Higher Education Inquirer : Search results for wealth and want

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wealth and want. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, September 26, 2024

Wealth and Want Part 4: Robocolleges and Roboworkers

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

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

The Robocollege Model

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

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

The Impact on Professional Fields

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

Consequences of Student Debt on Roboworkers:

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

Addressing the Problem

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

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

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

Friday, February 9, 2024

The Student Loan Mess Updated: Debt as a Form of Social Control and Political Action

[Editor's note: The FY 2023 FSA Annual Report is here.]

In 2014, the father-son team of Joel Best and Eric Best published The Student Loan Mess: How Good Intentions Created a Trillion Dollar Problem. Their argument was that rising student loan debt posed a major social and economic problem in the United States, exceeding $1 trillion at the time of publication (predicted to reach $2 trillion by 2020). This "mess" resulted from a series of well-intentioned but flawed policies that focused on different aspects of the issue in isolation, ultimately creating unintended consequences.

Key Points of the 2014 book:

History of Federal Involvement: The book explored the evolution of federal student loan programs, highlighting how each policy change created new problems while attempting to address the previous ones.

Cost of College: Rising tuition fees along with readily available loans fueled the debt crisis, as students borrowed more to cope with increasing costs.

Repayment Challenges: The authors delved into the difficulties graduates face repaying their loans, including high interest rates, complex repayment plans, and limited income mobility.

Societal Impacts: The book examined the broader societal consequences of student loan debt, such as delayed homeownership, reduced entrepreneurship, and increased economic inequality.

Beyond the Mess: While acknowledging the complexity of the issue, the authors discussed potential solutions, including loan forgiveness programs, income-based repayment plans, and increased government regulation of for-profit colleges.

Overall, "The Student Loan Mess" provided a critical historical analysis of the factors contributing to the crisis and suggested pathways towards a more sustainable system of higher education financing.

Expansion of Federal Loan Programs (1960s-1990s):

The creation of federal loan programs initially aimed to increase access to higher education.

This led to rising tuition costs as universities saw guaranteed funding, with less pressure to remain affordable.

Loan eligibility expanded, encouraging more borrowing even without clear career prospects for graduates.

Cost Explosion and Predatory Lending (1990s-2000s):

College costs skyrocketed due to various factors, including decreased state funding and increased administrative spending.

Loan limits were raised, further fueling the debt increase.

Private lenders entered the market, offering aggressive marketing and deceptive practices, targeting vulnerable students.

Recession and Repayment Struggles (2008-present):

The Great Recession exacerbated loan burdens as graduates faced limited job opportunities and stagnant wages.

Complex repayment plans and high interest rates created a challenging landscape for borrowers.

The rise of for-profit colleges further complicated the issue, often saddling students with debt for degrees with low earning potential.

Growing Awareness, Advocacy, and Reform (2010s-present):

Public awareness of the student loan crisis grew, leading to increased advocacy and demands for reform.

Issues like predatory lending, debt forgiveness, and income-based repayment gained traction.

In 2010, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act made a significant change to the federal student loan system. Previously, the government guaranteed private loans, meaning it reimbursed lenders if borrowers defaulted. In turn, lenders received subsidies for participating. The Act ended these subsidies for private lenders, resulting in over $60 billion saved that could be reinvested in student aid programs.

Debates on the role of government and private lenders in financing higher education continued.

Next Chapters?

Since 2014, almost ten years after the Student Loan Mess was published, several major developments have unfolded concerning student loan debt:

Growth and Persistence:

Debt continues to climb: While the growth rate has slowed somewhat, outstanding student loan debt has surpassed $1.7 trillion and remains a significant burden for millions of borrowers.

Racial and socioeconomic disparities persist: African American and Latinx borrowers disproportionately hold a higher amount of debt compared to white borrowers, exacerbating economic inequalities.

Policy Changes:

https://x.com/The Biden-Harris administration has provided $136.6 billion in debt relief.

Expansion of income-driven repayment plans: Options like Income-Based Repayment (IBR) and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) have been expanded, allowing borrowers to adjust their monthly payments based on income.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) challenges: Legal uncertainties and administrative backlogs have plagued PSLF, leaving many public servants struggling to qualify for loan forgiveness.

Temporary pandemic relief: During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal student loan payments were paused and interest rates set to 0%. Payments resumed in 2023.

Debt cancellation debates: Proposals for broad-based student loan forgiveness have gained traction, with several Democratic lawmakers pushing for different cancellation amounts. However, these proposals have faced legal and political hurdles. In 2023, the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of mass cancellation of loans from predatory for-profit colleges (Sweet v Cardona). A few months later, the US Supreme Court struck down President Biden's plan for debt relief to more than 30 million Americans.

Increased attention to for-profit colleges and online program managers: Scrutiny of predatory practices and low graduate outcomes at for-profit institutions has intensified. Gainful employment rules have been reestablished, but whether they will be enforced is in question.

Looking forward:

The future of student loan debt remains uncertain. Key questions include:

Will broad-based loan forgiveness materialize?

Can income-driven repayment plans be made more effective?

How will future administrations address affordability and access to higher education?

What role will the private sector play in financing higher education?

How will declining enrollment numbers and skepticism about the value of higher education affect student loan debt and debt relief?

Will higher ed institutions be held accountable for the debt of their former students and alumni?

Can higher education reduce consumer costs and provide value to consumers and communities at the same time?

How will student loan debt affect disability, retirement, and life expectancy among long-term debtors?

Policy Drivers:

Economic factors: A strong economy could increase government revenue, potentially enabling broader debt forgiveness or increased funding for higher education access initiatives. Conversely, an economic downturn could make policy interventions more challenging.

Elections and political pressure: Public opinion and the results of future elections will influence the political will for reform. Continued activism and pressure from advocacy groups could sway policy decisions.

Legal challenges and court rulings: Lawsuits over debt cancellation programs and loan servicer practices could impact the legal landscape and shape future policy options.

Private sector involvement: Developments in the private student loan market and potential regulations of lending practices could affect access to credit and repayment options.

Consumer Decisions:

Debt burden and economic outlook: The level of outstanding debt and future job prospects will significantly influence borrower behavior. Increased debt loads could incentivize riskier repayment strategies or delaying major life decisions like homeownership.

Awareness and financial literacy: Improved understanding of loan terms, repayment options, and alternative financing methods could empower borrowers to make informed decisions.

Government programs and incentives: Changes to income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and other government initiatives will directly impact consumer choices about managing their debt.

Emerging Trends:

Alternative financing models: Innovations like income-share agreements and skills-based financing could disrupt traditional loan structures and offer new options for students.

Technology and automation: Increased use of technology to streamline loan management and repayment could improve efficiency and transparency.

Focus on affordability and value: As concerns about the value proposition of higher education grow, there might be a shift towards emphasizing affordable options and skills-based learning.

How does student loan debt affect the lives of Americans?

Student loan debt has a profound impact on the lives of millions of Americans in various ways, affecting not just their finances but also their major life decisions and overall well-being. Here's a breakdown of some key areas:

Financial Impact:

Burden of debt: The average graduate has over $40,000 in student loan debt, significantly impacting their monthly budget and disposable income. This can limit savings for retirement, emergencies, and major purchases like a house.

Lower credit scores: Missed payments or delinquencies can negatively affect credit scores, hindering access to future loans and increasing interest rates on other forms of credit.

Delayed milestones: High debt burdens may cause individuals to delay major life milestones like buying a home, getting married, starting a family, or pursuing further education due to financial constraints.

Career Choices:

Job dissatisfaction: To make loan payments, some graduates might feel pressured to stay in high-paying but unfulfilling jobs, sacrificing career satisfaction for financial stability.

Entrepreneurial risk: The fear of financial failure due to debt may discourage individuals from pursuing entrepreneurial ventures, hindering innovation and economic growth.

Limited career mobility: Debt may lock individuals into specific career paths based on earning potential, restricting their ability to pursue desired career changes.

Mental and Emotional Wellbeing:

Stress and anxiety: The constant pressure of debt repayment can lead to significant stress and anxiety, impacting mental and emotional well-being.

Lower self-esteem: Feelings of financial instability and hopelessness can negatively impact self-esteem and overall life satisfaction.

Stigma and discrimination: Some individuals may face social stigma associated with student loan debt, further exacerbating the emotional burden.

Societal Impact:

Economic inequality: Student loan debt disproportionately affects certain groups, like minorities and low-income students, perpetuating and widening economic inequality.

Lower homeownership rates: High debt burdens can hinder homeownership, negatively impacting the housing market and contributing to wealth disparities.

Reduced consumer spending: Debt-burdened individuals have less disposable income, limiting their purchasing power and affecting the overall economy.

Social Class and Student Loan Debt

There's a well-documented and intricate relationship between social class and student loan debt, characterized by significant inequalities and disparities. Here's a breakdown of some key points:

Higher burden on lower classes:

Borrowing rates: Individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to borrow student loans due to limited family resources and higher college costs compared to their income.

Debt amounts: Borrowers from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often take on larger debt loads due to higher tuition fees and living expenses, often exceeding their earning potential after graduation.

Repayment challenges: They face greater difficulty repaying loans due to lower-paying jobs, making them more susceptible to delinquency and default. This hinders wealth accumulation and upward mobility.

Contributing factors:

Limited financial support: Lack of parental financial support or savings forces students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to rely heavily on loans for college expenses.

Limited college options: Limited access to affordable, high-quality educational institutions often steers individuals towards for-profit colleges with deceptive practices and low graduation rates, leading to high debt with limited job prospects.

Ongoing Debate

There is ongoing debate on solutions to address the student loan crisis, with proposals ranging from broad-based loan forgiveness to reforms in higher education financing and income-driven repayment plans. The future of student loan debt and its impact on Americans remains uncertain and depends on various factors, including policy decisions, economic trends, and individual financial choices.

The Student Loan Debt Movement

There has been an organized effort for student loan debt relief since the 2010s. This movement, using direct action, lawsuits, and lobbying has had some gains, putting pressure for accountability for schools that use predatory practices--and getting debt relief for hundreds of thousands of debtors. The most notable organization has been the Debt Collective.

Image of Ann Bowers, courtesy of the Debt Collective

There have been legal allies too, such as the Harvard Project on Predatory Student Lending (PPSL) and the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC).

Named plaintiffs Theresa Sweet (L) and Alicia Davis (R) outside the federal district court in San Francisco on November 6, 2022, three days before the final approval hearing in Sweet v Cardona (Image credit: Ashley Pizzuti)

Resistance to Debt Relief

The reasons why some people might not support student loan forgiveness. Some conservatives believe that it is unfair to forgive the debts of those who willingly took out loans, while others believe that it would be a waste of taxpayer money. Additionally, some believe that student loan forgiveness would not address the root causes of the problem, such as the high cost of tuition.

It is important to note that not all conservatives oppose student loan forgiveness. Some support income-based repayment plans or public service loan forgiveness. Additionally, some believe the government should focus on making college more affordable, rather than simply forgiving existing debt.

According to a 2019 poll by the Pew Research Center, 54% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents opposed forgiving all student loan debt, while 37% supported it.

Student Loan Debt Power Analysis: Who Benefits from Inaction?

There are elites and elite organizations who are (at least on the backstage) against student loan debt relief: student loan servicers (e.g. Maximus, Nelnet, Navient, and Sallie Mae), big banks, large corporations, and the US military. For them, debt serves as a way to get others to do their bidding. Debt is essential as a leverage tool to recruit and retain workers. Debt relief could also create more competition for better, more meaningful jobs, which some elites may not want for their children. States may be unwilling or unable to further subsidize higher education if elites are unwilling to pay. This situation is likely to worsen as Medicaid budgets are used for a growing number of elderly and increasingly disabled Baby Boomers.

People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to be held outside Supreme Court, February 28, 2023

Department of Education: Over half of federal student loan borrowers were not paying before Pandemic (Alan Collinge)

Student Loans and a Brutal Lifetime of Debt (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex

SLABS: The Soylent Green of US Higher Education

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

An Email of Concern to the People of Arkansas about the University of Phoenix (Tarah Gramza)

Higher Education FOIA Requests to US Department of Education

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Paying the Poorly Educated (Jack Metzger)

Joe Biden was right to propose free Pre-K education for 3- and 4-year-olds and free community college in his initial legislative package, rather than pushing for free public university education and the cancellation of college debt. All four progressive education initiatives would serve the public good by making education more available to millions. However, policies that promote university education do little to help the working class. They also feed into the false and damaging narrative that college is the right path to upward mobility for most people.

While free public universities could be transformative in the very long term, most of the benefits of this policy would go to higher-income families. They are more likely to live in areas with high-quality K-12 schools, and their children also are more likely to have the kinds of social and cultural capital that are especially advantageous for getting into and succeeding in college.

Similarly, while forgiving all or some portion of existing student loan debt would likely benefit low- and middle-income young people, who are more likely to have higher levels of debt than their more affluent contemporaries, this too has limited benefit for the working class, because it only helps those who have gone to college. That’s a large group, but forgiving their debts does nothing for the many others who aren’t in debt because they didn’t go to college at all or for very long.

Free public Pre-K and free community college, on the other hand, disproportionately benefit working-class children and adults. Free Pre-K will not only improve the educational prospects of children, but it also saves families money. For those currently using the cheapest day care, this would save some $10,000 to $15,000 a year – a significant increase in spending power for all income classes, but transformative for low- and middle-income family budgets. What’s more, for low-income parents who currently can’t afford day care and thus can’t work full time or at all, free Pre-K would allow them to work and earn more in the paid workforce.

Likewise, free community college would disproportionately benefit low-income adults and young people who cannot go to college full time because they need to work. Community college education includes apprenticeships and other pre-training that is needed for entry into many middle-wage jobs, including in the soon-to-be-expanding building trades. Free public university would mostly benefit those young people who have more time to take the long road, while free community college is more valuable for working adults who already have work and family responsibilities.

The class-skewed benefits of these initiatives are relatively complicated, but we should also pay attention to the messages they reinforce. Prioritizing free college and student debt forgiveness plays into a toxic narrative that has deep roots in our public discourse: that college-educated people are more valuable, more worthy of public subsidy, than the so-called “poorly educated.” This narrative accepts that college graduates deserve to be paid more, but it also offers a false promise: that the primary way to increase wages and living standards – or more grandly, to restore the American Dream of upward mobility — is for more and more people to get college degrees. Both these messages are false. The first reflects a nearly impregnable professional-middle-class prejudice, but the second is an intellectual error that, if corrected, could burst a professional-class bubble.

College education cannot be a path for widespread upward mobility because a large majority of jobs in our economy do not require a college education or anything like it. 61% require high school or less and another 11% require an associate’s degree, some college, or other postsecondary education – but not a bachelor’s degree. Only 28% of jobs in 2020 required a bachelor’s, a far lower percentage than the nearly 40% of workers over 25 who had that degree.

That is why we find so many men and women with bachelor’s degrees as fast food workers; retail salespersons or cashiers; waiters, waitresses or cooks; freight, stock and material movers; janitors and cleaners; and home health care or child care workers. These occupations are among those with the largest annual job openings , and all of them have median annual wages ranging from $22,740 to $29,510 (that is, less than $15 an hour).

This is a tragedy for college graduates who were told that becoming part of the exam-passing classes would lead to better lives. But for most people doing those jobs, it probably never crossed their minds that they could go to college. Still, that work needs to be done, no matter the educational attainment of the people who do it. The work they do is socially valuable, some of it even “essential,” and those jobs need to be paid a living wage. To be told that the only way to improve your life conditions is through more (and more) education is demoralizing and, especially for those who work alongside college graduates doing the same work, palpably false.

Higher education is a circuitous route to improving one’s economic prospects, a route that will not work for at least a third of those who can afford to take it, and a route that is not realistically available for the majority of our population. If we want to improve wages and conditions, we need to improve them directly, not by producing more college grads.

President Biden’s initial transformative legislative package that got whittled down to Build Back Better (BBB) embodied the understanding that education was neither the answer nor even an important part of the answer for achieving upward mobility. That initial package included a $15-an-hour minimum wage and the union-empowering Pro-Act that were quickly jettisoned because they could not avoid a Republican filibuster the way budget bills can. But, equally or even more important, many elements of Build Back Better provided for a series of enhanced social wages that together would have dramatically improved life prospects across the board – none more important than the package of child care subsidies that included universal free Pre-K.

Social wages explicitly recognize that even with better minimum wages and stronger unions, most wages will not come close to reflecting the collective social value workers provide. Nor are wages going to be sufficient to provide decent incomes for most people most of the time. Reducing the cost of health care, housing, transportation, and child care (all of which BBB would have addressed) increases the real incomes of all workers, and it has the most dramatic effect on low-wage workers.

By prioritizing those workers, most of whom do not have college degrees, the Biden package had the potential to pierce the professional-class prejudice that has dominated public policy. Both Presidents Bush and Obama proclaimed that more and better education was the only way to address our savage inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity. Biden, by contrast, is the first president in memory to actually brag about creating well-paying jobs that do not require any college.

Alas, Build Back Better – let alone the initial, larger version of itself – is dead for now, and the possibility of a truly transformational package becoming law is probably gone for the immediate future. But a healthy majority of the public and more than 90% of Congressional Democrats supported the core idea of increasing taxes on corporations and the rich in order to transfer money to workers and citizens in ways that could dramatically increase working-class people’s chances for creating better lives. Hopefully, that support shows a shift away from the idea that education is the only path to improved life prospects. A public consensus may be developing that even the poorly educated deserve to earn a good living.

Jack Metzgar

Jack Metzgar is author of the recent Cornell ILR Press book, Bridging the Divide: Working-Class Culture in a Middle-Class Society.

*This article first appeared in Working Class Perspectives.

Tuesday, December 16, 2025

The Decline of “Happily Ever After”: Teen Girls, Marriage, and Social Inequality

A profound shift is taking place in the aspirations of American teenagers. In a Pew Research analysis of 2023 University of Michigan survey data, only 61 percent of 12th-grade girls expected to marry someday, down sharply from 83 percent in 1993. Boys, in contrast, reported a stable 74 percent, surpassing girls for the first time. Alongside this, fewer teens anticipated having children or staying married for life. Only 48 percent of 12th-graders said they were “very likely” to want children, and belief in lifelong marriage dropped from 59 percent to 51 percent over three decades.

These figures are more than statistical curiosities; they reflect structural changes in the lives of young women and reveal how cultural, economic, and social inequality shape personal expectations. Access to education and professional opportunity has expanded dramatically for women, allowing them to envision futures independent of traditional marriage and family structures. Yet these gains exist alongside persistent barriers: economic instability, student debt, and unequal labor markets make long-term commitments like marriage and homeownership fraught and uncertain. For many girls, the choice to delay or reject marriage is not merely personal—it is pragmatic.

Cultural shifts amplify this trend. For decades, mainstream media promoted the narrative of “happily ever after,” equating personal fulfillment with marriage and motherhood. Today, stories about self-discovery, financial independence, and flexibility dominate the imagination of young women. In this context, marriage is no longer the default marker of adulthood or success; it is one of many possible pathways, often weighed against educational ambitions, career goals, and economic realities.

This evolution of expectations is deeply intertwined with inequality. Historically, marriage has often reinforced gendered hierarchies, particularly among working-class and minority women, for whom early marriage frequently constrained educational and career opportunities. Delaying marriage, or choosing to forgo it altogether, can represent a form of empowerment—but it also exposes young women to the structural vulnerabilities of a society where social support and economic stability are unevenly distributed. For those without family wealth or safety nets, the decision to prioritize education or autonomy over marriage is often a negotiation with risk rather than pure choice.

The broader social implications are significant. Declining enthusiasm for marriage may influence fertility patterns, reshape household structures, and challenge institutions built around traditional family models. For policymakers, educators, and social institutions, the question becomes whether systems will adapt to support diverse life paths or continue to privilege outdated models that assume early marriage and childbearing. For young women navigating these choices, the cultural shift represents both liberation and uncertainty, an opportunity to define adulthood on their own terms amid economic and social pressures.

As these teenagers mature, their choices may redefine what adulthood looks like in the United States. The decline in the “happily ever after” fantasy signals not a rejection of commitment, but a recalibration of priorities under the weight of opportunity, constraint, and inequality. It is a moment that reveals how deeply personal aspirations—love, marriage, family—are shaped by the structures, inequities, and possibilities of the world they inherit.

Sources:
Ms. Magazine. “Actually It’s Good That Fewer High Schoolers Want to Get Married.” 2025. https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/20/high-school-girls-marriage

New York Post. “High school girls are shifting away from marriage and 'happily ever after,' expert says.” 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/11/25/media/high-school-girls-are-shifting-away-from-marriage-and-happily-ever-after-expert-says

The Times. “Jobs, porn and manfluencers: the real reasons girls don't want to get married.” 2025. https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/why-dont-girls-plan-to-get-married-f7hr8jgp0

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

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:

Falling admissions
Median salaries of graduates are flat
Reductions in funding
Taking on more debt
Tuition increases
Reducing faculty head count
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.

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

Saturday, July 19, 2025

Trump Signs Crypto Bill: A Gateway to Corruption and Financial Oppression

On July 17, 2025, Donald Trump signed into law the “American Digital Freedom Act,” a sweeping piece of legislation that federalizes and deregulates cryptocurrency markets in the United States. While hailed by supporters as a victory for innovation and financial autonomy, the new law is more accurately understood as a major victory for crypto billionaires, libertarian think tanks, and political operatives seeking to reshape American financial life with minimal public accountability.

This bill, which strips oversight powers from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and restricts consumer protections, was heavily influenced by the cryptocurrency lobby. It legitimizes risky, unregulated financial products, undermines state enforcement power, and further embeds private power into public infrastructure. Far from delivering financial freedom to everyday Americans, this law opens the door to unprecedented corruption and control, continuing a pattern long warned about in the pages of the Higher Education Inquirer.

Echoes of Student Debt, EdTech Fraud, and Neoliberal Capture

In our May 2025 article, "How the New Cryptocurrency Bill Could Open the Door to Corruption and Control," we warned that the crypto bill was less about democratizing finance and more about creating new extractive markets. As with the for-profit college industry, the gigification of academic labor, and the student loan crisis, the crypto sector markets itself to the financially desperate, the underemployed, and the debt-burdened.

Cryptocurrency platforms promise opportunity and empowerment, just as subprime for-profit colleges did during the early 2000s. Instead, they profit from volatility, speculation, and financial illiteracy. The collapse of companies like FTX and the unraveling of various "blockchain for education" experiments—like those pitched by Minerva, 2U, and Lambda School—should have served as a warning. Instead, the American Digital Freedom Act enshrines their business models into law.

From Financial Risk to Political Weapon

While proponents describe the law as a pro-innovation framework, the political context suggests otherwise. The crypto bill was pushed through by some of the same operatives behind efforts to weaken the Department of Education, dismantle Title IX protections, and privatize public universities. The legislation also dovetails with Trump-aligned plans to create “digital citizenship” systems linked to financial identity—a move critics argue could be used to surveil and suppress dissent.

By reducing AML (Anti-Money Laundering) standards and weakening Know Your Customer (KYC) rules, the new law also makes it easier for dark money to enter U.S. elections and political campaigns. The line between crypto lobbying, national security risks, and voter manipulation is already blurred—and this legislation will only accelerate the trend.

As the Higher Education Inquirer, there is a growing convergence of tech capital, deregulated finance, and political ideology that promotes “freedom” while gutting accountability. The crypto bill fits squarely within this pattern.

Targeting the Dispossessed

The communities that will bear the brunt of the consequences are already stretched thin: working-class students drowning in loan debt, unemployed graduates with useless credentials, and gig workers living paycheck to paycheck. These are the same groups now being told that speculative crypto investments are their only shot at economic mobility.

It’s no surprise that crypto apps are targeting community college students, veterans, and underbanked populations with gamified interfaces and referral incentives—echoing the same predatory logic as diploma mills. Instead of building generational wealth, these platforms often lock users into a new form of digital serfdom, driven by data extraction and monetized hype.

The Long Game of Financialized Authoritarianism

The Higher Education Inquirer has consistently highlighted the dangers of unregulated private capital colonizing public institutions. Whether through for-profit colleges, hollow credential marketplaces, or now unregulated crypto markets, the pattern is the same: promise empowerment, deliver exploitation, and consolidate power.

The crypto bill signed by Trump is not an end—it is a gateway. A gateway to a political economy where finance, tech, and politics are indistinguishable, and where the price of dissent may be counted not only in speech, but in digital wallets and blockchain-based reputations.

We will continue reporting on the consequences of this legislation—especially where it intersects with higher education, student debt, and the erosion of democratic infrastructure. If you’ve been affected by crypto scams in academic settings or targeted by blockchain-backed “innovation” schemes, we want to hear from you.

Sources:

“How the New Cryptocurrency Bill Could Open the Door to Corruption and Control,” Higher Education Inquirer, May 2025
“Socrates in Space: University of Austin and the Billionaire Pipeline,” Higher Education Inquirer, July 2024
U.S. Congressional Record, July 17, 2025
CoinDesk, “Trump Signs Historic Crypto Deregulation Bill,” July 2025
Public Citizen, “Crypto Lobby’s Push to Rewrite U.S. Law,” June 2025
SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s Remarks, April–June 2025
Financial Times, “Digital Authoritarianism and Financial Surveillance,” May 2025

Saturday, July 5, 2025

Caring for the Planet: Walk More, Buy Less

In a world of climate crisis, student debt, and endless consumption, there’s a quiet revolution available to young people: walk more, buy less. It sounds simple—because it is—but the impact can be profound.

Most college students and recent grads don’t need to be reminded about environmental collapse. You've grown up amid wildfires, extreme weather, and warnings about rising seas. But while corporations and billionaires pump out pollution and plastic, you’re often told that the burden to fix things falls on your shoulders. You recycle. You switch off lights. You carry a tote bag. Still, it doesn’t feel like enough.

That’s because systemic change is slow and hard. But two actions—walking and not shopping—have the power to disrupt entire systems of waste and exploitation.

Walking Is a Radical Act

In car-dominated societies like the U.S., walking is often dismissed as inconvenient or inefficient. But for those who can safely walk, it is an act of environmental resistance. Cars consume fossil fuels, require destructive mining for materials, and spew emissions into the air. Even electric vehicles rely on rare earth metals, large batteries, and energy grids that still burn coal and gas.

Every mile you walk instead of drive avoids carbon pollution. Every pair of shoes worn out instead of tires is a win. Walking also builds local awareness. You notice what’s happening on your streets—who’s struggling, who’s thriving, which spaces are neglected, and where nature is still hanging on. You become part of your community rather than just passing through it.

Walking saves money, improves health, and takes power away from oil companies and car-dependent infrastructure. That’s not just healthy—it’s revolutionary.

Buying Less: Anti-Consumerism as Climate Action

You’ve probably heard the phrase “vote with your wallet.” But what if not spending is the more powerful vote?

Our entire economy is built around constant consumption. Fast fashion, tech upgrades, cheap furniture, endless online shopping—this isn’t just bad for your bank account. It’s bad for the planet. Every product you buy took raw materials, labor (often exploited), and energy to produce, ship, and store. The less we consume, the less destruction we support.

Here’s the thing: corporations want you to feel like you’re missing out if you don’t buy the newest thing. Social media and marketing are built to trigger that FOMO. But refusing to participate—living simply, creatively, and consciously—is one of the boldest stands you can take.

You don’t have to live like a monk. But delaying gratification, fixing what you already own, swapping clothes with friends, using the library, and just sitting with your discomfort instead of numbing it with shopping—these are environmental acts. They’re also acts of freedom.

Why This Matters for Students and Grads

As a young person, you’re probably juggling rent, school loans, gig jobs, and anxiety about the future. You may feel powerless. But walking and cutting back on shopping are low-cost, high-impact moves. They don’t require wealth. They don’t require perfection. They’re daily choices that build awareness and build community.

By walking and refusing overconsumption, you model an alternative future—one not built on endless growth, but on balance, care, and intentional living.

These small acts won’t fix everything. But they will help you live in closer alignment with your values. And they send a clear message: We’re not buying the lies anymore.

Final Thought

Caring for the environment isn’t about being perfect. It’s about shifting culture. It’s about resisting a system that treats the Earth—and our lives—as disposable.

So walk when you can. Buy less than you think you need. Look around. Notice what matters. And know that in these small acts, you’re part of something bigger.

Your steps count. Your refusal counts. Your care counts.

Higher Education Inquirer is committed to radical truth-telling and student advocacy in an era of climate chaos and corporate capture.

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

Move Aside for Tomorrow's Indigenous Graduates (American Indian College Fund)

Thursday, October 10, 2024

University of Phoenix: Training Folks For Robowork

The Higher Education Inquirer has published a number of articles on robocolleges, robostudents, and robowork, noting that the University of Phoenix has been a pioneer in the evolution of making humans more machine-like (or in science fiction terms, cyborgs). This is an evolution that spans more than a century, with Frederick Taylor and his Scientific Management of Work and Clayton Christensen's Theory of Disruptive Innovation.

More recently, we have posted articles on artificial intelligence and the dehumanization of society, including futuristic work by renowned sociologist Randall Collins.

The University of Phoenix, in the present, has taken another step in this profit-making dehumanization process, formal online customer service training for the international workforce. According to the University of Phoenix, customer service is in high demand globally, and UoPX offers a convenient series of professional development trainings for making human skills more efficient. It's not known how many humans are involved in teaching or content creation. What we do know is that the University of Phoenix relies on little human labor, with an average student-teacher ratio of 110 to one.

What are your thoughts on this training program? And how does type of online education and tech work bode for humans and humanity?

Search This Blog