A Planned Failure? The Dangerous Path to Privatizing Student Loans

In a move that has raised eyebrows across Washington and beyond, President Donald Trump recently announced a plan to transfer the U.S. Department of Education’s vast student loan portfolio—totaling a staggering $1.8 trillion—to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Ostensibly, the goal is to "reorganize" and streamline the management of federal student loans. But behind the curtain, some experts and insiders are questioning whether this bold move is merely the beginning of a much darker plan: privatization at the expense of millions of American borrowers.

The Alleged 'Rescue' of the Loan Portfolio

The White House has framed the transfer as a necessary step to relieve the Department of Education (ED) of a heavy burden, positioning the Small Business Administration as the new "caretaker" of the nation’s student debt. According to President Trump, the SBA—under the leadership of Kelly Loeffler—will now handle the $1.8 trillion student loan portfolio, while the Department of Education focuses on other key educational initiatives.

For some, the move seems like a fresh approach to a problem that has long plagued U.S. higher education: the overwhelming student debt crisis. However, a deeper look into the mechanics of the transfer suggests that this could be the first step toward a far more troubling goal: the dismantling of the federal student loan system and the privatization of debt, a shift that could harm millions of consumers in the process.

The SBA’s Inexperience with Student Loans

For starters, the SBA has no real experience with managing educational debt. Historically, the agency has focused on small business loans, a niche financial product entirely different from student loans. The SBA is not equipped to handle the complex structure of federal student loans, which include income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and myriad protections for borrowers struggling to repay their debt.

While the SBA does have experience guaranteeing loans, it has never managed a portfolio of this size or complexity. With the agency also facing a 43% workforce reduction, including 2,700 staff members, it seems highly unlikely that the SBA will be able to competently manage the student loan system—especially when 40% of these loans are already in default or behind on payments.

This raises an obvious question: is the SBA being set up to fail?

The Planned Failure

According to several former senior officials within the Department of Education and others close to the discussions, the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA could very well be a deliberate failure. These sources suggest that the true purpose of the transfer is not to improve the system, but to destabilize it—creating a crisis that would ultimately justify selling off the loan portfolio to private companies. In other words, the apparent "failure" of the SBA to manage the loans could be the prelude to a much broader and more damaging shift.

“This is the classic playbook of the privatization agenda: create a crisis, then say the only solution is to sell off the asset to the private sector,” one former senior Education Department employee explained. “If the SBA fails to manage the portfolio, it will create a narrative that only the private sector can do it effectively, and that will pave the way for Wall Street to swoop in.”

This strategy mirrors similar efforts in other sectors, where privatization has often been sold as a solution to government inefficiency. In the case of student loans, the "failure" of the SBA to properly manage the portfolio could lead to a private sector takeover, where for-profit companies would be free to set the terms of repayment, charge higher interest rates, and strip away borrower protections—all at the expense of consumers.

The Consumer Cost

While the government may pocket the short-term profits from selling off the portfolio, it is borrowers who will feel the brunt of the consequences. Private companies, driven by the desire for profits, would have little incentive to offer the same borrower-friendly protections currently available under the federal student loan system.

The end of income-driven repayment options, the loss of loan forgiveness programs, and an end to the temporary moratorium on student loan payments could push millions of borrowers into even deeper financial distress. Higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and a complete lack of support for struggling borrowers are all potential outcomes if the loans are sold to the private sector.

Moreover, the move could disproportionately affect low-income borrowers and those already in default, who would likely face harsher terms under a privatized system. For many, this could mean years—or even decades—of paying off debt that continues to balloon, with no hope of relief.

A Dangerous Precedent

If this plan succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent. The government's involvement in student loans has, for decades, been a safety net for borrowers. The idea of privatizing this essential system could open the floodgates for more essential public services to be sold off to private corporations, with little regard for the public good.

“Once you give the private sector control over something as critical as education debt, it’s hard to see where it stops,” said another insider. “This is not just about student loans. It’s about how we view the role of government in providing public services.”

The Long-Term Fallout

In the long run, the privatization of student loans could exacerbate the country’s growing wealth inequality, widen the racial wealth gap, and place an insurmountable burden on future generations of borrowers. For many, student loans are not just a financial issue—they are a life issue, affecting everything from career prospects to the ability to buy a home or start a family. The sale of the loan portfolio could result in an economic landscape where the cost of education becomes a permanent burden on a generation, with few avenues for relief.

A Predatory Scheme?

The proposed transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA may appear to be an effort to reform the system, but closer inspection reveals a much darker agenda: one that seeks to create a crisis that will pave the way for the privatization of federal student loans. While the government may stand to gain in the short term, the long-term consequences for borrowers could be devastating.

In the end, the real price of this maneuver will be paid by consumers, who could face higher costs, fewer protections, and more financial instability. If this plan moves forward as expected, it will be a devastating blow to the millions of Americans who rely on the federal student loan system—a Pyrrhic victory that benefits private interests, but leaves consumers to bear the consequences.

In the quest for privatization, the true cost of this gamble may well be borne by those who can least afford it: the borrowers.

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.

Clashes at Columbia: Pro-Palestinian Protesters Arrested in Butler Library Standoff

On the evening of May 7, 2025, the ongoing student protest movement at Columbia University reached a new flashpoint, as dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators occupied Butler Library, prompting the university to summon the New York Police Department. According to multiple reports, approximately 76 individuals were removed in handcuffs after a tense standoff, raising fresh concerns about civil liberties, campus governance, and escalating political pressure from the federal government.

The occupation, which unfolded during Columbia’s reading week, was part of a wave of student-led actions protesting Israel's military campaign in Gaza and what activists call institutional complicity through academic and financial ties. Video footage and eyewitness accounts show masked individuals entering Butler Library, hanging banners, and clashing with public safety officers. One banner reportedly displayed a map of Israel with the words “There is only one state,” a message critics argue denies Israel’s right to exist.

While Columbia officials have condemned the action as disruptive and dangerous, the heavy-handed response—and the invocation of police force on an Ivy League campus—has reignited longstanding debates about academic freedom, student dissent, and the criminalization of protest.

“We had no choice but to ask for the assistance of the NYPD,” said Acting President Claire Shipman in a video statement. “These actions... posed a serious risk to our students and campus safety.”

Shipman reported that two public safety officers were injured as demonstrators surged through the building, and one individual was later removed by stretcher. In a post-incident response, the university implemented tighter access controls, requiring ID checks at campus entrances and suspending alumni and guest access.

Meanwhile, city and state officials swiftly voiced their support for the crackdown. Mayor Eric Adams stated that lawlessness would not be tolerated and urged non-students to leave the campus. Governor Kathy Hochul echoed that sentiment, praising law enforcement for “keeping students safe.” Senator Marco Rubio went further, announcing a federal review of the visa status of any non-citizen participants.

But from the protestors’ perspective, the events told a different story. A message posted by students inside the library alleged that public safety officers “choked and beaten us,” and that protestors were refusing to show IDs or leave under “militarized arrest.” The group rejected characterizations of violence and said they were exercising their rights to peaceful protest.

The administration’s response is occurring under heightened scrutiny from the Trump administration, which has threatened to withhold federal funding from universities perceived as allowing “antisemitic or anti-American” protests. Columbia, once seen as a stronghold of progressive activism, has become a political battleground in the broader culture war over speech, protest, and Zionism.

A controversial university guideline—announced earlier this year under pressure from the Trump White House—requires masked protestors to present identification upon request. Civil liberties groups argue the rule infringes on students’ rights and makes peaceful protest vulnerable to legal and administrative reprisal.

As students prepare for final exams, Columbia remains a campus under siege—caught between its own history of student activism and an increasingly authoritarian political climate. What happened inside Butler Library was more than a student protest gone awry; it was the collision of global politics, domestic surveillance, and higher education’s complicity in both.

What’s next for the Columbia protest movement remains uncertain, but the crackdown at Butler is unlikely to be its final chapter. Rather, it may serve as a blueprint—either for suppression or resistance—for how universities across the country respond to the growing tension between conscience and compliance.

A Growing Crisis: Student Loan Delinquency Surges After Pandemic Pause

After a five-year pandemic-related pause in federal student loan repayment and a temporary grace period, the student debt crisis has returned—arguably more severe than ever. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, nearly six million student loan borrowers—or 13.7 percent—are now seriously delinquent or in default on their loans. Even more troubling, nearly one in four borrowers required to make payments are behind, a figure masked by millions of others who remain in deferment, forbearance, or income-driven repayment plans requiring no immediate payment.

This dramatic increase in delinquency stems from the expiration of the federal "on-ramp" policy in October 2024, which had temporarily shielded missed payments from credit reporting after the repayment pause ended in September 2023. Now that reporting has resumed, the financial and personal consequences for borrowers are quickly becoming evident.

---

Delinquency by the Numbers

The NY Fed’s report reveals that while the total number of student loan borrowers has slightly decreased since 2020—from 44.6 million to 43.7 million—the number of borrowers behind on their payments is nearly the same. More striking is the conditional borrower delinquency rate—which excludes those without a current payment due. Among borrowers required to pay, 23.7 percent are delinquent, a reflection of a deepening affordability crisis and repayment system that continues to fail millions.

The burden is not equally distributed across the country. The highest rates of delinquency are concentrated in the South, with Mississippi leading at 44.6 percent, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana—all states where more than 30 percent of borrowers with payments due are behind. In contrast, states like Illinois, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have delinquency rates under 15 percent.

---

An Aging, Struggling Borrower Base

Another notable shift is the aging of the delinquent borrower population. Delinquency is no longer confined to young graduates just entering repayment. Borrowers over age 40 now make up a significant portion of those falling behind, with more than one in four of these borrowers delinquent. The average age of a delinquent borrower rose from 38.6 in 2020 to 40.4 in 2025.

This is consistent with what higher education watchdogs have long observed: student loan debt is no longer just a young adult issue. Millions of older Americans—many of them parents who borrowed for their children or who returned to school later in life—are now in financial jeopardy.

---

Credit Damage and Economic Consequences

The return of delinquency has immediate and potentially devastating impacts on borrowers’ credit health. Over 2.2 million borrowers saw their credit scores drop by more than 100 points in the first quarter of 2025. Over one million borrowers suffered drops of 150 points or more.

Of those who became newly delinquent, nearly 44 percent had credit scores above 620 before missing payments—scores that typically qualify for auto loans, mortgages, and credit cards. These borrowers now face steeply increased borrowing costs or total exclusion from credit markets, potentially compromising their ability to secure housing, transportation, and even employment in some cases.

The cascading effects of damaged credit and rising debt may not be limited to student loans. The NY Fed warns that it remains to be seen whether delinquencies will spill over into defaults in other types of debt. This is especially concerning in a macroeconomic environment marked by high interest rates and increasing cost-of-living pressures.

---

Punitive Collections Resume

Adding to the pressure, federal collections have resumed. The U.S. Department of Education, working with the U.S. Treasury, began collecting on defaulted loans in May 2025, including garnishing wages, tax refunds, and Social Security payments. These harsh penalties, halted during the pandemic, are now back in full force—often hitting borrowers already in financial distress.

Millions of borrowers who once benefited from temporary protections now face permanent financial consequences, not only through collection actions but also through long-term credit damage.

---

A System Under Strain

The resurgence in student loan delinquency reflects not only the impact of resumed repayment but deeper systemic flaws in the American higher education and student loan systems. Despite well-publicized attempts at cancellation and reform, tens of millions remain trapped in a system that is neither affordable nor forgiving.

While much political attention has been directed toward one-time cancellation efforts and income-driven repayment plans, the growing delinquency rates suggest those efforts have not gone far enough—or fast enough. Borrowers in states with the highest delinquency rates tend to have lower incomes and fewer resources to navigate complex federal repayment options.

Without bold and comprehensive reform—including principal reduction, easier access to cancellation, and a robust safety net for vulnerable borrowers—millions of Americans will continue to suffer the consequences of educational debt they were told was an investment in their future.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer’s View

We see this resurgence in delinquency not simply as a data point, but as a clear warning. The Biden administration’s incremental reforms and the Supreme Court’s rebuke of broader cancellation efforts have left the most financially vulnerable exposed.

As wage garnishment resumes and credit scores plummet, student loan debt is quickly becoming a national emergency—especially for Black borrowers, older Americans, and those in the South and Midwest. These are not isolated failures. They are structural, policy-driven failures—decades in the making.

For the U.S. to truly address its student loan crisis, it must go beyond payment pauses and cosmetic fixes. It must confront the predatory aspects of its higher education financing system, the ballooning cost of college, and the promise that higher education is a guaranteed path to prosperity.

Until then, expect these numbers—and the pain behind them—to grow.

---

Sources:

• Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, Q1 2025

• New York Fed Center for Microeconomic Data Blog

• Equifax Consumer Credit Panel data

Elite University Presidents: Most Hated Men (and Women) on Campus

In prestigious universities across the country, the figurehead of the institution—the president—has become a symbol of frustration and resentment among students, faculty, and staff. These figures, often once revered as academic leaders, are increasingly viewed as little more than corporate CEOs, prioritizing the interests of wealthy trustees and donors over the very people who make the university what it is: the students and the dedicated faculty and staff who carry out its mission.

At the heart of the growing discontent is the trend of university presidents restricting freedom of speech and assembly, stifling student activism, and limiting open debate in the name of "campus safety" or "institutional stability." Instead of acting as advocates for open discourse, many university presidents have aligned themselves with powerful corporate interests, turning their backs on the very values that once defined higher education. The administration's agenda is often dictated by the whims of major donors, whose influence can shape everything from university policy to the hiring and firing of professors.

The University of Chicago, long a beacon of academic freedom, has seen its leadership take a hard turn in recent years, placing increasing restrictions on student demonstrations and dissent. Under the guise of maintaining "campus order," the administration has been known to deploy private security to break up protests and limit public forums for free speech.

Harvard University, with its enormous endowment and prestigious reputation, has become another example of an institution where the president seems more concerned with appeasing donors than listening to the students and faculty. The administration has been criticized for prioritizing relationships with donors over addressing the deepening student debt crisis and growing concerns about inequality in higher education. The university has faced a wave of student-led protests demanding action on climate change, affordable tuition, and the rights of adjunct faculty, all of which were largely ignored or dismissed by the top administration.

Harvard’s massive endowment—reportedly the largest of any university in the world—has been a focal point of controversy. While it continues to grow, many argue that the university could be doing far more to address the financial burdens of its students, particularly the mounting debt facing undergraduates. Instead, the administration has focused on expanding its brand and maintaining its status as an elite institution, often prioritizing donor preferences and legacy admissions over efforts to make education more accessible. Legacy admissions, in which children of alumni are given preferential treatment, have been a point of contention, with critics arguing that this practice entrenches privilege and reduces opportunities for marginalized students.

Even at places like Princeton University, long considered a champion of academic freedom, President Christopher Eisgruber has come under fire for clamping down on student speech and assembly. While Princeton’s administration claims to support free expression, it has quietly enacted policies to restrict protestors’ access to the administration building, citing concerns about “disruption” and “disorder.” Eisgruber, who has connections to powerful alumni, has been accused of using his position to protect the interests of wealthy donors while ignoring the voices of those who are most directly affected by the university's policies.

The University of Southern California (USC) is another prime example of a university where the president’s priorities have come under increasing scrutiny from students, faculty, and staff. Under President Carol Folt, USC has become emblematic of a trend where the administration appears more aligned with wealthy donors and corporate interests than with the needs of its campus community.

Folt, who took over as USC's president in 2019, was thrust into the spotlight during a period of significant unrest. The university had already been embroiled in scandals—including the high-profile college admissions bribery scandal—and was facing criticism for its handling of sexual assault allegations within its medical school. Rather than addressing these issues head-on, many argue that Folt’s administration focused instead on securing funding from high-profile donors and expanding the university’s brand, while sidelining the concerns of students and faculty.

This prioritization of external donors is evident in USC’s massive fundraising campaigns, which often overshadow initiatives aimed at addressing student debt, affordability, or academic freedom. USC's endowment has grown exponentially under Folt’s leadership, but student loan debt continues to be a crippling issue for many Trojans, and the concerns of adjunct faculty members remain largely ignored.

Furthermore, Folt’s administration has faced criticism for its efforts to suppress dissent on campus. For instance, student protests related to labor rights, housing issues, and calls for greater diversity on campus have been met with limited response or, at times, outright hostility. In 2022, when USC students protested the administration's handling of campus housing shortages, they were met with heightened security measures and a lack of genuine engagement from university leadership. These actions—along with Folt’s ties to the private sector, particularly her background in environmental policy and corporate leadership—have fueled perceptions that USC’s administration is more interested in protecting its brand than in creating an inclusive, participatory academic environment.

USC also exemplifies the growing disconnect between students, faculty, and administration when it comes to issues of free speech and assembly. Protests have become less frequent, as many students feel their voices will not be heard, and faculty members, particularly those in non-tenure track positions, are often too fearful of retribution to publicly criticize the administration.

The discontent with university leadership is not confined to the campus. In recent years, presidents from some of the nation's most elite institutions, including Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have faced intense scrutiny and backlash during hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives. These public hearings, aimed at addressing the growing issues of student debt, university funding, and the influence of wealthy donors on campus, have highlighted the widening disconnect between top university administrations and the communities they are supposed to serve.

During a House hearing in 2022, Lawrence Bacow of Harvard, along with MIT's President L. Rafael Reif and Penn's President Amy Gutmann, faced tough questioning from lawmakers who were deeply critical of how these institutions have handled student debt, tuition costs, and their ties to corporate interests. Bacow, in particular, faced pointed questions about Harvard's massive endowment and the university's refusal to use its resources to address skyrocketing tuition and student loan debt. Both Reif and Gutmann were grilled on how their institutions have prioritized securing donations from wealthy alumni and corporate entities over the well-being of students and faculty. The hearing exposed a troubling pattern where the presidents of these prestigious institutions seemed more concerned with maintaining their institutions' financial health than with addressing the needs of their campus communities.

Legacy admissions, a practice entrenched at many of these elite schools, also came under fire during the hearings. Critics argued that such policies perpetuate inequality, giving children of alumni—many of whom come from wealthy backgrounds—unfair advantages in the admissions process. This has contributed to the growing perception that these universities, while claiming to offer merit-based opportunities, are fundamentally shaped by privilege and corporate interests.

These public confrontations highlighted the growing frustration with university presidents who are seen as out of touch with the everyday realities facing students and faculty, as well as the increasing influence of money and corporate interests in higher education. The presidents of these universities, once seen as respected leaders, have become targets of anger and resentment, with many on Capitol Hill and on campus calling for a shift in how these institutions are governed.

These are just a few examples of elite universities where the power structure has shifted toward those who have the financial means to dictate the terms of the campus experience. As tuition costs rise and student loan debt becomes a crushing burden for many, university presidents seem more determined than ever to serve the interests of trustees and donors, rather than advocating for the people who should be their true constituents: the students, faculty, and staff who make up the heart of the academic community.

The impact of this shift has been profound. On campuses across the country, students are increasingly feeling that their voices don’t matter. Faculty members, once seen as the intellectual core of the institution, are being sidelined in favor of administrators who prioritize financial concerns over academic integrity. And staff members—many of whom are underpaid and overworked—are being pushed to the margins as well.

But it’s not just students who are feeling the heat. Faculty and staff have found their own platforms for protest increasingly under attack. At places like Yale University, where former President Peter Salovey faced criticism for neglecting the needs of faculty and for his lukewarm responses to issues like labor rights and the treatment of graduate workers, professors staged walkouts and organized petitions to voice their discontent with the administration's disregard for their well-being.

In this new era, university presidents are no longer the beloved leaders of intellectual discourse—they are the gatekeepers of corporate power, more concerned with securing funding from wealthy donors than with fostering an inclusive, open, and critical academic environment. The fallout from this shift is only growing, as campuses become hotbeds of dissent, with students, faculty, and staff increasingly questioning the direction of higher education and the people at the helm.

As the divide between administration and the campus community continues to widen, one thing is clear: the once-admired university president is now among the most hated figures on campus, seen not as a champion of academic values, but as an enforcer of an increasingly political and profit-driven agenda.

The Tragedy of NCAA Athletes Who Died Young

[Editor's note: This article was written before the tragic death of former LSU football player Kyren Lacy, who died of an apparent suicide.]  

The NCAA has long been a cornerstone of American college sports, offering a platform for student-athletes to showcase their talent while pursuing higher education. These athletes are revered for their commitment, discipline, and often exceptional abilities, balancing the pressures of academics and the demands of competitive sports. However, there exists a darker side to this world—a series of tragedies that have shattered lives and futures. The untimely deaths of NCAA athletes, often in their youth, cast a long shadow over the collegiate sports landscape and demand reflection, discussion, and action.

A Stark Reality: The Lives Cut Short

In the past decade, there have been numerous heartbreaking stories of NCAA athletes who have tragically passed away at a young age. These athletes, in the prime of their lives, were known for their fierce dedication to their sports and the promise of success that lay ahead. From football players to track stars, the common thread among these stories is the shock and disbelief that accompany such sudden losses.

The deaths of athletes like Zachary Easter, a football player at the University of Iowa, or Mitch Petrus, a former Arkansas Razorback who played in the NFL, demonstrate the vulnerability of young athletes. These athletes, often strong and healthy, were still susceptible to the dangers of both physical and emotional stress, and the grim reality is that their stories are not isolated.

The causes of these deaths vary greatly. Some, like Easter, succumb to the pressures of mental health struggles, while others, like Petrus, tragically fall victim to cardiovascular events or other undiagnosed health conditions. However, the impact on families, friends, teammates, and the entire college community remains the same: profound grief and a relentless questioning of how such a loss could occur.

The High Stakes of College Sports

One of the underlying factors contributing to these tragedies is the intense pressure faced by student-athletes. The NCAA and its member institutions hold their athletes to extraordinarily high standards, both on and off the field. The expectation is often that they must excel in their sport while maintaining their academic standing—balancing an often grueling schedule of training, games, classes, and personal life.

While these demands can shape athletes into disciplined and resilient individuals, they can also contribute to physical and mental strain. Physical exhaustion, injuries, and the demands of performance can take a severe toll on the body, sometimes in ways that are not immediately visible or diagnosable. Mental health struggles, too, are increasingly recognized as a significant challenge for student-athletes, with many feeling isolated or overwhelmed by the pressure to succeed. Tragically, this pressure sometimes leads to a point where the athlete cannot carry on.

Further complicating matters is the culture of silence surrounding mental health in sports. Athletes are often expected to "push through" pain and adversity, leading many to mask their struggles, avoid seeking help, or underreport symptoms. This cultural stigma, combined with a lack of adequate mental health support, creates a deadly cocktail for some athletes, whose needs go unnoticed until it is too late.

The Role of Colleges and the NCAA

As institutions of higher education, colleges and universities have a responsibility to care for the well-being of their students—athletes included. However, there is a growing concern that some universities and the NCAA as a whole have not done enough to address the physical and mental health challenges faced by student-athletes.

The NCAA has made some strides in recent years, implementing policies designed to improve the health and safety of athletes. From concussion protocols to mental health awareness initiatives, these measures reflect a growing acknowledgment of the risks that student-athletes face. However, critics argue that these efforts are still insufficient and that the culture of winning at all costs often takes precedence over athlete welfare. The pressure to perform continues to outpace efforts to safeguard the well-being of athletes, leaving some to wonder whether the systems in place are truly protecting those who are most at risk.

Moreover, the lack of comprehensive long-term health care, especially for former athletes who may face long-term consequences from injuries or undiagnosed conditions, further highlights the systemic shortcomings in how the NCAA handles athlete health. While some colleges have programs to support former athletes, many feel that these programs are often inadequate for the long-term needs of those who were once part of the athletic community.

Mental Health: A Critical Issue

One area that has garnered increasing attention in recent years is the mental health of student-athletes. While the physical demands of sports are often the focus of attention, the psychological toll of being a college athlete can be equally, if not more, devastating.

Studies show that student-athletes are at higher risk for anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues compared to their non-athlete peers. The pressure to perform at a high level, combined with the stress of academic work, social expectations, and sometimes traumatic injuries, can be overwhelming. Tragically, this sometimes leads to self-destructive behaviors or even suicide.

In 2020, the death of Riley O’Neill, a University of Texas swimmer, shocked the collegiate community. O’Neill, a highly talented swimmer, struggled with depression and the pressure to perform. His death highlighted a broader issue of how universities and athletic programs often fail to provide adequate mental health resources or to address the stigma surrounding mental health struggles.

The tragedy of O’Neill’s passing, like others, underscores the need for universities and the NCAA to take proactive steps to ensure that student-athletes have access to counseling and mental health services. These services must be integrated into the athletic programs in a meaningful way, removing barriers to access and ensuring that athletes feel safe and supported in seeking help.

A Call for Change

The untimely deaths of NCAA athletes serve as a painful reminder of the sacrifices these young individuals make in pursuit of excellence. Their lives, cut short too soon, represent not only personal tragedies but a systemic issue that demands attention.

To prevent further heartbreak, colleges, universities, and the NCAA must make a more concerted effort to prioritize the physical and mental well-being of student-athletes. This means improving access to mental health services, providing better protections against physical risks, and creating a culture that values health and safety over performance and achievement.

In honor of those who have passed, we must ensure that future athletes do not have to suffer in silence, that their health is protected, and that their futures remain bright, even as they face the unique pressures of being a student-athlete. It is only through such efforts that the untimely deaths of these young athletes will lead to meaningful change, sparing others from the same fate.

The tragic loss of so many young athletes calls for us to reflect on the human cost of competitive sports, pushing for a shift in how we view success—one that values life and well-being as much as it does athletic performance. The NCAA and its member institutions must rise to the occasion, ensuring that these tragedies do not continue to define the legacy of college sports.

Having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? (Student Borrower Protection Center)

 

Are you having trouble keeping up with the chaos of the student loan system? Don’t worry; we got you. There’s a lot going on right now and we’re here to break it all down. Here are some of the most pressing things that happened this week. On Tuesday, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee chaired an education forum to spotlight the Trump Administration’s radical effort to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Tasha Berkhalter, a U.S. Army veteran and student loan borrower who had her debt discharged by the Biden Administration after being defrauded by a predatory for-profit college, gave powerful testimony at the hearing.

Watch Tasha’s testimony here:

The Trump Administration announced a couple of weeks ago that it would begin collections on student loans for the first time in five years, beginning this Monday, May 5. ED started sending borrowers emails this week to let them know that the Treasury Offset Program—which lets them take tax refunds and federal benefits like Social Security—was starting. ED said administrative wage garnishment is expected to resume later in the summer. There are currently 5.5 million federal student loan borrowers in default who should be receiving this email, and another 8 million delinquent folks who could face these consequences later this summer. If you are currently in default and unsure of what to do, check out this great resource from the National Consumer Law Center. Our Deputy Executive Director Persis Yu was featured on both PBS News Hour and CBS Mornings this week to explain what is happening.  Watch Persis on PBS here:   On Monday, we submitted a comment letter to oppose the Trump Administration's efforts to implement its Project 2025 agenda through a process called negotiated rulemaking (Neg Reg). The Trump Administration is threatening a massive overhaul of the student loan safety net, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program and affordable repayment options. 184 organizations joined SBPC and Democracy Forward in signing on to the letter. These organizations will keep fighting on behalf of borrowers!

ICYMI, here is a roundup of other coverage this week: SBPC Executive Director Mike Pierce broke down the restart of collections on defaulted borrowers with Danielle Douglas-Gabriel of The Washington Post on NPR's 1A. He also spoke with KCAL News, The Associated Press, Investigate TV, and more! SBPC Counsel Khandice Lofton spoke on CBS News about the struggles of borrowers right now. SBPC Policy Director Aissa Canchola Bañez discussed on NPR’s Morning Edition how collections will, in particular, harm older borrowers. She also spoke with LAist about PSLF and The Hill about the House Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, and answered borrowers' questions on ABC7. SBPC Legal Director Winston Berkman-Breen was featured in The New York Times commenting on the chaos borrowers are facing right now. He also spoke with Gray Media about this.

Hang in there, Amy Czulada Outreach & Advocacy Manager Student Borrower Protection Center

Wealth and Want Part 4: Robocolleges and Roboworkers

The rise of online-only education has been a double-edged sword. While it has expanded access to higher education, it has also introduced a new breed of institutions (robocolleges), students (robostudents), and workers (roboworkers). These accredited online universities are for-profit, non-profit, secular, and Christian, but the all share similar characteristics. 

Robocolleges prioritize profit over pedagogy, churning out ambitious and busy working-class professionals in fields like education, medicine, and business--and hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt. These schools include Southern New Hampshire University, Grand Canyon University, Liberty University Online, University of Maryland Global, University of Phoenix, Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global Campus, Walden University, Capella University, and Colorado Tech.  A list of America's largest robocolleges is here.

The Robocollege Model

Robocolleges are characterized by their reliance on technology to deliver education at scale. They often employ automated systems for course content delivery, student assessment, and even faculty interaction. While this can reduce costs, it can also lead to a dehumanized and impersonal learning experience.

• Aggressive Marketing and Recruitment: Robocolleges often employ aggressive marketing tactics to attract students, including misleading advertisements and high-pressure sales techniques. These tactics can lead students to make hasty decisions without fully considering the financial implications of their enrollment.
• High Tuition Costs: Robocolleges typically charge significantly higher tuition rates compared to public and nonprofit institutions. This is often justified by claims of providing a superior education or specialized programs, but the quality of education may not always align with the cost.
• Lack of Faculty Interaction: Many robocolleges rely heavily on pre-recorded lectures and automated feedback systems. This can deprive students of the valuable mentorship and guidance that comes from interacting with experienced faculty.
• Shallow Curriculum: To maximize enrollment and revenue, robocolleges may offer overly broad or superficial curricula. This can result in graduates who lack the depth of knowledge and critical thinking skills required for professional success.
• Focus on Quantity Over Quality: Robocolleges often prioritize churning out graduates rather than ensuring their academic excellence. This can lead to a decline in standards and a dilution of the value of their degrees.
• Limited Academic Support: Robocolleges may have fewer resources and support services compared to traditional institutions, which can make it difficult for students to succeed academically. This can result in increased dropout rates and prolonged time to graduation, leading to higher overall costs.
• Poor Job Placement Rates: Graduates of robocolleges may struggle to find employment in their chosen fields or secure jobs that pay enough to justify the high cost of their education. This can make it challenging to repay student loans, especially if the loans are based on the expected earning potential of the degree.

The Impact on Professional Fields

• Education: Substandard educators can harm students' learning outcomes and contribute to a cycle of educational inequality.
• Medicine: Substandard medical professionals can pose a serious risk to patient safety and health. 
• Business: Graduates from robocolleges may lack the practical skills and business acumen needed to succeed in the competitive job market. 
• Government: Graduates may lack essential interpersonal skills like communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, and team building.  
  
  

 

Consequences of Student Debt on Roboworkers:

• Delayed Major Life Milestones: Student debt can delay major life milestones such as buying a home, starting a family, or pursuing further education.
• Financial Stress and Anxiety: The burden of student debt can lead to significant financial stress and anxiety, impacting overall well-being.
• Limited Economic Mobility: High levels of student debt can limit economic mobility, making it difficult for individuals to achieve their financial goals and improve their standard of living.
  

Addressing the Problem

To address the issue of substandard professionals produced by robocolleges, several measures can be taken:

• Increased Oversight: Regulatory bodies should strengthen oversight of online institutions to ensure they meet minimum quality standards.
• Transparency: Robocolleges should be required to disclose their faculty qualifications, course delivery methods, and student outcomes.
• Accreditation Reform: Accreditation standards should be updated to reflect the unique challenges and opportunities of online education.
• Consumer Awareness: Students should be made aware of the potential risks of enrolling in robocolleges and encouraged to research institutions carefully.

While online education can be a valuable tool, it is essential to hold institutions accountable for the quality of education they provide. By addressing the shortcomings of robocolleges, we can ensure that online learning continues to be a force for positive change in higher education.

Related links:

Robocollege Update (2024)

Robocolleges, Artificial Intelligence, and the Dehumanization of Higher Education (2023)

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins, 2023)

Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs (2021)

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents" (2019)

The Higher Education Assembly Line (2019)