What makes it triply interesting (and not noted by the NY Times) is that GSV Ventures has also been involved in Simplilearn. GSV Ventures includes a number of high-profile names in education, business, and edtech, including Arne Duncan, Johny C. Taylor, Jr., Michael Moe, and Michael Horn.
Students can use Splitit, ClimbCredit or Klarna for buy now, pay later financing.
"White Labeling" in Edtech
According to edtech innovator and pioneer John Katzman (Noodle), "White labeling is done everywhere; your GE microwave is not made by GE, and Walgreens doesn't make ibuprofen. And note that these are non-credit, non-accredited programs. Still, I wouldn't put my university's name on other peoples' programs without clear disclosure. Tech and marketing are one thing; teaching and academic advisement are at the core of what a university does."
HEI Values Your Feedback
If there is anyone who has attended one of these bootcamps, please let us know how you financed the program and whether it has resulted in a positive or negative return on investment.
The Layoff.com
is a "simple discussion board"
for workers who would like to learn more about
the rumors or possibility of job cuts in their organization. It's also
been helpful for us to understand what has been happening behind the
scenes in the US Higher Education business.
We
have been observing and participating on this website for more than a
dozen years, watching the fall of Corinthian Colleges (Everest College,
Wyotech, and Heald), ITT Tech, Education Management Corporation (the Art
Institutes and South University), the partial collapse of Apollo Group (University of Phoenix),
Perdoceo (formerly Career Education Corporation), and Laureate
International, and the transformation of Kaplan University to Purdue
University Global and Bridgepoint Education (Ashford University) to
University of Arizona Global.
As the College Meltdown has advanced, we have also observed a number of private schools collapse and public colleges and universities struggle.
As enrollments continue to drop, we can expect more layoffs to occur
and for education related businesses to struggle more.
The
contents of this article are updated periodically, to illustrate trends
in the College Meltdown. The most recent update was published October 29, 2024. 2U, the online program manager for elite university certificates has been the poster child in 2024, but there are many other companies and institutions in peril.
For years, Southern New Hampshire has avoided scrutiny compared to other online schools that have been labeled as bad actors. Part of this reduced scrutiny may have been because SNHU is a non-profit and some because Paul LeBlanc, its long-time president, was perceived as a higher education visionary, granting degrees that consumers could use and afford.
Consumer advocates largely ignored that Southern New Hampshire often worked like a for-profit. The school, which includes a physical campus in Manchester, New Hampshire employs 130 full-time instructors and 8,042 part-time instructors for 164,000 students. A lion's share of the organization's budget is spent on marketing and advertising rather than on curriculum and instruction: about $14,000 per student.
But things have changed, with the higher education terrain, with public opinion, and with Southern New Hampshire leadership. More people and organizations are questioning the value of degrees,
especially graduate degrees, which Southern New Hampshire specializes
in. SNHU has lowered tuition to $10,000 to increase demand, which has reduced financial margins.
Despite good enrollment numbers, layoffs at Southern New Hampshire have occurred in 2023 and 2024. Now at SNHU, after the latest round of IT layoffs, folks are talking about the new leadership and of office politics taking precedent over innovation. And students are complaining about the course materials as old and recycled.
The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to monitor the situation at Southern New Hampshire University as it develops.
Elite universities have changed their policies to significantly reduce free speech and free assembly. In response, college students and their faculty allies are having to regroup and rethink how they protest the US-Israel war against Palestine as it expands in the Middle East. On the establishment side, will universities further crack down on students and faculty, wherever peaceful protests might occur?
Campus "Crime and Punishment"
Elite universities like UCLA have dramatically reduced the areas that students can speak and assemble freely, restricting protesters to free speech zones, a common tactic used by the US government during the War on Terror. Universities have also upped surveillance measures and punished students involved in protests, with limited due process.
The visible resistance may now be limited on campuses where students have been detained, assaulted, arrested, expelled, and banned from campus. Foreign students wary of facing deportation may also be keeping quiet, publicly.
There have been a number of protests against the US-backed war that has expanded from Gaza, to the Occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. Demonstrations have been held in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and other college towns, including Iowa City, home of the University of Iowa. Those protests will be closely observed and documented by law enforcement.
With the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the fossil fuel lobby, states have already crafted anti-protest legislation to reduce public free speech and free assembly. According to the UK Guardian, 45 states have considered new anti-protest legislation since 2017.
Protests on Campus
Over the last week, there were small protests at Penn State University and the University of Arizona. The Penn State demonstration, which had about 60 attendees, was supported by Penn State Students for
Justice in Palestine (SJP), the Student Committee for Defense and
Solidarity (SCDS), the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA), the United
Socialists at Penn State (USPSU) and the People's Defense Front -
Northern Appalachia. The impromptu Arizona protest was set up by the Party for Socialism and Liberation. At Cornell University, about 100 students protested a career fair that included defense contractors Boeing and L3 Harris. It's not surprising that these demonstrations would be small, given recent crackdowns across the country.
Collaboration Between Elite Schools and Law Enforcement
Will elite schools work with law enforcement at the local, state, federal, and international level to further restrict free speech and freedom of assembly? And university administrators try to quell dissent, will students be more harshly disciplined for planning and engaging in peaceful protests, of any type, on and off campus?
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.
The funding gap between these institutions and their wealthier counterparts is substantial. Minority Servning Institutions (MSIs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and community colleges often receive significantly less funding per student, leading to limited resources and infrastructure. This disparity stems from several factors:
Historical Disadvantage: The legacy of slavery, colonialism, and systemic racism has disproportionately impacted these institutions. They have historically received less funding and support, hindering their development.
Funding Models: The current funding model for public higher education often favors larger research universities, leaving smaller, less prestigious institutions serving marginalized communities behind.
Endowment Inequality: Wealthy universities boast large endowments that generate significant revenue. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of privilege, further widening the gap.
A Legacy of Dispossession
Digging deeper, we find historical context playing a crucial role. The very land on which many elite universities stand was often acquired through the dispossession of Native American tribes. This legacy of land theft continues to shape the resources available to tribal colleges. Additionally, HBCUs were established in response to the denial of education for Black Americans, and this fight for access continues in the form of funding disparities.
The Price of "Savage Inequalities"
The underfunding of these institutions has a profound impact:
Limited Student Outcomes: Students face inadequate advising, limited course offerings, and insufficient support services. This can lead to lower graduation rates and hinder their academic success.
Faculty and Staff Strain: Underfunding leads to lower salaries, fewer opportunities for professional development, and increased workload for faculty and staff. This can make it difficult to attract and retain qualified personnel.
Community Impact: MSIs, TCUs, and community colleges play a vital role in their communities, providing education, training, and cultural preservation. Underfunding can limit their ability to fulfill these crucial functions.
The K-12 Connection: A Pipeline of Disadvantage
The underfunding of higher education for marginalized groups often begins much earlier in the educational system.
The concept of "savage inequalities" highlights the vast disparities in
funding and resources between schools in different communities. Students from underfunded K-12 schools often arrive unprepared for college due to:
Unequal Preparation: Schools in disadvantaged communities may lack resources, experienced teachers, and challenging coursework, leaving students ill-equipped for higher education.
Limited College Counseling: Students may not have access to adequate college counseling, hindering their ability to navigate the application process and secure financial aid.
Persistent Achievement Gaps: The achievement gaps that develop in K-12 education can persist into higher education, creating further obstacles for students from underfunded schools.
The Heavy Burden of Student Debt
Student loan debt and underemployment are additional challenges faced by many young people, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds.
Students attending underfunded institutions are more likely to borrow
heavily due to limited resources and higher tuition costs. Additionally, these institutions may offer fewer career pathways, making it difficult for graduates to find well-paying jobs and repay their loans.
Breaking the Cycle: A Call to Action
To create a more equitable and inclusive higher education system, we need a multi-pronged approach:
Increased Funding: Increased public funding for MSIs, TCUs, HBCUs, and community colleges is essential to ensure they have the resources they need to thrive.
Endowment Building: Strategies to build endowments for these institutions, such as targeted fundraising campaigns and matching grants, can help narrow the gap.
Policy Reforms: Policy changes that promote equitable funding models and increased federal support for higher education are crucial.
Community Partnerships: Building strong partnerships with the communities these institutions serve can generate further support and resources.
K-12 Investment: Increased investment in K-12 education, coupled with policies that promote equity in funding and resources, is essential to ensure all students are prepared for college success.
Student Loan Reform: Reforming student loan policies to make them more affordable and accessible can help alleviate the burden of debt.
A Fight for Equity
The disparity between wealthy universities and underfunded institutions is a symptom of a larger systemic issue. By acknowledging the historical and ongoing factors at play, we can work towards a future where all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education and the opportunity to succeed.While the focus of this article has been on MSIs, TCUs, HBCUs, and community colleges, it is important to acknowledge that the funding gap also affects poor white working-class students. These students may face similar challenges in accessing affordable higher education and may benefit from increased funding for community colleges and other accessible institutions.
In Wealth and Want Part 1 we briefly mentioned the origins of university wealth, including generations of land theft and the use of forced labor. The origins of elite universities and large flagship universities in the 17th through 19th centuries came largely from the exploitation of others and of the environment. This exploitation continues today, not just through their endowments, but in the real estate that universities continue to take for their advantage, often at the expense of their neighbors.
Harvard University: The expansion of Harvard University in the 19th century led to the displacement of African American residents from the neighborhood of Roxbury.
Columbia University: In the 19th century, Columbia University's expansion contributed to the displacement of residents from Morningside Heights.
University of Chicago: The University of Chicago's expansion in the late 19th century led to the displacement of residents from the Hyde Park neighborhood.
Stanford University: Stanford's expansion in the late 19th century led to the displacement of Native American Ohlone people from the Palo Alto area.
University of Michigan: In the late 19th century, the University of Michigan's expansion contributed to the displacement of residents from Ann Arbor's Old West Side neighborhood.
University of Texas at Austin: The university's expansion in the early 20th century led to the displacement of residents from the East Austin neighborhood.
University of California, Berkeley: The university's expansion in the 20th century contributed to the displacement of African American residents from the West Berkeley neighborhood.
Elite universities during the Great Depression were generally able to weather the storm better than many other institutions. However, they were not entirely immune to the economic hardships of the time. Here's a breakdown of how they fared.
Endowment Funds: Many elite universities had substantial endowment funds, which provided a crucial financial cushion during the Depression. These funds allowed them to maintain their operations and continue offering high-quality education.
Reduced Enrollment: Despite their financial advantages, most elite universities experienced a decline in enrollment as families struggled to afford tuition. This decrease in revenue put pressure on their budgets.
Faculty Salaries: Some universities had to reduce faculty salaries or even lay off staff to cut costs. However, many institutions were able to maintain their core faculty and avoid significant cuts.
Government Support: In some cases, elite universities received government support, such as grants or contracts, to help them weather the economic downturn.
Alumni Donations: Alumni donations played a vital role in supporting elite universities during the Depression. Many alumni felt a strong sense of loyalty to their institutions and were willing to contribute financially to help them through difficult times.
The expansion of elite universities has continued. Here are some examples.
University of Virginia: In the 1960s and 70s, the University of Virginia's expansion led to the displacement of residents from the Vinegar Hill neighborhood, a predominantly Black community.
Old Dominion University: In Virginia, Old Dominion University's expansion has displaced Black families in the Lambert's Point neighborhood.
New York University: NYU's expansion in New York City has contributed to rising rents and gentrification, pushing many longtime residents out of their neighborhoods.
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA): UCLA's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in surrounding neighborhoods, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.
University of Southern California (USC): USC's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in surrounding neighborhoods, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.
University of Michigan: The University of Michigan's expansion in Ann Arbor has led to rising housing costs and gentrification, displacing many long-time residents, including people of color.
University of Texas at Austin: The university's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in Austin, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents, including people of color.
University of Pennsylvania: The expansion of Penn has contributed to increased demand for housing and commercial space, driving up prices. This has made it difficult for many long-time residents to remain in the neighborhood.
Temple: Temple's expansion has also played a role in gentrification, as the university has attracted more students and faculty, leading to increased demand for housing and services.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: The expansion of UNC-Chapel Hill led to the displacement of residents from the segregated Black neighborhood of Black Hill.
University of Georgia: The expansion of the University of Georgia contributed to the displacement of residents from the African American neighborhood of Athens Terrace.
Louisiana State University: LSU's expansion in Baton Rouge has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.
Johns Hopkins: The expansion of Johns Hopkins in Baltimore has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in the surrounding neighborhoods. This has made it difficult for many long-time residents to remain in the area.
Vanderbilt: In Nashville, Vanderbilt's expansion has also contributed to gentrification. The university's growth has attracted more students, faculty, and staff, leading to increased demand for housing and services, which has driven up prices.
Georgetown University: Georgetown's expansion has contributed to the gentrification of the Georgetown neighborhood, leading to rising housing costs and the displacement of many long-time residents.
George Washington University: GWU's expansion has also played a role in gentrification, particularly in the Foggy Bottom and West End neighborhoods.
American University: AU's growth has contributed to rising housing costs in the Tenleytown neighborhood.
US higher education reflects and reinforces a world of increasing inequality, injustice, and inhumanity. This system (or some would call it an industry) should function as a conduit between good K-12 education, good jobs, and the wellness of all its citizens, whether they attend or not. But increasingly, it does not.
The first installments of the Wealth and Want series examine the concentration of wealth in the US higher education system. And this article focuses on loosely regulated university endowments. While many American schools struggle to provide basic amenities and academic resources, elite universities boast endowments that rival the GDPs of small nations. And they pay little in taxes.
The Endowment Elite and Ill-Gotten Gains
At the pinnacle of higher education wealth are Harvard ($49B), The University of Texas System ($44B), Yale ($40B), Stanford ($36B), and Princeton ($34B). These institutions have amassed endowments that provide a steady stream of income for investments, scholarships, and research initiatives.How their money is invested is rarely known.
For other wealthy schools, it was the result of philanthropic robber barons like Johns Hopkins (who also held captives), Andrew Carnegie, Leland Stanford, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and James Buchanan Duke who made their wealth through mass exploitation of people and the planet.
For wealthy flagship state universities, it also came from land theft. In the case of the University of Texas, its wealth largely came from, and to some degree still comes from the exploitation of fossil fuels that jeopardize the planet.
Historical Context and Structural Inequality
Land Theft and the Founding of Institutions: The establishment of many American universities, including Ivy League institutions and those founded under the Morrill Act, was often intertwined with land theft from Native American tribes. This practice, often referred to as "land dispossession" or "Indian removal," was a key component of Manifest Destiny and the expansion of European settlement across the continent.
Ivy League Universities: Institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia were granted land by colonial governments, which often acquired these lands through treaties that were coerced or violated. They also used enslaved labor to build and maintain their wealth.
Funding Models: The funding models for public higher education often favor larger, research-intensive universities. This can lead to underfunding for smaller, less prestigious institutions, particularly those serving marginalized communities.
Endowment Inequality and Profits Over People and Planet: Endowments are a powerful tool for wealth accumulation and institutional advantage. The concentration of endowments in a few elite universities can exacerbate existing inequalities and create a self-perpetuating cycle of privilege. These endowments have also engaged in shady investments that perpetuated worker oppression, genocide, and environmental destruction.
Adam Looney and Constantine Yannelis have reopened their research on the student loan mess with a new paper from Brookings titled "What went wrong with federal student loans?" The paper talks about what went tragically wrong with student loans in the United States from 2000 to 2020.
Here are the key points:
1. More people started going to college, especially those who didn't have a lot of money or whose parents didn't go to college. [See note below] 2. To pay for college, many of these new students had to borrow money from the government through student loans. 3. A lot of these new students went to for-profit schools. These are schools that are run like businesses to make money, unlike regular public or non-profit colleges. 4. The problem is that many of these for-profit schools didn't provide a good education. Their students often didn't graduate or couldn't find good jobs after finishing school. 5. Because these students couldn't get good jobs, they had trouble paying back their loans. This caused a big problem for the government and the students.
Now, let's look at Figure 3 Panel B: This graph shows how many first-generation college students (students whose parents didn't go to college) enrolled in different types of schools. The schools are grouped by how well their students could repay loans. The red line at the bottom represents the best schools - where students usually paid back their loans easily. You can see this line barely goes up over time. The dark blue line at the top represents the worst schools - where students had the most trouble paying back loans. This line goes way up, especially after 2000.
What this means is that a lot of first-generation students, who often didn't have much money to begin with, ended up at the schools where they were least likely to succeed and most likely to have trouble with their loans.
The for-profit schools took advantage of this situation. They aggressively recruited these students, knowing they could get money from government loans. But they didn't focus on giving students a good education or helping them get jobs. Instead, they just wanted to make money for themselves.
This led to a big increase in student debt problems, especially for students who were already at a disadvantage.
Note: This statement refers to trends in college enrollment that occurred in the early 2000s through about 2012. Let me explain the reasons behind this trend and whether it's still true today:
Reasons for Increased College Enrollment 1. Policy Changes: Starting in the late 1990s, policymakers weakened regulations that had previously constrained institutions from enrolling aid-dependent students[1]. This made it easier for more people to access federal student aid and enroll in college. 2. Economic Factors: - The persistently high return to college education over the last several decades increased demand for higher education[1]. - During economic downturns like the 2001 recession and the Great Recession starting in 2007, the opportunity cost of enrollment was low due to weak labor markets[1]. 3. Supply Expansion: The supply of programs surged, particularly open access institutions, online programs, and graduate programs[1]. Many of these new programs were targeted at non-traditional student populations. 4. Demographic Shifts: Between 1990 and 2010, the number of high school graduates increased by 34%[1].
Is it Still True? The trend of increased college enrollment, especially among disadvantaged groups, has partially reversed since its peak: 1. Overall Enrollment: By 2020, total undergraduate enrollment had declined back to near its level in 2000[1]. 2. Demographic Changes: - Black undergraduate enrollment in 2020 remains only modestly higher than in 2000 - about 10% greater[1]. - White undergraduate enrollment in 2020 was below its level in 2000[1]. - Hispanic enrollment almost doubled between 2000 and 2020[1]. 3. First-Generation Students: While 60% of postsecondary students were first-generation in 2000, this share declined to 56% in 2020[1]. 4. For-Profit Sector: Enrollment at for-profit institutions, which had surged between 2000 and 2012, has since declined significantly[1].
In summary, while there was a significant increase in college enrollment, especially among disadvantaged groups, from 2000 to 2012, this trend has partially reversed in recent years. However, some changes, like increased Hispanic enrollment, have persisted. The overall landscape of higher education enrollment continues to evolve, influenced by economic conditions, policy changes, and demographic shifts.
Student higher education enrollment has been headed in a downward trajectory for about 14 years. So, at some point we should have expected revenues to drop. This revenue decline, according to the US Department of Education statistics, finally happened in 2022, the last year reported.
But until ED updates higher ed revenue numbers, we won't know if we are seeing a statistical blip or something bigger and more long-term. These are numbers that some in the higher ed business may deny, hide, or rationalize for years to come.
Did federal money received during the Covid crisis artificially lift revenues, leading to an eventual short-term correction, or is there something more to look at? Saying it's a short-term correction would be a simple answer that higher ed industry proponents could use on the front stage, whether or not it's completely true. But it may be too simple.
In the future, we will drill down into these numbers and examine revenues in subsets of public higher education, to include
community colleges, HBCUs and other minority serving institutions, state
universities, and flagship universities in various regions of the US. Private schools (which we will discuss later) may be in a deeper revenue decline. There are few apparent patterns, other than that the rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer (this too we will discuss in another article).
If higher education revenues continue to decline, as they appear to be doing for 2024-2025, what will we see on the ground level? Will there be budget cuts and layoffs? The California State University System is already bracing for a $1 Billion shortfall, and they are not alone.
What happens with higher education revenues as the enrollment cliff approaches and states are considering higher education budget cuts? What happens to schools that rely mostly on tuition and fees with few other sources of revenues? Should institutions expect to receive more federal funds again in the next (inevitable) economic downturn?
