Seven of Higher Education's Biggest Myths (Glen McGhee)

Several cultural myths and assumptions are deeply embedded in discussions about higher education and colleges as social institutions:

The Myth of Meritocracy
This pervasive myth assumes that higher education is a level playing field where students succeed purely based on their individual merit and hard work. However, this overlooks how socioeconomic background, cultural capital, and systemic inequalities significantly impact educational outcomes.

The Access Myth
This is the belief that simply increasing access to higher education will solve social inequality and lack of economic mobility. While education can create opportunities, it is not a silver bullet for addressing broader structural issues of poverty and labor conditions. Access for the rich is absolutely there, through legacy admissions.  The Varsity Blues (aka College Admissions Scandal) also showed how people could get into elite colleges if they were willing to pay for it.

The Myth of Neutral Education
There's an assumption that education can be politically and ideologically neutral. However, all educational systems reflect certain values, power structures and cultural assumptions. The idea of a purely objective curriculum is itself a myth.

The Myth of Free Speech and Assembly

Universities are not bastions of free speech, and student protesters this year learned that the hard way, being detained, arrested, and expelled for their efforts. Universities like UCLA have done even more to constrain protests, limiting assembly to tiny free speech zones. Presidents are afraid to challenge trustees, and with some notable exceptions, teachers and staff are unwilling to speak truth to power. Students, too, are afraid that their grades may be affected if they challenge their professors.   

The Myth of the University as a Benevolent University

Often, universities are portrayed as benevolent institutions solely focused on the betterment of society.  In reality, higher education institutions are deeply embedded in and influenced by broader societal forces and economic pressures, including pressure from university trustees and major donors. Also, elite universities have for centuries used their power and resources to take land from those with less power.  

 

 

The Myth of the Rational Student: The assumption that students are rational actors who make informed decisions about their education often ignores the impact of social, economic, and cultural factors. In addition to marketing and advertising, many students are influenced by family expectations, peer pressure, and societal norms, which can shape their choices.

The Economic Imperative Myth

This is the belief that the sole purpose of higher education is to prepare students for the job market and increase their earning potential.  This myth is understandable given the vast number of underemployed college graduates.  

This myth prioritizes economic outcomes over other valuable benefits of a college education, such as personal growth, critical thinking skills, and civic engagement.And it can lead to a decline in the quality of education, as colleges prioritize marketable programs, even if they don't align with students' skills, abilities, or interests.

 

Overemphasizing economic outcomes can exacerbate existing inequalities. Students from low-income backgrounds may feel pressured to choose majors perceived to be financially lucrative, even if they are not their first choice. This can limit their educational and career opportunities in the long run. 

 

Advocates for a broader view of higher education argue that colleges should prioritize a well-rounded education that prepares students for a variety of life paths. This includes developing critical thinking skills, fostering creativity, and promoting social justice.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Projections: Higher Ed Business and the Enrollment Cliff

While nothing is for sure, we at the Higher Education Inquirer believe higher education enrollment is going to continue on a slow downward slope for the foreseeable future, and that it could get worse. Looking at the numbers we see, it's difficult to imagine anyone arguing this. But today there is a debate between those who believe in the enrollment cliff and those who do not.

The Debate

Carleton College Professor Nathan Grawe has used the term "enrollment cliff" to describe the decline that is projected to come to a number of states within the next two years and with a trend that will last for a number of years. He uses information from a number of sources, including the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) to make these estimates. These projected declines are the result of a decline in births during and after the Great Recession. US fertility and birth rates have been declining for generations, but enrollment has been shored up by in-migration and higher rates of high school graduation. These rates could increase as abortions are criminalized.  

US Department of Education enrollment projections are fueling the debate for enrollment cliff deniers. But HEI has observed that ED has been wrong in its projections for years and has largely maintained its faulty formula. Presumably the enrollment cliff deniers also don't believe in the projections by WICHE which predicts modest declines in the number of high school graduates. For the record, these deniers are not uniform in their beliefs, values, or their intentions. 

University of Wisconsin-River Falls Professor Neil Kraus, author of the Fantasy Economy: Neoliberalism, Inequality, and the Education Reform Movement, believes that "in the aggregate, higher ed enrollments are fairly constant over time, and if you go back decades, have gradually gone up." Kraus has a point. Relatively stable birth rates would seemingly keep enrollments stable, but there are other social, economic, and political factors in the equation. 

It's a Racket on Both Sides 

Some enrollment deniers may not be so sincere. Many in the education business, including the Department of Education, have vested interests in believing everything is OK. But it's not OK. And while funding is important, it's not the entire answer, especially when the money goes into the wrong (greedy) hands, as it frequently does. 

Higher education has become a racket that has garnered increasing public skepticism about its value. That does not mean that parents won't continue to buy into the college mania and encourage all their children to go to a college regardless of the costs, and the potential debt.   

Some who believe in the enrollment cliff, and pitch it to others, may also be insincere. The President of the University of Idaho, for example, has used the enrollment cliff to rationalize their purchase of the University of Phoenix to shore up their revenues, even though Idaho is not likely to feel dramtic looses in enrollment. There are undoubtedly many others who are using this phenomenon to scare people into buying and selling their products and services.

Coming to a Consensus?

Perhaps the term "enrollment cliff" needs to be defined or the term to define the enrollment decline needs to be renamed. No one can deny that US higher education has seen an enrollment peak and a slow steady decline since 2011. There are also estimates that population declines will occur in many states, as a result of out-migration patterns that have been ongoing. There are other states that will continue to see enrollment gains, especially in the South and West. Maybe enrollment cliff is too harsh a term, but reduced enrollment cannot be ignored. 

Related links: 

Department of Education Fails (Again) to Modify Enrollment Projections

State Budgets Are Downsizing (Pew)

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

Baby Boomers Turning 80: The Flip Side of the 2026 Enrollment Cliff

State Universities and the College Meltdown

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

US Department of Education Fails to Recognize College Meltdown

Forecasting the US College Meltdown

College Mania!: An Open Letter to the NY Fed (Opinion)

• Despite Rising Costs, College Is Still a Good Investment (Jaison R. Abel and Richard Deitz, NY Fed)
• The Educated Underclass: (Gary Roth in Inside Higher Education)
• College Is Not an Investment (George Leef in Forbes, 2013)
• "Crapademia" and the Mis-overeducation of America
• Is College Still Worth It? It’s Complicated (Saint Louis Fed)

I just about had a heart attack reading the headlines from two NY Federal Reserve researchers in Buffalo, that college was still a "good investment" despite the costs. The authors, Jaison R. Abel and Richard Deitz, showed a few graphs indicating that college completion still resulted in significant wage premiums, and muttered something about “back of envelope” projections to prove their point.

Are these people mad? Have they not read Annie Nova (CNBC), Jillian Berman (Marketwatch) or Mike Vasquez (Chronicle of Higher Education)? Have they not glanced at Wikipedia or thelayoff.com or bothered to use IPEDS help? Have they read Suzanne Mettler’s “Degrees of Inequality”? Have they ever heard of the layoff.com or College Meltdown? Don't they listen to Dave Ramsey on the radio? The answer is no and probably no, no, no, no, no, no, definitely not because it’s too heavy, no, no, and no.

Have these guys no understanding of the outrageous costs of higher education: tuition, housing, board, text books, transportation, computers, fees, officially licensed college t-shirts, football tickets, concert tickets, pizza, beer, drugs, pregnancy tests, and who know what all else?

Don't they know about the millions who are underemployed after college, the millions that have delayed leaving home, delayed marriage, delayed having children, and delayed starting businesses? Don’t they know anyone who is suffering from the College Meltdown? Have they ever heard of the “gig economy” or talked to an “adjunct professor”? Don't they have friends or coworkers who have nervously cosigned on loans for their children?

Speaking of businesses, haven’t these NY Fed guys figured out that there is a failing for-profit college system, Bryant & Stratton College, luring people with slick ads, whose corporate headquarters is literally two blocks from their office? A school whose target demographics include single mothers with jobs and people with two jobs, who already can't make ends meet?

In 2019, subprime Bryant & Stratton College will be luring hardcore gamers with their esports programs. BSC already has junior college basketball at the dwindling Buffalo campus.

If you read the small print in the NY Fed article, these two wise guys from Buffalo oh so briefly mention that the wage premium doesn’t apply to 25 percent of the people who start. They note that the wage premium is muted in the 40 percent who don’t finish college. And the wealth premium, you know, the actual return on investment after trying to pay off the loans? Forget about it.

They don’t mention that college students are selling their bodies ("Sugar Babies") across the US or selling drugs to get through college. (For the record, I sold my body very cheap to the US Army for an ROTC scholarship to get out of Western Pennsylvania).

These guys don’t mention that more than 40 percent of all student debtors are not paying off their principal. Or that millions of Millennials with student debt are delaying marriage and kids, not starting families or businesses. And by having fewer kids, they are setting the nation up for another phase of the College Meltdown in 2026.

Nor did they note that peak enrollment was in 2010-11 and that numbers have decreased every year since then. I suppose they’d say that was all due to a great economy, like so many others who do not live near reality, even in Buffalo. Really, it would never have anything to do with outrageous prices or record-setting inequality.

And wait a second. Aren’t these two the guys who wrote College is Not for Everyone, back in 2014? What has happened? Have they too contracted College Mania?

Perhaps the men are talking about the business of education, which has been a good investment for some. The higher ed “racket” involving dorm building, restaurant building, gyms and climbing walls.  Or the student loan business that’s booming and student loan asset-backed securities also known as SLABS. Or the online program managers that actually run colleges online. Or the marketing and ad agencies that are profiting hand over fist, as some students literally live in their cars or struggle with hunger. Or maybe they are talking about the bright future behind unregulated “human capital contracts” (What could go wrong?).

But why should I be so angry, literally fed up? The NY Fed is not the only organization feeding the “College Mania!” It’s everyone, aside from Dave Ramsey, Thomas Frank, and too few others. But who reads Thomas Frank? Hopefully it’s the same people who read the two guys from the NY Fed.