Buyer Beware: Servicemembers, Veterans, and Families Need to Be On Guard with College and Career Choices

GI Bill Complaints (downloaded February 8, 2021)

Has anyone noticed that Harvard has the fourth highest number of GI Bill complaints? Harvard? Is this a typo?

While several of the schools on the current list of worst actors have bad reputations (e.g. University of Phoenix, Ashford University (aka University of Arizona Global), Colorado Tech, New Horizons, Keller (aka Devry, and Keiser University), Harvard seems to be one of those schools that's not like the other. At first I thought this might be an input error. But on closer look, it appears the complaints may be about Harvard extension and their certificate programs. Haven't been able to verify what these numbers mean. In any case though it illustrates a point: Just because a school has a good label doesn't mean you are getting a quality education or a fair deal.

This also goes to show that servicemembers, veterans, and their families--and all other consumers--must apply the maxim "buyer beware" to every school they consider. Be patient and do your homework. Ask questions and demand credible answers. Use your critical thinking skills. Don't merely rely on word of mouth, advertisements, and rankings. 

If you decide to go to school and use your DOD Tuition Assistance, MyCAA, or GI Bill benefits,  choose a good school and a major that results in gainful employment--in a meaningful career.  Make sure you also learn skills that are transferable when the economy changes and when things get tough. 

And if you get ripped off, make a formal complaint to the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, or Department of Education. Veterans should also contact Veterans Education Success for help. 

I have more ideas about college and career choices posted at Military Times, called 8 tips to help vets pick the right college.

New Data Show Nearly a Million University of Phoenix Debtors Owe $21.6 Billion Dollars

The Higher Education Inquirer has just received a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response from the US Department of Education, stating that about 971,000 current student loan debtors who have attended the University of Phoenix have accumulated an estimated $21.6B in debt. The FOIA is Department of Education FOIA 23-02912-F. These debt numbers are consistent with a previous HEI analysis. 

We have been unable to learn whether this accumulated debt includes the hundreds of millions in debt that has already been forgiven--and that its present and future owners may be liable for. In 2023, we reported that approximately 73,000 debtors from the University of Phoenix had filed borrower defense fraud claims, and that more than 19,000 cases were granted immediate relief in the Sweet v Cardona settlement.

Through another FOIA request, we also discovered 6,265 consumer complaints in the Federal Trade Commission database made after its current owners took over. In 2019, the FTC and the University of Phoenix settled a claim for $191M for deceptive employment claims. It would appear that Phoenix has not done enough to clean up its act.  

The Higher Education Inquirer has been working for more than six years to get data about the school's noncompliance with the Department of Defense Tuition Assistance (TA) program, where servicemembers have been systematically preyed upon--and where Trump officials and their surrogates worked to cover up malfeasance by subprime schools--including the University of Phoenix. We hope to report on this topic later.  

The University of Phoenix is presently owned by Apollo Global Management and Vistria Group, who have been unsuccessfully trying to sell the school for at least three years. Previous potential suitors, held to secrecy, have included Tuskegee University, UMass Global, and the University of Arkansas System. 

Apollo Global Management is currently negotiating with the State of Idaho, which would incur $685M in debt to acquire the school. State officials are wary of the deal, and those with strong principles are unlikely to approve. But it's possible that other politicians may change their minds: if they or their families are properly compensated, directly or indirectly, for taking the risks to their reputations and careers. 

Related links:

ED Completes Pre-Acquisition Review for University of Phoenix Deal. University of Idaho Continues Hiding Details of Transaction Fees, 43 Education "High-Risk" Bonds.

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

Fraud Claims Against University of Phoenix Continue to Mount

University of Phoenix articles 

Borrower Defense articles

What the Pentagon Doesn’t Want You to See: For-Profit Colleges in the Military-Industrial-Education Complex

[Editor's note: The Higher Education Inquirer has emailed these FOIA documents to ProPublica and the Republic Report.  We will send these documents to any additional media and any individuals who request for the information. We are also seeking experts who can help us review and decipher the information that has been released.]   

On July 3, 2025, the Higher Education Inquirer received the latest response from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) regarding FOIA request 22-F-1203—our most recent effort in a nearly eight-year campaign to uncover how subprime and for-profit colleges have preyed on military servicemembers, veterans, and their families. 

The response included confirmation that 1,420 pages of documents were located. But of those, 306 pages were withheld in full, and 1,114 were released only with heavy redactions.  A few for-profit colleges—Trident University International, Grand Canyon University, DeVry University, and American Public University System (which includes American Military University and American Public University)—were specifically mentioned in the partially visible content.

 

And yet the larger truth remains hidden. The names of other institutions known to have exploited military-connected students—University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, American InterContinental University, Purdue University Global, and Liberty University Online, among others—were nowhere to be found in the documents we received. Their absence is conspicuous.

We have been pursuing the truth since December 2017, demanding records that would reveal how the DoD enabled these schools to thrive. We sought the list of the 50 worst-performing colleges receiving Tuition Assistance (TA) funds, based on data compiled under Executive Order 13607 during the Obama Administration. That list was never released. When the Trump Administration took power in 2017, they quietly abandoned the protective measures meant to hold these colleges accountable. Our FOIA request DOD OIG-2019-000702 was denied, with the Pentagon claiming that no such list existed. A second request in 2021 (21-F-0411) was also rejected. And now, more than three years after we filed our 2022 request, the DoD continues to deny the public full access to the truth.

The records we did receive are riddled with legal exemptions: internal deliberations, privacy claims, and most notably, references to 10 U.S.C. § 4021, a law that allows the DoD to withhold details of research transactions outside of traditional grants and contracts. In other words, the Pentagon has built legal firewalls around its relationships with for-profit education providers—and continues to shield bad actors from scrutiny.

But the complicity doesn’t end there. It extends deep into the institutional fabric of how the military interfaces with higher education.

Decades of Systemic Corruption

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Defense has worked hand-in-glove with for-profit colleges through a nonprofit called the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). What began in the 1970s as a noble initiative to expand access to education for military personnel was hijacked by predatory colleges—including the University of Phoenix—that used the organization as a lobbying front.

These schools infiltrated CCME events, using them to curry favor with military officials, often by hiring veterans as on-base sales agents and even providing alcohol to loosen up potential gatekeepers. While CCME publicly maintained the appearance of academic integrity and service, behind the scenes it served as a conduit for lobbying, influence, and enrollment schemes. Military education officers were schmoozed, manipulated, and in some cases, quietly co-opted. This is something you won’t find in CCME’s official history.

We have been told by multiple insiders that the partnership between DoD and these schools was not just tolerated but actively nurtured. Attempts at reform came and went. Investigations were buried. Promises to "do better" evaporated. No one was held accountable. No one went to jail. But the damage has been lasting—measured in ruined credit, wasted benefits, and lives derailed by fraudulent degrees and broken promises.

The Trump-Hegseth Department of Defense

And still, new scandals—except those uncovered by us—go largely unreported. The media has moved on. Congressional attention has shifted. And the same schools, or their rebranded successors, continue to operate freely, often under the protective shadow of military partnerships.

Today, the DoD continues to deny that the DODOIG-2019-000702 list of the 50 worst schools even exists. But we know otherwise. Based on VA data, whistleblower accounts, and independent reporting, we are confident that this list was compiled—and buried. The question is why. And the answer may very well lie in the unredacted names of institutions too politically connected or too legally protected to be exposed.

The Higher Education Inquirer will not stop pushing for those names, those communications, and that accountability. Because behind every redaction is a servicemember who trusted the system—and got scammed. Behind every delay is a taxpayer footing the bill for worthless credentials. Behind every refusal to act is a government too intertwined with profit to protect its own people.

This is not just a story of bureaucratic inertia. It is a story of complicity at the highest levels. And it is ongoing.

Related links:
DoD review: 0% of schools following TA rules (Military Times, 2018)
Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why. (Military Times, 2019)

DOD Fails to Update Postsecondary Education Complaint System

Is the US Department of Defense (DOD) actually handling complaints from service members and their spouses who are using DOD Tuition Assistance and MyTAA (the education program for spouses)? It's difficult to tell, and it's unlikely that they'll tell us. 

DD Form 2961 is used for servicemembers and their spouses to make complaints about schools. And it appears up to date.  And on their website, DOD still claims to help consumers work with schools about their complaints. 

But information about the US Department of Defense Postsecondary Education Complaint System (PECS), the system that handles the complaints, has not been updated in about a decade. Here's a screenshot from May 25, 2025.  

What we do know is that DOD VOL ED and the DOD FOIA team have stonewalled us for eight years to get important information about their oversight. We also know that DOD VOL ED has allowed bad actor schools to violate DOD policies as they prey upon those who serve.  Over the years we have notified a number of media outlets about these issues but few if any have shown interest. 

University of Phoenix and the Ash Heap of Higher Ed History

 (Updated September 14, 2023)

The University of Phoenix (or at least its name) may soon enter the ash heap of US higher education history--and rise again as a state-run robocollege.  But it shouldn't--at least not yet. Once hailed as the leader in affordable adult education for workers entering middle management, it is a shell of its former self--in an economy less certain for workers and consumers. 

With the school's wreckage are approximately one million people buried alive in an estimated $14B-$35B in student loan debt.  

Pattern of Fraud

As of January 2023, more than 69,000 of these student loan debtors have filed Borrower Defense to Repayment fraud claims with the US Department of Education against the University of Phoenix (UoPX). Many more could file claims when they become aware of their rights to debt relief. In the partial FOIA response below, the US Department of Education reported that 69,180 Borrower Defense claims had been made against the school.

In a recent federal case, Sweet v Cardona, most if not all of the 19,860 "denied" cases were overturned in favor of the student loan debtors.  We estimate the smaller number of fraud claims alone to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.  

Through a FOIA request, we also discovered 6,265 consumer complaints in the FTC database. In 2019, the FTC and the University of Phoenix settled a claim for $191M for deceptive employment claims.  Based on the consumer complaints, we have no reason to believe that Phoenix has changed its behavior as a bad actor. 

On May 3, 2023, six US Senators (Warren, Brown, Blumenthal, Durbin, Merkley, Hassan) called for the US Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense to investigate the University of Phoenix for launching a new program suggesting that it was a public university.  The letter stated that the school "has long preyed on veterans, low-income students, and students of color."

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

University of Phoenix's owners could potentially be liable for refunding the US government for the fraud. But as a state-related organization, it may be more politically difficult to claw back funds, no matter how predatory the school is.  

Purdue University Global and University of Arizona Global set a precedence in state-related organizations acquiring subprime schools (Kaplan University and Ashford University) and rebranding them as something better. Whether they are better for consumers is questionable. Phoenix will have to cut costs, largely by reducing labor. Using Indian labor (like Purdue Global) and AI could be profitable strategies.  It's likely that this deal, even if profitable, will add fuel to the growing skepticism of higher education in the US. 

University of Phoenix's Finances

Apollo Global Management and Vistria Group currently own University of Phoenix but have been trying (unsuccessfully) to unload the subprime college for more than two years. Little is publicly known about the school's finances. What is known is that UoPX gets about $800M every year from the federal government, through federal student loans, Pell Grants, GI Bill funds, and DOD Tuition Assistance.

Despite this government funding, US Department of Education data show the school's equity value for the Arizona segment declined significantly, from $361M in FY 2018 to $187M in FY 2021. 

$347M of the University of Phoenix's $518M in assets are intangible assets. Intangible assets typically include intellectual property and brand reputation. The school has $348M in liabilities.  

The University of Phoenix has been reducing expenses by cutting instructional costs, from $70M in FY 2020 to $60M in FY 2021. UoPX spends about 8 percent of its revenues on instruction.

Marketing and advertising expenses are not available, but Phoenix has been visible on the Discovery Channel's Shark Week, CBS' Big Brother, and other television events. ISpot.tv reports that University of Phoenix spends millions of dollars each year on television ads.  On one ad alone, the ad spend from February 2023 to July 2023 was an estimated $3.5M. 

Attempts to Sell UoPX

There have been two known potential buyers for the University of Phoenix: the University of Arkansas System and the University of Idaho. In both cases, the owners required the potential buyers to keep the deal secret until the sale was imminent.  

Fear of the impending higher education enrollment cliff appears to be an important pitch to potential buyers. 

Arkansas, the first target, was in the process of making the deal, and it might have gone through if nit for the voice of one whistleblower and one outstanding investigative reporter, Debra Hale Shelton of the Arkansas Times.

In the case of Idaho, news of the potential deal was publicly noted just one day before the preliminary agreement was made with the Idaho Board of Education. Two other secret meetings were held before that.  

A number of journalists including Kevin Richert (Idaho EdNews), Laura Guido (The Idaho Press), Troy Oppie (Boise State Public Radio), and Noble Brigham (Idaho Statesman) have exposed some of the problems and potential problems with the deal.  In June, Idaho legislators began questioning the acquisition.  

More recently, the opinion editor at the Idaho Statesman argued that the deal may actually be worthwhile. 

Particulars about the finances are sketchy at best and misleading at worst.  The University of Phoenix is said to include $200M in cash in the deal, but they have not said how much of that sum is required by law as "restricted cash"--money the school needs if the Department of Education needs to claw back funds.  Phoenix also claims to be highly profitable, but without showing any evidence.  

What is known about the deal is that the University of Idaho will have to borrow $685M and put its (bond) credit rating at risk. The school has not identified important information how the bonds would be sold (underwriters, bond raters, date to maturity, interest rate). 

The University of Idaho has created an FAQ to answer questions about the sale, but HEI has identified a number of misleading statements about University of Phoenix's present finances (failure to report the school's equity), potential liability (cost of tens of thousands of Borrower Defense claims), and leadership (lack of background information about Chris Lynne, the President of the University of Phoenix).  These deficiencies have been reported to the University of Idaho and to the Representative Horman. 

On June 20, Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador filed a lawsuit to halt, or at least slow down the deal. 

The University of Idaho submitted a Pre-Acquisition Review from the US Department of Education, and it may take up to three months before the application is completed. 

As of September 2023, the deal is far from done.  Since this article was first published there have been a number of developments:

On September 11,  US Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, and Richard Blumenthal called on University of Idaho President Green to abandon the sale.  The Senators also asked Green if he had a plan to pay for the Borrower Defense claims, noting that University of Arizona may be on the hook for thousands of claims against Ashford University (aka University of Arizona Global campus).

In November, the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee of the Idaho Legislature is expected to discuss the issue again.

*The Higher Education Inquirer has made a FOIA request for more up-to-date numbers from the US Department of Education. We have also filed FOIA requests with the FTC. 

Related link: 

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

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

More Transparency About the Student Debt Portfolio Is Needed: Student Debt By Institution

Borrower Defense Claims Surpass 750,000. Consumers Empowered. Subprime Colleges and Programs Threatened.

DOD Continues Protecting Bad Actor Schools that Prey Upon Military Servicemembers

The US Department of Defense (DOD) continues to stall the Higher Education Inquirer's efforts to investigate bad actor schools that prey upon servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Our effort began in December 2017 when we first asked DOD officials about oversight of its DOD Tuition Assistance Program (DOD TA). 

Our latest request was FOIA 22-1203-F and the projected response date has been moved again, to March 2025. We believe this information is important for the welfare, safety, and morale of US troops and have communicated our concern to DOD several times.  

In our latest correspondence, a DOD FOIA specialist stated that they were "working with several internal offices and external agencies in order to coordinate this response." When asked what DOD components and agencies were involved in the response, the representative said that they could not name the sources, but that a "voluminous amount of records" were located under our FOIA. 

In the meantime, DOD is handing out even more money to schools, and with limited oversight.  And President Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has been helpful to for-profit colleges. 

Higher Learning Commission: Accreditation Is No Sign Of Quality

"Yet in practice, accreditors—who are paid by the institutions themselves—appear to be ineffectual at best, much like the role of credit rating agencies during the recent financial crisis." David Deming and David Figlio in Accountability in US Education: Applying Lessons from K–12 Experience to Higher Education (2016)

As a watchdog of America's subprime colleges and a monitor of the College Meltdown, I can tell you that institutional accreditation is no sign of quality. Worse yet, accreditation by organizations such as the Middle States Association, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and the Higher Learning Commission is used by subprime colleges to lend legitimacy to their predatory, low standard operations. 

[Image below: DeVry University uses its accreditation to lend credibility to its brand.]

According to the US Department of Education, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) accredits 946 Title IV schools, including some of the nation’s most well-respected public and private colleges. As the America’s largest accreditor, it is a gatekeeper to its member schools collecting close to $40B annually in Title IV funds and many billions more from the Department of Defense (Tuition Assistance) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) GI Bill.

The Higher Learning Commission monitors excellent schools like University of Chicago, University of Colorado, University of Michigan, Notre Dame, and University of Wisconsin. But it also accredits a number of subprime schools, including Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, University of Phoenix, Walden University, National American University, and Purdue University Global.

On the three pillars of regional accreditation: compliance, quality assurance and quality improvement, the Higher Learning Commission gets a failing grade by supporting subprime colleges.

Insiders in higher education have been well aware of the corruption inherent in accreditation, but few speak of it publicly. The way the system works, accreditors like the Higher Learning Commission receive most of their their money from member schools, which gives them a vested interest in keeping their customers viable, even among their worst or most predatory performers.

Despite protests from the American Association of University Professors, The Higher Learning Commission has been accrediting for-profit colleges since 1977 and ethically questionable schools for nearly 20 years. In 2000, Executive Director Steven Crow defended the HLC's accrediting of Jones University, an online for-profit college that is no longer in operation.

Rather than acting as auditors, higher education accreditors for decades have acted as shills for whomever they accredit, and that can include some of the most predatory and substandard schools in America.

"I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich, and I think it's very important for us to make sure that they're independent and not being bought off by the Internet." -Mary A. Burgan, General Secretary of the American Association of University Professors (2000)

Many accreditors are part of a larger organization called the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which acts more as a barrier than a supporter of educational quality.

So who's watching the accreditors? In reality, it's no one.

[Image below from CHEA shows Higher Learning Commission dues for member colleges. Over the last 30 years, the Higher Learning Commission has received millions of dollars from subprime schools like University of Phoenix.]

The US Department of Education does very little or nothing in terms of overseeing higher education quality, and the Trump-DeVos administration has done a great deal to roll back the modest regulations enacted by President Obama.

In July, an internal investigation showed that the US Department of Education was not properly watching the accreditors, and it's very likely the situation will worsen. The agency is in the process of reviewing accreditation and accreditors, but the foxes are submitting more comments then the hens.

College Meltdown 2.2: Who’s Minding the Store?

The latest report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about wrongdoing by higher education online program managers (OPMs) felt disappointing to social justice advocates who watch the space and know the bad actors who were unnamed in the GAO document.  

US higher education has always been a racket, but its latest pursuits have gone untouched and even unmentioned.  GAO’s behavior, though, is no worse than the many other corporate enablers who are supposed to be minding government funds wasted –or worse yet—used to prey upon US working families. 

The US Department of Education has done little lately to safeguard consumers from predatory student loan servicers like Maximus and Navient, or subprime universities like Purdue University Global and University of Arizona Global, and hundreds of small players who offer marginal education leading to less than gainful employment.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has done little lately to protect veterans and their families from being ripped off by subprime schools.  At one time, VA was a leader in tracking GI Bill complaints and making them public, but transparency and accountability are far from what they were.

The US Department of Defense (DOD) has been asleep at the wheel with its distribution of DOD Tuition Assistance funds to subprime colleges.  Its complaint system is close to nonexistent. 

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have done little to rein in bad actors in higher education, leaving the work to states attorneys general.  Hate crimes on campus have also been ignored.  In other cases, elite university endowments have received little notice despite eyebrow raising profits.  Student loan asset-backed securities are also below their radar. 

During the pandemic, The Department of Treasury has failed to adequately oversee funds issued to the Federal Reserve and the Small Business Administration funneled to subprime schools. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which had done an adequate job investigating predatory lead generators and marketing and advertising false claims has been hamstrung by a recent court decision and can no longer fine higher ed wrongdoers.   Predatory companies know this and will act accordingly—as criminals do when cops are not on the beat. 

What lack of oversight have you seen with federal agencies tasked to protect higher education consumers? 

Related link: College Meltdown 2.0

Related link: Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex

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

Related link: DOD, VA Get Low Grades for Helping Vets Make College Choices

Related link:  Charlie Kirk's Turning Point Empire Takes Advantage of Failing Federal Agencies As Right-Wing Assault on Division I College Campuses Continues

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

Related link: When does a New York college become an international EB-5 visa scam?

Related link: One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

DOD continues to shield bad actor schools that prey upon military servicemembers

For more than seven years, we have been waiting to obtain information from the US Department of Defense (DOD) about schools that prey upon servicemembers using DOD Tuition Assistance to further their college aspirations. And we have done it at our peril, repeatedly taking flak from people in DC.  

As the Higher Education Inquirer reported earlier, DOD and these schools have had questionable relationships with these schools going back to the 1980s, with the for-profit college takeover of CCME, the Council of College and Military Educators.  

Those who follow the higher education business know the names of the bad actors, some that are still in business (like the University of Phoenix and Colorado Tech) and some that have closed (like ITT Tech and the Art Institutes). Others have morphed into arms of state universities (Kaplan University becoming Purdue University Global and Ashford University becoming University of Arizona Global). 

Accountability was supposed to happen during the Obama administration (with Executive Order 13607) but those rules were not fully implemented. Under the first Trump administration, these safeguards were largely ignored, and bad actor schools faced no penalties.  

Some of these scandals were reported in the media, and have been forgotten.

On April 1, 2025 we were again supposed to receive information about these bad actor schools, and the DOD officials who were complicit.  It didn't happen. That FOIA (22-1203) which was initiated in July 2022 is now scheduled for a reply on July 3, 2025, three years from the original submission. 

Previous FOIAs from 2019 also came up with no information.  And requests for information in 2017 from DOD officials were met with harassment from other parties. 

The only thing we can be grateful for is that DOD continues to communicate with us. 

 

Related links:

Trump's DOD Failed to Protect Servicemembers from Bad Actor Colleges, But We Demand More Evidence 

DoD review: 0% of schools following TA rules (Military Times, 2018)

Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why. (Military Times, 2019)

Trump Team Weakens Bipartisan Law That Protects Students and Veterans From Predatory Colleges (David Halperin)

On the eve of the 4th of July holiday, when they probably hoped no one was paying attention, the Trump Department of Education issued an Interpretive Rule that will make it easier for for-profit colleges to evade regulations aimed at protecting students, and especially student veterans and military service members, from low-quality schools.

The Department’s 90-10 rule, created by Congress, requires for-profit colleges to obtain at least ten percent of their revenue from sources other than taxpayer-funded federal student grants and loans, or else — if they flunk two years in a row — lose eligibility for federal aid. The purpose is to remove from federal aid those schools of such poor quality that few students, employers, or scholarship programs would put their own money into them.

For decades, low quality schools have been able to avoid accountability through a giant loophole: only Department of Education funding counted on the federal side of the 90-10 ledger, while other government funding, including GI Bill money from the VA, and tuition assistance for active duty troops and their families from the Pentagon, counted as non-federal. That situation was particularly bad because it motivated low-quality predatory schools, worried about their 90-10 ratios, to aggressively target U.S. veterans and service members for recruitment.

After years of efforts by veterans organizations and other advocates to close the loophole, Congress in 2021 passed, on a bipartisan basis, and President Biden signed, legislation that appropriately put all federal education aid, including VA and Defense Department money, on the federal side of the ledger.

The Department was required by the new law to issue regulations specifying in detail how this realignment would work, and the Department under the Biden administration did so in 2022, after engaging in a legally-mandated negotiated rulemaking that brought together representatives of relevant stakeholders. In an unusual development, that rulemaking actually achieved consensus among the groups at the table, from veterans organizations to the for-profit schools themselves, on what the final revised 90-10 rule should be.

The new rule took effect in 2023, and when the Department released the latest 90-10 calculations, for the 2023-24 academic year, sixteen for-profit colleges had flunked, compared with just five the previous year. These were mostly smaller schools, led by West Virginia’s Martinsburg College, which got 98.73 percent of its revenue from federal taxpayer dollars, and Washington DC’s Career Technical Institute, which reported 98.68 percent. Another 36 schools, including major institutions such as DeVry University, Strayer University, and American Public University, came perilously close to the line, at 89 percent or higher.

The education department last week altered the calculation by effectively restoring an old loophole that allowed for-profit colleges to use revenue from programs that are ineligible for federal aid to count on the non-federal side. That loophole was expressly addressed, via a compromise agreement, after Department officials discussed the details with representatives of for-profit colleges, during the 2022 negotiated rulemaking meetings.

All the flunking or near-flunking schools can now get a new, potentially more favorable, calculation of their 90-10 ratio under the Trump administration’s re-interpretation of the rule.

In the lawless fashion of the Trump regime, the Department has now undermined a provision of its own regulation without going through the required negotiated rulemaking process. (The Department’s notice last week included a labored argument about why its action was lawful.)

As it has done multiple times over its first six months, the Trump Department of Education, under Secretary Linda McMahon, has again taken a step that allows poor-quality predatory for-profit colleges to rip off students and taxpayers.

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

The Cruelty of Compliance: How the Trump Administration’s FSA Notice Doubles Down on Student Debtors While Privileging the Higher Education Racket

The U.S. Department of Education, under the renewed influence of the Trump Administration and its deep-pocketed friends in the for-profit and debt collection industries, has issued a chilling reminder of just how little it cares for the tens of millions of Americans drowning in student debt. Cloaked in bureaucratic language and peppered with sanctimonious calls for “shared responsibility,” the Department’s latest notice is, in truth, a battle cry in its war to privatize higher education, scapegoat the vulnerable, and enrich corporate cronies at the expense of working families.

Let’s call this what it is: a renewed assault on the student debtor class—the adjunct professors, the first-generation college students, the single mothers, the underemployed graduates who were sold a dream of economic mobility and handed a lifetime of debt servitude.

According to the Department, only 38% of borrowers are current on their loans, and nearly a quarter of all loans are in default or severe delinquency. Rather than treating this figure as evidence of systemic failure—ballooning tuition, predatory lending, lack of loan forgiveness—the Department responds by resuming draconian collection measures like the Treasury Offset Program and Administrative Wage Garnishment. This means that the government will begin seizing tax refunds and garnishing wages of those already pushed to the economic brink.

Worse, the Department has the audacity to wrap this cruelty in the rhetoric of “support” and “outreach.” Borrowers are told that they’ll be reminded of their “repayment obligations” as if they have simply forgotten—not that they’ve been buried under compound interest, stagnating wages, and fraudulent institutions that peddled worthless degrees. The supposed “enhancements” to income-driven repayment plans are little more than PR spin, insufficient to address the tidal wave of suffering inflicted by a broken system.

Then comes the most insulting part: the Department deflects blame onto institutions while simultaneously pressuring them to track down and guilt-trip former students. Colleges are urged to contact former enrollees and remind them they’re obligated to pay. Why? Not out of concern for their welfare—but because high cohort default rates (CDRs) might threaten those institutions' eligibility for federal aid money.

So we see the real game here: this isn’t about protecting students. It’s about protecting the federal loan program as a revenue engine and shielding the reputations of colleges—especially the for-profit diploma mills that flourished under prior Republican administrations. These institutions can continue hiking tuition and churning out underprepared graduates because the government, under Trump and his Department of Education appointees, would rather collect on unpayable loans than hold schools accountable.

Even more dystopian is the Department’s plan to publicly release “loan non-payment rates by institution.” While transparency sounds virtuous, this move will undoubtedly be weaponized—not to shut down abusive schools but to further stigmatize borrowers, especially those from marginalized backgrounds who attended underfunded schools with few resources.

Nowhere in this document is there any meaningful discussion of debt relief, student protections, or reining in college costs. Nowhere is there a reckoning with the fact that federal student aid has been transformed from a tool of opportunity into a tool of coercion. Instead, the Trump Administration signals it is open for business—the business of extracting wealth from the poor and funneling it into the private sector.

This notice is more than a policy update. It is a declaration of values. And those values are clear: Profit over people. Compliance over compassion. Privatization over public good.

The Higher Education Inquirer stands with the debtors. We see through the lies of “fiscal responsibility” and “integrity.” And we will continue to expose every cynical maneuver designed to crush the educated underclass in the name of neoliberal orthodoxy.

To student borrowers: You are not alone. You are not a failure. You are a victim of a system that was never built to serve you.

Here's the actual post from the US Department of Education, Federal Student Aid, dated May 5, 2025:

 

The United States faces critical challenges related to the federal student loan programs. According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Education (Department), only 38% of Direct Loan and Department-held Federal Family Education Loan Program borrowers are in repayment and current on their student loans. We also estimate that almost 25% of the entire portfolio is either in default or a late stage of delinquency. 

Given these challenges, the Department is taking immediate steps to engage student borrowers and support the repayment of their federal student loans. As announced in an April 21, 2025, press release, today, the Department will resume collections on its defaulted federal student loan portfolio with the restart the Treasury Offset Program and, later this summer, Administrative Wage Garnishment. The Department has also initiated an outreach campaign to remind all borrowers of their repayment obligations and provide resources and support to assist them in selecting the best repayment plan for their circumstances. The Department has also launched an enhanced income-driven repayment (IDR) plan process, simplifying how borrowers enroll in IDR plans and eliminating the need for many borrowers to manually recertify their income each year. 

Role of Institutions in Loan Repayment

Maintaining the integrity of the Title IV, Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) loan programs has always been a shared responsibility among student borrowers, the Department, and participating institutions. Although borrowers have the primary responsibility for repaying their student loans, institutions play a key role in the Department’s ongoing efforts to improve loan repayment outcomes, especially as the cost of college set solely by institutions has continued to skyrocket. Institutions are responsible for providing clear and accurate information about repayment to borrowers through entrance and exit counseling, and colleges and universities are responsible for disclosing annual tuition and fees and the net price to students and their families on the costs of a postsecondary education. The financial aid community has demonstrated its commitment to providing direct advice and counsel to students regarding their borrowing, but institutions must refocus and expand these efforts as pandemic flexibilities come to an end.

Under section 435 of the HEA, institutions are required to keep their cohort default rates (CDR) low and will lose eligibility for federal student assistance, including Pell Grants and federal student loans, if their CDR exceeds 40% for a single year or 30% for three consecutive years. The Department reminds institutions that the repayment pause on student loans ended in October 2023, and CDRs published in 2026 will include borrowers who entered repayment in 2023 and defaulted in 2023, 2024, or 2025. The Department further reminds institutions that those borrowers whose delinquency or default status was reset in September 2024 could enter technical default status / be delinquent on their loans for more than 270 days beginning in June and default this summer. As such, we strongly urge all institutions to begin proactive and sustained outreach to former students who are delinquent or in default on their loans to ensure that such institutions will not face high CDRs next year and lose access to federal student aid. 

Outreach to Former Students to Prevent Defaults

Given the urgent need to ensure that more student borrowers enter repayment and stay current on their loans, the Secretary urges each participating institution to provide the following information to all borrowers who ceased to be enrolled at the institution since January 1, 2020, and for whom they have contact information: 

• Remind the borrower that he or she is obligated to repay any federal student loans that have not been repaid and are not in deferment or forbearance;

• Suggest that the borrower review information on StudentAid.gov about repayment options; and 

• Request that the borrower log into StudentAid.gov using their StudentAid.gov username and password to update their profile with current contact information and ensure that their loans are in good standing. 

The Department urges that this outreach be performed no later than June 30, 2025. We do not stipulate how institutions reach out to borrowers, nor the specific information provided, as long as it covers the three categories described above. 

We also encourage institutions to focus their initial outreach on students who are delinquent on one or more of their loans in order to prevent defaults. We will provide additional information in the future to assist schools with identifying and communicating with these borrowers.

Publishing Loan Non-Payment Rates by Institution

The Department is committed to overseeing the federal student loan programs with fairness and integrity for students, institutions, and taxpayers. To that end, the Department believes that greater transparency is needed regarding institutional success in counseling borrowers and helping them get into good standing on their loans. 

The Department maintains data on the repayment status of federal student loan borrowers and in the past has provided information in the College Scorecard about the status of each institution’s borrowers at several intervals after they enter repayment. The Department plans to use this data to calculate rates of nonpayment by institution and will publish this information on the Federal Student Aid Data Center later this month. The Department will provide more information about this publication process soon. 

Thank you for your continued efforts to maintain the integrity of the Title IV, HEA loan programs. The Department values its institutional partners and looks forward to continued collaboration to place borrowers on the path to sustainable repayment of their loans.

 

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.

What happens to the American Dream during the College Meltdown?

American cultural outlets are slowly recognizing just how unequal society has become.  Traditional images of the American Dream and the values of meritocracy are being challenged by more critical discussions about a dangerously unequal society, including the increasingly corrupt and caste-like nature of  higher education.  The following quotes highlight this slow change in consciousness:

"...Public universities and colleges no longer offer the same degree of opportunity they provided to low and moderate income Americans as recently as a generation ago (Dr. Suzanne Mettler in "Degrees of Inequality").

"...Mergers are a hot topic for all kinds of schools, regardless of race and mission. They are presented by legislators as a way to save taxpayer money, strengthen research and educational opportunities, and to increase visibility in a hyper-competitive rush for student enrollment. But beneath the surface, it is part of a far more dangerous plan to divide the haves and have nots..." (Jarret L. Carter, HBCU Digest).

36% of colleges with endowments under $25 million are spending more than 5% per year from their endowment. It's unsustainable. (Dr. Robert Kelchen, Seton Hall University)

"If current trends continue over the next few decades, most state university systems would soon lose all funding from their states....In 2025 Colorado would become the first state to allocate zero funding to higher ed; Iowa would follow in 2029, then Michigan (2030), then Arizona (2032).  Most states wouldn't appropriate any university funding by 2050." (Alia Wong, The Atlantic)   

"You just have to walk through the Yale campus to see what money will buy you, which is a country club, right?...But we have to look at this in the big picture: There are tons and tons of other students at other colleges who are carrying enormous debt loads through their 20s and even into their 30s because school has gotten so expensive." (Malcolm Gladwell, NPR's Weekend Edition)

"...with the higher education industry growing faster than nearly any other industry in the world, we can probably expect its corruption and cronyism to grow just as fast." (Jesse Nickles, College Times)

There is also a growing body of literature critical of US higher education and specifically its institutional financing, service delivery (including the exploitation of adjuncts), student access, student outcomes, and accreditation.

The US college meltdown is deeper than most critics know.   How many people are examining Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities (SLABS) and higher education construction bonds?   

How many citizens really know how their local university and college endowments are getting consistent double digit returns?  Has your school received a valid stress test (NACUBO, 2015)?   

Powerful critics such as Bain Capital (Denneen & Dretler, 2012) and the New America Fund (Selingo, et al, 2013) argue that colleges are spending beyond their means, using outmoded teaching methods, becoming less accessible to students and their families, and refusing to be accountable for student graduation and default rates and “gainful employment” numbers.

Other sources have called the US higher education system's ancillary student loan businesses and accrediting agencies as either criminal or immoral.   For decades now, the student loan industry has been a racket: a scheme between corporations and government resulting in debt peonage for millions of working Americans.   

These harsh judgments are coming at at time of increasing government austerity towards higher education and college tuition costs that are out of reach for many students and their families.

While some may invite the US college crash as a form of “creative destruction” (Johnson, 2014, Economist, 2014), working families are discovering that higher education is an expensive if not risky proposition, sewing “seeds of discontent” among students as well as teachers (Frey, 2013, Chomsky, 2014, Mettler 2014, Lawler, 2015).

Knowing the perils that colleges, students, and families face, this briefing is a starting point to

• Identify whether your school is “at risk” (stress testing)
• Identify where changes can be made, and
• Discuss the importance of being personally and socially involved in making changes

Truthfully, most major "elite" schools are growing in power in wealth.  But this is education for the few.  My purpose here is to educate and agitate people about the college meltdown which is now underway at for-profit colleges, community colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), tribal colleges, schools with endowments below $50 million, and academic programs, such as law schools, at public colleges and universities facing state budget issues.

"For decades, bad actors in this (for-profit) industry have engaged in awful abuses, and for five years we’ve seen steady revelations of such misdeeds, including blatant deceptions by for-profit colleges to students and government overseers." (David Halperin)

"After reviewing the data compiled by several researchers...community colleges are pretty much a mess.  They get far too few of their students on the road to good jobs or four-year college degrees.   Many of their classes are poorly taught.  many of their programs are poorly organized.  Even their best effort are poorly funded."  (Jay Matthews, Washington Post)

"The problem (with community colleges) isn't tuition.  It's guidance and teaching.  Students are turned off not by the cost of community college but the frustrating entrance standards and classes that do not take them in the directions they want to go.  They are given little assistance in navigating the confusing requirements." (Jay Matthews) 

According to Johnny C. Taylor, president & CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, 50 to 60 percent of HBCUs don’t have a long-term optimistic outlook and about 10 percent are in imminent trouble.

"HBCU dorms have fallen into serious disrepair. Classrooms are in need of updating, and academic programs have suffered. Some schools have had to reduce faculty and staff. To be blunt, it’s the result of years and years of financial neglect. Some of these schools are in need of a major infusion of cash." (Lynette Holloway in The Root).

"These (tribal) colleges not only have high costs per graduate, but also weak educational results. The reasons are complex, but they start with the fact that many reservations are places of despair with levels of alcoholism, drug use, suicide, out-of-wedlock childbearing, violence, and unemployment that would shock the average American. Despondency rules."  (Tom Burnett)

"Law schools face real business challenges. Demand has declined every year since 2010—not just a little but by nearly 40 percent. The same number of law schools have 33,000 fewer prospective customers than they had five years ago."

Those who are sufficiently concerned need to read more about this issue and must follow up with their own homework and social action.

Elite private schools and State Flagship Universities that possess multi-billion dollar endowments, perpetual tax breaks, and renewing government grants promise to get wealthier and more powerful, leaving hundreds of poorer schools in peril.

 Institutions at Risk (“Stress Test”)

If higher education administrators, accrediting agencies, and teachers union officials refuse to be transparent and accountable to students and former students, alumni, adjuncts, and communities, the US college meltdown promises to be more cataclysmic.

Denneen and Dretler (2012) identify at least 13 metrics to identify whether your school is in financial trouble. If your school is not an elite private or public university with a large endowment, you might be at risk if your school is experiencing:

1. Falling admissions
2. Median salaries of graduates are flat
3. Reductions in funding
4. Taking on more debt
5. Tuition increases
6. Reducing faculty head count
7. Cut backs on financial aid

Best and Best (2014) argue that public universities that rely on out-of-state and international students may also be taking on risk that is not readily apparent.

Where to Make Changes
Daneen and Dretler (2012) outline four major areas to make changes.

1. Developing a clear strategy focused on the core of the institution (places that clearly add value)
2. Reducing support and administrative costs (fragmentation, redundancy, unneeded hierarchy, need to outsource some functions—caution reducing instruction costs)
3. Freeing up capital in non-core assets (real estate, physical assets, intellectual property)
4. Strategically investing on innovative models (flexibility for students)

Selingo, et al (2013) mention similar strategies and add several more options in reforming colleges, including:

• Stronger partnerships with community colleges
• Online offerings, hybrid courses
• Data driven student advising system
• More flexible and effective learning systems (online tutorials more effective than lecturing, personalized systems)
• Targeted financial aid
• Peer tutors and supplemental instruction
• Forging partnerships with business and government
• Make transferability more accessible
• Performance based funding

Exemplars of Innovation
No one can tell a community and its colleges what they must do to save resources and generate long-term resources. But there are exemplars of schools doing the right thing for their communities and their student bodies.

Coops are innovative partnerships that allow students to gain work experience before graduating. While coops have been an integral part of wealthy schools such as Drexel University, they can also be used to provide people with needed skills to serve a community. In another briefing, I highlight the growth and success of training at Working Class Accupuncture.

In Rockville, Maryland, nine public colleges and universities are housed in one campus--called the Universities at Shady Grove.  The program began 16 years ago  to "produce an educated workforce and encourage college completion among populations that traditionally struggle to get their ­degrees."

Innovative projects may require some pain, but may lead to even stronger and more mindful and sustainable programs.

Spelman College, for example, saved money by removing interscholastic sports, but replaced them with wellness programs that are an incubator for a "wellness revolution."

Social Involvement
Getting institutions to cut administrative fat, reduce cronyism and “dead wood”, and become more innovative will often result in resistance, even as other schools become more innovatative (Lederman, 2013). According to Daneen and Drettler (2012), in order for change to occur, an institution must

• Bring in key stakeholders to make needed change
• Acknowledge that change is necessary throughout the institution
• Address not only cost cutting, but adding value (e.g. consolidation can improve efficiency)
• Be clear about roles and accountability (functional accountability)

Conclusions
People in the US are living in times of increasing government austerity and declining percentages of traditional college-age students. These are political and social realities that are not going away soon. These realities make it vital that students, families, teachers, educational support staff, administrators, business people, taxpayers, alumni, and community members be actively involved in making colleges accessible, accountable, and responsive to society.

Strategic plans require informed input from an array of stakeholders who must be willing to sacrifice and to innovate. Without this, communities should be prepared for their schools to fail financially. Colleges should pay attention to their core missions, be wary of fads, and be able to adapt as their communities and their economies change. I hope that some of the ideas have prompted readers to think about what they can do to promote change in their colleges.

If you are not a member of an elite institution, how will your local school or alma mater listen and respond? Will they keep their heads buried in the sand, or will all stakeholders work together to be more socially responsive and responsible? If administrators and political leaders are unwilling to offer substantive changes, will students, teachers, and communities take a much larger and more active role in governing institutions, as they appear to be starting to do?

Epilogue: A Sincere Effort from Everyone
There is no shortage of knowledge about what works in US higher education. However, politics and power often get in the way of change (Habley, Bloom & Robbins, 2012, Mettler, 2014).

Those in power hoping to keep critics at bay by offering stakeholders a voice--but not actually considering any of their substantive or "radical" ideas--put themselves and their institutions and communities in peril (Hogan, 2003). It may give breathing room for those on the way out, but it doesn't ensure that the institution can survive for the longer run.

Let's get real. Political officials, regents, board members, and administrators know about lucrative and shady business deals, crony administrative positions, and high-priced pet projects. Teachers and teachers unions know about boring, uncaring, and unprofessional teachers who should be fired. Students know about ill-prepared disinterested peers and those who are cheating their way through school. Citizens know about the lack of access for particular people in their neighborhood and the maldistribution of resources. But it takes courage (and outstanding organization) to get everyone working, and struggling together, before a college fails in its mission.

While those with power may argue that others are at fault, they cannot disregard their own duties to facilitate the education and betterment of their communities.

[First edition posted as "The US College Meltdown," April 13, 2015.]