How Severance Mirrors U.S. Higher Education Administration: The Compartmentalization and Bureaucracy of Modern Academia

In the dystopian world of Severance, employees undergo a controversial procedure that separates their work lives from their personal lives, creating a chillingly compartmentalized existence. While this premise seems far-fetched, the show’s underlying critique of institutional control, bureaucratic systems, and dehumanizing workplace environments mirrors certain aspects of U.S. higher education administration.

The Compartmentalization of Roles

At the heart of Severance is the radical division of personal and professional identities. Employees, when at work, have no memory of their personal lives, and when they leave the office, their work experiences are erased from their minds. This deliberate separation is an exaggerated version of a common practice in higher education—compartmentalizing roles and interactions.

In many academic institutions, faculty, staff, and students often navigate strict hierarchies and narrowly defined roles, which can create significant barriers between these groups. Administrators focus on policies and data, while faculty members concentrate on teaching and research. This division can lead to limited communication and a lack of understanding between those shaping the institution’s direction and those most impacted by decisions.

Dehumanizing Bureaucracy

Severance also critiques how systems of power, driven by bureaucracy, strip employees of their humanity. This theme resonates with the reality of higher education administration, where decisions are made far from the classroom, often by individuals who may have little connection to the day-to-day experiences of faculty or students.

Universities rely on complex bureaucratic systems to manage operations, from student admissions to faculty performance assessments. These systems can often feel impersonal, and the pressure to conform to institutional standards—whether in terms of research output, teaching evaluations, or service requirements—can leave faculty and staff feeling like mere cogs in a well-oiled machine. The result is a sense of alienation and detachment from the institution, not unlike the isolated existence portrayed in Severance.

Institutional Control and Surveillance

In Severance, employees are constantly surveilled, their actions monitored and manipulated by the corporation to maintain control. This chilling form of oversight is mirrored in higher education, where increasing reliance on data analytics and monitoring systems tracks everything from student performance to faculty productivity.

Universities increasingly collect vast amounts of data, from tracking graduation rates to measuring faculty research output, with the intent of improving efficiency and accountability. However, for many faculty and staff, these systems can feel intrusive, reducing their work to numbers and metrics, much like the employees of Severance who are stripped of their identities in favor of institutional goals.

The “Work-Life Balance” Paradox

One of the key tensions in Severance is the idea of “work-life balance” taken to an extreme, where the characters’ personal and professional identities are completely isolated. In higher education, this balance is a perennial challenge. Administrators often promote the importance of self-care and work-life balance, yet faculty and staff are regularly expected to juggle multiple roles—teaching, research, administrative duties—and produce high levels of output.

As a result, the lines between personal and professional life often blur, with faculty members frequently working late into the night or on weekends to meet the demands of the job. Despite official policies promoting balance, the pressure to perform can create a culture of burnout, not unlike the invasive control experienced by Severance's characters.

Conformity vs. Individuality

Finally, Severance explores the tension between conformity and individuality, a dynamic that is also evident in academia. In the show, employees are forced to conform to the institution’s demands, stifling their personal identities. Similarly, universities increasingly measure success through standardized metrics—graduation rates, research grants, and student satisfaction surveys—that prioritize efficiency over creativity or personal growth.

For faculty members, this pressure to conform to institutional expectations can stifle academic freedom and exploration. While universities often champion individuality and intellectual curiosity, the overwhelming focus on data-driven outcomes can push faculty to prioritize “safe” or “marketable” research topics over more innovative or personal endeavors.

Higher Education Inquirer continues to generate an international audience

HEI continues to generate a strong international audience.  While a substantial portion of our viewers are from the US, we have people (and bots) from across the globe reading our articles and Youtube posts. Our coverage lately, on the revocation of student visas, and of deportations, is particularly important for international students, particularly those who are concerned about US intervention in the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. For some unknown reasons, we have little traffic from folks in African countries or Latin America countries (other than Mexico). We also have fewer than expected numbers from Canada and India. If there is anything we can do to increase those viewership numbers, please let us know. 

US CRACKS DOWN ON STUDENTS: VISAS REVOKED OVER SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS! (NLTV)

 

Hundreds of international students in the US have received emails from the Department of State (DOS) instructing them to self-deport after their F-1 visas were revoked due to campus activism or social media posts. This crackdown targets not just those who physically participated in activism, but also those who shared or liked 'anti-national' posts. Some Indian students may also be affected. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, confirmed the visa revocations, stating that over 300 visas had been revoked for "anti-national activities." He also launched an AI-powered app, "Catch and Revoke," to identify and cancel visas of students supporting designated terrorist groups like Hamas. New student visa applications are also under scrutiny, with applicants potentially being denied entry. The email sent to affected students warns them to self-deport, stating their visas were revoked under Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It also informs students that staying in the US without lawful status could lead to fines, detention, or deportation, and they would need to apply for a new visa to return in the future.

NewSchool of Architecture and Design: Legal Troubles Mount

NewSchool of Architecture and Design, the last remaining US college under Ambow Education’s umbrella, is facing significant legal challenges that could threaten its survival. Enrollment has plummeted to just 280 students, and the US Department of Education has placed the institution under Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM2) for administrative issues.

Adding to its woes, NewSchool is currently embroiled in two major lawsuits over unpaid rent and contract breaches. The first lawsuit, filed on July 15, 2024, by Art Block Investors, LLC, seeks $2.26 million in unpaid rent and common area maintenance (CAM) fees. Following trial, the San Diego Superior Court issued a Proposed Statement of Decision granting possession of the premises to the plaintiffs and awarding damages, with attorney’s fees and costs (estimated at $80,000–$100,000) to be determined. NewSchool has objected to the decision, but a final judgment is expected within 30 days, followed by a motion for fees.

The second lawsuit, filed on September 6, 2024, also by Art Block Investors, LLC, alleges breach of contract and guaranty against both NewSchool and Ambow Education Holdings Ltd., seeking $4.47 million. This claim may be offset by amounts recovered from the first lawsuit. NewSchool has responded to the complaint, but no pretrial or trial dates have been set.

The outcomes of these lawsuits could have a severe financial impact on both NewSchool and Ambow Education. If the courts rule unfavorably, the college could face eviction and substantial financial liabilities, further jeopardizing its viability. The continued litigation also diverts management’s attention and resources, potentially harming the institution’s already fragile reputation.

As of April 2025, the situation remains unresolved, leaving NewSchool’s future—and that of its parent company—hanging in the balance.

Resolution to Establish a Mutual Defense Compact for the Universities of the Big Ten Academic Alliance in Defense of Academic Freedom, Institutional Integrity, and the Research Enterprise

Whereas, recent and escalating politically motivated actions by governmental bodies pose a
significant threat to the foundational principles of American higher education, including the
autonomy of university governance, the integrity of scientific research, and the protection of free
speech;

Whereas, the Trump administration and aligned political actors have signaled a willingness to
target individual institutions with legal, financial, and political incursion designed to undermine
their public mission, silence dissenting voices, and/or exert improper control over academic
inquiry;
Whereas, the Big Ten Academic Alliance represents not only athletic competition but also a
longstanding tradition of academic collaboration, research excellence, and commitment to
democratic values and shared governance;
Whereas, the Big Ten Academic Alliance includes 18 universities with thousands of instructors
serving over 600,000 students;

Whereas, the preservation of one institution’s integrity is the concern of all, and an infringement
against one member university of the Big Ten shall be considered an infringement against all;
Be it resolved that, the Rutgers University Senate urges the President of Rutgers University to
formally propose and help establish a Mutual Academic Defense Compact (MADC) among all
members of the Big Ten Academic Alliance;

Be it further resolved that, under this compact, all participating institutions shall commit
meaningful funding to a shared or distributed defense fund. This fund shall be used to provide
immediate and strategic support to any member institution under direct political or legal
infringement;

Be it further resolved that, participating institutions shall make available, at the request of the
institution under direct political infringement, the services of their legal counsel, governance
experts, and public affairs offices to coordinate a unified and vigorous response, including but
not limited to: Legal representation and countersuit actions; strategic public communication;
amicus briefs and expert testimony; legislative advocacy and coalition-building; related topical
research as needed.

Be it finally resolved that, this resolution be transmitted to the leadership of all Big Ten
universities and their respective governing boards and shared governance bodies, and that the
President of Rutgers University take a leading role in convening a summit of Big Ten academic
and legal leadership to initiate the implementation of this Compact.

Show Up, Fight Back! Protest in San Diego, April 8, 2025

 

The Rise of Christian Cybercharters: Profit, Indoctrination, and the Dangers of Faith-Based Online Education

As online education becomes an ever-expanding force in both K-12 and higher education, a disturbing trend has emerged with the rise of Christian cybercharter schools and online academies. While these institutions promise faith-based education and an alternative to secular public schooling, they also raise serious concerns about indoctrination, the commodification of education, and the profit-driven motives of their for-profit operators. For many families seeking an education aligned with their Christian values, these digital platforms offer an attractive solution. However, as the lines between faith-based learning and corporate interests blur, the question remains: what are we sacrificing in the pursuit of religiously guided education?

The Growing Influence of Christian Cybercharters

Christian cybercharter schools are part of a broader trend in which private, for-profit companies deliver education to students via online platforms. These schools, often designed to serve as alternatives to secular public education, integrate Christian teachings into core subjects such as history, science, and literature. While these schools may offer a semblance of flexibility for students in rural areas or families dissatisfied with traditional schooling, their model poses unique challenges.

Cybercharter schools are, by definition, public schools that operate entirely online and are funded with taxpayer dollars. Yet, the rise of Christian cybercharters, run by private companies, complicates the traditional understanding of education. These institutions, rather than simply providing secular education, often incorporate Christian teachings into all aspects of learning. Students may study math, science, and history through a Christian lens, learning creationism instead of evolution or receiving a heavily filtered view of history. In some cases, controversial issues such as LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive health are taught in ways that align with conservative Christian values, potentially ignoring or dismissing broader social, legal, and ethical considerations.

While these schools may appeal to parents seeking religiously grounded education for their children, concerns about the quality of education and the potential for indoctrination are mounting. Instead of offering an objective, well-rounded academic experience, these institutions may turn into ideological factories, promoting a singular worldview at the expense of critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and open-mindedness.

James Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong serves as a cautionary tale when examining the educational landscape shaped by these faith-based online programs. In his book, Loewen critiques the sanitized, biased versions of American history often taught in public schools—narratives that ignore uncomfortable truths about racism, inequality, and colonialism. This phenomenon is mirrored in some Christian cybercharters, where history is frequently reinterpreted to promote a specific religious or political agenda, potentially leaving students with a distorted, incomplete understanding of the world. The difference here, of course, is that rather than the state pushing a particular narrative, these programs are driven by religious agendas that prioritize faith-based views over academic rigor and historical accuracy. Just as Loewen critiques the "lies" of public school textbooks, one could argue that these Christian educational platforms sometimes present a faith-filtered version of reality—one that aligns more with ideological conformity than intellectual exploration.

The Profit Motive: Corporations, Private Equity, and the Business of Faith-Based Education

At the heart of the Christian cybercharter movement is a growing involvement of private equity firms and publicly traded companies eager to profit from the expanding online education sector. Venture capitalists have increasingly poured investments into education technology companies, including Christian online platforms. As a result, more and more online education providers—particularly Christian cybercharter schools—are becoming businesses in the traditional sense, with financial returns prioritized over educational outcomes.

Much like other for-profit charter schools, these Christian cybercharters face the same pressures to maximize revenue. While proponents of this model argue that parents should have the option to select an education aligned with their values, critics argue that profit-driven motives overshadow educational quality. In many cases, the companies running these online schools are more focused on expansion, enrollment, and financial performance than on fostering critical thinking or providing a rigorous, well-rounded education.

In the case of for-profit Christian cybercharters, this business model often leads to a corporate agenda that prioritizes market share rather than genuine educational development. Whether or not these schools offer the best or most effective education is secondary to their role as vehicles for profit. Furthermore, because many of these institutions are delivered through online platforms, the lack of direct teacher-student interaction and oversight further diminishes the opportunity for intellectual debate and inquiry.

Indoctrination vs. Education: The Risks of Religious-Based Learning

One of the most significant concerns with Christian cybercharters is the potential for indoctrination. Unlike secular education, where students are encouraged to explore various ideas, form their own opinions, and critically engage with the material, Christian cybercharters often deliver content that aligns solely with religious teachings. In many cases, students are not encouraged to question or challenge the material they are given, but rather to accept it as the unquestionable truth.

For example, in science courses, students may be taught creationism in place of evolution or may receive instruction that contradicts widely accepted scientific principles. In history classes, there may be a deliberate effort to present historical events through a Christian lens, prioritizing religious interpretations and avoiding broader, secular understandings. This framing can affect the way students understand the world and interact with it, teaching them to see things in a way that aligns with specific religious views, rather than providing them with the tools to critically evaluate the world around them.

Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me warns of the dangers of sanitized history education. The same critique can be applied to some Christian online academies. Just as Loewen highlights how mainstream textbooks gloss over the uncomfortable truths of American history—such as the treatment of Native Americans or the legacy of slavery—Christian cybercharter schools may whitewash history to fit a specific theological or political narrative. Students may learn that America is a "Christian nation," without an in-depth exploration of the diversity of belief systems that have shaped the country, or the ways in which Christianity’s role in history has been contested and debated. The problem arises when children, instead of being equipped to navigate complex historical realities, are taught to passively accept an ideological version of the past.

When education becomes synonymous with religious indoctrination, the line between objective knowledge and belief becomes dangerously blurred. Students are taught not to think critically about their beliefs or values but to accept them as fact, leaving little room for exploration, dialogue, or intellectual growth. The digital environment, where much of the learning takes place through pre-recorded lessons and automated grading systems, exacerbates this issue by limiting opportunities for meaningful teacher-student interaction.

The Corporate Takeover of Higher Education: Robocolleges and Faith-Based Learning

The influence of private companies and venture capital isn’t just limited to K-12 education. As online education expands, the model of faith-based learning is also infiltrating higher education. Many institutions are now offering Christian-based online degree programs, promising students a “Christian worldview” in subjects ranging from business to theology. While these programs may appeal to individuals seeking a religiously informed education, they raise concerns about the quality and breadth of education students receive.

The rise of “Robocolleges”—virtual universities run by corporations that offer online degrees—is another manifestation of the growing corporate control over education. These online programs, often funded by investors looking for high returns, can prioritize cost-efficiency and marketability over rigorous academic standards. In the case of faith-based online institutions, the goal can shift from providing a comprehensive education that challenges students to think critically about the world, to creating a narrow ideological framework where students are encouraged to see the world solely through the lens of Christianity.

In this environment, the rise of “Robostudents”—individuals who navigate education through algorithms and automated platforms—further deepens the risk of creating a generation of individuals who are highly specialized but lack the broad intellectual and social competencies needed to thrive in a diverse world.

Christian Robokids: The Future of Digital Indoctrination

A particularly concerning aspect of the rise of Christian cybercharters and online academies is the emergence of Christian Robokids—students who, in addition to receiving a faith-based education, are increasingly immersed in a highly automated, digital, and corporate-driven learning environment. As Christian cybercharters adopt more sophisticated AI and data-driven learning platforms, children may begin to engage with content not only through pre-recorded lessons but through AI-powered tutors and personalized learning paths that adapt to each student's “progress.” While this may sound appealing in theory, it opens the door for a future in which students are not only learning religious doctrine but are also being trained to conform to predetermined educational frameworks, shaped more by corporate interests than intellectual freedom.

Christian Robokids would navigate a digital education system where their learning is increasingly controlled by algorithms designed to maximize efficiency and profitability. These students could interact with content tailored to reinforce a singular religious viewpoint, with little to no exposure to diverse perspectives. In a world of Robokids, students might not engage in real discussions with teachers or peers, but instead follow rigid, automated curriculums. Their development into “robostudents” is further cemented by the complete absence of opportunities for face-to-face interaction, debate, and critical engagement with differing worldviews.

Moreover, the lack of teacher oversight in an entirely virtual system means that students may miss out on developing social and emotional intelligence, important for engaging in the complex, pluralistic world beyond the screen. The robotic nature of learning—where students become passive recipients of information rather than active participants—poses long-term risks to the intellectual and social development of children in these environments.

The Biggest Christian Online Academies

Several major Christian online academies are leading the charge in this digital faith-based education landscape, offering K-12 programs that blend academic rigor with Christian values. These academies not only cater to homeschool families but also serve as alternatives to public school systems, providing religiously grounded curricula that focus on both intellectual development and spiritual growth. Some of the largest and most well-known Christian online academies include:

1. Liberty University Online Academy – This academy offers a comprehensive K-12 online program with a strong focus on biblical teachings alongside standard academic subjects. Liberty University, a major Christian institution, has established a reputation for delivering accredited programs that combine faith and learning.

2. BJU Press Online Academy – Known for its biblical integration and classical Christian education approach, BJU Press offers a fully accredited K-12 online program that focuses on a Christ-centered worldview while delivering high-quality academics.

3. Alpha Omega Academy (AOP) – A significant player in the Christian homeschooling space, AOP’s online academy offers a customizable, accredited K-12 curriculum. Its flexible approach allows families to integrate Bible-based teachings into core subjects.

4. The King’s Academy – A Christian online school that blends academic excellence with spiritual development, providing a biblically integrated curriculum from kindergarten to high school.

5. Veritas Scholars Academy – Known for its classical Christian education model, Veritas offers online courses with a focus on critical thinking, intellectual development, and biblical integration for students in K-12.

These online academies reflect the growing demand for faith-based education in the digital era, offering flexible options for families who prioritize both academic excellence and spiritual growth. However, as these institutions scale and continue to integrate new technologies, the risk of further corporate influence and educational homogenization grows, raising questions about the long-term impact on students' ability to think critically and engage with a diverse world.

The Danger of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" in Faith-Based Education

A worrying byproduct of the corporate-driven Christian cybercharter model is the “Garbage In, Garbage Out” phenomenon. Just as for-profit companies may prioritize profits over educational outcomes, so too does this model risk producing students who are poorly prepared for the real world. If the content students are being fed is biased, ideologically driven, or scientifically flawed, the result will be a generation of graduates whose knowledge is narrow, incomplete, and disconnected from the realities of an increasingly diverse and complex world.

Christian cybercharters, while offering a religious alternative to public schools, risk leaving students unprepared for intellectual challenges and social engagement. Without the opportunity to engage with diverse perspectives or develop critical thinking skills, students may find themselves ill-equipped to navigate the broader society or the ever-changing workforce.

Conclusion: The Future of Faith-Based Education

As the trend of Christian cybercharters and online academies continues to grow, the future of faith-based education remains uncertain. Will these digital platforms provide students with the academic rigor, critical thinking skills, and social understanding they need to thrive in a complex world, or will they become vehicles for ideological conformity and corporate profit? As parents and educators, it is critical to carefully evaluate these programs, balancing faith-based values with a commitment to fostering intellectual independence and a well-rounded education that prepares students for life beyond the classroom.

Competing foundations of progressivism (John Hawthorne, John's Newsletter)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared  at John’s Newsletter: Thoughts about Contemporary Culture, Higher Education, Politics, and Religion. John’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support his work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.]

A quick note today because I’m heading to downtown Denver for an event sponsored by UCCS’ Center for the Study of Evangelicalism. Titled “White Christian Nationalism & the Future of American Politics”, the event features Anthea Butler and Randall Balmer. I would go here either one of them speak but having them together is a real treat. And I don’t have to drive to Colorado Springs to hear them! Watch for my reactions on Monday’s SubStack.

Yesterday I started reading Marc Dunkleman’s Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress — and How to Bring It Back. His Bio in Amazon identifies Dunkelman as “a fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs and a former fellow at NYU’s Marron Institute of Urban Management.”

I’ve only read the introduction so far, but I’m intrigued by his initial argument. And I that argument speaks both to the Christian Nationalism I’ll hear about tonight and what has been happening in Trump 2.0.

Dunkleman argues that progressives have been driven by two somewhat contradictory political philosophies. While a balance between them is desirable, too often we’re faced with a pendulum swing.

It’s not a perfect match, but he contrasts the concerns of Hamilton with those of Jefferson. Hamilton favored a centralized authority to avoid chaos — that government could ameliorate problems on the ground. Jefferson, on the other hand, was worried about the government tyranny he’d seen from King George.

Alexander Hamilton, leader of the Federalists, worried primarily about chaos. He wanted to place more authority in the hands of centralized officials and financiers capable of developing America into an industrial dynamo — a “Hercules” on the global stage. His worry was that America woudl remain too disorganized, too divided, too chaotic to make the most of its opportunity. Pulling power into a leadership class would deliver more fro the public.

Thomas Jefferson’s narrative, by contrast, was born of an entirely different frame. Horrified by the English Crown’s treatment of the colonies, he was determined to thwart overbearing authority — to protect individuals (or, at least, white, male, landowning individuals) from the abuses of public authority. (10)

For Hamilton’s frame, one sees problems that need to be addressed in the society and launches strategies to solve those problems. So the Interstate Highway system, the EPA, FEMA, Social Security, are all organized government efforts to deal with concrete problems that span local control. Power, in this frame, can be a source for good.

The Jeffersonian fear is that concentrated power in the hands of few is prone to abuse, corruption, and capriciousness. Far better to shove power downstream, to let local entities deal with problems as they see fit, recognizing the presumed wisdom of thsoe at the local level. Power, in this frame, is fraught with concern.

Of course, we have to include the Jacksonian impulse of attacking centralized authority and allowing ethnic grievances to run rampant. I think Trump 2.0 is a Jacksonian philosophy (to the extent that there is one) pretending to be Jeffersonian.

The latter comes clear in the current destruction of much of structdure of the federal government. Under the guise of “returning things to the states”, large swaths of federal programming will be shifted downward. This will allow the administration to claim that they cut government spending. In reality, they will decrease federal spending while increasing financial burdens of states and localities. Because these latter groups cannot deficit spend, services will be cut or local taxes will increase — or both.

Make no mistake. A cursory review of the daily executive orders makes clear that this is Jacksonian government. From singling out supposed enemies to immigration policies to attacks on the Smithsonian and higher education, pursuing populist agendas (or personal ones) is key.

In the process, the checks and balances of a true Jeffersonian approach are missing. With the exception of the courts, none of the structures designed to protect against centralized tyranny are completely ineffective (so far).

When power is pushed down to localities, it opens the door for conservatives at the local level to use their gerrymandered power to pursue their agendas regardless of the interests of their constituents. So we get abortion bans, book bans, and bathroom bills in some states with a different set of operating priorities in others.

Conservative activists have seen this coming for decades. They get conservative Christians to dominate local school boards. They build horizontal structures that allow information to flow from one state/locality to another.

This is where the Christian Nationalism movement comes in. It’s not just individuals who hold certain attitudes about Christian morality and its relationship to government. It exists in organizations that cut across those groups, to exercise power from the grassroots.

The Hamiltonian vision will rise again. Unfortunately, it will happen as problems go unresolved and people are harmed. The chaos that Dunkelman describes is on the horizon. What happens when FEMA only operates at the state level and people can’t get home insurance? What happens when the measles epidemic in several states becomes a nation-wide phenomenon? What will result when educational quality falters even further?

I really wish there was a clear way to swing the pendulum back toward balance without multiple crises to happen first. But I don’t think things will change without first seeing widespread pain and chaos.

CBO's Revised Student Loan Projections and FSA Operational Costs (Glen McGhee)

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has dramatically revised its projections for the federal student loan program, transforming what was once expected to be a profitable government investment into a significant fiscal liability. This report examines the details of these projection changes and analyzes the operational costs of the Federal Student Aid (FSA) program.

The CBO's updated budget projections released in 2024 reveal a stark shift in the expected financial performance of the federal student loan program. These projections represent a significant revision from earlier expectations and highlight growing concerns about the sustainability of current student lending policies.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the estimated federal cost of student loans issued between 2015 and 2024 has increased by $340 billion – transforming from a projected gain of $135 billion in the 2014 baseline to an expected loss of $205 billion in the 2024 baseline15. This represents a complete reversal in the financial outlook for the program over the past decade.

This dramatic shift is particularly evident when examining the changing projections for specific loan cohorts. In 2014, the CBO projected that taxpayers would generate an 11-cent profit for every dollar of student loans issued by the federal government in fiscal year 2024. However, the most recent projections indicate that taxpayers will instead incur a 20-cent loss per dollar of loans issued this fiscal year6.

Looking ahead, the situation appears even more concerning. Over the 2024-2034 budget window, the CBO expects federal student loans to cost taxpayers $393 billion1. This amount exceeds the $355 billion CBO expects to be spent on Pell Grants, the flagship college aid program for low-income students, over the same time period1.

The projected $393 billion cost includes several components:

• $221 billion in losses on the $1.1 trillion in student loans the federal government will issue during this period
• $140 billion in re-estimates of the losses taxpayers will bear on outstanding loans
• $34 billion toward administering the student loan programs6

One particularly concerning aspect of the CBO projections is the growing cost of graduate student loans. These loans are expected to make up around half of new student loans originated in the current fiscal year11. The CBO projects that taxpayers will lose $102 billion on lending to graduate students over the coming decade11. According to the CRFB, graduate school loans are now nearly as subsidized as undergraduate loans and make up half of the cost of newly issued student loans15.

The dramatic increase in projected costs has several primary causes, as identified in the CBO reports and analyses by financial experts.

The primary catalyst for the growing losses is the expansion and increased utilization of income-driven repayment (IDR) plans6. While a borrower repaying loans under a traditional fixed-term repayment plan typically repays more than the initial amount borrowed, a typical borrower using an IDR plan will repay significantly less than the original loan amount6.

The CBO projects that taxpayers will lose between 30 and 48 cents for every dollar in federal student loans issued in fiscal year 2024 and repaid on an IDR plan1. Preston Cooper notes in his LinkedIn post that "the role of IDR plans in driving these costs can't be overstated. CBO generally expects taxpayers to profit on loans repaid through traditional fixed-term repayment plans. But loans repaid on IDR plans will incur losses ranging from 30 to 48 cents on the dollar"1.

The Biden administration's student loan forgiveness initiatives are cited as significant contributors to the growing cost of the program. The House Budget Committee press release states that "$140 billion or over a third of this cost directly stems from President Biden's student loan forgiveness schemes"7. These initiatives include changes to income-driven repayment plans to make them more generous1.

Beyond the projected losses on the loans themselves, the Federal Student Aid (FSA) program incurs significant operational costs to administer federal student aid programs.

According to FSA's 2024 annual report, the agency operated on an annual administrative budget of approximately $2.1 billion during FY 20244. As of September 30, 2024, FSA was staffed by 1,444 full-time employees who are primarily based in FSA's headquarters in Washington, DC, with additional staff in 10 regional offices throughout the country4.

The Department of Education's Salaries and Expenses Overview provides additional insight into how these administrative funds are allocated. The Student Aid Administration account consists of two primary components:

1. Salaries and Expenses
2. Servicing Activities

In the fiscal year 2020 budget request, for example, the Student Aid Administration account totaled $1,812,000,000, with $1,281,281,000 allocated for Salaries and Expenses and $530,719,000 for Servicing Activities5.

The latest CBO projections highlight a dramatic shift in the financial outlook for the federal student loan program. What was once projected to be a profitable government investment has transformed into a significant fiscal liability, with taxpayers expected to lose hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

This transformation raises important questions about the sustainability of current policies and the potential need for reforms to address growing costs. The substantial operational budget of FSA ($2.1 billion annually) adds to the overall fiscal impact of federal student aid programs.

As policymakers consider the future of federal student aid, they will need to grapple with balancing access to higher education with fiscal responsibility and ensuring that federal resources are allocated efficiently and effectively.

Citations:

1. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/preston-cooper-479331a4_the-congressional-budget-office-cbo-released-activity-7209166019871809536-8vM2
2. https://www.farmers.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/usda-farmloans-factsheet-10-20-2021.pdf
3. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59499
4. https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/fy2024-fsa-annual-report.pdf
5. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/w-seoverviewpdf-39165.pdf
6. https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2024/06/19/cbo-cost-of-federal-student-loans-nears-400-billion/
7. https://budget.house.gov/press-release/via-forbes-cbo-cost-of-federal-student-loans-nears-400-billion
8. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/farm-operating-loans
9. https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/flexible-spending-accounts/
10. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46143
11. https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2.5.25_cooper_testimony_house_ed_and_workforce_final.pdf
12. https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/portfolio
13. https://www.agcredit.net/loans/beginning-farmer-loans/fsa-loans
14. https://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/okfr/2025/01/07/usda-increases-funding-for-new-specialty-crop-program-reminds-producers-of-upcoming-deadlines/
15. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/student-loans-cost-340-billion-more-expected
16. https://farmdoc.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/USDA-FSA-Your-Guide-to-Farm-Loans.pdf
17. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59946
18. https://gaswcc.georgia.gov/document/document/microloans-fact-sheet-aug-2019/download
19. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60682
20. https://www.farmraise.com/blog/fsa-loan-types
21. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60713
22. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/farm-operating-loans
23. https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/ending-federal-student-loans
24. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2022-2023/vol3/ch2-cost-attendance-budget
25. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43571
26. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2023-2024/vol3/ch2-cost-attendance-budget
27. https://sustainableagriculture.net/publications/grassrootsguide/credit-crop-insurance/direct-and-guaranteed-farm-loans/
28. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget24/summary/24summary.pdf
29. https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/fy2023-fsa-annual-report.pdf
30. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/federal-student-aid-an-overview/
31. https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-organization/functional-statements/fsa-functional-statements/finance
32. https://www.pgpf.org/our-national-debt/
33. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60419
34. https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/cbo-export-import-bank-fha-mortgage-guarantees-and-doed-student-loan
35. https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-march-2024-long-term-budget-outlook

State Department Responds to Questions About Student Visa Revocations

(Higher Education Inquirer) Can you tell us more about the process that the State Department is using to decide what student visas are revoked? Should students from particular countries, like Iran and China, be concerned? Besides pro-Palestinian activists, are there any other areas of activism that may be targeted, such as those concerned about climate change?

 (US State Department) 

The United States has zero tolerance for non-citizens who violate U.S. laws. Those who break the law, including students, may face visa denial, visa revocation, and/or deportation.

All visa applicants, no matter the visa type and where they are located, are continuously vetted.  Security vetting runs from the time of each application, through adjudication of the visa, and afterwards during the validity period of every issued visa, to ensure the individual remains eligible to travel to the United States.

 

When considering revocations, the Department looks at information that arises after the visa was issued that may indicate a potential visa ineligibility under U.S. immigration laws. This can include everything from arrests, criminal convictions, and engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with the visa classification, to an overstay.

 

Given our commitment to and responsibility for national security, the Department uses all available tools to receive and review concerning information about possible ineligibilities.

Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

Columbia University’s interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, resigned on Friday, just days after the university made significant concessions to the Trump administration in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal research funding. Armstrong's resignation follows a tumultuous period for the institution, already reeling from the departure of her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, in August 2024.

Armstrong, who had stepped into the role of interim president during a time of political and social unrest, faced mounting pressure over the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian student activism, which sparked national controversy and calls for accountability from political leaders, including former President Donald Trump and his administration. Armstrong’s resignation marks the latest chapter in a series of leadership shifts at Columbia as it navigates the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding campus protests.

 

Effective immediately, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, has been appointed acting president. David J. Greenwald, chair of the Board of Trustees, praised Armstrong for her dedication to the university, acknowledging her hard work during a time of “great uncertainty.” Greenwald’s statement highlighted Armstrong’s contributions to the university, saying, “Katrina has always given her heart and soul to Columbia. We appreciate her service and look forward to her continued contributions to the University.” Armstrong, who will return to lead the Irving Medical Center, had taken on the interim presidency in a period marked by increasing tensions on campus over political activism and its fallout.

Political Pressure and Concessions to the Trump Administration

The resignation comes amid significant political pressure, as the Trump administration imposed a set of demands on Columbia in exchange for the release of crucial federal funding. Earlier this month, the administration presented the university with nine conditions to restore the $400 million in research grants that had been frozen over accusations of antisemitism linked to campus protests.

In an effort to regain the funding, Columbia conceded to these demands, which included a ban on students wearing masks to conceal their identities during protests, except for religious or health reasons. Additionally, Columbia agreed to hire 36 new campus security officers with the authority to arrest students involved in protests. The university also committed to increasing institutional oversight by appointing a new senior vice provost to monitor the university's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.

Perhaps most notably, Columbia pledged to adopt a stance of “greater institutional neutrality,” a policy that the university said would be implemented after working with a faculty committee. The decision was seen as an attempt to quell political tensions while navigating the contentious issues surrounding student activism.

A Leadership Crisis at Columbia University

Armstrong’s resignation follows the departure of Minouche Shafik, who faced widespread criticism for her handling of campus protests against the war in Gaza. Under Shafik’s leadership, Columbia became a focal point of national debates about free speech, activism, and the role of universities in responding to global conflicts. Shafik ultimately resigned after facing intense scrutiny for her handling of the protests and the occupation of an academic building by students, an incident that ended with NYPD officers forcibly removing the students.

In Armstrong’s case, her tenure was similarly marred by controversies surrounding the university’s response to the growing political activism on campus. The university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests, particularly those related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, led to calls for stronger action from political figures, especially within the Republican Party. Armstrong’s decision to oversee negotiations with the Trump administration over the university’s federal funding placed her at the center of a storm of political and social unrest, further intensifying the pressure on her leadership.

Columbia's Future Amidst Political Turmoil

The resignation of Armstrong is a significant moment for Columbia, as the institution grapples with the broader implications of political activism within academia and the increasing role of government in shaping university policies. As the university enters another phase of leadership instability, the question remains: how will the next president balance the competing demands of activism, free speech, and political pressures from outside forces?

Columbia’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and increase security measures reflects the complex and polarized environment that universities are navigating in today’s political climate. The growing influence of political figures like Trump and the scrutiny placed on universities over their responses to student protests signal a new era for higher education, one where the lines between campus activism and political power are increasingly blurred.

As the search for a permanent president continues, Columbia University will need to chart a course that both addresses the concerns of its diverse student body and faculty while navigating the external pressures that have shaped the university’s recent trajectory. The role of universities in fostering open dialogue, supporting activism, and protecting the rights of students will likely continue to be a central issue in higher education for years to come.

Conclusion

The resignation of Katrina Armstrong adds to a growing list of university presidents who have faced intense political pressure and scrutiny over campus activism, particularly surrounding Middle Eastern and global conflicts. Columbia’s next steps will be crucial not only for the future of the institution but also as a bellwether for how universities across the country navigate the increasingly complex landscape of political activism, academic freedom, and government intervention. The institution’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the role of higher education in a polarized society.

Higher Education Inquirer Asks State Department for List of Student Visa Revocations

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has requested a list of more than 300 students who have had their visas revoked.  We hope that other news outlets will follow suit.  At this point, we only know of a handful of high-profile cases, from Tufts University, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgetown.

According to the State Department Press Office:

 As the Secretary indicated, the Department revokes visas every day in order to secure America's borders and keep our communities safe -- and will continue to do so.  Because the process is ongoing, the number of revocations is dynamic. The Department generally does not provide statistics on visa revocations, and due to privacy considerations, we do not discuss individual visa cases.

 

Yale Professor Jason Stanley Leaves for Canada in Protest of U.S. Political Climate

Yale University philosophy professor Jason Stanley, a leading academic in social and political philosophy, has made the bold decision to leave his esteemed position at the Ivy League institution and relocate to Toronto, Canada. His move comes amidst growing concerns about the state of higher education in the U.S. under the Trump administration, a time marked by increased political tension and the administration’s aggressive stance against academic institutions.

In a mid-interview conversation with CNN while walking across the Yale campus, Stanley addressed a group of concerned students who had gathered around him. When asked if he was really leaving, Stanley reassured them, saying, “I love Yale. But Marci, Tim, and I, we’re gonna go defend democracy somewhere else.”

Stanley, who has taught at Yale for 12 years, was clearly frustrated with the direction the United States is heading under the current administration. Known for his scholarly work, including his books How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them and Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future, Stanley has built a career focusing on the dangers of fascism, epistemology, and social philosophy. His decision to leave the U.S. reflects the increasing anxiety within the academic community regarding the restrictions placed on freedom of expression, especially for those not holding U.S. citizenship.

“Suddenly if you’re not a citizen of the United States, you can’t comment on politics if you’re a professor? That’s crazy,” Stanley told CNN. “That’s not a free society.”

Stanley’s departure has struck a nerve within the academic world, especially after recent events that have heightened concerns about the Trump administration’s policies toward higher education. His decision follows the controversial stance taken by Columbia University, which found itself in the midst of a funding crisis after President Trump threatened to withdraw federal support over allegations that the institution failed to adequately address antisemitic behavior on campus during the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The ongoing threats from the Trump administration against university funding and academic freedom, such as the executive order targeting antisemitism and the recent suspension of federal funds at multiple universities, have exacerbated tensions. Columbia responded by implementing policy changes, including restrictions on face coverings during protests and reviewing its curriculum in response to the administration’s demands.

The situation has also raised alarm about the broader implications for academic institutions. Yale’s academic freedom has not yet been directly challenged by the Trump administration, but the unfolding struggles at other prestigious universities have highlighted the precariousness of academia in the current political climate. The potential for funding cuts and the fear of administrative capitulation are pressing issues for educators, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.

Alongside Stanley, Yale history professors Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder are also moving to the University of Toronto. Both Shore, a specialist in modern European intellectual history, and Snyder, an expert in history and global affairs, have voiced similar concerns about the erosion of academic independence under the current U.S. administration. Snyder remarked that their decision was solidified after the 2024 presidential election, citing a growing fear that university administrations would increasingly bow to political pressure in order to secure federal funding.

“It’s not that I think everyone has put their head down and gotten in line,” Shore explained. “But I think a lot of people have, and I fear that university administrations will, because institutions naturally have an incentive to act in the interest of self-preservation.”

Keith Whittington, a Yale professor and cofounder of the Academic Freedom Alliance, expressed concern over the broader ramifications of these departures. “If you lose your best people who decide to go to other countries, that’s going to have long-term consequences,” Whittington warned, emphasizing the risks to U.S. leadership in scientific research and higher education.

Despite the challenges, Stanley remains resolute in his decision, insisting that it is not a matter of fear but of standing up for democratic values. “I’ll be in a much better position to fight bullies,” Stanley said, signaling his commitment to advocating for democracy and academic freedom from abroad.

In response to Stanley’s departure, Yale University issued a statement acknowledging that while the institution respects the decisions of its faculty members, it remains committed to supporting its academic community. “Yale is proud of its global faculty community,” the university said, “which includes faculty who may no longer work at the institution, or whose contributions to academia may continue at a different home institution.”

For Stanley and his colleagues, the move to Toronto represents not just a change of location, but a deep commitment to continuing the fight for democracy and academic freedom outside the increasingly polarized and politically charged atmosphere of the United States.