Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query value. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query value. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, September 14, 2024

Credential Inflation Makes College Degree Not Worth The Cost (Randall Collins)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared in Randall Collins' blog The Sociological Eye.]



Belief in the value of college education was sacrosanct throughout most of the 20th century. In the early 2000s, the question began to be raised whether the payoff in terms of a better-paying job was worth the cost. For several generations, almost a taboo topic--but once out in the open, an increasing percentage of the US population has concluded a college degree is not worth it.

The first big hit was the 2008 recession, when graduates found it hard to get jobs. But even as the economy recovered and grew, faith in college degrees has steadily declined.

In 2013, 53% of the population—a slim majority, agreed that a 4-year degree gives “a better chance to get a good job and earn more income over their lifetime.” In 2023, education-believers had fallen to 42%, while 56% said it was not worth the cost. Both women and men had turned negative in the latest survey—even though women had overtaken men in college enrollments in previous decades. The youngest generation was the most negative, 60% of those aged 18-34. Not surprisingly; they are the ones who had to apply to dozens of schools, a rat-race of test scores, scrambling for grades, and amassing extra-curricular activities; most not getting into their school of choice, while paying constantly rising tuition and fees, and burdened with student-loan debt into middle age. Not to mention the near-impossibility of buying a house at hugely inflated prices, many still living with their parents; while all generations now agree that the younger will not enjoy the standard of living of their parents.

The only demographic that still thinks college has career value are men with a college degree or higher, who earn over $100,000 a year. They are the only winners in the tournament. Every level of education—high school, junior college, 4-year college, M.B.A. or PhD or professional credential in law, medicine, etc.—has value as an entry ticket to the next level of competition for credentials. The financial payoff comes when you get to the big time, the Final Four so to speak; striving through the lower levels is motivated by a combination of American cultural habits and wishful thinking.

The boom-or-bust pattern of rising education makes more sense in long-term perspective. For 100 years, the USA has led the world in the proportion of the population in schools at all levels. In 1900, 6% of the youth cohort finished high school, and less than 2% had a college degree. High school started taking off in the 1920s, and after a big push in the 1950s to keep kids in school, reached 77% in 1970. Like passing the baton, as high school became commonplace, college attendance rocketed, jumping to 53% at the end of the 1960s—there was a reason for all those student protests of the Sixties: they were suddenly a big slice of the American population. By 2017, 30% over age 24 had a college degree; another 27% had some years of college. It has been a long-time pattern that only about half of all college students finish their degree—dropping out of college has always been prevalent, and still is.

The growing number of students at all levels has been a process of credential inflation. The value of any particular diploma—high school, college, M.A., PhD—is not constant; it depends on the labor market at the time, the amount of competition from others who have the same degree. In the 1930s, only 12% of employers required a college degree for managers; by the late 1960s, it was up to 40%. By the 1990s, an M.B.A. was the preferred degree for managerial employment; and even police departments were hiring college-educated cops. In other words, as college attendance has become almost as common as high school, it no longer conveys much social status. To get ahead in the elite labor market, one needs advanced and specialized degrees. In the medical professions, the process of credential-seeking goes on past age 30; for scientists, a PhD needs to be supplemented by a couple of years in a post-doctoral fellowship, doing grunt-work in somebody else’s laboratory. In principle, credential inflation has no end in sight.

An educational diploma is like money: a piece of paper whose value depends inversely on how much of it is in circulation. In the monetary world, printing more money reduces its purchasing power. The same thing happens with turning out more educational credentials—with one important difference. Printing money is relatively cheap (and so is the equivalent process of changing banking policies so that more credit is issued). But minting a college degree is expensive: someone has to pay for the teachers, the administrators, the buildings, and whatever entertainments and luxuries (such as sports and student activities) the school offers—and which make up a big part of its attraction for American students. And all this degree-printing apparatus has been becoming more expensive over the decades, far outpacing the amount of monetary inflation since the 1980s. Colleges and universities (as well as high schools and elementary schools) keep increasing the proportion of administrators and staff. At the top end of the college market, the professors who give the school its reputation by their research command top salaries.

Credential-minting institutions have been able to charge whatever they can get away with, because of the high level of competition among students for admission. Not all families can afford it; but enough of them can so that schools can charge many multiples of what they charged (in constant dollars) even 30 years ago. The result has been a huge expansion in student debt: averaging $38,000 among 45 million borrowers; and including 70% of all holders of B.A. degrees. Total student debt tripled between 2007 and 2022.

These three different kinds of inflation reinforce each other: inflation in the amount of credential currency chasing jobs in the job market; inflation in the cost of getting a degree; inflation in student debt. We could add grade inflation as a fourth part of the spiral: intensifying pressure to get into college and if possible beyond, has motivated students to put pressure on their teachers to grade more easily; in public schools, to pass them along to the next grade no matter their performance (retardation in grade, which in the 1900s was common, has virtually disappeared); in college, GPA-striving has a similar effect. Grades are higher than ever but the measured value of the contents of education, ranging from writing skills to how long the course material is remembered after the course is over is low (Arum and Roksa 2011, 2014). College degrees are not only inflated as to job-purchasing power; they are also inflated as a measure of what skills they actually represent.

The remedies suggested for some of these problems--- such as canceling student debt by government action—would temporarily relieve some ex-students of the burden of paying for not-so-valuable degrees. But canceling student debt would not solve the underlying dynamic of credential inflation, but exacerbate it. If college education became free (either by government directly picking up the tab; or by canceling student debts), we can expect even more students to seek higher degrees. If 100% of the population has a college degree, its advantage on the labor market is exactly zero; you would have to get some further degree to get a competitive edge.

Scandals in college admissions are just one more sign of the pressures corroding the value of education. College employees collude with wealthy parents to create fake athletic skills, in a time when students apply to dozens of schools, and even top grades don’t guarantee admission. Since athletics are a big part of schools’ prestige, and are considered a legitimate pathway to admission outside the grade-inflation tournament, it is hardly surprising that some try that side-door entry. There is not only grade inflation, but inflation in competition over the pseudo-credentials of extracurricular activites and community service. Efforts at increasing race and class equity in admissions increase the pressure among the affluent and the non-minority populations. Since sociological evidence shows that tests and grades favour children of the higher classes (whose families provide them with what Bourdieu called cultural capital), there are moves to eliminate test scores and/or grades as criteria of admission. What is left may be letters of recommendation and self-extolling essays--- what we might call “rhetorical inflation”, plus skin color or other demographic markers; but the result will do nothing to reduce the inflation of credentials. The underlying hope is that giving everybody a college degree will somehow bring about social equality. In reality, it will just add another chapter to the history of credential inflation.

Except for the small percentage of really good students who will take the tournament all the way to the most advanced degrees and become well-paid scientists and professionals, the growing disillusionment with the value of college degrees will result in more and more people looking for alternative routes to making a living. The big fortunes of the last 40 years--- the age of information technology—have been made by entrepreneurs who dropped out to pursue opportunities just opening up, instead of waiting to finish a degree. The path to fame and fortune is not monopolized by the education tournament. For the rest of us, finding more immediate ways of making a living (or living off someone else) will become more important.

P.S. The advent of Artificial Intelligence to write students’ papers, and other AI to grade them (not to mention to write their application essays and read them for admission) will do nothing to raise the honesty and status of the educational credential chase.

References

“More Say Colleges Aren’t Worth the Cost.” Wall Street Journal April 1, 2023 (NORC-Wall St. Journal survey)

Average Student Loan Debt (BestColleges.com) 

U.S. Bureau of the Census

Randall Collins. 2019. The Credential Society. 2nd edition. Columbia Univ. Press.

Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. 2011. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. 2014. Aspiring Adults Adrift: Tentative Transitions of College Graduates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tuesday, January 17, 2023

Need Student Debtors to Provide Information about Low-Financial-Value Postsecondary Programs (Updated February 15, 2023)

 

[Editor's Note: The public comment period ended February 10, 2023.]  

The US Department of Education is accepting public comments as a Request for Information (RFI) about "Public Transparency for Low-Financial-Value Postsecondary Programs."  The announcement is available at the US Federal Register.  

The URL to make these comments is at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2022-OUS-0140-0001

As with most US government rules and policies, industry insiders have great influence in these decisions--and concerned citizens are often shut out of the process. When consumers do have a chance to speak, they may not even know of those opportunities.  That's why the Higher Education Inquirer is asking student loan debtors to contribute to this RFI while they can.   

Tell DC policymakers and technocrats about your unique struggles (and your family's struggles) tied to student debt--and what could be done to better inform consumers like you. 

There you can find public comments that have already been made.  As of February 15, only 129 comments were posted. 

According to the announcement: 

"a misalignment of prices charged to financial benefits received may cause particularly acute harm for student loan borrowers who may struggle to repay their debts after discovering too late that their postsecondary programs did not adequately prepare them for the workforce. Taxpayers also shoulder the costs when a substantial number and share of borrowers are unable to successfully repay their loans. The number of borrowers facing challenges related to the repayment of their student loans is significant."  

The Request for Information continues...

"Programs that result in students taking on excessive amounts of debt can make it challenging for students to reach significant life milestones like purchasing a home, starting a family, or saving enough for retirement, ultimately undermining their ability to climb the economic mobility ladder. Especially for borrowers who attended graduate programs, debt-to-income ratios often rise well above sustainable levels. IDR (Income-Driven Repayment) plans also cannot fully protect borrowers from the consequences of low financial-value programs. For instance, IDR plans cannot give students back the time they invested in such programs. For many programs, the cost of students' time may be at least as significant as direct program costs such as tuition, fees, and supplies. Loans will also still show up on borrowers' credit reports, including any periods of delinquency or default prior to enrollment in IDR."

"The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to improving accountability for institutions of higher education. One component of that work is to increase transparency and public accountability by drawing attention to the postsecondary programs that are most likely to leave students with unaffordable loans and provide the lowest financial returns for students and taxpayers."

CECU, an group representing for-profit colleges, has an organized effort to protect its interests. 
 
Meanwhile, Robert Kelchen has provided an EXCEL spreadsheet that provides many answers. The dataset covers 45,971 programs at 5,033 institutions with data on both student debt and earnings for those same cohorts. We found more than 12,200 programs where debt exceeds income. And more than 7200 programs resulted in median incomes of less than $25,000 a year with debt greater than $10,000.

While some of these high-debt programs in medicine and law may eventually be profitable, many more paint a picture of struggle with a lifetime of debt peonage. Cosmetology schools had a large number of low-income programs.  But the fine arts, humanities, social sciences, and education also produced low-value programs in terms of debt to income ratio. 

Some of subprime schools HEI has been investigating (Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global, The Art Institutes) had a number of low-value majors. But elite and brand name schools like Duke, Drexel, Emory, Syracuse, Baylor, DePaul, New School, and University of Rochester even have high debt and low-income programs. 

Related link:  I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers)

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

Related link: The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth)

Related link: Even Elite Schools Have Subprime Majors (Keil Dumsch and Dahn Shaulis)

Tuesday, May 14, 2024

College Meltdown 3.0 Could Start Earlier (And End Worse) Than Planned


Chronicling the College Meltdown 

Since 2016, the Higher Education Inquirer has documented the College Meltdown as a series of demographic and business trends leading to lower enrollments and making higher education of decreasing value to working-class and middle-class folks. This despite the commonly-held belief that college is the only way to improve social mobility.  

For more than a dozen years, the College Meltdown has been most visible at for-profit colleges and community colleges, but other non-elite schools and for-profit edtech businesses have also been affected. Some regions, states, and counties have been harder hit than others. Non-elite state universities are becoming increasingly vulnerable

Elite schools, on the other hand, do not need students for revenues, at least in the short run.  They depend more on endowments, donations, real estate, government grants, corporate grants, and other sources of income. Elite schools also have more than enough demand for their product even after receiving bad press.    

The perceived value and highly variable real value of higher education has made college less attractive to many working-class consumers and to an increasing number of middle-class consumers--who see it as a risky proposition. Degrees in the humanities and social sciences are becoming a tough sell. Even some STEM degrees may not be valuable for too long.  Public opinion about higher education and the value of higher education has been waning and many degrees, especially graduate degrees, have a negative return on investment. 

Tuition and room and board costs have skyrocketed. Online learning has become more prominent, despite persistent questions about its educational value. 

While college degrees have worked for millions of graduates, student loans have mired millions of other former students, and their families, in long-term debt, doing work in fields they aren't happy with

Elite degrees for people in the upper class still make sense though, as status symbols and social sorters. And there are some professions that require degrees for inclusion. But those degrees and the lucrative jobs accompanying them disproportionately go to foreigners and immigrants, and their children--a demographic wave that may draw the ire of folks who have lived in the US for generations and who may have not enjoyed the same opportunities.  

Starting Sooner and Ending Worse

The latest phase of the College Meltdown was supposed to result from a declining number of high school graduates in 2025, something Nathan Grawe projected from lower birth rates following the 2008-2009 recession.

But problems with the federal government's financial aid system may mean that a significant decline in enrollment at non-elite schools starts this fall instead of 2025.  

The College Meltdown may become even worse than planned, in terms of lower enrollment and declining revenues to non-elite schools. Enrollment numbers most assuredly will be worse than Department of Education projections of slow growth until 2030

In 2023, we wrote about something few others reported on: that community colleges and state universities would feel more financial pressure from by the flip-side of the Baby Boom: the enormous costs of taking care of the elderly which could drain public coffers that subsidize higher education. This was a phenomenon that should also have been anticipated by higher education policy makers, but is still rarely discussed. Suzanne Mettler graphed this out in Degrees of Inequality a decade ago--and the Government Accountability Office noted the huge projected costs in 2002

Related links: 

Starting my new book project: Peak Higher Education (Bryan Alexander)

Long-Term Care:Aging Baby Boom Generation Will Increase Demand and Burden on Federal and State Budgets (Government Accountability Office, 2002)

Forecasting the College Meltdown (2016)

Charting the College Meltdown (2017)

US Department of Education Fails to Recognize College Meltdown (2017)

Community Colleges at the Heart of the College Meltdown (2017)

College Enrollment Continues Decline in Several States (2018) 

The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth, 2020)

The Growth of RoboColleges and Robostudents (2021)

Even Elite Schools Have Subprime Majors (2021)

College Meltdown 2.0 (2022)

State Universities and the College Meltdown (2022) 

"20-20": Many US States Have Seen Enrollment Drops of More Than 20 Percent (2022) 

US Department of Education Projects Increasing Higher Ed Enrollment From 2024-2030. Really?(2022)

EdTech Meltdown (2023) 

Enrollment cliff? What enrollment cliff ? (2023)

Department of Education Fails (Again) to Modify Enrollment Projection (2023)

Wednesday, June 11, 2025

Trading Down: What the Consumer Shift Among Wealthier Americans Means for Higher Education

As higher-income Americans increasingly turn to dollar stores and secondhand outlets in search of savings, a deeper economic shift is unfolding—one with direct and underappreciated implications for colleges and universities across the United States. What some call a “quest for value” is reshaping household spending habits, even among six-figure earners. But beyond retail, this behavioral change signals a broader financial anxiety that could impact how Americans think about the costs and benefits of higher education.

The Middle Class is Feeling the Pinch

Recent data from the National Retail Federation and Moody’s Ratings show a surge in wealthier consumers “trading down”—shifting from premium brands to generics, from specialty stores to Walmart and Dollar Tree. Retail leaders from Dollar General to Academy Sports report growing traffic from households earning over $100,000. These are not the stereotypical bargain shoppers. These are families who, until recently, may have sent their children to private schools, paid sticker price for college, and viewed elite institutions as a worthwhile investment.

Now, even they are economizing. That behavior shift is not just about inflation or tariffs—it’s about eroding consumer confidence and a reassessment of value.

What Does This Mean for Higher Ed?

Higher education has long positioned itself as a high-return investment. But when middle- and upper-middle-class Americans are rethinking $4 lattes and $50 jeans, what happens when they start looking more critically at $250,000 bachelor’s degrees?

  • Tuition Sensitivity Is Spreading Upmarket: Public and private colleges that once banked on full-pay students from affluent families are likely to see more pushback. Even families with significant income may seek “value” options—such as in-state public universities, community colleges, online programs, or skipping college altogether in favor of trade training or early employment.

  • Elite Branding May No Longer Be Enough: Brand-name colleges—especially mid-tier private institutions without Ivy League cachet—could face new skepticism from families demanding clear ROI. Prestige alone won’t justify escalating tuition in a time when even $100K+ earners are stretching budgets.

  • The Student Debt Backlash Will Grow: The federal student loan crisis has already decimated trust in the traditional college pathway. As middle- and upper-class families feel the economic squeeze, their tolerance for long-term debt may fall, increasing demand for clearer loan disclosures, more accountability, and perhaps even political action on tuition price controls.

  • Donors May Reevaluate Priorities: As financial unease trickles into wealthier brackets, it could also impact giving. University advancement offices may find it harder to raise unrestricted funds, particularly from alumni who now question whether their alma mater is part of the value problem.

The End of the “Education at Any Cost” Era?

What we’re seeing now in retail—an upper-middle class retrenchment—is likely to surface in higher education in the coming enrollment cycles. Already, enrollment at community colleges and online universities like Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University is growing. These institutions market themselves not just as affordable, but as practical and employment-focused—offering value in a way that resonates with a cost-conscious public.

Colleges that ignore this consumer mindset shift do so at their own peril. The new American shopper is pragmatic, anxious, and increasingly unwilling to pay for prestige or tradition without a guarantee of economic return. That mindset will follow them into every financial decision—including where and whether to send their children to college.

In an era of economic uncertainty, the question many families are asking isn’t “Where can I get in?” but “What’s really worth it?”


The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate how economic shifts and consumer behavior are shaping the future of higher education—for students, families, workers, and society.

Saturday, April 19, 2025

Why College Matters: Out of Touch with Social Class Realities

Serve Marketing's Why College Matters media campaign stacks the deck in favor of higher education and expects consumers to believe the story they tell. The problem with this campaign, and its anonymous funders, is that for many folks, college (and life after college) is problematic at best and oppressive at worst. 

 
The Higher Education Disconnect: What Survey Results Miss About Americans' Real Concerns
The Why College Matters campaign presents data suggesting Americans' perceptions of higher education can be positively influenced through messaging. However, when compared with broader research on Americans' attitudes toward higher education, significant disconnects emerge. This analysis examines the gaps between the campaign's focus and the well-documented concerns Americans have about today's college experience.
The Financial Reality Gap: Debt and Affordability Concerns
The Why College Matters campaign notably avoids addressing one of the most pressing issues facing Americans considering higher education: the financial burden. This omission creates a fundamental disconnect with public sentiment.
Student Debt as a Life-Altering Burden
Recent research shows that 70% of middle-income Americans believe student loans are impacting their ability to achieve financial prosperity5. The psychological burden is equally significant, with 54% of student borrowers experiencing mental health challenges directly attributed to their debt load, including anxiety (56%) and depression (approximately 33%)8.
The campaign's focus on abstract benefits like "growing America's economic prosperity" fails to acknowledge that for many individuals, the immediate economic reality is far less promising. Student borrowers report delaying major life milestones including starting families, purchasing homes, and pursuing careers they're passionate about due to debt constraints8.
The Middle-Class Squeeze
While the campaign targets adults without college degrees as a key demographic, it misses that middle-class families face particularly acute challenges. These families often find themselves in a precarious position - too wealthy to qualify for significant need-based aid but not wealthy enough to comfortably afford college expenses13. This "middle-class squeeze" represents a significant disconnect between survey messaging and lived experience.
The Employment Reality Disconnect
Perhaps the most striking omission in the campaign's framing is the reality of post-graduation employment outcomes, which directly contradicts the economic benefit messaging.
Widespread Underemployment
Research from the Burning Glass Institute reveals a sobering statistic: 52% of recent four-year college graduates are underemployed a year after graduation, holding jobs that don't require a bachelor's degree14. Even more concerning, 45% still don't hold college-level jobs a decade after graduation14. This creates a fundamental disconnect when the campaign emphasizes workforce development without acknowledging this reality.
The "First Job Trap"
The survey frames higher education as broadly beneficial for workforce development but fails to address what researchers call the "first job trap." Data shows that 73% of graduates who start their careers in below-college-level jobs remain underemployed a decade after graduation14. This presents a significantly different picture than the campaign's simplified message about maintaining a skilled workforce.
Credential Inflation: The Devaluing Degree
The campaign messaging presumes that increased educational attainment inherently produces positive outcomes, without addressing the phenomenon of credential inflation that undermines this assumption.
Degrees as Diminishing Returns
Credential inflation refers to the declining value of educational credentials over time, creating a scenario where jobs that once required a high school diploma now demand bachelor's degrees, and positions that required bachelor's degrees now require master's or doctorates11. This creates a paradoxical situation where more education is simultaneously more necessary yet less valuable - a nuance entirely absent from the campaign narrative.
Opportunity Costs Unacknowledged
The campaign frames college primarily through its benefits, without acknowledging significant opportunity costs identified in research. These include delayed savings, fewer years in the workforce, postponement of family formation, and accumulation of debt11. This one-sided framing creates a disconnect with the lived experience of many Americans weighing these very real tradeoffs.
The Growing Generational Divide
The campaign's focus on adults aged 35-64 misses a critical demographic: younger generations who express the most skepticism about higher education's value.
Gen Z's Value Perception Crisis
Only 39% of Gen Z respondents in one study said advancing their education is important to them, and 46% don't believe college is worth the cost15. This represents a fundamental shift in attitude that the campaign's methodology doesn't capture, creating another disconnect between messaging and emerging social reality.
The Civic Disconnection Context
Research on youth disconnection shows broader trends of civic disengagement, with young Americans becoming less connected to community institutions generally19. The campaign's framing of higher education as building community connection happens against this backdrop of declining civic participation - context that provides important nuance missing from the survey design.
Mental Health Concerns: The Hidden Cost
Perhaps the most significant omission in the campaign's messaging is the documented mental health impact of the higher education experience, particularly related to financial strain.
Student Debt as Mental Health Crisis
Research demonstrates clear links between student loan debt and mental health challenges. Beyond anxiety and depression, the financial burden of education impacts overall wellbeing in ways unacknowledged by the campaign messaging816.
Postponed Lives and Dreams
The psychological impact of delayed life milestones due to educational debt creates stress that extends far beyond graduation. Student borrowers report putting their lives on hold - a reality that contradicts the campaign's emphasis on "keeping alive the American dream"8.
Ideological and Cultural Concerns
The campaign notably avoids addressing concerns about campus culture and ideological homogeneity that research shows are significant factors in changing attitudes toward higher education.
Faculty Ideological Imbalance
Research from Harvard University reveals striking ideological homogeneity among faculty, with 37% identifying as "very liberal" and just 1% as "conservative"12. This imbalance contributes to perceptions of higher education as disconnected from the values of many Americans - particularly explaining why the campaign struggled to persuade conservative Americans that "higher education plays a critical role in maintaining a healthy democracy."
Conclusion: Bridging the Perception Gap
The Why College Matters campaign demonstrates that positive messaging can improve abstract perceptions of higher education's value. However, for these improved perceptions to translate into meaningful change in Americans' relationship with higher education, campaigns must address the substantive concerns documented in research.
The disconnects identified here - regarding debt, employment outcomes, credential inflation, generational attitudes, mental health impacts, and ideological concerns - represent real issues that significantly impact Americans' decisions about higher education. Any campaign seeking to genuinely improve perceptions of higher education's value must engage with these realities rather than focusing solely on abstract benefits.
Simply improving "feelings" about higher education without addressing concrete problems risks further widening the gap between institutional messaging and public experience - potentially eroding rather than building trust in higher education as an institution.
Citations:
  1. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/disconnected-places-and-spaces/
  2. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1876&context=aspubs
  3. https://stevenschwartz.substack.com/p/degree-inflation-undermining-the
  4. https://eab.com/about/newsroom/press/2024-first-year-experience-survey/
  5. https://www.newsweek.com/student-loans-hindering-american-prosperity-survey-1839337
  6. https://www.burningglassinstitute.org/research/underemployment
  7. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/2024/06/03/colleges-and-universities-new-mandate-rebuild-public-trust
  8. https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/3658639-majority-of-student-loan-borrowers-link-mental-health-issues-to-their-debt/
  9. https://measureofamerica.org/youth-disconnection-2024/
  10. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=aysps_dissertations
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_inflation
  12. https://fee.org/articles/harvard-faculty-survey-reveals-striking-ideological-bias-but-more-balanced-higher-education-options-are-emerging/
  13. https://www.aaup.org/article/college-financing-and-plight-middle-class
  14. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/academics/2024/02/22/more-half-recent-four-year-college-grads-underemployed
  15. https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-value-of-college-higher-education-student-debt-tuition-2023-12
  16. https://lbcurrent.com/opinions/2024/09/04/debts-dilemma-student-loans-and-its-effects-on-mental-health/
  17. https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/national-poll-economic-hardships-american-middle-class-true-cost-of-living-press-release
  18. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Anatomy-of-College-Tuition.pdf
  19. https://www.cis.org.au/publication/degree-inflation-undermining-the-value-of-higher-education/
  20. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/05/14/third-first-year-students-experience-bias-targeting
  21. https://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/newsroom/2023/10/survey-reveals-areas-of-fragmentation-and-common-ground-in-a-complicated-america.html
  22. https://www.hamiltonproject.org/publication/post/regardless-of-the-cost-college-still-matters/
  23. https://www.richardchambers.com/education-inflation-bad-for-education-bad-for-business/
  24. https://www.aaup.org/article/data-snapshot-whom-does-campus-reform-target-and-what-are-effects
  25. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2007/has-middle-america-stagnated
  26. https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/lmijoy/why_cant_they_just_lower_tuition/
  27. https://www.reddit.com/r/highereducation/comments/177qjtk/degree_inflation_is_a_huge_problem/
  28. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/institutions/2025/03/06/survey-presidents-point-drivers-declining-public-trust
  29. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/18/facts-about-student-loans/
  30. https://stradaeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Talent-Disrupted.pdf
  31. https://thehill.com/opinion/education/4375280-its-clear-colleges-today-lack-moral-clarity/
  32. https://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2013/01/debt
  33. https://center-forward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/39370-Center-Forward-Student-Loans-Survey-Analysis-F04.11.23.pdf
  34. https://www.highereddive.com/news/half-of-graduates-end-up-underemployed-what-does-that-mean-for-colleges/710836/
  35. https://jamesgmartin.center/2019/07/exposing-the-moral-flaws-in-our-higher-education-system/
  36. https://www.freedomdebtrelief.com/learn/loans/how-student-loans-affect-mental-health/
  37. https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-by-income-level
  38. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/careers/2024/07/01/how-concerning-underemployment-graduates
  39. https://www.thefire.org/facultyreport
  40. https://www.ellucian.com/news/national-survey-reveals-59-college-students-considered-dropping-out-due-financial-stress

Sunday, June 15, 2025

Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming...Again

In the shadow of soaring tuition, crumbling public trust in higher education, and rising economic precarity, there lies a deeper and more structural crisis that rarely garners full public scrutiny: the massive and interconnected towers of global debt, financial speculation, and inflated asset prices. These are not just accounting numbers or Wall Street abstractions. They define the future economic prospects of students, working families, and institutions alike.

The Student Debt Crisis: A Generation in Chains

The U.S. student loan burden exceeds $1.7 trillion, with over 43 million borrowers caught in a slow-motion crisis. What was once framed as an “investment in the future” now shackles millions with little promise of upward mobility. Borrowers who never completed their degrees, disproportionately women and people of color, face default and damaged credit for pursuing what society told them was the American Dream.

Structural reform remains elusive. Meanwhile, for-profit and online colleges—backed by venture capital and private equity—have turned education into a high-yield debt machine, targeting vulnerable populations with aggressive marketing and poor outcomes.

Corporate Debt: Risk Hidden in Plain Sight

Less visible but equally dangerous is the mountain of corporate debt, especially in the United States. Nonfinancial corporate liabilities stood at $13.7 trillion by the end of 2024, with nearly $11.2 trillion in bonds alone. Globally, corporate bond markets exceed $35 trillion, fueled by cheap borrowing in the 2010s.

Now, with interest rates higher and consumer demand uneven, the refinancing of this debt poses real risk. The so-called “zombie corporations”—firms that can barely cover interest payments—continue to proliferate. Many of these companies exist not to innovate or produce value, but to service debt and enrich shareholders and executives through buybacks and dividends. If the cost of borrowing rises further or economic conditions deteriorate, defaults could ripple across the economy.

Real Estate: The Price of Shelter Becomes a Crisis

Add to this the relentless surge in real estate prices, and the picture grows even more distorted. Over the last decade, home prices have outpaced income growth in most U.S. cities. The median home price now hovers near $420,000, with affordability reaching historic lows for younger buyers and renters.

Much like student loans, housing has been sold as a path to security—yet that security has become increasingly speculative. Real estate, once tied to the fundamentals of shelter and location, is now driven by institutional investors, foreign capital, and short-term rental platforms. As interest rates rise, many homeowners are “locked in” by low mortgage rates, further tightening supply and inflating prices.

Meanwhile, rent burdens grow heavier, particularly for younger Americans already saddled with student debt. The dream of homeownership is becoming a fantasy for a generation priced out by financialization, debt servitude, and institutional hoarding of housing stock.

Derivatives: A Colossal Casino with Limited Visibility

Above and beyond tangible debt instruments, the global financial system is entangled in a derivatives market with a notional value of more than $700 trillion. While the actual at-risk value (gross market value) is closer to $12 to $15 trillion, this market remains opaque, concentrated in the hands of a few major banks and financial institutions.

Derivatives tied to interest rates, currencies, and credit risk can provide stability—or amplify chaos. Despite regulatory reforms after the 2008 financial crisis, significant exposure still exists outside the purview of public accountability. The collapse of one key counterparty or the mispricing of a large position could trigger a systemic event, especially in an economy already weighed down by interconnected liabilities.

Cryptocurrency Speculation: Financial Innovation or Digital Tulipmania?

Add to this volatile mix the rise and decline (and rise again) of speculative cryptocurrencies, which at their 2021 peak reached a market capitalization of over $3 trillion, before crashing and partially rebounding. While blockchain technology may hold potential, the crypto economy—driven by memes, manipulation, and venture-funded hype—has largely functioned as an unregulated financial casino.

Retail investors, including young people and students, were encouraged by social media and celebrity endorsements to "HODL" assets like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and countless “altcoins.” Many suffered significant losses, with little to no recourse. Yet crypto continues to draw institutional interest and remains deeply entwined with tech capital and libertarian ideology—especially among Silicon Valley’s elite.

A System Built on Fragility

Taken together, these layers of financial risk—student debt, corporate borrowing, real estate bubbles, derivatives, and speculative crypto markets—form a fragile scaffold upon which the broader economy, including the higher education system, rests. When one pillar shakes, the others reverberate.

In this climate, universities are not just victims—they are participants. Many rely on debt financing, engage in financial derivatives, invest endowments in risky markets, and partner with speculative online education companies backed by venture capital. Meanwhile, they continue to promote a narrative of educational ROI (return on investment) that looks increasingly outdated and unethical in light of the risks young people are forced to assume.

What Comes Next?

As global financial risks mount and faith in higher education erodes, the U.S. faces a critical juncture. Will it address these underlying structural instabilities, or continue down a path of compounding debt and speculation?

Without systemic reform—in education, housing, finance, and economic policy—students and workers will remain trapped in an exploitative cycle, and the broader economy will lurch from one crisis to the next. It's time to stop pretending these risks are isolated. They are interwoven. And they are unsustainable.


The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate these intersections of finance, education, and inequality in the months ahead.

Sunday, January 12, 2020

Are “Best for Vets” and “Military Friendly Colleges” Rankings Believable?

[Editor's Note: This article is for US servicemembers, veterans, and their families.]

GI Bill benefits are a well-deserved reward for your years of military service. They are also an important, but not endless asset for you and your family to transition back to civilian life and to have a good future. In a 2018 Military Times opinion piece, I suggested 8 tips for choosing a college. Those tips are an important primer, but even more education is necessary to spend your GI Bill funds wisely. Military Times, GI Jobs, and others have compiled “Best for Vets” and “Military Friendly School” lists for servicemembers and veterans, but are their lists credible?

Military Friendly?

Whether you are on post, off post, or surfing online, hucksters are trying to sell you their schools, calling them “military friendly.” Servicemembers, veterans, and their families are inundated with advertisements and recruiting for schools--and often these schools are what I call “subprime,” meaning they have questionable value and use questionable tactics to recruit. These messages appear on billboards, ads at the top of your Google or Bing search, on your feeds on Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social media, in ads embedded in internet articles, and in local newspapers, and magazines in unemployment offices and in grocery stores. And once they get your personal information, subprime schools may end up sending you a slew of texts and phone calls pitching their messages.

Military Times, GI Jobs, and other media produce college rankings specifically for servicemembers, veterans, and their families. This lists have some valuable information, but they should not be used exclusively for making the best college choice. You should be particularly skeptical of advertisements in these and other sources, which may or may not be helpful in making college choices. In some cases, websites posing as informational tools for veterans are actually internet predators.

Military Times’ “Best for Vet” Lists

Military Times (publisher of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Times) produces a “Best for Vets” list that includes separate lists for 4-year colleges, two year colleges, online and non-traditional colleges and vocational colleges. The schools are ranked by factors such as: whether they have a veterans center, military retention rate, military graduation rate, and affordability for people using DOD Tuition Assistance and GI Bill funds.

The Best for Vets four-year college list has schools with value, with University of Texas, Arlington, Colorado State University, University of Nebraska, Omaha, and Syracuse University topping the list. But while these schools may be good for many veterans, high-performing veterans may be better served at highly selective schools like Columbia University, Cornell University, and Stanford. If you have done well on the SAT or ACT and shown promise in your educational work, Warrior-Scholar and Service2School may be important allies.

Military Times’ lists of 2-year schools and vocational schools includes community colleges that have reasonable value, but they may not be the best choice if a student doesn’t plan to stay in the area. The list of online schools does include, Excelsior College, New York state’s college for working adults completing their degrees. Other schools on the online list, however, are particularly troubling (Colorado Technical University and American Intercontinental University, for example). Rather than being best for veterans, some are considered bad actors by organizations looking out for veterans and other consumers. To muddy the waters even more, Military Times accepts advertisements from subprime schools that have the money to post half-page ads in the magazine.

Subprime Colleges

By subprime college, I am referring to schools that have:
  • high tuition in relation to community colleges,
  • low graduation rates, and
  • low student loan repayment rates*

You can find this information at the Department of Education’s College Scorecard.

Subprime schools also spend a great deal of their revenues for advertising, marketing, and recruiting and little on instruction. Subprime schools often sell themselves as accredited, but accreditation, even regional accreditation, sets a low bar for educational quality. These schools have also been called “bad actors” and the “bottom of the barrel.”  The Department of Veterans Affairs GI Bill Comparison Tool provides some information on complaints made to VA. If a school has more than 30 GI Bill complaints, consider another school.

Subprime colleges are often for-profit, but they may also be non-profits or state universities that operate as bad actors. University of Phoenix, DeVry, Colorado Technical Institute, and Purdue University Global (formerly Kaplan University) are glaring examples of subprime schools that have used shady tactics to recruit servicemembers, veterans, and other consumers. 

GI Jobs “Military Friendly Schools”

GI Jobs’ Tier-1 university list includes selective, well-respected schools like Carnegie Mellon, NYU, Columbia University, and University of Connecticut. If you look at the schools by state, you’ll find a much smaller list, which will have schools of varying in quality and value. Unfortunately, the Military Friendly lists you may generate with the filters do not compare the schools as transparently as the Military Times lists. 

Schools that use an outdated Military Friendly logo should be particularly suspect. In this case, the schools may have lost their ranking or designation and are using their most recent award. If the designation was not issued after 2017, the school may be considered subprime. 

Predatory Lead Generators

Do an online search for “military friendly schools” or “GI Bill” and you may find results that are even less helpful than Military Times or GI Jobs: results that may make take you down a wrong turn in your career and college decisions. Scam websites use internet lead generators to take your personal information, to sell you a degree or certificate that won’t be a good investment. In some cases, these lead generators pose as military friendly sites with flags and people in uniform. Lead generators have been fined and shut down for misleading veterans but that has not deterred others from continuing their predatory behavior. 

Sunken Investments

If you have found that the school you went to while in the military is a “bottom of the barrel” college, you have lots of research to do before using your GI Bill benefits. Think twice about investing your GI Bill money into a school that will not lead to gainful employment, even if that means starting over if you have to. You should also contact VA and Veterans Education Success to register any complaints about a school you have attended.

*Unfortunately for consumers, student loan repayment rate has been removed from the new College Scorecard.

Helpful Links

Warrior-Scholar (college preparatory boot camps)

Service2School (free application counseling)

Veteran Mentor Network on LinkedIn

Veterans Education Success (tips in enrolling for college)
8 tips to help vets pick the right college (Military Times)