Older (Desperate) Folks Targeted for Online Robocolleges

In recent years, the profile of student loan borrowers in the United States has shifted dramatically. While student debt is often associated with young adults entering the workforce, a rapidly growing number of older Americans—those aged 50 and above—are carrying significant student loan balances, revealing a troubling new dimension of the nation’s student debt crisis.

As of mid-2025, approximately 7.8 million Americans aged 50 and older hold federal student loan debt, representing about 6% of adults in this age group. Many have borrowed not only for their own education but also to finance their children’s or grandchildren’s schooling. Others have returned to college later in life, seeking new skills or credentials to remain competitive. Yet, these borrowers often face unique challenges that have been exacerbated by the rise of so-called “robocolleges.”

Robocolleges are online institutions that aggressively market to older adults, promising flexible schedules and quick credentials that can lead to better job prospects. However, many of these institutions have come under scrutiny for their low graduation rates, high tuition costs, and poor outcomes for students. Unlike traditional colleges, robocolleges often rely heavily on automated systems and minimal personal support, leaving vulnerable older learners with little guidance about loan obligations or realistic career prospects.

These institutions have played a significant role in trapping many older Americans in unsustainable debt. Borrowers are lured by the promise of upward mobility but frequently end up with degrees that hold limited value in the labor market. The high cost of attendance combined with aggressive recruitment tactics has led many to accumulate tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt with few prospects for repayment.

Among older borrowers—6.2 million between 50 and 61 years old, and 2.8 million aged 62 or older—the average federal student loan balance for the 50–61 cohort is around $47,000, the highest among all age groups. Around 8% are delinquent on their loans, with median delinquent balances near $11,500. For those over 62, approximately 452,000 are in default and face the threat of Social Security benefit garnishment, though recent government actions have temporarily paused such garnishments.

The debt explosion among older Americans has been dramatic: over the past two decades, the number of borrowers aged 60 and above has increased sixfold, with total debt rising nearly twentyfold. Robocolleges, with their predatory recruitment and inadequate educational outcomes, are a central piece of this puzzle, helping to drive up borrowing without delivering commensurate value.

This growing crisis underscores the urgent need for policy reforms tailored to the realities faced by older borrowers. There must be greater transparency and accountability from robocolleges, stronger consumer protections, and expanded debt relief options that reflect the challenges of late-in-life borrowing. Additionally, educational counseling and financial literacy support designed specifically for older students are crucial.

The student debt crisis in America is no longer only about young adults trying to start their careers—it increasingly jeopardizes the financial security and dignity of older generations. As robocolleges continue to trap vulnerable older learners in cycles of debt, the urgency for reform becomes even clearer.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate and report on this evolving crisis, amplifying the voices of those caught in the crosshairs of an expanding student debt epidemic.

Without a Union, Expect More Layoffs: Southern New Hampshire University Employees Face Corporate Restructuring and Uncertainty

Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), once hailed as a pioneer in online learning and educational innovation, is now facing growing unrest among employees as the institution continues down a path of corporate-style restructuring. Recent anonymous posts from internal forums reveal widespread fear, frustration, and anger following another round of layoffs—despite the university publicly celebrating its financial milestones.

“We are no longer people at SNHU—we’re financial liabilities,” one employee wrote. “Update your resumes. Prepare for the worst.”

The layoffs, reportedly targeting senior staff and long-time employees, come on the heels of previous job cuts last year—cuts that were soon followed by executive bonuses. Employees describe this tactic as a way to soften the blow while giving the remaining workforce a false sense of stability. That illusion, insiders say, is long gone.

This is no longer the institution led by Paul LeBlanc, the former president widely respected for his student- and staff-centered approach. Since the transition to President Lisa Marsh Ryerson, many employees say the university’s priorities have shifted toward financial engineering and aggressive cost-cutting.

One employee remarked, “Lisa’s mission is to operate the university like a business where dollars mean more than the people who made the university what it is. This would have never happened under Paul’s leadership.”

Even as SNHU publicly announced it had met its 6% financial growth target, more jobs were slashed—raising questions about the true motivation behind the downsizing. “Can we expect layoffs every nine months moving forward?” another asked.

A disturbing pattern is emerging: layoffs before the fiscal year closes, speculation about keeping operations just shy of the $1 billion revenue threshold, and vague communications about “regular assessments,” interpreted by employees as a euphemism for frequent cuts.

Adding to the frustration are apparent contradictions between internal messaging and actual spending. A former ITS (Information Technology Services) staffer recounted that for over a year before the layoffs began, leadership warned technical teams—especially at University Management (UM)—about “just keeping the lights on.” However, these austerity signals were contradicted by internal requests to research high-cost specialty equipment for UM ITS staff. “I guess the lights aren’t that important to her,” the employee said, referencing CF, a decision-maker believed to have pushed the tech purchases despite the budget warnings.

This kind of internal inconsistency is emblematic of the confusion and distrust now rampant among SNHU staff. Mixed signals, strategic ambiguity, and cost-cutting cloaked in business jargon have eroded morale.

---

The Missing Shield: Why SNHU Workers Need a Labor Union

At the heart of SNHU’s internal crisis is the glaring absence of worker protection. Simply put: without a union, there is no defense against what’s coming next.

Layoffs. Outsourcing. Pay stagnation. Arbitrary restructuring. All of these are happening in the dark, without employee input, transparency, or any mechanism to push back. At SNHU—despite its size and influence—there is no faculty or staff union. And that leaves every worker vulnerable.

A labor union would change the power dynamics. With collective bargaining rights, employees could demand transparency in budgeting, negotiate job protections, and ensure that executive bonuses are not prioritized over staff livelihoods. Unions also provide grievance procedures, democratic voice in institutional decisions, and solidarity against exploitative management practices.

The pattern at SNHU is clear: it’s not a temporary adjustment—it’s a business model. A model that treats human beings as “cost centers” to be trimmed, regardless of their contributions or years of service.

One employee wrote, “They’re going to outsource everything they can.” Without a union, there’s little stopping that from happening.

While public university systems often have unionized faculty and staff with some degree of insulation from abrupt cuts, SNHU’s private, nonprofit status allows leadership to operate with near-total discretion. The only viable counterbalance is organized labor.

If SNHU employees want to end the cycle of fear, protect their jobs, and begin rebuilding an institution that values people, they will need more than nostalgia for past leadership—they will need solidarity, and a union to anchor it.

---

The warning is clear. And the lesson is simpler still: without a union, expect more layoffs.

Layoffs at Southern New Hampshire University

Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), long hailed as a leader in online education and a symbol of institutional reinvention, laid off approximately 60 employees on June 27, 2025. The move came without warning to staff, according to an anonymous source close to the situation.

Employees reportedly received a generic email from Lisa Marsh Ryerson, SNHU's newly installed president, delivering the news of their termination. There was no video call, no face-to-face meeting, and no meaningful explanation beyond the cold language of corporate HR.

“There was no sincerity,” the source said. “No real communication. Just a robotic email. No opportunity for questions, no acknowledgment of people’s service.”

The layoffs have sent shockwaves through the university’s workforce—many of whom had believed that SNHU’s image as a student-centered and employee-friendly institution translated into job security. That assumption, it appears, was misplaced.

SNHU, which once garnered praise from the Obama administration for its innovative online learning model, has undergone significant changes in recent years. Under the leadership of former president Paul LeBlanc, the university expanded its online programs rapidly and became one of the largest nonprofit providers of online degrees in the United States. But as the market for online education becomes increasingly competitive and enrollment pressures mount across the country, even big players like SNHU appear to be tightening their belts.

What’s striking about this latest round of cuts is not just the numbers—but the tone. At a university that prides itself on personalization and student engagement, employees describe the layoff process as abrupt, impersonal, and dehumanizing.

“They preach empathy to students,” the source noted. “But when it came to their own staff, there was none.”

It’s unclear which departments or roles were affected. SNHU has yet to issue a public statement, and no mention of the layoffs could be found on the university’s website or social media accounts at the time of publication.

The layoffs at SNHU follow broader trends in the higher education sector, where institutions—both public and private—are increasingly resorting to staff reductions amid enrollment declines, demographic shifts, and uncertain funding landscapes. But even in this context, the lack of transparency and empathy stands out.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to monitor developments at Southern New Hampshire University and invites current and former employees to share their experiences confidentially.

Medicaid Cuts Threaten Medical and Mental Health Providers Dependent on Medicaid — and Graduates of Online “Robocolleges”

As states grapple with budget shortfalls and federal funding shifts, Medicaid—the nation’s largest public health insurance program—faces potential cuts that could severely impact medical and mental health providers who depend heavily on Medicaid reimbursements. This looming threat not only jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services but also risks destabilizing the very providers that serve some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States.

Medicaid: A Lifeline for Providers and Patients

Medicaid covers over 80 million Americans, including low-income families, people with disabilities, and seniors. For many medical and mental health providers, Medicaid reimbursements constitute a significant portion of their revenue. Clinics in underserved areas, community health centers, and behavioral health providers often rely on Medicaid funding to stay afloat.

The federal-state partnership funds Medicaid, but states have discretion in determining eligibility and reimbursement rates. When states face fiscal pressures, cutting Medicaid funding or tightening reimbursement rates is often considered a quick fix.

The Domino Effect of Medicaid Cuts

Cuts to Medicaid funding translate directly into lower payments to providers. Unlike private insurance, Medicaid rates are often already low. Further reductions can mean providers lose money on each Medicaid patient treated.

This financial strain can force clinics and mental health programs to:

• Reduce services or limit patient intake

• Cut staff, including essential behavioral health professionals

• Close locations, especially in rural or underserved areas

These outcomes create barriers for patients who already face challenges accessing care. Individuals with serious mental illness, chronic conditions, or disabilities are particularly at risk of losing consistent care.

Impact on Medical Education and Training

Medicaid cuts can also disrupt medical and mental health education programs affiliated with teaching hospitals and universities. These programs often serve Medicaid patients in their clinical training sites. Reduced funding means fewer training opportunities for students and residents, potentially exacerbating workforce shortages in critical health fields.

Mental Health Providers: A Vulnerable Sector

Mental health providers are especially vulnerable to Medicaid cuts. Behavioral health services are frequently underfunded compared to general medical care. Medicaid often serves as the primary payer for mental health treatment, including therapy, psychiatric care, and substance use disorder programs.

Cuts could reduce access to outpatient therapy, crisis intervention, and community-based services, worsening outcomes for people with mental health conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the urgent need for robust mental health infrastructure, and cuts threaten to reverse progress made.

Robocollege Graduates: An Overlooked Impact

Another group at risk from Medicaid cuts are recent graduates of online for-profit colleges, sometimes disparagingly called "robocolleges." These institutions often produce graduates with degrees in healthcare-related fields such as nursing, health administration, or medical assisting.

Many of these graduates rely on Medicaid-funded healthcare settings for employment. Clinics and community health centers that serve Medicaid patients are common entry points for these workers. Cuts in Medicaid funding could lead to reduced hiring or layoffs in these settings, disproportionately affecting graduates struggling to launch their careers.

Moreover, the limited job security and lower wages typical of such entry-level positions compound the economic challenges for these workers, many of whom already face significant student debt and limited career mobility.

Broader Social and Economic Consequences

Limiting access to healthcare and mental health services has far-reaching consequences beyond individual health. Untreated illness can lead to increased hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and interactions with the criminal justice system. These outcomes are far more costly to society than preventative or ongoing care.

Policy Recommendations

To protect the health and stability of vulnerable populations, the providers who serve them, and entry-level healthcare workers including robocollege graduates, policymakers should:

• Avoid disproportionate Medicaid cuts that undermine care quality

• Invest in community health centers and behavioral health programs

• Maintain adequate reimbursement rates to sustain provider networks and employment

• Support integrated care models that combine physical and mental health services

• Consider workforce development initiatives that support graduates entering Medicaid-funded care settings

Medicaid is a cornerstone of America’s healthcare safety net, especially for medical and mental health providers serving those in greatest need. Cuts to Medicaid funding threaten not only provider viability but the health and well-being of millions—including the newest healthcare workers striving to build careers. As budget debates continue, preserving and strengthening Medicaid funding is essential to ensuring equitable access to quality care and supporting the providers and workforce on the front lines.

Consumer Alert: Lead Generators Still Lurking for Bodies

Predatory lead generators are still lurking the internet, looking for their next victims.  These ads continue to sell subprime online degrees from robocolleges like Purdue Global, Colorado Tech, Berkley College, Full Sail, Walden University, and Liberty University Online.  After you provide your name and number, they'll be calling you up.  But these programs may be of questionable value. Some may lead to a lifetime of debt.  Buyer beware.  

This ad and lead generator is originating from TriAd Media Solutions of Nutley, New Jersey.  

Down the rabbit hole...

Walden University President Michael Betz Cashing In

Walden University President Michael Betz has sold $380,000 worth of Adtalem shares. Walden is one of America's largest robocolleges, proving online education to tens of thousands of folks in psychology, social work, nursing, education, business, and criminal justice each year.  

Adtalem, formerly known as DeVry Education, is Walden's parent company.  Adtalem also owns the Chamberlain College of Nursing and medical schools in the Carribean.  Walden and Adtalem have been profitable despite mediocre results for worker/consumers, a disproportionate number are women and people of color.  

In 2024, Walden settled a case for $28M that claimed the school systematically deceived black and female students.   

How University of Arizona Global Campus’ Online Recruitment Ads Drain Its Finances (Jeremy Bauer-Wolf)

In 2020, the University of Arizona acquired Ashford University, an online for-profit college that a California court later found guilty of having deceived students about job prospects, transfer opportunities, and degree costs.

Feeling pressured to better compete in the online education market — especially as Arizona State University broadened its virtual options — University of Arizona leaders recast Ashford as the University of Arizona Global Campus, or UAGC.

Administrators pledged to rehabilitate UAGC and abandon the exploitation that landed the former Ashford in legal hot water. UAGC, as its president said in 2022, is “well-positioned to provide adult learners with affordable college credentials that can better prepare them for careers in a rapidly evolving global economy.”

But beneath the rebranding efforts, problems remain. The University of Arizona has spent massively on marketing UAGC, as an audit that consultancy EY conducted last year revealed, a hallmark tactic of predatory for-profit institutions that dress up their junk degrees as prestigious offerings.

UAGC runs extensive and expensive ad campaigns on Google and Facebook, yet fewer than 1% of those reached enroll. This amounts to the university paying $11,521 for every student enrolled from those campaigns, the audit shows.

For context, this is almost as much as the University of Arizona’s in-state tuition and fees per student in the 2023-24 academic year, which federal data estimates to be about $13,000.

And one higher ed consultancy, RNL, found that in 2022, the median cost of recruiting an undergraduate student, minus personnel expenses, was only $1,652 for a four-year private college and $282 at a four-year public institution (though proponents of online education argue this is comparing apples to oranges).

But ultimately, UAGC’s investment has not improved enrollment. It continues to bleed, as it did in Ashford’s later days, dropping from about 107,000 students in fiscal year 2015 to 51,000 in fiscal year 2023.

Criticism from some of the University of Arizona’s faculty has also erupted. In the waning days of 2024, Nolan Cabrera, a professor at the university’s Center for the Study of Higher Education, wrote a public warning to students, urging them not to enroll in UAGC.

Cabrera told New America in a later interview he went public with his criticisms to protect students — and the University of Arizona’s reputation. UAGC, he said, is only hurting students with poor-quality programs, draining resources and sullying its standing as a top-class, R1 institution.

Blake Naughton, UAGC’s vice provost for academic affairs, teaching, and learning for online initiatives said in an emailed statement that “accreditors, government agencies, and other external reviewers” recognize “UAGC’s commitment to the quality of its degree programs.”

“UAGC has developed an innovative model that is validated through reaffirmations of quality by UAGC’s institutional and programmatic accreditors, which includes Quality Matters certification representing the gold standard in online courses, and enthusiastic partnerships with businesses and military employers,” Naughton said. “Further, UAGC faculty are leaders in the scholarship of online teaching and learning, regularly publishing and presenting on the efficacy of its ‘quality at scale’ model.”

The Creation of UAGC

Those inside and out of University of Arizona — state officials, faculty, college students and their advocates — were immediately skeptical of UAGC’s potential quality and value when the university acquired Ashford in 2020. The deal was a complex one that involved the University of Arizona creating a new nonprofit entity, which bought Ashford for $1. In return, UAGC would provide almost 20% of annual tuition revenue to Ashford’s former parent company, Zovio, though that arrangement later fell apart in 2022.

Before the acquisition, Ashford followed the blueprint of one of the most notorious for-profit colleges in American history: the University of Phoenix. Andrew S. Clark — an executive who contributed to the University of Phoenix’s rise — and the company he later worked for, Bridgepoint, replicated deceptive practices around credit transfers, financial aid, and recruitment at Ashford.

In 2017, California’s attorney general alleged Ashford misled prospective students about their chances of securing financial aid, the cost of attendance, the transferability of credits, and how well its programs prepared them for certain careers. The attorney general also accused it of deceiving investors and the public by exaggerating the percentage of working alumni who said their degree helped them in their current jobs.

This complaint was still unresolved by the time University of Arizona acquired it in 2020.

In 2022, the court ruled against Ashford and Zovio. The judge in the case was persuaded by estimates that Zovio made roughly 1.2 million misleading calls to potential students from March 2009 to April 2020.

The University of Arizona painstakingly crafted a public relations campaign to try to cleave UAGC’s reputation from Ashford’s. This was despite widespread concerns among its faculty and staff about Ashford, Cabrera said in an interview.

The administration never truly responded to those fears that Ashford was still peddling poor-quality education, he said. In fact, negotiations surrounding Ashford were so secretive that University of Arizona representatives who were involved with them signed non-disclosure agreements, obfuscating details of the deal, Cabrera argued. (The University of Arizona has said because Zovio was a publicly traded company, the institution “was required to undertake its work on a confidential and ‘need to know’ basis.”)

“You know the old adage, ‘you get what you pay for’?,” Cabrera said, referring to the $1 price tag of the acquisition. “That should tell you everything you need to know.”

UAGC has maintained an anemic graduation rate, only reaching 15% to 20% after the University of Arizona’s acquisition, according to the audit. The University of Arizona’s graduation rate stands between 60% to 70%. The retention rate of full-time students has also only improved modestly, from 24% in 2019 to 30% in 2022, according to federal data.

Mitch Zak, a University of Arizona spokesperson, said in a statement that it and UAGC have different academic models, thus their graduation rates aren’t comparable.

“The majority of UAGC students are working adults and military service members with varying priorities and responsibilities, which results in their taking fewer courses per year than traditional U of A students,” Zak said. “Non-traditional online students nationwide are not expected to graduate in the same timeframe as traditional university undergraduates.”

Recent news reports have also detailed how, like Ashford’s graduates, some UAGC students have said they can’t find sound jobs after leaving and alleged that the institution misled them about the value and cost of their degrees.

Cabrera said the University of Arizona’s leaders have not prioritized improving student outcomes, but rather an online education arms race and particularly beating out Arizona State, reflecting the longstanding rivalry between the two most prominent public universities in the state.

Cabrera said the two institutions are in constant competition — in public college rankings, like U.S. News & World Report’s, in enrolling more students, and other peripheral aspects of their academics, such as who employs more Nobel Prize laureates.

But if the University of Arizona’s leadership was so worried about its reputation, it shouldn’t have scooped up Ashford, Cabrera argued. Its association with Ashford and its shoddy education demeans the value of a University of Arizona degree, too, he said.

Zak pushed back against Cabrera’s allegation, saying that “priority is to ensure that UAGC is meeting the needs of its students, most of whom could not access traditional higher education.”

He also separately in his statement criticized Cabrera, saying the professor is not an expert in online education and did not reach out to UAGC leaders or faculty “to learn more about the differences between the U of A and UAGC as well as the complexities associated with providing access to higher education to working professionals.”

Major Marketing Costs

Amid this firestorm, UAGC’s enrollments continue to slip.

Zak argued this decline “was expected and planned for during the transitional period” as the institution works to integrate the former Ashford into the University of Arizona. He said UAGC is trying to lift enrollment, including through programs that help stopped out students return to college.

Still, the enrollment downturn raises questions in particular about the efficiency of its marketing efforts.

While the analysis doesn’t reveal the full extent of UAGC’s marketing splurge, it likely devotes hundreds of millions of dollars to it, based on figures in the EY audit. A similar institution to UAGC, the University of Maryland Global Campus, also dropped $500 million on just two six-year advertising contracts, according to a separate audit.

UAGC is investing significantly in lead generation, a strategy colleges have tried for more than a decade. They pay for advertisements to appear on webpages, particularly social media platforms, that typically summarize a program and also try to entice prospective students to click a new link for more information.

That ad takes prospects to a separate webpage, where they can fill in their name and other information, becoming a “lead” that a college can try to convince them to enroll.

Yet UAGC’s use of lead generation has been astonishingly fruitless, the audit shows.

Fewer than 1% of students reached through UAGC’s top five paid marketing sources, including Google and Facebook, actually enroll. The numbers concerning Facebook are particularly bleak — only 0.5% of prospective students end up enrolling at UAGC after clicking an advertisement on the platform. The auditor said this means it effectively costs the university more than $34,000 in marketing dollars just for one person to enroll from Facebook.

Even UAGC’s most successful lead generation source — Google search ads — converted just 3% of prospects, with each enrollment costing more than $7,500.

These figures are even more staggering considering UAGC pays to find 85% of its prospects, according to the audit. By contrast, Arizona Online — the university’s self-created online program, which still operates, in parallel to UAGC — buys just 50% of its student leads.

Zak said that UAGC has since “refined” its marketing to “prioritize efficiency and effectiveness,” but did not go into greater detail.

“UAGC has implemented a targeted approach in alignment with its mission of serving non-traditional learners,” Zak said. “UAGC is focused on retention and success and focuses on students who are most likely to benefit from a flexible and supportive learning environment. UAGC leverages data analytics, audience segmentation, and advanced tracking mechanisms to help improve conversion rates and reduce marketing costs.”

He later said that UAGC serves nontraditional students like working adults, military members and first-generation college attendees.

“Reaching those students in a competitive marketplace requires a different approach than traditional four-year universities,” Zak said.

The University of Arizona has faced budget problems broadly and last year said it had a $177 million budget deficit, which it has since reduced significantly.

But for all the university’s publicity efforts around UAGC, prospective students recognize Arizona Online as part of the institution’s brand, more so than UAGC, the audit said. Maintaining both platforms has actually spurred “market confusion,” according to the audit.

To remedy this, the University of Arizona has angled to integrate UAGC and Arizona Online, and Zak pointed to a university statement last year that said the audit findings validate this merger.

Still, this “confusion” underscores broader marketing challenges, like relying heavily on lead generation, a strategy UAGC has leaned into despite the fact that experts have said it’s inefficient to boost enrollment.

In part, that’s because institutions don’t recognize that students won’t make life-altering choices, like where to attend college, based on what’s essentially a pop-up ad, two marketing experts wrote in a 2022 essay.

“Prospective students prudently take their time researching your programs’ offerings in addition to many others,’” they wrote. “They are not naïve, impatient or easily persuaded by glitzy ads and copy. They spend many months researching and deliberating.”

Worse, lead generation can be used for nefarious or even predatory recruitment efforts. Some lead generation companies, for instance, have caught consequences from the Federal Trade Commission, particularly those that target current and former military members.

What To Do Now?

Thus far, the University of Arizona Global Campus is a failed experiment, Cabrera said. He was inspired to publish his concerns about UAGC publicly after students enrolled in its programs began to reach out to him.

Students were distressed. They told him in emails and direct messages on social media that UAGC faculty in education programs couldn’t guide them properly. He said he lost count of how many students contacted him — he estimated more than 20 over an 18-month period.

“For all the political bickering, real students are getting hurt, real students getting harmed here,” Cabrera said. “They’re making a bet, but students are getting hurt in the process.”

The University of Arizona declined to comment on the UAGC students who contacted Cabrera. UAGC faculty later wrote a public rebuttal to Cabrera, arguing his piece was based on his “rather than on facts and thus lacked the academic rigor of factual data from credible sources.”

But the UAGC faculty piece did not refute specifically any data Cabrera cited, including numbers from the EY audit.

In Zak’s emailed statement, he said UAGC students “have access to academic support teams, career services, student access and wellness support teams, and a combination of tools, technology, and guidance to help them progress.”

Cabrera remains unconvinced.

He said the University of Arizona’s leaders have not fulfilled their promise to purge the educational sins of Ashford. The reality is that enrollment continues to plummet, while UAGC’s exorbitant spending on lead generation, with little return, highlights a systemic issue: UAGC, Cabrera said, has seemingly prioritized its push for new students over reforming Ashford’s remnants, which is still making headlines.

This month, the U.S. Department of Education announced it would cancel $4.5 billion in loans for 261,000 students who attended Ashford. And last year, the Education Department discharged $72 million in loan obligations for more than 2,300 former Ashford students.

In light of some of the continued problems, the University of Arizona should reassess its fundamentals of online education. It should prioritize meeting the core principles of academic quality and comprehensive student support over marketing its new venture. A stronger focus on student needs would drive more meaningful outcomes and enhance the university’s reputation in the online education space.

As Cabrera suggested, without a realignment of priorities, UAGC risks being an expensive endeavor with little impact. Its reliance on extensive marketing campaigns, like flashy Facebook ads, may eventually draw attention but will struggle to make up for the gaps in delivering long-term value to students.

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

DOD Continues Protecting Bad Actor Schools that Prey Upon Military Servicemembers

The US Department of Defense (DOD) continues to stall the Higher Education Inquirer's efforts to investigate bad actor schools that prey upon servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Our effort began in December 2017 when we first asked DOD officials about oversight of its DOD Tuition Assistance Program (DOD TA). 

Our latest request was FOIA 22-1203-F and the projected response date has been moved again, to March 2025. We believe this information is important for the welfare, safety, and morale of US troops and have communicated our concern to DOD several times.  

In our latest correspondence, a DOD FOIA specialist stated that they were "working with several internal offices and external agencies in order to coordinate this response." When asked what DOD components and agencies were involved in the response, the representative said that they could not name the sources, but that a "voluminous amount of records" were located under our FOIA. 

In the meantime, DOD is handing out even more money to schools, and with limited oversight.  And President Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has been helpful to for-profit colleges. 

Pending FOIAs Regarding the University of Phoenix

The Higher Education Inquirer is awaiting five Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) responses from the US Department of Education (ED) regarding the University of Phoenix. All of these pending requests were made in 2023. 

ED has already provided important and substantial information, including an estimate of $21.6B in student loan debt by more than 900,000 University of Phoenix debtors and tens of thousands of Borrower Defense fraud claims, many that have already been settled in favor of the student debtors in Sweet et al. v Cardona. 

To any organization considering an acquisition of the school, we suggest that they read this information as part of their due diligence. 

Copies of this article have been sent to University of Idaho President C. Scott Green and Idaho Governor Brad Little. 

23-02053F

R

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting a digital copy of the most recent Program Participation Agreement between the University of Phoenix and the US Department of Education.  This request is being made for transparency and accountability related to a proposed sale of the University of Phoenix by Apollo Global Management and Vistria Partners.  The most current potential buyer is the University of Idaho, which will create a new organization that will issue bonds.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 06/22/2016 To 06/22/2023)

23-02283-F

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting the Fiscal Year 2022 equity value of the University of Phoenix.  The number may be rounded to the nearest ten million dollars. We would also like restricted and unrestricted cash numbers for the school if they are available.  IPEDS has the equity value numbers up to FY 2021.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 06/01/2022 To 07/16/2023)

23-02345-F

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting a copy of the completed Pre-Acquisition Review application the University of Idaho has submitted for the acquisition of University of Phoenix.  The review was mentioned in the Idaho Statesman, by Jodi Walker, a University of Idaho spokesperson.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 05/01/2023 To 07/23/2023)

23-02537-F

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting any and all correspondence between the US Department of Education and the University of Idaho, 43 Education, or NewU regarding a proposed purchase of the University of Phoenix. This includes any and all information about a Pre-Acquisition Review. The University of Idaho created NewU and 43 Education as an intermediary organization to shield itself from liability.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 05/11/2023 To 08/11/2023)

23-02548-F

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting an estimate of the total number of cases and the total dollar amount of Borrower Defense to Repayment claims against the University of Phoenix that were approved in the Sweet v Cardona settlement.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2023 To 08/14/2023)

Going Through the Motions in Undergrad Courses

So much of what is learned as an undergrad is impractical and unimportant to students, especially outside of one's major or minor. There is little humanity in the liberal arts and humanities, social sciences, fine arts and other disciplines, as they are taught in much of US higher education.

Mandatory classes often have little or no meaning to students other than as a ticket to punch. They are at best esoteric. Or worse, folks see these courses as a series of lies.  And they know how to play the game of looking studious and compliant for better grades. Many are also willing to cheat to slide through in an increasingly competitive the job market. 

 

 

Sensing that students don't care or don't have the time to care about their classes, teachers may make undergrad courses easy blow off courses instead of something to challenge their imaginations. 

 

Teachers may rely on their star students for gratification, believing that former students will have delayed light bulb moments. 

 

And there are professors, adjuncts, and teaching assistants who are too overworked or distracted to care. 

It's often worse where students, faculty, and content creators are nothing but numbers: in large auditoriums and online education, especially at robocolleges. In that case, the level of caring can be nearly zero. 

Does it have to be that way in undergrad education? Our answer is no. And others agree with us.  But yet things do not change radically under higher ed bureaucracies, especially when administrators, teachers, and students are going through the motions.   

On the 8th Anniversary of the College Meltdown

We started this blog eight years ago, in 2016, to highlight rampant greed and corruption in US higher education, and to raise awareness of this system to students-consumers-workers and their families.  Before that, we spent years in the ruthless higher ed business: seeing folks like ourselves struggling with underemployment, and juggling jobs, family obligations, and student loan debt.  

 

On December 12, 2016, the College Meltdown blog (now known as the Higher Education Inquirer) was born. Our first article was "When college choice is a fraud." That article presented the argument that higher education for the working class was often a choice between predatory for-profit colleges and community colleges that were indifferent to their students. 

While some things have changed on the higher education terrain, like the closing of some predatory for-profit schools, there is still a large degree of truth to the original premise. And much of the public has caught on: working class folks increasingly see college choice as a fraud. To worsen matters, college is increasingly considered a fraud by the middle-class, who see themselves and others underemployed and laden with debt. While a college mania for elite schools still exists, skepticism has turned to cynicism, with higher education in general.   

Bright Spots

One positive change has been for the growth of College Promise programs. These programs, available in many states, have made community college more affordable by providing tuition free or at a low cost. College Promise programs have shored up community college enrollment.  Community college enrollment began declining in 2010, but has shown some resilience as it also enrolls high school students for dual-enrollment.  

More Cynicism Ahead

The rest of US higher education for the working class and much of the middle-class, is less promising. For-profit colleges faced increased scrutiny, and some closed down, but others morphed into state-owned robocolleges that were still of questionable value. Remaining for-profit colleges also rebounded as they closed physical campuses and became exclusively online. 

While many state flagship universities continue to thrive, lesser know state universities have seen dramatic enrollment losses, even as they develop an online presence.

Online Program Managers, third-party vendors for universities, gained scrutiny in the 2020s, but ultimately there was little oversight. Even without oversight, OPMs began to fold because they were not offering the value they promised, even with degrees and certificates from elite universities like Harvard, Yale, and MIT.  

Student loan debt has continued to rise, despite public outcries. But Republicans have blocked efforts for debt forgiveness in court, making college choice increasingly seen, and now known, as a bad bet by tens of millions of Americans. 

In 2021, we changed our name to the Higher Education Inquirer to reflect a more objective stance. But the College Meltdown, as a social phenomenon, continues. 

Idaho-University of Phoenix deal has fallen below the radar

For more than four months, neither the University of Idaho nor the University of Phoenix have reported on the status of the proposed deal between the two parties. The last local media report, from the Idaho Ed News came in July, when the University of Phoenix said they were still committed to partnering with Idaho.

The University of Idaho's University of Phoenix Affiliation FAQ page has not been updated and some of the information is obviously outdated. For example, the webpage said that the UI-UoPX sale was expected to be consummated in early 2024. That did not happen.    

 

Screen shot of the University of Phoenix Affiliation FAQ on November 9, 2024. 

Legislative and judicial barriers have delayed the acquisition and the deal remains in limbo. 

In June, the U of I Board of Regents extended the Asset Purchase Agreement through June 10, 2025. The extension allows the University of Idaho to continue negotiating with the University of Phoenix and to incorporate feedback from stakeholders. It would appear that any sale would require approval from the Idaho Legislature, which meets again in January 2025. In the interim, many important questions remain unanswered.

Despite its commitment, Apollo Global Management, the University of Phoenix's parent company, could sell the school to another buyer. But there has been no public mention (or even hints) of an alternative suitor. Since 2021, Apollo has tried selling the school to a number of buyers, most notably Tuskegee University, UMass Global, and the University of Arkansas System. The only deal to be made public before Idaho was in Arkansas, where concerns about the sale led to the deal falling through.

Information on how the school could be purchased continues to be limited. After a previous bond deal in Arizona fell through, the National Finance Authority (NFA) agreed to participate in the UI-UoPX financing. But there is no public information about how the bonds would be structured. Moody's previously said the $685 million purchase could result in a "multi-notch downgrade" in the University of Idaho's bond rating. 

According to the US Department of Education, more than 900,000 University of Phoenix debtors owe about $21.6B in federal student loan debt. And there have been more than 73,000 Borrower Defense to Repayment (fraud) claims made against the school.

The University of Idaho has previously said that any federal obligations for Borrower Defense to Repayment claims would be handled in court, even though more than 19,000 cases have already been settled in federal court, in favor of the student loan debtors. No matter how this could be handled legally, lawsuits related to the University of Phoenix could tarnish the image of the University of Idaho.