’s not clear if those terminations will lead to faculty and staff reductions.

Budget crises, programs cut, not laying off people yet

There are also stories of campuses facing financial pressures which haven’t resulted in cuts, mergers, or closures so far, but could lead to those. Saint Augustine’s University (historically black, South Carolina) is struggling to get approval for a campus leasing deal, while moving classes online “to take care of deferred maintenance issues.”  SAU has been facing controversies and financial challenges for nearly a generation.

The president of another HBCU, Tennessee State University, stated that they would run out of money by this spring.  That Higher Ed Dive article notes:

TSU’s financial troubles are steep and immediate. An FAQ page on the university’s website acknowledges that the financial condition has reached crisis levels stemming from missed enrollment targets and operating deficits. This fall, the university posted a projected deficit of $46 million by the end of the fiscal year.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education agreed to hear an accreditation appeal from Keystone College (private, Pennsylvania), while that campus struggles:

From the top of Keystone’s web page right now.

The board of William Jewell University (private liberal arts, Missouri) declared financial exigency.  This gives them emergency powers to act. As the official statement put it, the move “enables reallocation of resources, restructuring of academic programs and scholarships and significant reductions in force.”

Brown University (private research university, Rhode Island) is grappling with a $46 million deficit “that would grow to more than $90 million,” according to provost Francis J. Doyle III and Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham.  No cuts are in the offing, although restraining growth is the order of the day. In addition, there’s a plan to increase one sort of program for revenue:

the university will work to “continue to grow master’s [program] revenue, ultimately doubling the number of residential master’s students and increasing online learners to 2,000 in five years.”

KQED reports that other California State University campuses are facing financial stresses, notably Cal State East Bay and San Francisco State University.  The entire CSU system and the University of California system each face massive cuts from the state’s governor.

Reflections

Nearly all of this is occurring before the second Trump administration began its work. Clearly parts of the American post-secondary ecosystem are suffering financially and in terms of enrollment.

It’s important to bear in mind that each school’s trajectory is distinct from the others in key ways. Each has its history, its conditions, its competing strategies, resources, micropolitics, and so on. Each one deserves more exploration than I have time for in this post.

At the same time I think we can make the case that broader national trends are also at work. Operating costs rise for a clutch of reasons (consumer inflation, American health care’s shambles, deferred maintenance being a popular practice, some high compensation practices, etc) and push hard on some budgets. Enrollment continues to be a challenge (I will return to this topic in a future post). The Trump administration does not seem likely to ameliorate those concerns.

Note, too, that many of the institutions I’ve touched on here are not first tier campuses. The existence of some may be news to some readers. As a result, they tend not to get much media attention nor to attract resources.   It is important, though, to point them out if we want to think beyond academia’s deep hierarchical structures.

Last note: this post has focused on statistics and bureaucracy, but these are all stories about real human beings.  The lives of students, faculty, staff and those in surrounding communities are all impacted.  Don’t lose sight of that fact or of these people.

(Seattle University photo by Michael & Sherry Martin; thanks to Karen B on Bluesky, Karen Bellnier otherwise, Mo Pelzel, Peter Shea, and Siva Vaidhyanathan for links; thanks to IHE for doing a solid job of covering these stories)

[Editor's note: This story first appeared at BryanAlexander.org on February 10, 2025] 

National Survey Finds Strong Faculty Support for Free Speech, Diverse Viewpoints, and Civil Discourse in the Classroom Amid an Alarming Decline in Academic Freedom (AAC&U)

Washington, DC—The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) today released the results of a national survey of faculty perceptions and experiences related to academic freedom and civil discourse in higher education. Funded by the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and conducted in partnership with the American Association of University Professors and NORC at the University of Chicago, the survey was administered online and included faculty of all ranks and disciplines at public and private, two-year and four-year institutions throughout the United States.

The survey found clear evidence that faculty value diverse student perspectives, encourage civil discourse among students, and support free speech in the classroom. Moreover, faculty see educational value in classroom discussions of controversial topics or issues and do not support censoring course materials. Overall, however, the survey results point to a recent and ongoing decline in academic freedom across American higher education—a decline perceived by more than a third of all faculty members across a wide variety of indicators.

Faculty today are concerned about growing restrictions on their academic freedom and worry that expressing their views freely may lead to online harassment or professional repercussions. In the current climate, faculty are less willing to address controversial topics and more likely to self-censor. The survey also found evidence of a chilling effect produced by the spread of legislative restrictions, enacted since 2021, on the teaching, learning, and discussion of so-called “divisive concepts” related to race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and American history.

“Without the academic freedom to explore significant and controversial questions, higher education’s mission of advancing knowledge and educating students for work, life, and citizenship cannot be fulfilled,” said AAC&U President Lynn Pasquerella. “The results of this national survey provide the most compelling evidence yet of the significant and alarming erosion of academic freedom across American higher education. The findings should serve as a wake-up call for campus leaders, policymakers, and anyone who understands the vital role higher education plays in improving the lives of individuals and communities, driving innovation and economic growth, and sustaining our democracy.”

Selected Findings

• More than 1 in 3 faculty say they have less academic freedom today when it comes to teaching content without any interference (35%), speaking freely as citizens (36%), and speaking freely when participating in institutional governance (38%).
• More than half (53%) are concerned about their ability to express what they believe as scholars to be correct statements about the world and worry that their beliefs or activities as faculty members may make them targets of online harassment.
• Significant percentages of faculty have faced restrictions on what they can say in faculty and department meetings (36%) or on social media (33%) and what they teach in their courses (24%).
• 52% of faculty have altered the language in something they have written in order to avoid controversy; most refrain from using terms or words they believe might be perceived as offensive by their students (62%), by administrators (57%), by other faculty members (57%), or by institutional staff (54%).
• 53% believe classroom discussion of controversial topics or issues should be encouraged and should occur frequently because of its educational value.
• 93% believe faculty should intentionally invite student perspectives from all sides of an issue.
• 57% encourage mutually respectful disagreement among the students in their courses either “quite a bit” or “a great deal,” and 70% believe that the amount of mutually respectful disagreement among their students is “about right.”
• Just 12% believe classroom discussions should be halted if views are expressed that some students feel causes harm to certain groups of people, and just 5% believe a required reading or other assignment should be dropped if it includes such views.

“Our hope is that this study inspires, in equal measure, both reflection and action across higher education,” said the report’s coauthor, Ashley Finley, Vice President for Research and Senior Advisor to the President at AAC&U. “Though colleges and universities may lack influence over legislative actions, there is much collective power in their ability to address faculty mental health, encourage respectful discourse within and beyond the classroom, and invite thoughtful debate about the meaning and applications of academic freedom within institutions.”

A full report on the findings is available for download at www.aacu.org/academicfreedom.

The survey was conducted online between December 7, 2023, and February 12, 2024, by NORC at the University of Chicago. The survey sample included 164,815 individuals who, during the preceding twelve-month period, had instructional duties and/or served in a faculty role at a two- or four-year public or private college or university in the United States.

The survey instrument was developed under the guidance of a national advisory group: Samuel Abrams, Sarah Lawrence College; Cory Clark, University of Pennsylvania; Jonathan Friedman, PEN America; Isaac Kamola, Trinity College; April Kelly, Elizabethtown College; Frederick Lawrence, Phi Beta Kappa; Kenann McKenzie-DeFranza, Gordon College; Demetri Morgan, Loyola University Chicago; and Andrew Seligsohn, Public Agenda.

About AAC&U

The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is a global membership organization dedicated to advancing the democratic purposes of higher education by promoting equity, innovation, and excellence in liberal education. Through our programs and events, publications and research, public advocacy, and campus-based projects, AAC&U serves as a catalyst and facilitator for innovations that improve educational quality and equity and that support the success of all students. In addition to accredited public and private, two-year and four-year colleges and universities, and state higher education systems and agencies throughout the United States, our membership includes degree-granting higher education institutions around the world as well as other organizations and individuals. To learn more, visit www.aacu.org.

National Day of Mourning: Higher Education’s Long Reckoning With Indigenous Oppression

[Editor's note: United American Indians of New England host the National Day of Mourning. Their website is at United American Indians of New England - UAINE.]

Each November, while much of the United States celebrates Thanksgiving, Indigenous communities and their allies gather in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and across the country for the National Day of Mourning. It is a day that confronts the mythology of national innocence and replaces it with historical clarity. For Higher Education Inquirer, the significance of this day extends directly into the heart of American higher education—a system built, in no small part, on the expropriation of Indigenous land, the exploitation of Native Peoples, and the continued structural racism that shapes their educational opportunities today.

From the earliest colonial colleges to the flagship research institutions of the twenty-first century, U.S. higher education has never been separate from the project of settler colonialism. It has been one of its instruments.

Land, Wealth, and the Origins of the University

America’s oldest colleges—Harvard, Yale, William & Mary, Dartmouth—were founded within the colonial order that dispossessed Indigenous communities. While missionary language framed some of these institutions’ early purposes, they operated through an extractive logic: the seizure of land, the conversion of cultural worlds, and, eventually, the accumulation of immense academic wealth.

The Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890 expanded this pattern on a national scale. Recent research documented by the “Land-Grab Universities” project shows that nearly eleven million acres of Indigenous land—taken through coercive treaties, forced removal, or outright theft—were funneled into endowments for public universities. Students today walk across campuses financed by displacements their own institutions have yet to fully acknowledge, let alone remedy.

Higher Education as an Arm of Assimilation

The United States also used education as a tool for forced assimilation. The Indian boarding school system, with the Carlisle Industrial School as its model, operated in partnership with federal officials, church agencies, and academic institutions. Native children were taken from their families, stripped of their languages, and subjected to relentless cultural destruction.

Universities contributed research, training, and personnel to this system, embedding the logic of “civilizing” Indigenous Peoples into the academy’s structure. That legacy endures in curricula that minimize Indigenous knowledge systems and in institutional cultures that prize Eurocentric epistemologies as default.

Scientific Racism, Anthropology, and the Theft of Ancestors

American universities played a central role in producing scientific racism. Anthropologists and medical researchers collected Indigenous remains, objects, and sacred items without consent. Museums and university labs became repositories for thousands of ancestors—often obtained through grave robberies, military campaigns, or opportunistic scholarship.

The 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was designed to force institutions to return ancestors and cultural patrimony. Yet decades later, many universities are still out of compliance, delaying repatriation while continuing to benefit from the research collections they amassed through violence.

Contemporary Structural Racism in Higher Education

The oppression is not confined to history. Structural racism continues to constrain Native Peoples in higher education today.

Native students remain among the most underrepresented and under-supported groups on American campuses. Chronic underfunding of Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) reflects a broader political disregard for Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Meanwhile, elite institutions recruit Native students for marketing purposes while failing to invest in retention, community support, or Indigenous faculty hiring.

Some universities have begun implementing land acknowledgments, but these symbolic gestures have little impact when institutions refuse to confront their material obligations: returning land, committing long-term funding to Indigenous programs, or restructuring governance to include tribal representatives.

What a Real Reckoning Would Require

A genuine response to the National Day of Mourning would require far more than statements of solidarity. It would involve confronting the ways American higher education continues to profit from dispossession and the ways Native students continue to bear disproportionate burdens—from tuition to cultural isolation to the racist violence that still occurs on and around campuses.

Real accountability would include:

• Full compliance with NAGPRA and expedited repatriation.
• Transparent reporting of land-grant wealth and the return or shared governance of those lands.
• Stable, meaningful funding for TCUs.
• Hiring, tenure, and research policies that center Indigenous scholarship and sovereignty.
• Long-term institutional commitments—financial, curricular, and political—to Indigenous communities.

These steps require institutions to shift from performative recognition to structural transformation.

A Day of Mourning—And a Call to Action

The National Day of Mourning is not merely a counter-holiday. It is a reminder that the United States was founded on violence against Native Peoples—and that its colleges and universities were not passive beneficiaries but active participants in that violence.

For higher education leaders, faculty, and students, the question is no longer whether these histories are real or whether they matter. They are documented. They are ongoing. They matter profoundly.

The real question is what institutions are willing to give up—land, power, wealth, or narrative control—to support Indigenous liberation.

On this National Day of Mourning, HEI honors the truth that Indigenous survival is an act of resistance, and Indigenous sovereignty is not a symbolic aspiration but an overdue demand. The future of higher education must move through that truth, not around it.

Sources
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States.
The Land-Grab Universities Project (High Country News & Land-Grab Universities database).
David Treuer, The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee.
Margaret D. Jacobs, A Generation Removed: The Fostering and Adoption of Indigenous Children in the Postwar World.
NAGPRA regulations and compliance reports.

 

If you report on US colleges and universities, get to know these 19 higher education databases

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource

No matter what issue you’re covering on the higher education beat, your story will be stronger if you ground it in high-quality data. Fortunately for journalists, government agencies and academic researchers have gathered data on an array of topics and made it available online for free. You just need to know where to find it.

That’s why we created this tip sheet. It spotlights 19 higher education databases we think you ought to know about. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. We included databases that will help journalists report on some of the most common and pressing higher education issues.

Note that most of these databases are the projects of federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Science Foundation. We’ll update this list periodically. Please bookmark it and share it with colleagues because it’s sure to come in handy.

1. College Navigator

This searchable database, created by the National Center for Education Statistics, provides basic information on nearly 7,000 U.S. colleges and universities. Use it to look up information about an institution’s admission rate, tuition, undergraduate enrollment, academic programs, athletic programs and other characteristics. You can also compare institutions.

The National Center for Education Statistics, commonly referred to as NCES, is part of the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education.

2. DataLab

Journalists can use this online platform, another NCES project, to find detailed information on various topics across K-12 education and higher education. Sift through decades of data that the NCES has collected on college costs, student demographics, student debt, faculty demographics, faculty salaries, student graduation and dropout rates, and other subjects.

DataLab’s Tables Library contains more than 8,000 data tables published by the NCES. Journalists who are comfortable working with data can use the platform’s PowerStats tool to create data visualizations and run linear and logistic regressions.

3. Data.gov

You’ll find thousands of government data sets and data-heavy reports here -- the federal government’s open data site. You can search for education data by location and government agency as well as by topic category and dataset format.

4. Campus Security Data Analysis Cutting Tool

Use this higher education database, maintained by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education, to find information on crime at U.S. colleges and universities that receive federal funding. You can look at three years of statistics for a single school or generate reports to examine trends across schools.

Crimes that institutions report annually to the federal government include murder, aggravated assault, rape, hate crimes, domestic violence, motor vehicle theft and violations of state or local liquor laws. Schools also must report arrests as well as any disciplinary action taken against students accused of certain crimes.

5. Official Cohort Default Rate Search

For student loan default rates, check out this higher education database, which is maintained by Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education. You can search default rates by state, city, institution, institution type and degree program.

6. U.S. Office for Civil Rights pending cases database

This is a national database of K-12 schools, colleges and universities that are being investigated by the federal Office for Civil Rights, a division of the U.S. Department of Education that investigates discrimination complaints. Here you can find information on investigations of alleged Title IX and Title VI violations. Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at K-12 schools, colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin.

7. Healthy Minds Study

This research database houses data collected as part of the Healthy Minds Study, an annual survey that asks college students about their mental health and their school environment, including campus safety, peer support and mental health services. More than 850,000 people at more than 600 colleges and universities have completed the survey since its launch in 2007.

The principal investigators of the Healthy Minds Study are researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles, University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Boston University.

8. CIRCLE

Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement -- commonly known as CIRCLE -- has created several online data tools journalists can use to obtain data for stories about young voters and civic engagement on college campuses. For example, its Youth Voting and Civic Engagement in America data tool allows journalists to examine the voting habits of young adults by state, county or congressional district.

9. Retraction Watch

If you’re looking into allegations of research fraud or misconduct, Retraction Watch can help. It maintains a database of retracted scientific papers that reporters can use to search for retractions connected to a specific researcher, university or research organization. There’s also a user guide. Retraction Watch’s parent organization is the nonprofit Center for Scientific Integrity.

10. Nonprofit Explorer

Use this database, created by ProPublica, to look up tax returns and Form 990 filings for almost 2 million tax-exempt organizations, including non-profit colleges and universities. Form 990 filings contain information on an organization’s annual revenue, sources of revenue, expenses, and the names and salaries of its top executives.

11. Community College Research Center

The Community College Research Center’s website offers a variety of interactive platforms that allow journalists to explore data on U.S. community colleges and their students. For example, one focuses on community college finances during the pandemic. Another focuses on dual enrollment programs, which allow high school students to enroll at local colleges to earn college credits. The Community College Research Center is located at Columbia University.

12. Minority-Serving Institutions Data Project

This project provides data on minority-serving institutions, or MSIs. Some of these colleges and universities were founded specifically to serve racial minorities -- for example, historically Black colleges and universities only served Black students for decades. Many MSIs are historically white institutions where enrollment has grown more racially and ethnically diverse over time.

13. Association of American Medical Colleges

The “Data & Reports” section of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ website offers a variety of reports and datasets on medical school funding, applicants, students, faculty and tuition. It also provides information on topics such as research lab productivity and medical students’ experiences with sexual harassment.

14. American Bar Association

The American Bar Association provides reports and spreadsheets featuring data on U.S. law schools, law school enrollment and law students’ bar passage rates in the “Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar” of its website. It also provides reports on trends related to tuition, student and faculty demographics and student-faculty ratios.

15. College Board

Go to the College Board’s website for data and reports on the SAT college-entrance exam as well as the Advanced Placement program, which provides college-level curricula and exams for use at high schools worldwide. The College Board, a nonprofit organization that administers both, collects and makes public a variety of data on AP exam scores, SAT scores, students who take the AP exam, students who take the SAT and how both programs have grown over time.

16. GI Bill Comparison Tool

Journalists can use this U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs database to compare the GI Bill benefits offered at individual trade schools, higher education institutions and employers across the U.S. The GI Bill helps U.S. military veterans and their family members pay for college or for personal expenses while training for a job.

17. Higher Education Research and Development Survey

Each year, the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics conducts a census of colleges and universities that spend at least $150,000 on research and development. The center, part of the National Science Foundation, publishes data tables and reports on the results of its Higher Education Research and Development Survey. Journalists can use them to find information on how much money institutions have spent doing research in different fields, their sources of research funding and how much schools spent on researcher salaries versus equipment, software and other expenses.

18. EdWorkingPapers

EdWorkingPapers is a searchable database of academic working papers on a variety of K-12 education and higher education topics. Anyone can read these papers for free thanks to this joint project of Brown University’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform and Stanford University’s Systems Change Advancing Learning and Equity initiative.

19. Education Resources Information Center

Commonly referred to as ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center is a searchable database of education research and information found in academic journals, books and government reports. While it’s free to use ERIC, which is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education, journalists might need subscriptions to access many journal articles and book chapters.

This article first appeared on The Journalist's Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The Pritzker Family Paradox: Elite Power, Higher Education, and Political Ambition

          [JB and Penny Pritzker] 

The Pritzker family stands as a symbol of wealth, influence, and access in American public life. From the luxury of Hyatt Hotels to the boardrooms of private equity and the highest ranks of government, their reach extends across economic sectors and institutional spheres. But beneath the carefully managed public image lies a troubling contradiction—one that implicates higher education, for-profit exploitation, and national politics.

Penny Pritzger

Penny Pritzker, a former U.S. Secretary of Commerce and current trustee of Harvard University, has been a key figure in shaping education policy from elite perches. She also had a working relationship with Vistria Group, a private equity firm that now owns the University of Phoenix and Risepoint. These two entities have been central to the subprime college industry—profiting from the hopes of working-class students while delivering poor outcomes and burdensome debt.

Pritzker’s relationship with Vistria runs deeper than simple association. In the late 1990s, she partnered with Vistria co-founder Marty Nesbitt to launch The Parking Spot, a national airport parking venture that brought them both business success and public recognition. When Nesbitt founded Vistria in 2013, he brought with him the experience and elite networks formed during that earlier partnership. Penny Pritzker’s family foundation—Pritzker Traubert—was among the early funders of Vistria, helping to establish its brand as a more “socially conscious” private equity firm. Although she stepped away from any formal role when she joined the Obama administration, her involvement in Vistria’s formation and funding set the stage for the firm’s expansion into sectors like for-profit education and healthcare.

Vistria’s acquisition of the University of Phoenix, and later Risepoint, positioned it as a major player in the privatization of American higher education. The firm continues to profit from schools that promise economic mobility but often deliver student debt and limited job prospects. This is not just a critique of business practices, but a systemic indictment of how elite networks shape education policy, finance, and outcomes.

Penny’s role as a trustee on the Harvard Corporation only sharpens this contradiction. Harvard, a university that markets itself as a global champion of meritocracy and inclusion, remains silent about one of its trustees helping to finance and support a firm that monetizes educational inequality. The governing body has not publicly addressed any potential conflict of interest between her Harvard role and her involvement with Vistria.

JB Pritzger

These contradictions are not limited to Penny. Her brother, J.B. Pritzker, is currently the governor of Illinois and one of the wealthiest elected officials in the country. Though he has no documented personal financial stake in Vistria, his administration has significant ties to the firm. Jesse Ruiz, J.B. Pritzker’s Deputy Governor for Education during his first term, left state government in 2022 to take a top leadership position at Vistria as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer.

This revolving-door dynamic—where a senior education policymaker transitions directly from a progressive administration to a private equity firm profiting from for-profit colleges—underscores the ideological alignment and operational synergy between the Pritzker political machine and firms like Vistria. While the governor publicly champions equity and expanded public education access, his administration’s former top education official is now helping manage legal and compliance operations for a firm that extracts value from struggling students and public loan programs.

J.B. Pritzker has announced plans to run for a third term as governor in 2026, but many observers believe he is positioning himself for a 2028 presidential campaign. His high-profile public appearances, pointed critiques of Donald Trump, and increased visibility in early primary states all suggest a national campaign is being tested. With his vast personal wealth, Pritzker could self-fund a serious run while drawing on elite networks built over decades—networks that include both his sister’s role at Harvard and their shared business and political allies.

Elites in US Higher Education, A Familiar Theme 

What emerges is a deeply American story—one in which the same elite networks shape both the problems and the proposed solutions. The Pritzkers are not alone in this dynamic, but their dual influence in higher education and politics makes them a case study in elite capture. They are architects and beneficiaries of a system in which public office, private equity, and nonprofit institutions converge to consolidate power.

The for-profit education sector continues to exploit regulatory gaps, marketing expensive credentials to desperate individuals while avoiding the scrutiny that traditional nonprofit colleges face. When private equity firms like Vistria acquire troubled institutions, they repackage them, restructure their branding, and keep extracting value from public loan dollars. The government lends, students borrow, and investors profit. The people left behind are those without political clout—low-income students, veterans, working parents—who believed the marketing and now face debt with little return.

Harvard’s silence, University of Phoenix’s reinvention, the rebranding of Academic Partnerships/Risepoint, and J.B. Pritzker’s ambitions all signal a troubling direction for American democracy. As more billionaires enter politics and public institutions become more dependent on private capital, the line between public service and private gain continues to erode.

The Higher Education Inquirer believes this moment demands not only scrutiny, but structural change. Until elite universities hold their trustees accountable, until political candidates reject the influence of exploitative industries, and until the public reclaims its voice in higher education policy, the Pritzker paradox will continue to define the American experience—where access to opportunity is sold to the highest bidder, and democracy is reshaped by those who can afford to buy it.

Sources
– U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard
– University of Phoenix outcome data (IPEDS, 2024)
– Harvard University governance and trustee records
– Vistria Group investor reports and public filings
– Wall Street Journal, “America’s Second-Richest Elected Official Is Acting Like He Wants to Be President” (2025)
– Associated Press, “Governor J.B. Pritzker positions himself as national Democratic leader” (2025)
– Vistria.com, “Marty Nesbitt on his friendship with Obama and what he learned from the Pritzkers”
– Politico, “Former Obama Insiders Seek Administration’s Blessing of For-Profit College Takeover” (2016)
– Vistria Group announcement, “Jesse Ruiz Joins Vistria as General Counsel and CCO” (2022)

University of Virginia President is Latest Casualty of Trump's War Against Higher Education

In a political environment increasingly hostile to independent academic thought, University of Virginia President James E. Ryan has become the latest victim of a broader right-wing campaign to reshape American higher education. On June 26, 2025, President Ryan announced he would step down in 2026 amid escalating political pressure from Governor Glenn Youngkin and conservative donors aligned with former President Donald Trump’s ideological movement.

Ryan’s departure signals a new phase in what many scholars, faculty advocates, and civil liberties organizations describe as a calculated “war on higher education.” This campaign—led by Trump-aligned political figures and well-funded conservative think tanks—seeks to silence dissent, reshape curricula, and exert direct control over public universities once considered bastions of academic freedom.

From Jefferson's Dream to a Political Battleground

Founded by Thomas Jefferson as an Enlightenment-era experiment in self-governance and inquiry, the University of Virginia (UVA) has long held symbolic and practical importance in debates over the role of public higher education. But in the Trump era—and its aftermath—UVA has become a target for ideologues determined to transform universities into instruments of state-aligned conservatism.

Under Governor Youngkin, a UVA alumnus with close ties to Trump’s network of political operatives and donors, the Board of Visitors has seen a rightward shift. Youngkin has appointed multiple trustees who are openly critical of so-called “woke ideology,” DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs, and what they describe as the “leftist capture” of the academy.

Behind the scenes, donors aligned with conservative power brokers—some of whom also back organizations like the Manhattan Institute and the Heritage Foundation—have pushed for greater oversight of faculty hiring, curriculum design, and student programming. These efforts have been coupled with demands for ideological “balance,” often interpreted as enforced conservatism within departments historically committed to independent research and peer-reviewed scholarship.

The Pressure Mounts

President Ryan, who took office in 2018, initially enjoyed broad support. A legal scholar and former dean of Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, he worked to increase access for low-income students, build partnerships across ideological lines, and maintain UVA’s national reputation as a top-tier research institution.

But in the polarized landscape of post-2020 politics, Ryan found himself increasingly isolated. His support for DEI initiatives and resistance to political interference in hiring practices drew fire from right-wing media and activists who accused him of promoting “Marxism” and “anti-American” values. Conservative lawmakers in Virginia began threatening funding, while pressure from the Board of Visitors grew more intense and public.

By spring 2025, insiders say, it became clear that Ryan was being pushed toward the door. His announcement on June 26 came just months after similar resignations or removals of university leaders in Florida, Texas, and North Carolina—all states where Republican governors and legislatures have tightened their grip on higher education institutions.

Part of a Broader Campaign

Ryan’s resignation is not an isolated incident. It is the latest in a national trend of politically motivated purges of university leadership. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis oversaw the forced transformation of New College into a conservative stronghold, appointing culture warriors to the board and replacing leadership. In Texas, universities have seen crackdowns on DEI offices, faculty tenure protections, and academic freedom under the guise of “protecting free speech.”

Former President Trump and his surrogates have repeatedly framed colleges and universities as enemies of the people, accusing them of indoctrinating youth and undermining national unity. Trump-aligned media outlets have amplified attacks on liberal arts programs, gender studies departments, and student activism, framing higher education as a battleground in the culture war.

Meanwhile, dark money groups such as the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) and the Federalist Society continue to shape governance reforms that reduce faculty power and increase donor and political influence. Some universities have faced legislation requiring loyalty pledges or mandating ideological reporting, tactics reminiscent of Cold War-era McCarthyism.

The Stakes for the Future

The forced resignation of James Ryan represents more than the loss of a single university president—it is a bellwether of a changing higher education landscape. The public university, once envisioned as a bulwark of democratic inquiry and upward mobility, is being redefined by those who see knowledge not as a public good but as a political threat.

For faculty, staff, and students at UVA and beyond, the message is chilling: conform or be replaced. The right’s war on higher education shows no signs of slowing. With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon and the Trump faction consolidating control over multiple states, more university leaders may soon face the same fate as President Ryan.

In this struggle, what is at stake is not only academic freedom, but the future of American democracy.

Ambow Education's Latest Move Raises Red Flags—A Second Warning to Colorado State University

On June 11, Ambow Education Holding Ltd. (NYSE American: AMBO) announced the appointment of James Bartholomew as its new president, emphasizing his leadership experience at DeVry University and Adtalem Global Education. While this move is being framed as part of a bold pivot toward global expansion through its hybrid learning platform, HybriU, the deeper reality of Ambow’s operations suggests that institutions like Colorado State University (CSU) should proceed with extreme caution.

Ambow Education is no stranger to controversy. In May 2022, The Higher Education Inquirer began investigating the company after credible tips about its mismanagement of Bay State College in Boston. The Massachusetts Attorney General had already fined the school in 2020 for misleading students. By August 2023, Bay State College closed abruptly, leaving behind a mess for students and staff. Throughout this time, Ambow operated with an alarming level of opacity, raising concerns among journalists, regulators, and public officials—including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Ayanna Pressley.

Ambow’s financial practices and leadership structure have remained elusive, with lingering ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The company sold its PRC-based assets in 2022 and relocated to a small office in Cupertino, California, but its auditor remains based in China, and it has expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners. The proverb about fishing in murky waters aptly describes how Ambow has operated in both Chinese and American markets.

Now, Ambow is promoting HybriU, a “phygital” platform it claims is revolutionizing education and corporate communication. Marketed heavily at events like CES and ASU-GSV, HybriU has been linked to a $1.3 million contract with a small firm in Singapore, but no major U.S. clients have been named. Visuals from the company’s website include stock images, and there’s no publicly available evidence that HybriU is delivering measurable results in any real-world education setting. The platform’s “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology was first introduced in China in 2021, but it has yet to prove itself in American classrooms.

James Bartholomew’s appointment appears to be aimed at lending credibility to the HybriU initiative. However, his background warrants a closer look. DeVry University, where Bartholomew previously served as CEO, was embroiled in a long list of scandals, including a $100 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission in 2016 for deceptive advertising practices. These included inflated job placement claims and misleading earnings expectations for graduates. The Department of Education also scrutinized DeVry for poor student loan repayment metrics and aggressive recruiting tactics.

At Adtalem Global Education—DeVry’s former parent company—similar concerns persisted. Offshore medical schools under Adtalem’s umbrella, such as Ross University and American University of the Caribbean, were criticized for high tuition, student debt, and low U.S. residency placement rates. The company spent years lobbying against federal gainful employment regulations that were designed to protect students from predatory institutions. While Bartholomew may not have initiated these practices, he held leadership roles during a time when the institutions were navigating declining trust, financial turbulence, and increasing regulatory scrutiny.

Against this backdrop, reports have emerged that Colorado State University is considering a partnership with Ambow to implement the HybriU platform. On the surface, this might seem like a step toward innovation and flexibility in digital learning. But such a partnership could expose CSU to national security and data privacy risks, regulatory backlash, reputational damage, and questionable academic outcomes.

Given Ambow’s historical ties to the PRC, questions have been raised about the possibility of exposing sensitive university data to foreign surveillance or influence. CSU is a major research university with partnerships across science, defense, and technology. Even the perception that its digital infrastructure could be compromised could undermine public trust and jeopardize government grants and contracts.

The regulatory landscape is also increasingly cautious when it comes to foreign influence, particularly from China, in American higher education. Federal agencies have warned about the risks of partnerships that could compromise institutional independence or data integrity. Entering into a relationship with a firm like Ambow could place CSU under increased scrutiny or spark political backlash.

From a pedagogical perspective, HybriU is unproven. It has yet to demonstrate any significant results in U.S. education settings, and its claims are not substantiated by independent data. Adopting a platform without a strong record could endanger CSU’s teaching mission and student learning experiences at a time when the credibility of online education remains fragile.

Historically, investors and institutions have backed away from Ambow. The company was delisted from the NYSE in 2014 following accounting fraud allegations and shareholder lawsuits. It has struggled to maintain financial health and transparency. Its last remaining U.S. college, NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego, has just 280 students and is currently under Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM2) by the U.S. Department of Education. Lawsuits in San Diego allege non-payment of rent and unpaid compensation to the school’s former president. 

Meanwhile, Ambow has commissioned favorable research reports—like one from Argus Research—even though its spending on research and development remains remarkably low, at only $100,000 per quarter. Its current auditor, Prouden CPA, is new to the company’s books and based in China. Whether Ambow’s next annual report will bring clarity or further confusion remains to be seen.

For these reasons, The Higher Education Inquirer urges the leadership of Colorado State University to approach Ambow with skepticism and perform exhaustive due diligence. The CSU community deserves full transparency regarding Ambow’s ownership, financial practices, and data handling policies. Decisions should be made in consultation with cybersecurity experts, faculty, IT professionals, and government advisors. Alternative domestic edtech providers should be considered—especially those that are accountable, proven, and aligned with CSU’s mission.

At a time when public trust in higher education is strained and geopolitical tensions are high, it is not enough to adopt flashy technology for the sake of appearance. Colorado State University—and the taxpayers who support it—deserve better than an experiment based on unproven claims and a troubling history. CSU should reconsider any move forward with Ambow, before it finds itself entangled in another education debacle disguised as innovation.