Higher Education Inquirer

Friday, January 17, 2025

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Student Loan Forgiveness and Borrower Assistance Actions (US Department of Education)

Total Approved Student Debt Relief Reached Almost $189 Billion for 5.3 Million Borrowers

The Biden-Harris Administration today announced its final round of student loan forgiveness, approving more than $600 million for 4,550 borrowers through the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan and 4,100 individual borrower defense approvals. The Administration leaves office having approved a cumulative $188.8 billion in forgiveness for 5.3 million borrowers across 33 executive actions. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) today also announced that it has completed the income-driven repayment payment count adjustment and that borrowers will now be able to see their income-driven repayment counters when they log into their accounts on StudentAid.gov. Finally, the Department took additional actions that will allow students who attended certain schools that have since closed to qualify for student loan discharges.

“Four years ago, President Biden made a promise to fix a broken student loan system. We rolled up our sleeves and, together, we fixed existing programs that had failed to deliver the relief they promised, took bold action on behalf of borrowers who had been cheated by their institutions, and brought financial breathing room to hardworking Americans—including public servants and borrowers with disabilities. Thanks to our relentless, unapologetic efforts, millions of Americans are approved for student loan forgiveness,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. “I’m incredibly proud of the Biden-Harris Administration’s historic achievements in making the life-changing potential of higher education more affordable and accessible for more people.”

From Day One the Biden-Harris Administration took steps to rethink, restore, and revitalize targeted relief programs that entitle borrowers to relief under the Higher Education Act but that failed to live up to their promises. Through a combination of executive actions and regulatory improvements, the Biden-Harris Administration produced the following results for borrowers:

Fixed longstanding problems with Income-Driven Repayment (IDR). The Administration has approved 1.45 million borrowers for $57.1 billion in loan relief, including $600 million for 4,550 borrowers announced today for IBR forgiveness.

IDR plans help keep payments manageable for borrowers and have provided a path to forgiveness after an extended period. These plans started in the early 1990s, but prior to the Biden-Harris Administration taking office, just 50 borrowers had ever had their loans forgiven. The Administration corrected longstanding failures to accurately track borrower progress toward forgiveness and addressed past instances of forbearance steering whereby servicers inappropriately advised borrowers to postpone payments for extended periods of time. These totals also include borrowers who received forgiveness under the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan prior to court orders halting forgiveness under the SAVE plan.

Today, the Department also announced the completion of the IDR payment count adjustment, correcting eligible payment counts. While the payment count adjustment is now complete, borrowers who were affected by certain servicer transitions in 2024 may see one or two additional months credited in the coming weeks. The Department is also launching the ability for borrowers to track their IDR progress on StudentAid.gov. Borrowers can now log in to their accounts and see their total IDR payment count and a month-by-month breakdown of progress.

Restored the promise of Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). The Administration has approved 1,069,000 borrowers for $78.5 billion in forgiveness.

The PSLF Program provides critical support to teachers, service members, social workers, and others engaged in public service. But prior to this Administration taking office, just 7,000 borrowers had received forgiveness and the overwhelming majority of borrowers who applied had their applications denied. The Biden-Harris Administration fixed this program by pursuing regulatory improvements, correcting long-standing issues with tracking progress toward forgiveness and misuse of forbearances, and implementing the limited PSLF waiver to avoid harm from the pandemic.

Automated discharges and simplified eligibility criteria for borrowers with a total and permanent disability. The Administration has approved 633,000 borrowers for $18.7 billion in loan relief.

Borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled may be eligible for a total and permanent disability (TPD) discharge. The Biden-Harris Administration changed regulations to automatically forgive loans for eligible borrowers based upon a data match with the Social Security Administration (SSA). This helped hundreds of thousands of borrowers who were eligible for relief but hadn’t managed to navigate paperwork requirements. The Department also made it easier for borrowers to qualify for relief based upon SSA determinations, made it easier to complete the TPD application, and eliminated provisions that had caused many borrowers to have their loans reinstated.

Delivered long-awaited help to borrowers ripped off by their institutions, whose schools closed, or through related court settlements. The Administration has approved just under 2 million borrowers for $34.5 billion in loan relief.

For years, students had sought relief from the Department through borrower defense to repayment—a provision that allows borrowers to have their loans forgiven if their college engaged in misconduct related to the borrowers’ loans. The Department delivered long-awaited relief to borrowers who attended some of the most notoriously predatory institutions to ever participate in the federal financial aid programs. This included approving for discharge all remaining outstanding loans from Corinthian Colleges, as well as group discharges for ITT Technical Institute, the Art Institutes, Westwood College, Ashford University, and others. The Department also settled a long-running class action lawsuit stemming from allegations of inaction and the issuance of form denials, allowing it to begin the first sustained denials of non-meritorious claims.

Today, the Department also approved 4,100 additional individual borrower defense applications for borrowers who attended DeVry University, based upon findings announced in February 2022.

“For decades, the federal government promised to help people who couldn’t afford their student loans because they were in public service, had disabilities, were cheated by their college, or who had completed decades of payments. But it rarely kept those promises until now,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal. “These permanent reforms have already helped more 5 million borrowers, and many more borrowers will continue to benefit.”

The table below compares the progress made by the Biden-Harris Administration in these key discharge areas compared to other administrations.

	Borrowers approved for forgiveness
	Prior Administrations	Biden-Harris Administration
Borrower Defense (Since 2015)	53,500	1,767,000*
Public Service Loan Forgiveness (Since 2017)	7,000	1,069,000
Income-Driven Repayment (all-time)	50	1,454,000
Total and Permanent Disability (Since 2017)	604,000	633,000

* Includes 107,000 borrowers and $1.25 billion captured by an extension of the closed-school lookback window at ITT Technical Institute.

Additional actions related to closed school discharges

The Department today also announced additional actions that will make more borrowers eligible for a closed school loan discharge. Generally, a borrower qualifies for a closed school discharge if they did not complete their program and were either still enrolled when the school closed or left without graduating within 120 days before it closed. . However, the Department has determined that several schools closed under exceptional circumstances that merit allowing borrowers who did complete and were enrolled in the school more than 120 days prior to the closure to qualify for a closed school discharge. justify extending the look-back window beyond the applicable 120 or 180 days--allowing additional borrowers to qualify for a closed school discharge. Generally, eligible borrowers will have to apply for these discharges, but the Secretary has directed Federal Student Aid to make borrowers aware of their eligibility, and to pursue automatic discharges for those affected by closures that took place between 2013 and 2020 and who did not enroll elsewhere within three years of their school closing.

These adjusted look-back windows are:

To May 6, 2015, for all campuses owned at the time by the Career Education Corporation (CEC), which have since closed. That is the day CEC announced it would close or sell all campuses except for two brands. This affected the Art Institutes, Le Cordon Bleu, Brooks Institute, Missouri College, Briarcliffe College, and Sanford-Brown.
To December 16, 2016, for campuses owned by the Education Corporation of America (ECA) on that date that closed. ECA operated Virginia College, Brightwood College, EcoTech, and Golf Academies and started on the path to closure after its accreditation agency lost federal recognition and ECA could not obtain accreditation elsewhere.
To October 17, 2017 for all campuses owned or sold on that date by the Education Management Corporation (EDMC) and that later closed. That is the day EDMC sold substantially all of its assets to Dream Center Educational Holdings. The decision affects borrowers who attended the Art Institutes, including the Miami International University of Art & Design and Argosy University.
To April 23, 2021, for Bay State College. That is the day this Massachusetts-based college began to face significant accreditation challenges, which eventually led to the school losing accreditation and closing in August 2023.

Borrowers who want more information about closed school discharge, including how to apply, can visit StudentAid.gov/closedschool.

A state-by-state breakdown of various forms of student debt relief approved by the Biden-Harris Administration is available here.

Our First FOIAs of 2025

The Higher Education Inquirer has started the year by digging deeper into the Federal Student Loan Portfolio using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. If you would like to know something that has not been made public by the US Department of Education (ED), please contact us. ED has a number of additional websites for public information, such as the College Scorecard, Federal Student Aid website, College Navigator, IPEDS data website, and the Closed Schools Monthly Report. But the availability of good data could be reduced in coming years. As usual, we appreciate your comments below.

Image from US Department of Education regarding FOIA Request 25-01935-F

Thursday, January 16, 2025

Feds Cancel Debts for 261,000 Students of Disgraced School Now Run by U. of Arizona (David Halperin)

The Biden Department of Education announced today it has approved $4.5 billion in loan debt cancellation for 261,000 borrowers who attended for-profit Ashford University between March 2009 and April 2020. It also announced it would seek to ban Andrew Clark, the CEO of Ashford’s demised parent company, Zovio, from contracting with the federal government.

The announcement brings some measure of relief and justice to a huge number of former students of Ashford, which evolved from a single campus in Iowa that Zovio acquired in 2005 to a massive, high-priced, poor-quality, mostly-online school that got billions from taxpayers while leaving many worse off than when they enrolled. Ashford and Zovio were held liable and penalized $20 million for scamming students by a California court following a 2022 trial brought by that state’s attorney general. The verdict was upheld on appeal.

The former students were enrolled at Ashford by aggressive recruiters who told a lot of falsehoods but could say, truthfully, that the school was approved for federal student grants and loans by the Department of Education. The Department let these students down by keeping its good housekeeping seal on the school and thus keeping predatory Ashford eligible for taxpayer money. The Biden administration deserves credit for at last righting some of this wrong.

The California trial echoed numerous past reports of abuses by Zovio and Ashford. In fact, at a hearing focused on Ashford way back in 2011, then-Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) declared Ashford “an absolute scam.” The California court found that Zovio and Ashford “created a high pressure culture in admissions that prioritized enrollment numbers over compliance.” The case included detailed testimony from Ashford employees about a deceptive operation engineered by senior Zovio executives — and about numerous lives ruined by a school that never earned the certifications that would allow graduates to even be eligible for the teaching, social work, and other jobs they sought.

Unfortunately for today’s students, Ashford continues to operate. It just changed its name to University of Arizona Global Campus (UAGC). In August 2020, Zovio sold Ashford to the University of Arizona, in a shady deal that allowed Zovio to hide the school under the apron of the powerful state university and shed the stigma that for-profit schools like Ashford had brought upon themselves — and yet still permit Zovio to make big money with a long term contract to run Ashford’s operations. After the California verdict, the University of Arizona forced Zovio out of the arrangement, but it hired most of Zovio’s employees and carried on with Zovio’s playbook. Mounting evidence of financial losses and continued predatory practices at the school likely played a role in the resignation of the school’s president last year.

The Department said that the California AG office had requested today’s loan discharges for Ashford students, based on evidence developed in its lawsuit “around widespread misrepresentations in nine separate areas, including students’ ability to obtain needed licensure, transfer credits, the cost and amount of financial aid, and the time it would take to earn a degree.” The Department said it conducted its own review of the evidence before acting.

Ashford has been sued or investigated by other federal and state agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the attorneys general of Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina. A 2015 settlement with the CFPB forced Ashford to discharge $23.5 million in high-interest private loans and pay an $8 million civil penalty.

“Numerous federal and state investigations have documented the deceptive recruiting tactics frequently used by Ashford University,” U.S. Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal said in a statement today. “In reality, 90 percent of Ashford students never graduated, and the few who did were often left with large debts and low incomes. Today’s announcement will finally provide relief to many students who were harmed by Ashford’s illegal actions.”

In 2023 the Department announced $72 million in debt cancellation for more than 2,300 Ashford borrowers who who applied for relief. But with today’s action, a much larger group of former Ashford students will get automatic relief, without having to apply and prove their cases. The Department says it will email former Ashford students informing them of the discharge.

When it announced that first $72 million in relief in 2023, the Department said it planned to come after the University of Arizona to recoup the losses, which federal permits. Today’s announcement creates an even greater risk of liability for the state school. U of A has denied it would be responsible, but its purchase agreement with Zovio suggests otherwise.

Separately, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Government-Wide Debarment from Federal Procurement and Non-Procurement Transactions to Clark, the founder and former CEO of Zovio — aiming at a decision that would, among other things, prevent Clark from working as a principal or executive of any college getting federal aid.

In a statement today, the Department said it was acting against Clark “because Ashford violated federal regulations regarding making substantial misrepresentations. The evidence from the California litigation, and other sources, which the Department independently reviewed, is mountainous. The conduct of Ashford can be imputed to Mr. Clark because he participated in, knew, or had reason to know of Ashford’s misrepresentations. Mr. Clark not only supervised the unlawful conduct, he personally participated in it, driving some of the worst aspects of the boiler-room-style recruiting culture.”

The Department said it would refer the proposed debarment to its Office of Hearings and Appeals, with a recommendation that Clark be banned for “not less than three years .” (Three years?) Clark would have an opportunity to oppose the move.

I’m not sure Clark will bother, if indeed the debarment effort goes forward under the administration of former Trump University head Donald J. Trump. Clark’s last reported job on his LinkedIn page is as CEO of Zovio, which went out of business in 2022. Clark made tens or even hundreds of millions running Zovio, with annual compensation topping $20 million in at least one year.

Clark abruptly left the company in 2021. Others responsible for awful Zovio, which changed its name from Bridgepoint Education in 2019, include Ryan Craig, a private equity man who served on the board from 2003 to 2022, and Robert Eitel, who worked at the company from 2015 to 2017 and later was one of Betsy DeVos’s top aides in the first Trump Department of Education.

On Monday, the Department of Education granted similar automatic debt relief to 73,600 borrowers who attended schools of the disgraced chain Center for Excellence Higher Education. That operation’s CEO, Eric Juhlin, was similarly debarred by the Department in 2021.

Unfortunately for today’s students, who will now be at the mercy of the incoming Trump administration, in addition to Ashford-n0w-UAGC, there are still many awful, large for-profit chains still running, including Perdoceo and the University of Phoenix.

There’s one other thing the Biden administration could do to halt Ashford’s abuses before it turns over the keys to the Trump administration, which last time did almost everything possible to help predatory schools abuse students: It could act on the long-pending application by Arizona to approve the change of ownership of Ashford. It should reject the application. And the University of Arizona should shut down this scam school once and for all.

When I first got involved in the issue of for-profit colleges, back in 2010, I received a phone call from a man who said he was on a golf course in the San Diego area, where Zovio, then called Bridgepoint, was located. He said that a bunch of Bridgepoint executives were playing golf while loudly mocking Ashford students. He held up the phone so I could hear the laughter.

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

The Paradox of Being a Good Person - George Orwell's Warning to the World (Pursuit of Wonder)

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

University of Colorado sued for free speech violations over response to Israel-Hamas war protest (John Herrick)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared at the Boulder Reporting Lab.]

A University of Colorado Boulder student and an employee filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court on Jan. 10, alleging the university violated their free speech rights following a protest related to the war in Gaza.

Sophomore Mari Rosenfeld and recent graduate Max Inman, the plaintiffs, claim CU Boulder retaliated against them for participating in an Oct. 3 protest organized by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) during a career fair at the University Memorial Center.

The lawsuit follows several other legal challenges against universities nationwide over restrictions on student protests over the Israel-Hamas war. These cases often underscore a tension universities face in balancing the protection of free speech with maintaining campus order.

According to the complaint, Rosenfeld and Inman sought to oppose U.S. support for Israel and the involvement of corporations allegedly linked to the war. Inman entered the University Memorial Center’s Glenn Miller Ballroom, where the career fair was held, and used a bullhorn to claim that corporations attending the job fair were profiting from the war. A police officer then directed the protesters to leave and they left, according to the lawsuit.

The next day, the university issued an “interim exclusion” order barring Rosenfeld and Inman from attending certain university activities — except for classes — and placed SJP in “bad standing,” effectively revoking its status as a recognized student organization, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue these actions violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as a state law protecting student protests.

“Plaintiffs are being singled out based on their viewpoint and the content of their speech by Defendant University of Colorado Boulder and its administration in an effort to stifle further demonstrations,” the lawsuit states.

Rosenfeld and Inman allege the punishment also prevented them from working the on-campus portions of their jobs. They are seeking monetary damages and a court order to prohibit the university from barring future pro-Palestinian protests at the UMC. They are also seeking an order to remove disciplinary notations related to the protest from their student records.

The lawsuit names the University of Colorado and CU Boulder’s chancellor, Justin Schwartz, dean of students, Devin Cramer, and deputy dean of students, Holly Nelson. The university has not yet been served the lawsuit, according to a spokesperson. The spokesperson said the campus would review the filing and determine its response but declined to comment further.

The case reflects a broader national trend of universities cracking down on student activism related to the Israel-Hamas war. During the peak in the spring and summer 2024, universities imposed stricter rules, issued suspensions and called in police to arrest students — though many charges were later dropped. While some campuses have seen large-scale protests, CU Boulder has not experienced such encampments.

“Banning students from campus to prevent them from speaking out about an unjust war cannot go unchallenged,” Dan Williams, a lawyer with the local civil rights firm Hutchinson Black and Cook who is representing the plaintiffs. “I’m pleased to be fighting for the rights of these students to have their voices heard.”

Unlocking Transparency (US Department of Education)

Data is one of the most valuable resources in the digital age, and the U.S. Department of Education (ED or the Department) is taking a big step forward in making education data accessible to stakeholders and researchers. ED’s recently published Open Data Plan is designed to foster greater transparency, empower public engagement, and stimulate innovation.

So, what is open data? Simply put, it’s data that is made publicly available for anyone to use, analyze, and share, without restrictions. It’s about making information accessible to solve problems, spark creativity, and improve decision-making across all sectors of society. Here’s what ED is doing to ensure education data is open to the public.

ED’s Open Data Plan focuses on the improvement of existing open data practices at the Department. The four key actions and related tasks described in the Plan are intended to address any gaps of the Department’s open data practices. The key actions in the Plan are inspired by the FAIR data principles. These guidelines remind data stewards within ED to focus on the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of our digital assets which enhances the utility and value of education data for the public.

Each key action is supported by related tasks and the approach for how each task will be implemented. Further, each task identifies short-term activities intended to be implemented over a two-year horizon (2025-2027) with measurable benchmarks reviewed at least annually to determine impact and to document completion. With the Department's inaugural Open Data Plan, ED is piloting tasks and benchmarks during these first two years to help identify an improved and more effective path forward. This work will inform improvements, longer-term actions, and a roadmap for future work.

The Open Data Plan is another step toward establishing transparency as the standard across ED, ensuring openness and accessibility are the norm for our data assets. It’s about creating a space where education data is not locked away or released in a manner that benefits only some stakeholders; but shared openly, fueling collaboration, innovation, and trust. One of the main objectives of open data, and ED’s Open Data Plan, is to foster a world where anyone, anywhere, can access the information they need to make informed decisions.

But the Department can’t do this alone. The real power of open data lies in the community that comes together around it. By contributing to the data ecosystem, we each play a part in transforming it into a tool for positive change, including advancing educational goals such as improving student outcomes, expanding education research, fostering educational technology, increasing government transparency, and driving data-informed policy. Together, we can build a future where data empowers us all, fosters greater accountability, and leads to solutions that benefit everyone.

Austerity in California

Ben Unglesbee at Higher Ed Dive this week wrote about the coming budget cuts to the University of California System and the Cal State University System. Something that EdSource, a California-based media outlet, has been reporting on for months.

Those devastating cuts, amounting to $650 million, are part of a long and important history of US higher education and austerity, beginning with Ronald Reagan when he was Governor of California. Those ideas, at least in part, continued under other administrations, as they reduced higher education for working-class citizens, especially African Americans, while giving greater opportunities to foreigners, including elite noncitizens.

These policies and other regressive actions drove millions of folks out of California. And those policies have spread to other states, making higher education less accessible and less responsive to working-class Americans. It's no wonder that so many have become cynical about the higher education system.

For now, the UC System can absorb these funding losses, but the Cal State System and the people who are served by that system, will not be as resilient. On a small scale, this is another symptom of the decline of US democracy and the slow decline of the American Empire, something few folks in higher education will admit, or even discuss.

State Universities and the College Meltdown

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

Higher Education and the American Empire

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

The Harsh Truth Behind the Los Angeles Wildfires (Stephanie Pincetl)

UCLA Professor Stephanie Pincetl is calling the wildfires in Los Angeles a biblical-level catastrophe at least a century in the making. Pincetl teaches at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and is Director of the California Center for Sustainable Communities, specializing in land use and the interaction between urban development and wildfire risks.

Call for Submissions for Special Edition – “Trends in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Digital Learning.” (Anthony Picciano)

[Editor's note: this article first appeared at Tony's Thoughts: CUNY education news technology]

Dear Commons Community,

Patsy Moskal and I have decided to be guest editors for Education Sciences for a special edition entitled,

“Trends in the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Digital Learning.” (See below for a longer description.)

It is a most timely topic of deep interest to many in the academy. We would love to have you contribute an article for it. Your submission can be research, practitioner, or thought-based. It also does not have to be a long article (4,000-word minimum). Final articles will be due no later than July 1, 2025.

You can find more details at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/special_issues/6UHTBIOT14#info

Thank you for your consideration!

Tony

Humanity and the Moral Gap (Noam Chomsky)

Monday, January 13, 2025

When Banks Lost Control of the Student Loan Mess

History can be many things. It can be both informative and purposely deceptive. And from time to time, historical events need to be revisited if we seek the truth. We also find critical historical analysis essential when we think about US higher education and student loan debt from a People's perspective.

In a previous article we said Best and Best's classic The Student Loan Mess needed to be updated and reexamined. Although the book was an exceptional chronicle of the student loan industry from 1958 to 2013, it missed at least one key event, the 2008-2010 bailout of Sallie Mae and a number of banks who made questionable private loans guaranteed by the US government. This lesson is especially important if the US government decides to get out of the student loan business or reduce government oversight of student loans.

From 1965 to 2010, the federal government was a backstop for private student loans, Guaranteed Student Loans, also known as the FFEL loans. Annual volume of private loans skyrocketed, from $5B in 2001 to over $20B in 2008, when 14 percent of all undergraduates had one. A secondary market for private student loan debt (student loan asset-backed securities) also began to flourish. An industry group, America's Student Loan Providers (ASLP), provided political cover for private lenders.

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (HR 2669) which cut subsidies to lenders and increasing grants to students. But this did little to contain the growing mountain of student loan debt. A mountain of unrecoverable debt that was crushing millions of consumers as the US was facing an enormous economic crisis, the Great Recession.

In rereading The Student Loan Mess, we also discovered that these private entities had not only made questionable loans, some private lenders had also bribed university officials to become preferred lenders. How commonplace this student loan grift was has not been adequately explored.

In 2008, the Bush government began a bailout of these private lenders, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act (ECASLA), which amounted to $110B. This event occurred largely without notice. And because a larger Great Recession was happening, the ECASLA never received much media attention.

As part of Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, President Obama's takeover of the Guaranteed Student Loan program in 2010, did get attention. Ending the Guaranteed Student Loan program was supposed to save the US government $66B over an 11-year period. This rosy projection never materialized. The FFEL loans acquired by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) during the transition to the Direct Loan program are now part of the Direct Loan portfolio. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) acquired an additional $20.4 billion in face amount of FFEL loans from lenders during the transition from the FFEL program to the Direct Loan program.

The FFEL loans that were not acquired by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) during the transition to the Direct Loan program remained with the original private lenders. These loans continue to be serviced by the private lenders that issued them.

For-profit colleges, the engine for much of this bad debt, did get scrutiny, and from 2010 to 2023, their presence was reduced. But overpriced education and edugrift continued in many forms. And after a short respite from 2020 to 2024, the mountain of bad student loan debt continues to grow.

Related links:

A Report on the Loan Purchase Programs Created by ECASLA

Student Loan Debt Clock

America's Student Loan Providers | C-SPAN.org

Student Loan History (New America)

Sunday, January 12, 2025

Higher Education and the American Empire

The Higher Education Inquirer has had the good fortune to include scholars like Henry Giroux, Gary Roth, Wendy Lynne Lee, Bryan Alexander and Richard Wolff. And their work certainly informs us about higher education. With those authors and others from the past and present (like Upton Sinclair, Craig Steven Wilder, Davarian Baldwin, and Sharon Stein), we can better understand puzzling issues that are rarely pieced together.

In 2023, we suggested that a People's History of US Higher Education be written. And to expand its scope, the key word "Empire" is essential in establishing a critical (and honest) analysis. Otherwise, it's work that only serves to indoctrinate rather than educate its citizens. And it's also work that smart and diligent students know is untrue.

A volume on Higher Education and the American Empire needs to explain how elite universities have worked for US special interests and the interests of wealthy people across the globe--often at the expense of folks in university cities and places around the world--and at the expense of the planet and its ecosystems. With global climate change in our face (and denied), and with the US in competition with China, India, Russia, in our face (and denied), this story cannot be ignored.

This necessary work on Higher Education and the US Empire needs to include detailed timelines, and lots of charts, graphs, and statistical analyses--as well as stories. Outstanding books and articles have been written over the decades, but they have not been comprehensive. And in many cases, there is little to be said about how this information can be used for reform and resistance.

Information is available for those who are interested enough to dig.

Understanding the efforts of the American Empire (and the wealthy and powerful who control it) is more important than ever. And understanding how this information can be used to educate, agitate, and organize the People is even more essential. We hear there are such projects in the pipeline and look forward to their publication. We hope they don't pull punches and that the books do not gather dust on shelves, as many important books do.

Key links:

The Best Classroom is the Struggle (Joshua Sooter)

Higher Education Must Champion Democracy, Not Surrender to Fascism (Henry Giroux)

Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.

Cloak & Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961 (Robin Winks)

Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War (Christopher Simpson)

Unsettling the University: Confronting the Colonial Foundations of US Higher Education (Sharon Stein)

Friday, January 10, 2025

Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost (Caitlin Zaloom)

This audiobook narrated by Kate Harper examines how the financial pressures of paying for college affect the lives and well-being of middle-class families The struggle to pay for college is one of the defining features of middle-class life in America today. At kitchen tables all across the country, parents agonize over whether to burden their children with loans or to sacrifice their own financial security by taking out a second mortgage or draining their retirement savings. Indebted takes readers into the homes of middle-class families throughout the nation to reveal the hidden consequences of student debt and the ways that financing college has transformed family life.

Caitlin Zaloom gained the confidence of numerous parents and their college-age children, who talked candidly with her about stressful and intensely personal financial matters that are usually kept private. In this remarkable book, Zaloom describes the profound moral conflicts for parents as they try to honor what they see as their highest parental duty—providing their children with opportunity—and shows how parents and students alike are forced to take on enormous debts and gamble on an investment that might not pay off.

What emerges is a troubling portrait of an American middle class fettered by the "student finance complex"—the bewildering labyrinth of government-sponsored institutions, profit-seeking firms, and university offices that collect information on household earnings and assets, assess family needs, and decide who is eligible for aid and who is not. Superbly written and unflinchingly honest, Indebted breaks through the culture of silence surrounding the student debt crisis, revealing the unspoken costs of sending our kids to college.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Caitlin Zaloom is associate professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University. She is a founding editor of Public Books and the author of Out of the Pits: Traders and Technology from Chicago to London. She lives in New York City. Twitter @caitlinzaloom

Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World? (OECD)

The latest Survey of Adult Skills highlights a mixed global picture of literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem-solving proficiency. Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden excel in all these areas, with significant proportions of their adult populations demonstrating advanced abilities. However, on average across OECD countries, 18% of adults do not even have the most basic levels of proficiency in any of the domains.

Thirty-one countries and economies participated in the 2023 Survey of Adult Skills. The survey, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), provides a comprehensive overview of adults' literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving skills – skills that are fundamental for personal, economic, and societal development. The US saw declining literacy and numeracy,

US Results

In literacy, 28% of adults (OECD average: 26%) scored at Level 1 or below, meaning they have low literacy proficiency. At Level 1, they can understand short texts and organised lists when information is clearly indicated, find specific information and identify relevant links. Those below Level 1 can at most understand short, simple sentences. At the other end of the spectrum, 13% of adults (OECD average: 12%) scored at Levels 4 or 5 in literacy and are high performers. These adults can comprehend and evaluate long, dense texts across several pages, grasp complex or hidden meanings, and use prior knowledge to understand texts and complete tasks (see Table 2.4 in Chapter 2 for a description of what adults can do at each proficiency level in literacy, and Figure 2 for the proportion of adults at each level).

In numeracy, 34% of adults (OECD average: 25%) scored at or below Level 1 proficiency. At Level 1, they can do basic maths with whole numbers or money, understand decimals, and find single pieces of information in tables or charts, but may struggle with tasks needing multiple steps (e.g. solving a proportion). Those below Level 1 can add and subtract small numbers. Adults at Levels 4 or 5 are top performers (12% in the United States, 14% on average across OECD countries and economies). They can calculate and understand rates and ratios, interpret complex graphs, and critically evaluate statistical claims. (see Table 2.5 in Chapter 2 for a description of what adults can do at each proficiency level in numeracy, and Figure 2 for the proportion of adults at each level).

In adaptive problem solving, 32% of adults (OECD average: 29%) scored at or below Level 1 proficiency. Adults at Level 1 can solve simple problems with few variables and little irrelevant information, which do not change as they make progress towards the solution. They struggle with multi-step problems, or those needing monitoring of multiple variables. Adults below Level 1 at most understand very simple problems, typically solved in one step. Some 6% of adults (OECD average: 5%) scored at Level 4. They have a deeper understanding of problems, and can adapt to unexpected changes, even if they require a major re-evaluation of the problem (see Table 2.6 in Chapter 2 for a description of what adults can do at each proficiency level in adaptive problem solving, and Figure 2 for the proportion of adults at each level).

When considering all three domains jointly, 23% of adults in the United States (OECD average: 18%) scored at the two lowest levels of these proficiency scales (Table A.2.3).

The full report is available at The OECD website. Results for the US are available here.

Welcome Back

Congratulations to those who are returning to campus.

You may notice that some students didn't come back, for one reason, or perhaps a few reasons known, unknown, and rumored about. Poor grades, finances, work and family obligations, drug and alcohol problems, bullying, domestic abuse, and sexual assault, mental illness and suicide, accidents, and physical disabilities are just a few issues.

This doesn't necessarily mean that it's the end of a college career. It may only be a detour.

Retaining students is not only an effort of individuals, it's an institutional effort, one that good administrators are well aware of. Some schools are better than others at it. Others prefer a survival of the fittest mindset.

Some administrators care little about retention, believing that there is little that can be done. College is an assembly line with a certain amount (x) that won't make it. This may be a concern if the student is someone they know or someone who is the child of someone who cares enough to ask questions or pull strings.

Teachers may care even less, believing that fewer students makes classroom management easier. It certainly makes parking easier.

Students may care, but are not sure what could be done. And they may not have the means, they believe, to make a difference.

But in the long-run, dropping out can leave former students angry and bitter about a school that didn't care. Word of mouth spreads when a school could care less. We'd like to hear your stories about detachment, caring, and getting folks back in the classroom.

Thursday, January 9, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

Selected Findings

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

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

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

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

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

About AAC&U

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2025

Extreme drought, high winds helped spark the California fires (CBS News)

High winds intersecting with historic drought levels are contributing to the dangerous conditions that sparked the multiple fires raging in the Los Angeles area. Dr. Helen Holmlund, an assistant professor of biology at Pepperdine University, joins CBS News with more on the extreme conditions.

Shall we all pretend we didn't see it coming, again?: higher education, climate change, climate refugees, and climate denial by elites

Thinking about climate change and international study (Bryan Alexander)

How campuses engage with the climate crisis: a taxonomy (Bryan Alexander)

"Let's all pretend we couldn't see it coming" (The US Working-Class Depression)

Four San Diego State fraternity members charged after one was set on fire (Fox 5 San Diego)

Modern States: Get College Credit For Free

OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS TO EARN FREE COLLEGE CREDIT

A new, high-quality path to free college credit was launched in 2017. The goal of the program, dubbed “Freshman Year for Free,” is to make college more accessible and affordable for high school students, college students and adult learners, including active duty military personnel, their families, and veterans.

WHO IS MAKING THIS POSSIBLE?

Modern States, the New York-based charitable organization behind the effort, has funded production of online courses taught by college professors. The courses prepare students for introductory College Level Examination Program (CLEP) exams in Economics, Sociology, Algebra, and other areas.

HOW DOES THIS LEAD TO COLLEGE CREDIT?

The CLEP exams, administered by the College Board, are accepted for credit by more than 2,900 colleges and universities. Modern States is partnering with high schools and colleges that are making students aware of the opportunity.

WHY PARTICIPATE?

This is the first time there have been courses (see list below) taught by top quality college professors for CLEP subjects. Also, Modern States is paying the CLEP exam fee and scheduling fee for students who enroll in the courses and take the exams. The benefit for participating institutions is that this creates a free on-ramp to college that facilitates learning and earning credits.

WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO KNOW?

Modern States will pay for you to take the CLEP exam. After you complete the coursework and practice questions, request a CLEP voucher code from the Modern States website. There are no prerequisites for the 32 courses that are available, and all of them are self-paced. Some of the courses stem from a partnership between Modern States and edX, the online education platform created by Harvard and MIT.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

Modern States Education Alliance™ offers free, high-quality online courses taught by college professors that prepare you for the CLEP exams, which are well-established and widely-accepted. Solid performance on the exams (each participating college decides what scores you need for credit) can earn you college credits and enable you to save tuition dollars. You can take one course or many; if you do well on eight exams, you can potentially earn Freshman Year for Free™.

HOW CAN I GET INVOLVED?

Monday, January 6, 2025

HEI Resources 2025

[Editor's Note: Please let us know of any additions or corrections.]

Books

Alexander, Bryan (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.
Alexander, Bryan (2023). Universities on Fire. Johns Hopkins Press.
Angulo, A. (2016). Diploma Mills: How For-profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Archibald, R. and Feldman, D. (2017). The Road Ahead for America's Colleges & Universities. Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, E. and Hamilton, L. (2015). Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Harvard University Press.
Arum, R. and Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. University of Chicago Press.
Baldwin, Davarian (2021). In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities. Bold Type Books.
Bennett, W. and Wilezol, D. (2013). Is College Worth It?: A Former United States Secretary of Education and a Liberal Arts Graduate Expose the Broken Promise of Higher Education. Thomas Nelson.
Berg, I. (1970). "The Great Training Robbery: Education and Jobs." Praeger.
Berman, Elizabeth P. (2012). Creating the Market University. Princeton University Press.
Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education. Monthly Review Press.
Best, J. and Best, E. (2014) The Student Loan Mess: How Good Intentions Created a Trillion-Dollar Problem. Atkinson Family Foundation.

Bledstein, Burton J. (1976). The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. Norton.

Bogue, E. Grady and Aper, Jeffrey. (2000). Exploring the Heritage of American Higher Education: The Evolution of Philosophy and Policy.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace : The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton University Press.
Bousquet, M. (2008). How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low Wage Nation. NYU Press.
Brennan, J & Magness, P. (2019). Cracks in the Ivory Tower. Oxford University Press.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. The Diverted Dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press. (1989).
Cabrera, Nolan L. (2024) Whiteness in the Ivory Tower: Why Don't We Notice the White Students Sitting Together in the Quad? Teachers College Press.
Cabrera, Nolan L. (2018). White Guys on Campus: Racism, White Immunity, and the Myth of "Post-Racial" Higher Education. Rutgers University Press.
Caplan, B. (2018). The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money. Princeton University Press.
Cappelli, P. (2015). Will College Pay Off?: A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You'll Ever Make. Public Affairs.
Carney, Cary Michael (1999). Native American Higher Education in the United States. Transaction.
Childress, H. (2019). The Adjunct Underclass: How America's Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty, Their Students, and Their Mission University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, Arthur M. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, Randall. (1979/2019) The Credential Society. Academic Press. Columbia University Press.
Cottom, T. (2016). Lower Ed: How For-profit Colleges Deepen Inequality in America
Domhoff, G. William (2021). Who Rules America? 8th Edition. Routledge.
Donoghue, F. (2008). The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities.
Dorn, Charles. (2017) For the Common Good: A New History of Higher Education in America Cornell University Press.
Eaton, Charlie. (2022) Bankers in the Ivory Tower: The Troubling Rise of Financiers in US Higher Education. University of Chicago Press.
Eisenmann, Linda. (2006) Higher Education for Women in Postwar America, 1945–1965. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
Espenshade, T., Walton Radford, A.(2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.
Faragher, John Mack and Howe, Florence, ed. (1988). Women and Higher Education in American History. Norton.
Farber, Jerry (1972). The University of Tomorrowland. Pocket Books.
Freeman, Richard B. (1976). The Overeducated American. Academic Press.
Gaston, P. (2014). Higher Education Accreditation. Stylus.
Ginsberg, B. (2013). The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All Administrative University and Why It Matters
Gleason, Philip. Contending with Modernity: Catholic Higher Education in the Twentieth Century. Oxford U. Press, 1995.
Golden, D. (2006). The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys its Way into Elite Colleges — and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates.
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the Price: College Costs, Financial Aid, and the Betrayal of the American Dream.
Graeber, David (2018) Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Simon and Schuster.

Groeger, Cristina Viviana (2021). The Education Trap: Schools and the Remaking of Inequality in Boston. Harvard Press.

Hamilton, Laura T. and Kelly Nielson (2021) Broke: The Racial Consequences of Underfunding Public Universities
Johnson, B. et al. (2003). Steal This University: The Rise of the Corporate University and the Academic Labor Movement
Keats, John (1965) The Sheepskin Psychosis. Lippincott.
Kelchen, R. (2018). Higher Education Accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kezar, A., DePaola, T, and Scott, D. The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University. Johns Hopkins Press.
Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street: The Transformation of For-profit Higher Education
Kozol, Jonathan (2006). The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Crown.
Kozol, Jonathan (1992). Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. Harper Perennial.
Labaree, David F. (2017). A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Labaree, David (1997) How to Succeed in School without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education, Yale University Press.
Lafer, Gordon (2004). The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press.
Loehen, James (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me. The New Press.
Lohse, Andrew (2014). Confessions of an Ivy League Frat Boy: A Memoir. Thomas Dunne Books.
Lucas, C.J. American higher education: A history. (1994).
Lukianoff, Greg and Jonathan Haidt (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. Penguin Press.
Maire, Quentin (2021). Credential Market. Springer.
Mandery, Evan (2022) . Poison Ivy: How Elite Colleges Divide Us. New Press.
Marti, Eduardo (2016). America's Broken Promise: Bridging the Community College Achievement Gap. Excelsior College Press.
Mettler, Suzanne 'Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged the American Dream. Basic Books. (2014)
Newfeld, C. (2011). Unmaking the Public University.
Newfeld, C. (2016). The Great Mistake: How We Wrecked Public Universities and How We Can Fix Them.
Paulsen, M. and J.C. Smart (2001). The Finance of Higher Education: Theory, Research, Policy & Practice. Agathon Press.
Rosen, A.S. (2011). Change.edu. Kaplan Publishing.
Reynolds, G. (2012). The Higher Education Bubble. Encounter Books.
Roth, G. (2019) The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press
Ruben, Julie. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University Of Chicago Press. (1996).
Rudolph, F. (1991) The American College and University: A History.
Rushdoony, R. (1972). The Messianic Character of American Education. The Craig Press.
Selingo, J. (2013). College Unbound: The Future of Higher Education and What It Means for Students.
Shelton, Jon (2023). The Education Myth: How Human Capital Trumped Social Democracy. Cornell University Press.
Simpson, Christopher (1999). Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. New Press.
Sinclair, U. (1923). The Goose-Step: A Study of American Education.
Stein, Sharon (2022). Unsettling the University: Confronting the Colonial Foundations of US Higher Education, Johns Hopkins Press.
Stevens, Mitchell L. (2009). Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Harvard University Press.
Stodghill, R. (2015). Where Everybody Looks Like Me: At the Crossroads of America's Black Colleges and Culture.
Tamanaha, B. (2012). Failing Law Schools. The University of Chicago Press.
Tatum, Beverly (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria. Basic Books
Taylor, Barret J. and Brendan Cantwell (2019). Unequal Higher Education: Wealth, Status and Student Opportunity. Rutgers University Press.
Thelin, John R. (2019) A History of American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins U. Press.
Tolley, K. (2018). Professors in the Gig Economy: Unionizing Adjunct Faculty in America. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Twitchell, James B. (2005). Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld. Simon and Schuster.
Vedder, R. (2004). Going Broke By Degree: Why College Costs Too Much.
Veysey Lawrence R. (1965).The emergence of the American university.
Washburn, J. (2006). University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education
Washington, Harriet A. (2008). Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. Anchor.
Whitman, David (2021). The Profits of Failure: For-Profit Colleges and the Closing of the Conservative Mind. Cypress House.
Wilder, C.D. (2013). Ebony and Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities.
Winks, Robin (1996). Cloak and Gown:Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961. Yale University Press.
Woodson, Carter D. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro.
Zaloom, Caitlin (2019). Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost. Princeton University Press.
Zemsky, Robert, Susan Shaman, and Susan Campbell Baldridge (2020). The College Stress Test:Tracking Institutional Futures across a Crowded Market. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Activists, Coalitions, Innovators, and Alternative Voices

College Choice and Career Planning Tools

Innovation and Reform

Higher Education Policy

Data Sources

Trade publications

Search This Blog